Just thinking out loud..
Nothing has changed that I can see from many years ago to today. How does it benefit either provider to merge. They would have to come up with money to provide millions of receivers to customers who may still decide to leave as they have been,
Will Dish customers even stay if it isn't the Hopper because the greater cost would seem to be replacing equipment for Direct TV subscribers.
If they aren't going to do any of that, what is the benefit? Two separate companies under the same roof I think solves nothing really. And if it was a gradual changeover, may be too late for that?
I do agree that streaming may have reached a point where they won't gain like they did. But that doesn't change that too many people just can not afford the big bills anymore for TV. Easier to cut back and get a streaming service that is a fraction of the cost, but gives less like Hulu and maybe MAX, along with trying harder to get locals ota.
Nothing has changed that I can see from many years ago to today. How does it benefit either provider to merge. They would have to come up with money to provide millions of receivers to customers who may still decide to leave as they have been,
Will Dish customers even stay if it isn't the Hopper because the greater cost would seem to be replacing equipment for Direct TV subscribers.
If they aren't going to do any of that, what is the benefit? Two separate companies under the same roof I think solves nothing really. And if it was a gradual changeover, may be too late for that?
I do agree that streaming may have reached a point where they won't gain like they did. But that doesn't change that too many people just can not afford the big bills anymore for TV. Easier to cut back and get a streaming service that is a fraction of the cost, but gives less like Hulu and maybe MAX, along with trying harder to get locals ota.