# AT&T announces $43 billion deal to merge WarnerMedia with Discovery



## NashGuy

Might HBO Max swallow the new discovery+?

AT&T in Talks to Combine Media Assets, Including CNN, With Discovery

AT&T, Discovery in talks to combine content assets - Bloomberg News


----------



## James Long

AT&T Is Preparing to Merge Media Assets With Discovery

"The idea is to combine Discovery's reality-TV empire with AT&T's vast media holdings, building a business that would be a formidable competitor to Netflix Inc. and Walt Disney Co. Any deal would mark a major shift in AT&T's strategy after years of working to assemble telecommunications and media assets under one roof. AT&T gained some of the biggest brands in entertainment through its acquisition of Time Warner Inc., which was completed in 2018."

So, spin off Video to TPG so AT&T doesn't have to deal with Premium TV and now potentially spin off WarnerMedia to Discovery+ (or a new company combining both) so AT&T does not have to deal with content streaming? Keep an investment in each new company so they don't lose all the profit but get out of the day to day management of the product offerings. It sounds like Elliott Management Corp (the activist investor group that pushed to sell DIRECTV) is getting it's wish to further divest AT&T's most recent acquisitions.


----------



## NashGuy

Of all the potential media tie-ups, this is not one I saw coming. Discovery is obviously ripe for M&A but I saw them combining with ViacomCBS, or maybe even NBCUniversal, as likelier. As for Warner, there have long been speculations about them potentially combining with NBCU, which would look like a better match-up to me, if the goal is to create a giant that can better face off with Disney.

A spin-off of WarnerMedia from AT&T seemed likely at some point down the road but I'm surprised it could be happening this quickly. Although with AT&T still having a big equity stake in the media company, I guess it still gives them a lot of the supposed synergy they wanted with the Warner acquisition, e.g. ability to sell/bundle content services to their cellular and broadband customer base.

Should the deal go through, I wonder if it will mean a combination of HBO Max and discovery+. They're very different services, so it's certainly possible that they remain separate. I almost hope they do, as I'm not crazy about the idea of all of Discovery's reality/lifestyle schlock strewn all across the HBO Max home screen.

Here's a fairly recent snapshot of the tech/media landscape for anyone pondering future consolidations. ViacomCBS, Fox, Lionsgate, MGM and AMC are tiny compared to everyone else.

Here's who owns everything in the media today


----------



## SamC

This looks to me like a lot of the failed airline mergers of the 80s and 90s. Two sick companies merging to form a new larger sick company. 

AT&T owns CNN, the third player in a two team league; its various "general rerun" channels the main two of which are in deep in big $$ contracts with the NCAA, NBA, and NHL for what is, just about, the only non-rerun content on them; its HBO and Cinemax channels; DC comics; 50% of the CW network; and, after approval, still the majority of DirecTV. IMHO, the value of linear "general rerun" channels, is declining very fast, as the same sort of material is available free on OTA diginets and on free streamers like STIRR and Pluto, as well as being tossed in with the new original stuff in the major streaming services. Linear HBO is really just for people without internet nowadays. 

Discovery owns 20 US channels, 17 of them in English, all of which are pretty much remixs and variations on each other. Much similar material is also available on OTA diginets, and, bluntly, a lot of self-appointed YouTubers produce similar material.


----------



## NashGuy

SamC said:


> This looks to me like a lot of the failed airline mergers of the 80s and 90s. Two sick companies merging to form a new larger sick company.
> 
> AT&T owns CNN, the third player in a two team league; its various "general rerun" channels the main two of which are in deep in big $$ contracts with the NCAA, NBA, and NHL for what is, just about, the only non-rerun content on them; its HBO and Cinemax channels; DC comics; 50% of the CW network; and, after approval, still the majority of DirecTV. IMHO, the value of linear "general rerun" channels, is declining very fast, as the same sort of material is available free on OTA diginets and on free streamers like STIRR and Pluto, as well as being tossed in with the new original stuff in the major streaming services. Linear HBO is really just for people without internet nowadays.
> 
> Discovery owns 20 US channels, 17 of them in English, all of which are pretty much remixs and variations on each other. Much similar material is also available on OTA diginets, and, bluntly, a lot of self-appointed YouTubers produce similar material.


Well, both HBO Max and discovery+ are doing quite well in their first year. A lot of the appeal in Discovery's content, I think, lies in the personalities who do their shows, not simply the fact that they're shows about cooking or home improvement or whatever.

As for the linear channels, yeah, live sports and news are the main reasons to watch. But TBS and TNT are semi-sports channels. And CNN still ranked as the #7 most-viewed channel last year. The Discovery nets are popular too. Between Warner and Discovery, they own seven of last year's top-20-rated networks. So I don't see anything that looks like failure here.


----------



## SledgeHammer

NashGuy said:


> Well, both HBO Max and discovery+ are doing quite well in their first year. A lot of the appeal in Discovery's content, I think, lies in the personalities who do their shows, not simply the fact that they're shows about cooking or home improvement or whatever.
> 
> As for the linear channels, yeah, live sports and news are the main reasons to watch. But TBS and TNT are semi-sports channels. And CNN still ranked as the #7 most-viewed channel last year. The Discovery nets are popular too. Between Warner and Discovery, they own seven of last year's top-20-rated networks. So I don't see anything that looks like failure here.


As you said above, HBO and Discovery is very different content. I don't think most of Discovery's fake-reality plays well for repeat viewing. While I enjoy Gold Rush, I can confidently say I'll never go back and re-watch old seasons. Same goes for any show I watch on Discovery. I doubt many people are going back and watching 10 yr old reality shows either. HBO has rewatchable content.

All these weird mergers were bound to happen. Even the "uber cord cutters" I think have better things to do then have to go and sign up and manage 37 different streaming services.

I for one stick with DirecTV because I've got better things to do then sign up and manage the 2 or 3 streaming services needed lol.

Every channel having it's own streaming platform was never going to work in the long run. Not only for the reasons above, but also due to the cost: streaming requires beefy infrastructure, so makes sense to share the hardware, bandwidth and electricity costs.

Netflix had the "one stop shop" platform, but Hastings blew it I think by letting all the pop content go and thinking people would be into all this foreign/dubbed garbage they are putting out now... they have already lost 9% market share and will continue to... Netflix content is a joke now.


----------



## NashGuy

As a consumer, the biggest question I had about this deal is what it means for HBO Max and discovery+. I'm a big fan of HBO stuff while the type of content Discovery has is -- well, some of it's OK but it's definitely not appointment TV for me, outside of the BBC nature docs. (And some of their stuff, like TLC, is just "reality" crap.) Their content seems more suited to the linear format, which is perhaps one reason why they've created psuedo-channels inside the d+ app.

Anyhow, my question is whether they'll try to put all the Discovery content inside HBO Max or keep the two services separate and maybe offer a bundling discount if you get both. Sounds like they don't know yet.

_As to streaming, both partners have recently entered the direct-to-consumer space in significant ways, with Discovery+ and HBO Max. The execs were non-committal as to whether they would combine the services or bundle them as separate products. Zaslav said all options would be explored. "We'll see over the next few years as we learn more about what consumers want and how they want it," he said.
_​Story here:
David Zaslav And John Stankey Outline Plans For Merging Discovery And WarnerMedia, Addressing Future Of Jason Kilar, CNN, Streaming - Deadline


----------



## raott

NashGuy said:


> As a consumer, the biggest question I had about this deal is what it means for HBO Max and discovery+. I'm a big fan of HBO stuff while the type of content Discovery has is -- well, some of it's OK but it's definitely not appointment TV for me, outside of the BBC nature docs. (And some of their stuff, like TLC, is just "reality" crap.) Their content seems more suited to the linear format, which is perhaps one reason why they've created psuedo-channels inside the d+ app.
> 
> Anyhow, my question is whether they'll try to put all the Discovery content inside HBO Max or keep the two services separate and maybe offer a bundling discount if you get both. Sounds like they don't know yet.
> 
> _As to streaming, both partners have recently entered the direct-to-consumer space in significant ways, with Discovery+ and HBO Max. The execs were non-committal as to whether they would combine the services or bundle them as separate products. Zaslav said all options would be explored. "We'll see over the next few years as we learn more about what consumers want and how they want it," he said.
> _​Story here:
> David Zaslav And John Stankey Outline Plans For Merging Discovery And WarnerMedia, Addressing Future Of Jason Kilar, CNN, Streaming - Deadline


Another question I have is about bundles with outside companies (ie Verizon). I currently get the ESPN+/Hulu/Disney bundle free with Verizon; Discovery+ free with Verizon; and HBO Max free with my AT&T TV subscription. I'd hate to see any of those go away. I'm not sure I'd subscribe to any of them individually other than HBO max.


----------



## harsh

This bears a striking similarity to the TPG deal (~70/30% with the minority having at least figurehead control) but they're perhaps not talking about the same kind of operational independence.

I'm not sure I buy into this idea of letting the minority partner run the show. It sounds like they're just tiptoeing around a Comcast/NBCUniversal hairball (that really turned out pretty well for Comcast since they largely ignored many of the regulatory conditions).


----------



## NashGuy

raott said:


> Another question I have is about bundles with outside companies (ie Verizon). I currently get the ESPN+/Hulu/Disney bundle free with Verizon; Discovery+ free with Verizon; and HBO Max free with my AT&T TV subscription. I'd hate to see any of those go away. I'm not sure I'd subscribe to any of them individually other than HBO max.


We may see Verizon stop bundling discovery+ in with their unlimited cellular plans since I would expect AT&T to begin doing so (as they're already doing with HBO Max). And given that AT&T and Verizon are major wireless rivals, they probably won't want to bundle in the same service.

On the cheapest unlimited Verizon plan, you only get 6 months of D+ but on the upper plans, you get 12 months. I'm sure they'll honor those promises to anyone who signs up while that's currently advertised as a part of the plan. But at some point between now and mid-2022 (when the Warner/Discovery deal closes), I bet we see Verizon tweak their plans and replace discovery+ with something else for new subs. Maybe Apple TV+, which costs about the same. (They already bundle in Apple Music on some plans.) Or maybe the new Paramount+. Anyhow, no reason to expect any change with regard to Verizon's deal with the Disney bundle.

Who knows if AT&T TV (or DirecTV Stream, if that's what it will be renamed) will begin bundling in discovery+ with their channel packages. Perhaps as a first-year promo for new subs as they now do with HBO Max on the Choice package and above.


----------



## James Long

A lot depends on how long their arms are when they move to arms length agreements. Right now under common control it seems easier to make the deal that ATTWS would get access to HBO/TimeWarner content. But if the media is spun off they will need to deal with the new controlling ownership. Some existing deals may carry over, but if they are transferring control the new owner will want to be able to make their own decisions to protect the profitability of the spin off.

Special deals for HBOMax on what will become new DIRECTV may also be affected once the spin off is complete. Again, deals can carry over but the new controlling owner will want to make the decisions that are best for the spin off.


----------



## raott

NashGuy said:


> We may see Verizon stop bundling discovery+ in with their unlimited cellular plans since I would expect AT&T to begin doing so (as they're already doing with HBO Max). And given that AT&T and Verizon are major wireless rivals, they probably won't want to bundle in the same service.
> 
> On the cheapest unlimited Verizon plan, you only get 6 months of D+ but on the upper plans, you get 12 months. I'm sure they'll honor those promises to anyone who signs up while that's currently advertised as a part of the plan. But at some point between now and mid-2022 (when the Warner/Discovery deal closes), I bet we see Verizon tweak their plans and replace discovery+ with something else for new subs. Maybe Apple TV+, which costs about the same. (They already bundle in Apple Music on some plans.) Or maybe the new Paramount+. Anyhow, no reason to expect any change with regard to Verizon's deal with the Disney bundle.
> 
> Who knows if AT&T TV (or DirecTV Stream, if that's what it will be renamed) will begin bundling in discovery+ with their channel packages. Perhaps as a first-year promo for new subs as they now do with HBO Max on the Choice package and above.


Going to end up costing me a few bucks a month it looks like, unless I just drop Discovery+ (my daughter watches it, I could lived without it) or unless, as you point out, AT&T Tv picks it up and adds it into that bundle. Shame, as I'm doing well with Verizon with all of the free bundles currently.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> But if the media is spun off they will need to deal with the new controlling ownership.


Majority ownership retains AT&T some level of control. Management does what they feel they need to do but they still have to answer to the Board and the Board has to answer to the stockholders.


----------



## SledgeHammer

NashGuy said:


> I'm sure they'll honor those promises to anyone who signs up while that's currently advertised as a part of the plan.


Are you sure ? DirecTV **has** been remarkably cool in honoring legacy deals... except for the ones that they don't. Like owned boxes, vacation homes, RVs, used equipment, lifetime DVR, etc. I lost that last one I had on my trail blazing Sony SAT-T60 because I didn't have a receipt.


----------



## NashGuy

raott said:


> Going to end up costing me a few bucks a month it looks like, unless I just drop Discovery+ (my daughter watches it, I could lived without it) or unless, as you point out, AT&T Tv picks it up and adds it into that bundle. Shame, as I'm doing well with Verizon with all of the free bundles currently.


But aren't you limited to 12 months (or, depending on your plan, 6 months) of free discovery+ from Verizon? After that, Verizon will start billing you $7/mo unless you cancel. That's what their fine print says. Even for someone signing up today, there's every reason to believe that they'll get their full free subscription period. So I don't see how you're affected.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> So I don't see anything that looks like failure here.


At the end of the day, it will come down to whether their revenue is greater than their cost of earning that revenue. Essentially, can they keep their content interesting enough to retain subscribers. Subscribers to these products are notoriously price conscious. Interesting content can be expensive, and cutting back on new content is the quickest way reduce costs. Lack of interesting content leads to fewer subscribers and less revenue.

This will be the road to failure for all these services.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

SledgeHammer said:


> Are you sure ? DirecTV **has** been remarkably cool in honoring legacy deals... except for the ones that they don't. Like owned boxes, vacation homes, RVs, used equipment, lifetime DVR, etc. I lost that last one I had on my trail blazing Sony SAT-T60 because I didn't have a receipt.


Their fine print probably does allow them loopholes but including free HBO Max in with various plans has been a really big feature they've touted. AT&T even has a dedicated webpage to advertise it.

HBO Max - Stream Movies, Original Shows & More - AT&T

I think it's pretty doubtful that New DirecTV would rescind that offer for customers who signed up under it if HBO Max is still in existence (which, of course, it will be for the next year). That would be a great way to piss off customers, many of whom are not under contract and could easily walk away. Consider how even when DTV/AT&T has changed channel package line-ups, those changes have applied to new customers coming in while existing subs got grandfathered under their existing line-up.

Remember AT&T's skinny streaming cable TV service called "Watch TV"? It hasn't been available for any new sign-ups since last June, but AT&T is still operating it just for wireless customers who got it as part of an Unlimited plan they signed up for prior to that point. And keep in mind that with AT&T TV, the offer is only one free year of HBO Max. So it's not even a permanent feature of the plan like with certain Wireless and Fiber plans. All this seems like pretty good reason to believe that New DTV will honor the "one free year of HBO Max" promo they're inheriting from AT&T.

Now, it's certainly possible that once New DTV takes day-to-day control, they tweak their pricing and promos and maybe they no longer offer a year of HBO Max to new sign-ups. It's also possible they strike a new deal with AT&T to include the upcoming $10/mo version of HBO Max in with every channel package, either for a year or even as a regular ongoing part of the package


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> At the end of the day, it will come down to whether their revenue is greater than their cost of earning that revenue. Essentially, can they keep their content interesting enough to retain subscribers. Subscribers to these products are notoriously price conscious. Interesting content can be expensive, and cutting back on new content is the quickest way reduce costs. Lack of interesting content leads to fewer subscribers and less revenue.
> 
> This will be the road to failure for all these services.


So your general view is that Americans are sort of done with TV and all the services -- cable TV, HBO Max, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. -- will see losses in subscribers and revenue going forward? That seems... unlikely to me.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> At the end of the day, it will come down to whether their revenue is greater than their cost of earning that revenue.


These deals that AT&T are making also involve some fairly significant debt being transferred to the new management. The new media entity will hit the ground a year from now with about $28 billion in Time Warner debt in addition to Discovery's $15 billion dollar debt. That's not chump change for a operation said to be worth $122 billion on paper.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

You might see promotional bundles like with Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+, but HBOMax and Discovery+ remain separate just like the Disney streaming services are separate.

But not that anything else is really synergistic with Discovery and HBO. Disney makes far more sense, as the ABC Network is a binder for its streaming services and networks together.

The synergies might just be cost-cutting and even further degradation of channels. For example, cuts at CNN like how Warner converted CourtTV to truTV. Discovery will likely make it reality tv focused like its channels and like truTV. Some might say, no loss anyways. Or, maybe Discovery pawns off CNN/HLN to CBS/Paramount, so that CNN and CBS essentially merge their news operations. Anderson Cooper and a maybe few others already serve between CNN and 60 Minutes or CBS.

On a much more micro level, I wonder if fubo will drop the Discovery channels or add back in the Warner channels, after it dropped them. I hope that it drops the Discovery channels, and adds AXS TV/HD Net Movies, and lowers its price. But that is unlikely and likely it will cave in to the duplication and bloated model, while increasing prices, like all the companies do. I suppose Philo will stay status quo.


----------



## SledgeHammer

NashGuy said:


> So your general view is that Americans are sort of done with TV and all the services -- cable TV, HBO Max, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. -- will see losses in subscribers and revenue going forward? That seems... unlikely to me.


Netflix has been warning for YEARS now that they're pretty well saturated in the US market and will focus on expanding internationally on a go forward basis. They had a MASSIVE subscriber miss this past quarter when they announced earnings a few weeks ago. Thus they've gone from $600 to $488.

You could theoretically write off Netflix as a Netflix specific issue due to loss of popular content like Friends and The Office as well as the ending of most of their few popular original shows. They've already lost 9% of their market share.

One would theoretically assume those folks went to Disney. But guess what? After a very impressive start, Disney, who owns pretty much all the content worth watching, also had a huge subscriber miss this past quarter.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, streaming customers will follow the content, of which Netflix has a HUGE problem. It's self perpetuating. Netflix loses content -> Netflix loses customers -> Netflix loses revenue -> Netflix stock price goes down -> Netflix loses it's ability to get popular content. Rinse. Repeat.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Netflix lose more market share and eventually be bought for its customer base. No, not predicting its demise tomorrow or even next year. Just saying it has a content issue in the US.


----------



## b4pjoe

So much money burned by AT&T for Time Warner and DIRECTV.

AT&T announces $43 billion deal to merge WarnerMedia with Discovery


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Majority ownership retains AT&T some level of control. Management does what they feel they need to do but they still have to answer to the Board and the Board has to answer to the stockholders.


For the DIRECTV spinoff the board isn't AT&T. AT&T's control of the board is limited to appointing two members (40%). That is all. Their ownership is an investment ... not a purchase of control.
If WarnerMedia is spun off under a similar arrangement expect the deal to be similar. Selling control but keeping preferred/common shares as an investment.


----------



## Getteau

I just wish the services bundling the free tier with your mobile service would let you add-on the extra couple of dollars for the ad-free tier. We get the Hulu ad-version through our Sprint Unlimited plan (the $6 version of Hulu). However, there is no way for me to upgrade to the ad-free version without paying for the entire thing. If I had the option of going Ad-Free for $6, I might do it. however, I'm not going to spend $12 a month for it. I tried to watch the $6 version a few times, and couldn't get past all the ad's in each show. So at this point, the Hulu app on our devices goes farther and farther down the list of apps on our TV and the ones without Ad's keep moving closer and closer to the top.


----------



## phrelin

SledgeHammer said:


> Netflix has been warning for YEARS now that they're pretty well saturated in the US market and will focus on expanding internationally on a go forward basis. They had a MASSIVE subscriber miss this past quarter when they announced earnings a few weeks ago. Thus they've gone from $600 to $488.
> 
> You could theoretically write off Netflix as a Netflix specific issue due to loss of popular content like Friends and The Office as well as the ending of most of their few popular original shows. They've already lost 9% of their market share.
> 
> One would theoretically assume those folks went to Disney. But guess what? After a very impressive start, Disney, who owns pretty much all the content worth watching, also had a huge subscriber miss this past quarter.
> 
> Seems pretty straight forward to me, streaming customers will follow the content, of which Netflix has a HUGE problem. It's self perpetuating. Netflix loses content -> Netflix loses customers -> Netflix loses revenue -> Netflix stock price goes down -> Netflix loses it's ability to get popular content. Rinse. Repeat.
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised to see Netflix lose more market share and eventually be bought for its customer base. No, not predicting its demise tomorrow or even next year. Just saying it has a content issue in the US.


I guess I'm not particularly worried about Netflix with its 208 million global subscribers. Every other service is playing catch-up with less than 50% even at Disney+. Far more people signed up for Disney+ and Netflix in the first six months of the pandemic than anticipated so growth would return to normal levels as the pandemic winds down. What one has to watch is the average revenue per user which gives Netflix a real advantage for now. Of course one can't ignore Disney's Hulu which is not too far behind Netflix.

In the meantime we have the Amazon MGM purchase rumors.


----------



## NashGuy

Getteau said:


> I just wish the services bundling the free tier with your mobile service would let you add-on the extra couple of dollars for the ad-free tier. We get the Hulu ad-version through our Sprint Unlimited plan (the $6 version of Hulu). However, there is no way for me to upgrade to the ad-free version without paying for the entire thing. If I had the option of going Ad-Free for $6, I might do it. however, I'm not going to spend $12 a month for it. I tried to watch the $6 version a few times, and couldn't get past all the ad's in each show. So at this point, the Hulu app on our devices goes farther and farther down the list of apps on our TV and the ones without Ad's keep moving closer and closer to the top.


Yeah, that stinks. But Sprint is kinda defunct now. Obviously T-Mobile isn't going to change those plans. At some point, I'm sure, they'll force you to transition over to an actual T-Mo plan or leave.

That said, it looks like when Sprint launched the free Hulu deal, Hulu had already begun selling their $12/mo ad-free plan. Would've been nice if Sprint had offered an optional $6 upgrade to the ad-free plan. My bet is that Hulu didn't want that since they actually make *more* money on the cheaper $6 plan due to the ad revenue. I know that the free Disney bundle that Verizon offers on some plans includes only the ad-supported version of Hulu and, AFAIK, there's no way to pay extra and upgrade that either.


----------



## NashGuy

phrelin said:


> I guess I'm not particularly worried about Netflix with its 208 million global subscribers. Every other service is playing catch-up with less than 50% even at Disney+. Far more people signed up for Disney+ and Netflix in the first six months of the pandemic than anticipated so growth would return to normal levels as the pandemic winds down. What one has to watch is the average revenue per user which gives Netflix a real advantage for now. Of course one can't ignore Disney's Hulu which is not too far behind Netflix.


Disney+'s global ARPU is dragged down because it's sold so cheap in parts of Asia. Jason Kilar (now running HBO Max for at least awhile longer) did a good job as CEO of Hulu. It now has over 40 million US subs, just behind HBO/HBO Max.



phrelin said:


> In the meantime we have the Amazon MGM purchase rumors.


Hmm, first I've heard of that one. The big one I read about today is NBCU and ViacomCBS. NBCU and Warner had been in talks and while I think it would've been a better match-up than Warner and Discovery, I think AT&T was so scared of another anti-trust trial and they opted for the easier deal. So now NBCU is left looking for someone else to help them scale up to compete with Disney and Netflix.

Still available:

ViacomCBS
Sony Pictures (less interesting after just striking a long-term output deal with Netflix)
Fox (broadcast, news, sports nets)
Lionsgate (includes Starz)
AMC
MGM (includes Epix)
Crown Media (i.e. Hallmark nets, privately held)


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> AT&T announces $43 billion deal to merge WarnerMedia with Discovery


Telecom giant AT&T announced Monday a deal to combine its content unit WarnerMedia with Discovery, paving the way for one of Hollywood's biggest studios to compete with media giants Netflix and Disney.

Under the agreement, AT&T will unwind its $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner, which closed just under three years ago and form a new media company with Discovery. The deal would create a new business, separate from AT&T, that could be valued at as much as $150 billion, including debt, according to The Financial Times.

AT&T said it would receive an aggregate amount of $43 billion in a combination of cash, debt and WarnerMedia's retention of certain debt. AT&T shareholders would receive stock representing 71% of the new company, while Discovery shareholders would own 29%, it added.


----------



## inkahauts

NashGuy said:


> Disney+'s global ARPU is dragged down because it's sold so cheap in parts of Asia. Jason Kilar (now running HBO Max for at least awhile longer) did a good job as CEO of Hulu. It now has over 40 million US subs, just behind HBO/HBO Max.
> 
> Hmm, first I've heard of that one. The big one I read about today is NBCU and ViacomCBS. NBCU and Warner had been in talks and while I think it would've been a better match-up than Warner and Discovery, I think AT&T was so scared of another anti-trust trial and they opted for the easier deal. So now NBCU is left looking for someone else to help them scale up to compete with Disney and Netflix.
> 
> Still available:
> 
> ViacomCBS
> Sony Pictures (less interesting after just striking a long-term output deal with Netflix)
> Fox (broadcast, news, sports nets)
> Lionsgate (includes Starz)
> AMC
> MGM (includes Epix)
> Crown Media (i.e. Hallmark nets, privately held)


I don't expect FOX to merge with anyone. They are what they are for the foreseeable future imho.

You won't see NBC and CBS merge. Not happening.

Sony maybe but they'd Lilly be the buyer if someone else like lions gate and amc maybe. I could see Viacom going after those two as well. Maybe even NBC. But really I don't expect to much from NBC.

And I doubt crown will ever be sold.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> So your general view is that Americans are sort of done with TV and all the services -- cable TV, HBO Max, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. -- will see losses in subscribers and revenue going forward? That seems... unlikely to me.


No. I think they are done with brand loyalty and are happy to cut and run, taking their money to the shiny new thing.

Except maybe Disney, but Disney has their fingers into so many piece of the media pie. Theme parks&#8230; kid programming&#8230; movies&#8230; TV&#8230;

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

inkahauts said:


> I don't expect FOX to merge with anyone. They are what they are for the foreseeable future imho.
> 
> You won't see NBC and CBS merge. Not happening.
> 
> Sony maybe but they'd Lilly be the buyer if someone else like lions gate and amc maybe. I could see Viacom going after those two as well. Maybe even NBC. But really I don't expect to much from NBC.
> 
> And I doubt crown will ever be sold.


ViacomCBS is in the most need to scale up and I had anticipated that they might form a "team of leftovers" by buying up Lionsgate, MGM and/or AMC. But looks like Amazon is close to buying MGM for $9 billion. Wonder if Epix will just get folded into Prime Video? The Epix Originals slate is rather underwhelming but Amazon may prefer to bolster Prime Video with Epix's film library, including recent Paramount and MGM films, rather than try to keep it alive is a little $6/mo cable and streaming service. Can't really see Epix surviving long-term.

An NBCU/ViacomCBS merger likely could not happen without the feds forcing either NBC or CBS (and their O&O local affiliates) to be sold off. It's not out of the question for them to merge and then keep all the Viacom channels and content, Paramount studios, and Showtime, then merge Paramount+ content (minus the CBS shows) into Peacock. (Maybe Showtime content would get merged into Peacock as well, or maybe everything would just stream under the arguably stronger Showtime brand as an HBO Max-like competitor.) Anyhow, in this unlikely hypothetical, CBS and its news division would have to be either sold to another buyer or spun off as a small solo operation. Perhaps WarnerDisco would buy CBS. (A major broadcast network is about the only thing they lack, and CBS's longstanding news operation, including 60 Minutes, might be a nice complement to CNN on cable.) At any rate, now that both Warner and Discovery are off the table, ViacomCBS is really the only significant player left for NBCU to tie up with. They've reportedly already approached them about selling Peacock and Paramount+ as a bundle deal.

Anyhow, here's a story about the pressures now faced by NBCU and ViacomCBS in the wake of the WarnerDisco deal:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/17/warnermedia-discovery-deal-pressures-viacomcbs-and-nbcuniversal.html

Sony seems like they want to remain an independent, mid-sized studio that creates and supplies content to multiple buyers. And their recent deal to supply their recent theatrical films to Netflix, starting with their 2022 slate, helps in that regard. (Their current deal is with Starz.) But Lionsgate and AMC, I dunno, it's just going to be increasingly hard for them. But not every service has to be huge to survive and be profitable, I guess. Maybe Starz and AMC+ can survive long-term as they are.


----------



## phrelin

Regarding Paramount- I'm sure I'm wrong, but when I saw this screen I thought they could methodically build a streaming "channel" that could effectively compete across age groups and interests:










It would require focus like that found at Apple+ and Prime which do have significant financial interests beyond streaming. Maybe it wouldn't be possible and they really need to integrate Showtime, but one could always hope.


----------



## Steveknj

SledgeHammer said:


> As you said above, HBO and Discovery is very different content. I don't think most of Discovery's fake-reality plays well for repeat viewing. While I enjoy Gold Rush, I can confidently say I'll never go back and re-watch old seasons. Same goes for any show I watch on Discovery. I doubt many people are going back and watching 10 yr old reality shows either. HBO has rewatchable content.
> 
> All these weird mergers were bound to happen. Even the "uber cord cutters" I think have better things to do then have to go and sign up and manage 37 different streaming services.
> 
> I for one stick with DirecTV because I've got better things to do then sign up and manage the 2 or 3 streaming services needed lol.
> 
> Every channel having it's own streaming platform was never going to work in the long run. Not only for the reasons above, but also due to the cost: streaming requires beefy infrastructure, so makes sense to share the hardware, bandwidth and electricity costs.
> 
> Netflix had the "one stop shop" platform, but Hastings blew it I think by letting all the pop content go and thinking people would be into all this foreign/dubbed garbage they are putting out now... they have already lost 9% market share and will continue to... Netflix content is a joke now.


I think at some point, we are going to have a major consolidation and the major players will eventually be, Comcast, Disney, Amazon and Google, though I could see CBSViacom taking a shot at Netflix to try and get back in the game. As with so much that happens in corporate America, any business worth getting into will have major consolidation and will be controlled by a few larger corporations. It has taken awhile to begin this real consolidation, but I think it's happening now. I think 2023 will look a lot different than what we see now.

And of course with this consolidation, it will probably mean less content and higher prices, as these companies start to weed out some of the more boutique offerings and things will be more mainstream.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> For the DIRECTV spinoff the board isn't AT&T. AT&T's control of the board is limited to appointing two members (40%). That is all.


As long as common shares are voting shares, AT&T will maintain a certain level of control over the Board with their large majority holdings.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> And of course with this consolidation, it will probably mean less content and higher prices, as these companies start to weed out some of the more boutique offerings and things will be more mainstream.


There are a few big global direct-to-consumer video players that look pretty secure to me: Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and now WarnerDiscovery. Plus Google's YouTube, which is just a different sort of beast with its free user-uploaded content, essentially the world's video search engine. Beyond that, prospects are very questionable.

Apple is the richest company in the world, so they certainly have the cash (and the customer relationships) to grow Apple TV+ into a mid-sized service focused on quality middlebrow originals, if they choose to stick with it, believing it will ultimately be a net contributor to their bottom line. We'll see.

There will still be a place for small niche video services too, if they're priced right. As is already the case, some won't even have their own apps but they'll need to participate in aggregate platforms housed in larger apps, like Prime Video, Apple TV, Roku Channel. Perhaps even YouTube will eventually allow paid subscription channels inside their app.

Outside of those mentioned above, though, it seem to me that all the other services are caught in the middle and are in danger. Things like Peacock, Paramount+, Showtime, Starz, and AMC+. These services and their parents companies don't have the scale to become global competitors to Netflix, Amazon, Disney and WarnerDiscovery. I think NBCU and ViacomCBS, if they don't somehow merge, will end up pulling the plug on their Peacock and Paramount+ services in the next few years. (Rather than merge at the top, perhaps they just combine Peacock and Paramount+ into a joint-venture streaming, as Hulu originally launched.) I think they'll find that they're better off just licensing their content out to the four bigger services rather than trying to make a go of their own US-only direct-to-consumer services. Of course, that calls into question those two companies' long-term viability as consumer-facing brands; they would be solely reliant on their broadcast and cable TV channels in an era where linear channels are fading and streaming continues to rise.

As hybrid cable/streaming services, Showtime and Starz both have decent-sized subscriber bases in the 25-28 million range but most of those are still on cable, making them somewhat vulnerable as Americans continue to cut the cord. But they could probably at least survive, if not thrive, as-is for several more years as US premium services that license their content to bigger players in foreign markets. Their prospects would improve if they were merged, a move that Showtime parent CBS perhaps had in mind when they tendered an unsolicited bid to purchase Starz a couple years ago.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> There are a few big global direct-to-consumer video players that look pretty secure to me: Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and now WarnerDiscovery. Plus Google's YouTube, which is just a different sort of beast with its free user-uploaded content, essentially the world's video search engine. Beyond that, prospects are very questionable.
> 
> Apple is the richest company in the world, so they certainly have the cash (and the customer relationships) to grow Apple TV+ into a mid-sized service focused on quality middlebrow originals, if they choose to stick with it, believing it will ultimately be a net contributor to their bottom line. We'll see.
> 
> There will still be a place for small niche video services too, if they're priced right. As is already the case, some won't even have their own apps but they'll need to participate in aggregate platforms housed in larger apps, like Prime Video, Apple TV, Roku Channel. Perhaps even YouTube will eventually allow paid subscription channels inside their app.
> 
> Outside of those mentioned above, though, it seem to me that all the other services are caught in the middle and are in danger. Things like Peacock, Paramount+, Showtime, Starz, and AMC+. These services and their parents companies don't have the scale to become global competitors to Netflix, Amazon, Disney and WarnerDiscovery. I think NBCU and ViacomCBS, if they don't somehow merge, will end up pulling the plug on their Peacock and Paramount+ services in the next few years. (Rather than merge at the top, perhaps they just combine Peacock and Paramount+ into a joint-venture streaming, as Hulu originally launched.) I think they'll find that they're better off just licensing their content out to the four bigger services rather than trying to make a go of their own US-only direct-to-consumer services. Of course, that calls into question those two companies' long-term viability as consumer-facing brands; they would be solely reliant on their broadcast and cable TV channels in an era where linear channels are fading and streaming continues to rise.
> 
> As hybrid cable/streaming services, Showtime and Starz both have decent-sized subscriber bases in the 25-28 million range but most of those are still on cable, making them somewhat vulnerable as Americans continue to cut the cord. But they could probably at least survive, if not thrive, as-is for several more years as US premium services that license their content to bigger players in foreign markets. Their prospects would improve if they were merged, a move that Showtime parent CBS perhaps had in mind when they tendered an unsolicited bid to purchase Starz a couple years ago.


I think NBC/U (Peacock) will eventually be one of the majors. I think Apple would NEVER compromise and bring lower quality content just to be one of the big boys in this realm. They never did it with any other product so I can't see them doing it here. Either they will stand on their own terms or they will be happy being a niche service that they can package with iPhones and Macs. I do think Netflix is going to be a prime target for someone. It's not owned by one of the big boys and there's certainly a chance someone like Viacom or NBC/U could snap them up. Or it could be Netflix snagging one of them. We'll see. But consolidation will not be good for us. You mention that there will always be room for niche and I think that's the case until they grow enough for one of the big boys to want them.

BTW, isn't Showtime owned by Viacom? I wonder how soon it winds up part of Paramount+ or perhaps they rebrand it again to Showtime+?


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I think NBC/U (Peacock) will eventually be one of the majors.


Eh, I don't think NBCU's Peacock is hitting it out of the park so far and it's under pressure to prove itself in the next year or so, I'd say. It could potentially become more attractive in the future. Right now, Universal has an exclusive longstanding deal in place with HBO for the pay-1 window for their movies. That deal expires at the end of this year, but will NBCU forego another lucrative licensing deal (whether with HBO Max, Netflix, or whomever) in order to keep their post-'21 theatrical releases exclusive to Peacock? Meanwhile, you can still watch all NBC shows next-day on both Hulu and Peacock. It's unclear whether that will remain in place until 2022 or 2024. Anyhow, at some point in the future, current NBC shows will leave Hulu and become exclusive to Peacock. But in the meantime, you don't need Peacock for current NBC shows and Peacock isn't delivering any recent movies. Peacock has a few originals but it's mainly a lot of old shows and movies. The Office is really it's main attraction. If you're getting Peacock Premium free with your TV or broadband service from Comcast or Cox, then fine. But for $5/mo, it seems underwhelming in comparison with Hulu at $6/mo.



Steveknj said:


> BTW, isn't Showtime owned by Viacom? I wonder how soon it winds up part of Paramount+ or perhaps they rebrand it again to Showtime+?


Yes, Showtime was part of CBS and now part of ViacomCBS. The tricky part of trying to integrate Showtime into something larger is the same problem Warner faced with moving from HBO (and its HBO Go and Now apps) to the larger HBO Max -- they'd need to renegotiate all the current cable and streaming distribution contracts in place for Showtime (as Warner did for HBO), so that any subscription to Showtime would include access to the bigger Paramount+ (or "Showtime+") streaming app, which would include all of Showtime (which frankly has a pretty small library) plus a lot more.

So in this scenario, the Paramount+ app would replace the existing Showtime and Showtime Anytime apps (just as the HBO Max app replaced the HBO Now and HBO Go apps). But given the realties of the competition in the streaming space, I don't think they could raise the price much, if any, if they really want to grow the subscriber base. Paramount+ Premium (ad-free) is $10/mo while Showtime (always ad-free) costs $11-12/mo, depending where you buy it. Even if you got both together in a combined app and it was all priced at $12/mo all ad-free, I question how competitive it would be against Netflix at $13, the Disney bundle (Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+, the latter two with ads) at $14, and HBO Max (ad-free) at $15. And of course a lot of folks are getting the huge Prime Video library thrown in with a Prime membership they keep anyway.

To really offer the amount and range of quality content that could make it a serious player that could scale up in the US and abroad vs. Netflix, Disney, etc., I think you'd need to see a service that combines the catalogs of Peacock Premium, Paramount+, Showtime, and maybe Starz and AMC+ as well. Imagine if ViacomCBS bought Lionsgate, with its studio, content library and Starz, then folded Starz into Showtime. Meanwhile, NBCU bought AMC Networks. Then ViacomCBS and NBCU launched a joint venture streaming service that would have the exclusive pay-1 TV window for films from Universal, Paramount and Lionsgate studios, plus a lot of their back catalog movies. It would be the exclusive streaming home of Showtime (which would include Starz content at that point) and also have its own line of exclusive streaming originals (i.e. the combination of what are now Peacock Originals and Paramount+ originals) and certain sports exclusives. And it would feature same or next-day access to current shows on NBC and CBS. Plus all the stuff now offered in AMC+ (which, like Peacock and Paramount+, would cease to exist as its own separate service). Plus have lots of back seasons of various shows from the Viacom and NBCU cable networks.

Which is a lot of content! Price that super-service at maybe $7/mo with ads and $13/mo ad-free and *maybe* it could fight its way to being a US and global streaming service that's competitive with the current big 4. (They would of course raise the prices later but need a low price now and the willingness to lose money on it for awhile.)

But time is of the essence. Consumer habits are gelling and it's really hard to play catch-up. Households will only tend to keep a few subscriptions at a time and most won't bother juggling them (or will tire of doing so). Yesterday's deal to form WarnerDiscovery means the window is closing faster for the remaining players to either consolidate and go big, or fold and go home (i.e. stick with traditional TV and license their content to third-party services for streaming).


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Majority ownership retains AT&T some level of control. Management does what they feel they need to do but they still have to answer to the Board and the Board has to answer to the stockholders.


Reading the agreement would be helpful. The WarnerMedia Discovery merger is a stock deal. The stockholders in the new combined company will be comprised of the stockholders of AT&T and Discovery. AT&T _stockholders_ will get 71% ownership of the merged company and then said company will operate separately from AT&T. AT&T gets a boat load of money ($43 billion) including transfer of WarnerMedia debt to the new company.

Or as the press release put it: "combine WarnerMedia's premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's leading nonfiction and international entertainment and sports businesses to create a premier, standalone global entertainment company."


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Reading the agreement would be helpful. The WarnerMedia Discovery merger is a stock deal. The stockholders in the new combined company will be comprised of the stockholders of AT&T and Discovery. AT&T _stockholders_ will get 71% ownership of the merged company and then said company will operate separately from AT&T. AT&T gets a boat load of money ($43 billion) and transfer of WarnerMedia debt to the new company.
> 
> Or as the press release put it: "combine WarnerMedia's premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's leading nonfiction and international entertainment and sports businesses to create a premier, standalone global entertainment company."


Hmm, are you saying that current AT&T stockholders will be issued shares in the new WarnerDiscovery stock? I hadn't seen that explicitly stated in any of the news stories. My read was that the AT&T corporation would itself own 71% of the new company's equity (which would be reflected in the value of AT&T's stock price) with the other 29% of equity owned by current Discovery stockholders, i.e. they would trade their current Discovery shares for WarnerDiscovery shares.


----------



## James Long

The deal was filed with the SEC (33 pages). TLDR: That is what press releases are for ...

"Under the terms of the agreement, which is structured as an all-stock, Reverse Morris Trust transaction, AT&T would receive $43 billion (subject to adjustment) in a combination of cash, debt securities, and WarnerMedia's retention of certain debt, and AT&T's shareholders would receive stock representing 71% of the new company; Discovery shareholders would own 29% of the new company. The Boards of Directors of both AT&T and Discovery have approved the transaction."

One correction to my previous post - The $43 billion includes the debt transferred.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I don't think NBCU's Peacock is hitting it out of the park so far and it's under pressure to prove itself in the next year or so, I'd say. It could potentially become more attractive in the future. Right now, Universal has an exclusive longstanding deal in place with HBO for the pay-1 window for their movies. That deal expires at the end of this year, but will NBCU forego another lucrative licensing deal (whether with HBO Max, Netflix, or whomever) in order to keep their post-'21 theatrical releases exclusive to Peacock? *Meanwhile, you can still watch all NBC shows next-day on both Hulu* and Peacock. It's unclear whether that will remain in place until 2022 or 2024. Anyhow, at some point in the future, current NBC shows will leave Hulu and become exclusive to Peacock. But in the meantime, you don't need Peacock for current NBC shows and Peacock isn't delivering any recent movies. Peacock has a few originals but it's mainly a lot of old shows and movies. The Office is really it's main attraction. If you're getting Peacock Premium free with your TV or broadband service from Comcast or Cox, then fine. But for $5/mo, it seems underwhelming in comparison with Hulu at $6/mo.


I keep seeing people say this and it is just not true for all NBC shows being on Peacock the next day. One example is The Blacklist that doesn't make it to Peacock for a week. And last time I checked Dateline it was the same thing.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I don't think NBCU's Peacock is hitting it out of the park so far and it's under pressure to prove itself in the next year or so, I'd say. It could potentially become more attractive in the future. Right now, Universal has an exclusive longstanding deal in place with HBO for the pay-1 window for their movies. That deal expires at the end of this year, but will NBCU forego another lucrative licensing deal (whether with HBO Max, Netflix, or whomever) in order to keep their post-'21 theatrical releases exclusive to Peacock? Meanwhile, you can still watch all NBC shows next-day on both Hulu and Peacock. It's unclear whether that will remain in place until 2022 or 2024. Anyhow, at some point in the future, current NBC shows will leave Hulu and become exclusive to Peacock. But in the meantime, you don't need Peacock for current NBC shows and Peacock isn't delivering any recent movies. Peacock has a few originals but it's mainly a lot of old shows and movies. The Office is really it's main attraction. If you're getting Peacock Premium free with your TV or broadband service from Comcast or Cox, then fine. But for $5/mo, it seems underwhelming in comparison with Hulu at $6/mo.
> 
> Yes, Showtime was part of CBS and now part of ViacomCBS. The tricky part of trying to integrate Showtime into something larger is the same problem Warner faced with moving from HBO (and its HBO Go and Now apps) to the larger HBO Max -- they'd need to renegotiate all the current cable and streaming distribution contracts in place for Showtime (as Warner did for HBO), so that any subscription to Showtime would include access to the bigger Paramount+ (or "Showtime+") streaming app, which would include all of Showtime (which frankly has a pretty small library) plus a lot more.
> 
> So in this scenario, the Paramount+ app would replace the existing Showtime and Showtime Anytime apps (just as the HBO Max app replaced the HBO Now and HBO Go apps). But given the realties of the competition in the streaming space, I don't think they could raise the price much, if any, if they really want to grow the subscriber base. Paramount+ Premium (ad-free) is $10/mo while Showtime (always ad-free) costs $11-12/mo, depending where you buy it. Even if you got both together in a combined app and it was all priced at $12/mo all ad-free, I question how competitive it would be against Netflix at $13, the Disney bundle (Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+, the latter two with ads) at $14, and HBO Max (ad-free) at $15. And of course a lot of folks are getting the huge Prime Video library thrown in with a Prime membership they keep anyway.
> 
> To really offer the amount and range of quality content that could make it a serious player that could scale up in the US and abroad vs. Netflix, Disney, etc., I think you'd need to see a service that combines the catalogs of Peacock Premium, Paramount+, Showtime, and maybe Starz and AMC+ as well. Imagine if ViacomCBS bought Lionsgate, with its studio, content library and Starz, then folded Starz into Showtime. Meanwhile, NBCU bought AMC Networks. Then ViacomCBS and NBCU launched a joint venture streaming service that would have the exclusive pay-1 TV window for films from Universal, Paramount and Lionsgate studios, plus a lot of their back catalog movies. It would be the exclusive streaming home of Showtime (which would include Starz content at that point) and also have its own line of exclusive streaming originals (i.e. the combination of what are now Peacock Originals and Paramount+ originals) and certain sports exclusives. And it would feature same or next-day access to current shows on NBC and CBS. Plus all the stuff now offered in AMC+ (which, like Peacock and Paramount+, would cease to exist as its own separate service). Plus have lots of back seasons of various shows from the Viacom and NBCU cable networks.
> 
> Which is a lot of content! Price that super-service at maybe $7/mo with ads and $13/mo ad-free and *maybe* it could fight its way to being a US and global streaming service that's competitive with the current big 4. (They would of course raise the prices later but need a low price now and the willingness to lose money on it for awhile.)
> 
> But time is of the essence. Consumer habits are gelling and it's really hard to play catch-up. Households will only tend to keep a few subscriptions at a time and most won't bother juggling them (or will tire of doing so). Yesterday's deal to form WarnerDiscovery means the window is closing faster for the remaining players to either consolidate and go big, or fold and go home (i.e. stick with traditional TV and license their content to third-party services for streaming).


But that's kinda my point. At some point "the big players" whoever that works out to be, will own most if not all of this and then pricing will be at their discretion. And if it costs $40 a month or more for "all that content" so be it. We either pay or we don't. Remember we were, not that long ago in this boat. The cable companies can charge whatever they wanted for content, because A) where were we going to go? B) because they can. Once these 3-4 mega companies buy up all the content, it's going to be the same thing. I'm not saying NBCU's Peacock is going to be the answer, and you could be right, they could merge their content with another mega media corporation, but eventually that's where we are headed. Either companies will realize that they can't do it on their own (kind of the idea behind Hulu) or they will get big enough to buy up the competition. I think there's going to come a point where Netflix is going to struggle to get new subs with all of this competition out there, ones with more cash or more longstanding industry standing (which would help them with finance). I expect Netflix to get bought up by a company that wants to make a big splash or their own isn't working (Comcast?) I think it'll take about 5 years or so for it to sort itself out and I expect the landscape to be quite different by then. Seriously, how many subs can people do without it getting too costly and confusing? I'd say that most people aren't going to do what folks here often do, float from one to another for a month or two at a time watch all the content and then move on to the next. Most people will subscribe to a few services and just watch those.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> The cable companies can charge whatever they wanted for content, because A) where were we going to go? B) because they can.


The question remains as to whether or not cable companies should be able to hold content hostage. Comcast agreed not to do that as part of their merger with NBCU.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> I keep seeing people say this and it is just not true for all NBC shows being on Peacock the next day. One example is The Blacklist that doesn't make it to Peacock for a week. And last time I checked Dateline it was the same thing.


OK, fine, there are a couple of exceptions to the rule. But in general, Peacock Premium has next-day access both new and returning NBC series, much the same as Hulu. (The Blacklist appears to be a special case, maybe because of its deal with Netflix. Peacock only shows five recent episodes at a time, but always lagging a week, while Hulu doesn't have the show at all unless you have their live TV add-on.) And FWIW, last Friday's episode of Dateline shows up in Peacock Premium for me right now. Although I have no idea if it appeared next-day (i.e. last Sat.).


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> The question remains as to whether or not cable companies should be able to hold content hostage. Comcast agreed not to do that as part of their merger with NBCU.


This has nothing to do with what the cable companies are doing now, or what they might be like in the future. Lets say you are Mega Company 1. You have certain content. Now you want more content. So you merge with Mega Company 2 (or do like AT&T just did, spin off Time Warner, to merge with Discovery. Suddenly you have one company with two sets of content, and if they combine them, then it's one company controlling both.). Imagine if Amazon scoops up A&E, Comcast scoops up Lionsgate, TW/Discovery scoops up another. Or Amazon and Comcast realize it's in their best interest to pool resources and make one mega company for streaming their content (a la Hulu). Suddenly as a user we have much less choice. While there's an advantage to having only a couple of streaming services, instead of the dozen or more out there, price wise, we will lose (and we could revert back to a cable model where there's this giant company that controls everything.) I think the next 5 years will determine this. And before you say Anti-Trust, remember we have seen a lot of promises made by these companies in past mergers that they renege on as soon as it's worth it to them (i.e. the fines don't cost more than the benefits).

In the end, as always it's the consumer who's going to suffer. I for one am not celebrating deals like TW/Discovery. Consolidation is normally not consumer friendly.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> But that's kinda my point. At some point "the big players" whoever that works out to be, will own most if not all of this and then pricing will be at their discretion. And if it costs $40 a month or more for "all that content" so be it. We either pay or we don't. Remember we were, not that long ago in this boat.


At some point (if the government is doing its job), it won't allow any further media consolidation. But if 95% of streaming video ends up in the hands of six major competitors, I'm not sure that's a huge anti-trust problem. I mean, consumers would still have options and that would be enough competition to keep prices in check and spur product improvement. (Now that said, I do expect all these service to increase their prices somewhat over time. But if you've got five other big competitors, you can't just double your price without losing a lot of business to the competition.) Now, if things got *really* concentrated -- say if you only had three major media competitors (as is now the case in US wireless service) -- I'd find that significantly more worrisome.



Steveknj said:


> The cable companies can charge whatever they wanted for content, because A) where were we going to go? B) because they can.


Well, that was a different situation. In the early era of cable TV, distribution of the service was handled exclusively by companies that built and owned their own wired distribution networks (i.e. coaxial cable) but didn't own the actual channels they offered (which were pretty much the same regardless of the cableco). And rarely did a competitor spend the money to wire up an area where another cableco had already done it. So cable TV was originally pretty much a bunch of small companies with local monopolies (which is why they typically had to be granted permission to serve an area by a local government authority, which would monitor the cableco's rates and practices).

But then satellite TV came along and suddenly there was *some amount* of competition for cable TV service. And these days, any form of video entertainment, whether "cable TV" or direct-to-consumer on-demand (e.g. Netflix, HBO Max), can ride "over-the-top" of any internet connection, regardless of who owns the network infrastructure (AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, SpaceX, a rural fiber co-op, etc.).

So while, yes, we should be wary of TOO much concentration of power in any given industry (in this case, media), I don't see what's happening now as being analogous to the history of cable TV distribution. I mean, yes, if you just *have to have* Marvel Comics-based shows, then yes, your only choice may eventually be Disney+ for that. But that's not really a monopoly. HBO Max will gladly present you with a bunch of DC Comics content as an alternative.



Steveknj said:


> I think there's going to come a point where Netflix is going to struggle to get new subs with all of this competition out there, ones with more cash or more longstanding industry standing (which would help them with finance). I expect Netflix to get bought up by a company that wants to make a big splash or their own isn't working (Comcast?)


I dunno, is anyone big enough to buy Netflix now? They're a $215 billion company. Disney is bigger ($306 bn) but the government would never allow them to merge. I'm very skeptical that Comcast ($249 bn) would be allowed to do so, given their power in both media (their NBCU unit) as well as the fact that they're the nation's largest broadband provider. Netflix appears completely uninterested in merging with or acquiring another smaller media company like ViacomCBS. Hastings has built his own empire apart from old Hollywood and I think he wants to remain an independent operator. But I would agree with you that Netflix's gonzo growth days are over. They're facing some real competition now.

The only companies I can see who may be big enough to buy Netflix are the big tech titans: Apple ($2.1 trillion), Amazon ($1.6 tn), Google ($1.5 tn), and Microsoft ($1.3 tn). Because of their already substantial media operations, I think Amazon and probably Google would be barred from the deal. So that leaves Apple and Microsoft. Apple has always been the one talked up as a potential Netflix buyer but so far they seem more interested in organically building their own smaller thing with Apple TV+. As for Microsoft, I dunno, seems like an odd tie-up but I guess anything's possible.



Steveknj said:


> I think it'll take about 5 years or so for it to sort itself out and I expect the landscape to be quite different by then. Seriously, how many subs can people do without it getting too costly and confusing? I'd say that most people aren't going to do what folks here often do, float from one to another for a month or two at a time watch all the content and then move on to the next. Most people will subscribe to a few services and just watch those.


Yep, I agree with you. As for how many streaming services folks will have (i.e. how much they're willing to pay), keep in mind that at cable TV's peak in the US (early part of last decade), about 90% of US households had it, paying an average of about $100 per month on TV. (See here and here and here.) I don't really know if the average amount spent on TV will change, we'll probably just see a smoother distribution of household spending, with some having only 1 SVOD, others having 3, others having 6, and then a declining number of households also having some kind of cable TV package. Households with more income/more people/differing tastes will tend to keep more services. But yeah, over time, most will figure out which services they like and tend to stick with them. For instance, I'm an HBO Max guy but really have no use for Disney+.

As for it being too confusing to keep multiple subscriptions, that problem can be solved by the services participating in streaming devices' aggregated content UIs (e.g. the new Google TV system), which allow them to search across services, see recommendations across services, and maintain a universal watchlist to help them keep track of what they want to watch without having to remember which app plays a particular show or movie.


----------



## SledgeHammer

NashGuy said:


> As for it being too confusing to keep multiple subscriptions, that problem can be solved by the services participating in streaming devices' aggregated content UIs (e.g. the new Google TV system), which allow them to search across services, see recommendations across services, and maintain a universal watchlist to help them keep track of what they want to watch without having to remember which app plays a particular show or movie.


That's my biggest complaint with streaming. I don't want to manage / deal with a dozen providers.

Is that Google TV thing 100% hiding the separate apps from you? From the little I can find on it, it just aggregates search / watchlists, no? You still have to go into the separate apps to watch and do stuff, correct?

That's a step closer... but not good enough if you still have to deal with separate apps. If Google can completely hide that concept from the viewer, that would be a game changer. But I can't imagine Disney, HBO, etc. being like "Yeah, sure Google, you can strip off all our branding and put our content in your generic Google app". Not gonna happen.

Sounds more like a Roku competitor.


----------



## B. Shoe

NashGuy said:


> Yep, I agree with you. As for how many streaming services folks will have (i.e. how much they're willing to pay), keep in mind that at cable TV's peak in the US (early part of last decade), about 90% of US households had it, paying an average of about $100 per month on TV. (See here and here and here.) I don't really know if the average amount spent on TV will change, we'll probably just see a smoother distribution of household spending, with some having only 1 SVOD, others having 3, others having 6, and then a declining number of households also having some kind of cable TV package. Households with more income/more people/differing tastes will tend to keep more services. But yeah, over time, most will figure out which services they like and tend to stick with them. For instance, I'm an HBO Max guy but really have no use for Disney+.


There's a lot to be said with this. We've always been paying for much more content than we'd ever actually watch, be it streaming services, cable, satellite, etc. (Unless, you're just really, really into watching TV. By all means, do your thing.) Think about it; how many linear channels do you actually watch on a regular basis? Mileage varies here, of course, but my list was 18. And some of those were fringe, at best, to describe as "regular". Would our household keep Netflix and Hulu if it wasn't for the significant other and 13-year-old? Likely not. But our budget allows it, so we keep it for the present. But this balloon of available content just seems to keep growing. Somewhere along the line, there has to be a breaking point between the amount being produced vs. what's being consumed/purchased. But that's for the general public as a whole to determine.



NashGuy said:


> As for it being too confusing to keep multiple subscriptions, that problem can be solved by the services participating in streaming devices' aggregated content UIs (e.g. the new Google TV system), which allow them to search across services, see recommendations across services, and maintain a universal watchlist to help them keep track of what they want to watch without having to remember which app plays a particular show or movie.


Yes to all of this. The concept that "having multiple subscriptions/services" is a deterrent of streaming keeps losing weight to me. Every day, people hold a miniature computer in their hands with dozens of apps that they bounce back and forth between, on the regular. They keep up with different social media accounts, and potentially upon their employment, operate multiple computer systems/programs. But trying to get back and forth between HBO Max and Netflix is too much? That dog doesn't hunt. If it's a preference, fine. People are preferential by nature. But don't say it's systematically a deterrent.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> At some point (if the government is doing its job), it won't allow any further media consolidation. But if 95% of streaming video ends up in the hands of six major competitors, I'm not sure that's a huge anti-trust problem. I mean, consumers would still have options and that would be enough competition to keep prices in check and spur product improvement. (Now that said, I do expect all these service to increase their prices somewhat over time. But if you've got five other big competitors, you can't just double your price without losing a lot of business to the competition.) Now, if things got *really* concentrated -- say if you only had three major media competitors (as is now the case in US wireless service) -- I'd find that significantly more worrisome.
> 
> Well, that was a different situation. In the early era of cable TV, distribution of the service was handled exclusively by companies that built and owned their own wired distribution networks (i.e. coaxial cable) but didn't own the actual channels they offered (which were pretty much the same regardless of the cableco). And rarely did a competitor spend the money to wire up an area where another cableco had already done it. So cable TV was originally pretty much a bunch of small companies with local monopolies (which is why they typically had to be granted permission to serve an area by a local government authority, which would monitor the cableco's rates and practices).
> 
> But then satellite TV came along and suddenly there was *some amount* of competition for cable TV service. And these days, any form of video entertainment, whether "cable TV" or direct-to-consumer on-demand (e.g. Netflix, HBO Max), can ride "over-the-top" of any internet connection, regardless of who owns the network infrastructure (AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, SpaceX, a rural fiber co-op, etc.).
> 
> So while, yes, we should be wary of TOO much concentration of power in any given industry (in this case, media), I don't see what's happening now as being analogous to the history of cable TV distribution. I mean, yes, if you just *have to have* Marvel Comics-based shows, then yes, your only choice may eventually be Disney+ for that. But that's not really a monopoly. HBO Max will gladly present you with a bunch of DC Comics content as an alternative.
> 
> I dunno, is anyone big enough to buy Netflix now? They're a $215 billion company. Disney is bigger ($306 bn) but the government would never allow them to merge. I'm very skeptical that Comcast ($249 bn) would be allowed to do so, given their power in both media (their NBCU unit) as well as the fact that they're the nation's largest broadband provider. Netflix appears completely uninterested in merging with or acquiring another smaller media company like ViacomCBS. Hastings has built his own empire apart from old Hollywood and I think he wants to remain an independent operator. But I would agree with you that Netflix's gonzo growth days are over. They're facing some real competition now.
> 
> The only companies I can see who may be big enough to buy Netflix are the big tech titans: Apple ($2.1 trillion), Amazon ($1.6 tn), Google ($1.5 tn), and Microsoft ($1.3 tn). Because of their already substantial media operations, I think Amazon and probably Google would be barred from the deal. So that leaves Apple and Microsoft. Apple has always been the one talked up as a potential Netflix buyer but so far they seem more interested in organically building their own smaller thing with Apple TV+. As for Microsoft, I dunno, seems like an odd tie-up but I guess anything's possible.
> 
> Yep, I agree with you. As for how many streaming services folks will have (i.e. how much they're willing to pay), keep in mind that at cable TV's peak in the US (early part of last decade), about 90% of US households had it, paying an average of about $100 per month on TV. (See here and here and here.) I don't really know if the average amount spent on TV will change, we'll probably just see a smoother distribution of household spending, with some having only 1 SVOD, others having 3, others having 6, and then a declining number of households also having some kind of cable TV package. Households with more income/more people/differing tastes will tend to keep more services. But yeah, over time, most will figure out which services they like and tend to stick with them. For instance, I'm an HBO Max guy but really have no use for Disney+.
> 
> As for it being too confusing to keep multiple subscriptions, that problem can be solved by the services participating in streaming devices' aggregated content UIs (e.g. the new Google TV system), which allow them to search across services, see recommendations across services, and maintain a universal watchlist to help them keep track of what they want to watch without having to remember which app plays a particular show or movie.


Just wanted to comment on Netflix. Right now, they are the king, but I really see them having issues down the road. For one, they have spend a lot of money (and from what i understand have taken on debt) for producing and bringing in content. At what point, with all the competition out there now, does that become untenable? And the competition has deep pockets. As you said, Amazon and Apple are among them and I think Google wants to be. At what point do they get leveraged? I see it happening in the next 3-5 years. If not a full on buyout, maybe they merge with someone like NBCU, or Viacom. I don't know. I don't see Apple taking that on, as it seems a bit away from their culture (though they did take on the recording industry pretty successfully). I think they probably want to make a go of Apple TV+ first.


----------



## Steveknj

SledgeHammer said:


> That's my biggest complaint with streaming. I don't want to manage / deal with a dozen providers.
> 
> Is that Google TV thing 100% hiding the separate apps from you? From the little I can find on it, it just aggregates search / watchlists, no? You still have to go into the separate apps to watch and do stuff, correct?
> 
> That's a step closer... but not good enough if you still have to deal with separate apps. If Google can completely hide that concept from the viewer, that would be a game changer. But I can't imagine Disney, HBO, etc. being like "Yeah, sure Google, you can strip off all our branding and put our content in your generic Google app". Not gonna happen.
> 
> Sounds more like a Roku competitor.


I think the idea they need to go after is that the apps are just channels. They might be getting closer to that, but there still needs to be a way you can subscribe to a bunch of them for one set fee. That I think is a long way off. Something like $80 gets you HBO Max, ATV+, Hulu, etc.


----------



## NashGuy

SledgeHammer said:


> That's my biggest complaint with streaming. I don't want to manage / deal with a dozen providers.
> 
> Is that Google TV thing 100% hiding the separate apps from you? From the little I can find on it, it just aggregates search / watchlists, no? You still have to go into the separate apps to watch and do stuff, correct?
> 
> That's a step closer... but not good enough if you still have to deal with separate apps. If Google can completely hide that concept from the viewer, that would be a game changer. But I can't imagine Disney, HBO, etc. being like "Yeah, sure Google, you can strip off all our branding and put our content in your generic Google app". Not gonna happen.
> 
> Sounds more like a Roku competitor.


Google TV is absolutely a competitor to Roku and you're right that these powerful apps will never allow their content to be completely divorced from their own apps/UIs. That's why Netflix so far won't fully participate in either Google TV or the Apple TV app (which has a similar approach and, so far anyway, still works better than Google TV). But all the other major on-demand apps do participate.

While Roku basically just presents a grid of apps, Google TV presents a row of apps plus lots of other rows of recommended content from within those apps. You're not going to see *all* the content from the underlying apps in the Google TV home screen. That would be a crazy amount of content to scroll through and not very useful to the user. So if you want to deep-dive browse what a given service offers, you'll still need to open their app and browse there. But if you want to search for a specific title, Google TV will allow you to search across many services. (Fire TV, Roku and Apple TV all do this too.) You can click on a title in the Google TV search results, the same way that you can click on a recommended title on the Google TV home screen, and you'll see Google TV's info page for that specific movie or series, showing you the different "ways to watch," i.e. apps it's available in. From there, you can click to play it in whichever app you want and the title will begin playing inside that app. You don't have to look for it again in the app, it takes you right to it and starts the playback.

You can also save titles that Google TV surfaces (via its recommendations or its search results) to a universal watchlist. So you don't need to maintain separate watchlists inside each app if you don't want to. (Except Netflix, which won't allow their original content to be included in the Google TV system.) Click on a title in the watchlist and it's info page opens and from there, you click to play it. (The underlying app should keep track of which episode you're ready for next.) For some reason, though, they don't put the watchlist near the top of the main For You tab, so you have to navigate around to get to it. A nice touch is that you can also add titles to your watchlist from within Google search results in a browser if you're signed into the same Google account as you're using on Google TV. You can even see your Google TV watchlist by searching for "my watchlist" in Google.

Google lets you tell it which apps you subscribe to, so its recommendations are mostly (but not completely) pulled from those services. It also lets you rate recommendations with a thumbs up/down and it does seem to learn your tastes pretty well so that it becomes better at surfacing stuff you'd want to watch.

For myself, and I'd think most people, an aggregated content UI like Google TV or the Apple TV app is a useful tool but it doesn't completely replace browsing within individual apps. IMO, both have their place.


----------



## harsh

I still think that carriers shouldn't be allowed to own content. Similarly, I don't think content companies should be allowed to own TV stations.

Both create a certain leverage with their customers that I don't think should exist.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I think the idea they need to go after is that the apps are just channels. They might be getting closer to that, but there still needs to be a way you can subscribe to a bunch of them for one set fee.


Industry analysts seem to think that bundling of services will be part of the next phase in the evolution of cable-to-streaming. So your broadband provider, or wireless provider, or the company running the app store on your device, may offer certain combinations of subscriptions for a reduced price. We're already seeing broadband and wireless providers offering one or more service free with their service, at least for a limited time. Like Peacock Premium free with Comcast service, Netflix free with T-Mobile, a year of the Disney bundle free with Verizon, etc.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I still think that carriers shouldn't be allowed to own content. Similarly, I don't think content companies should be allowed to own TV stations.


I agree about carriers owning content. And while the DOJ allowed it, it seems like the market has spoken pretty clearly that "vertical integration" isn't a good idea. Both AT&T and Verizon are now spinning off the media businesses they acquired. That does leave Comcast, though, with NBCU. That's actually worked OK for them but most equity analysts believe more value would be created by separating the two businesses and I expect eventually that will happen. If Comcast wants to see NBCU merge with or acquire another media company to achieve greater scale, they'd be more likely to gain DOJ approval if the deal involved spinning NBCU off, as AT&T just did for the Warner/Discovery deal.


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> I still think that carriers shouldn't be allowed to own content. Similarly, I don't think content companies should be allowed to own TV stations.
> 
> Both create a certain leverage with their customers that I don't think should exist.


I think part of the problem is defining who a carrier is of streaming. The (v)MVPD model, the carrier was who the end user interacted with. They were a middle man who aggregated content in the form of linear channels and got a cut.

In the streaming realm, the content owner can provide direct, on-demand access to their content library to an end user. No carrier needed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> OK, fine, there are a couple of exceptions to the rule. But in general, Peacock Premium has next-day access both new and returning NBC series, much the same as Hulu. (The Blacklist appears to be a special case, maybe because of its deal with Netflix. Peacock only shows five recent episodes at a time, but always lagging a week, while Hulu doesn't have the show at all unless you have their live TV add-on.) And FWIW, last Friday's episode of Dateline shows up in Peacock Premium for me right now. Although I have no idea if it appeared next-day (i.e. last Sat.).


I don't think the Blacklist thing is because of Netflix who don't have any episodes of the current season. I think it is an NBC thing because you can watch it next day on the regular NBC app with commercials you can't FF through.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> I think part of the problem is defining who a carrier is of streaming.


The reasoning is that content carriage should not be made more difficult (i.e. cost more or have unreasonable conditions imposed) just because you're a competitor in other industries (i.e. the broadband space).

If broadband companies weren't allowed to own content, I suspect that there would be a lot less fuss all the way around.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> I still think that carriers shouldn't be allowed to own content. Similarly, I don't think content companies should be allowed to own TV stations.
> 
> Both create a certain leverage with their customers that I don't think should exist.


I've been saying this for years. It's a conflict of interest. Sadly, I think that horse has left the barn. I can't see a way they can force that separation any more. But really it's been like that since the beginning of TV. RCA owned NBC so they owned a network AND a Device to deliver the network (RCA TVs were popular in the early days of TV). Philco owned but a TV manufacturing company AND a network. The potential for abuse is much worse now though (no way back in "the day" they could manufacture a TV that ONLY showed one network.)


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> The reasoning is that content carriage should not be made more difficult (i.e. cost more or have unreasonable conditions imposed) just because you're a competitor in other industries (i.e. the broadband space).
> 
> If broadband companies weren't allowed to own content, I suspect that there would be a lot less fuss all the way around.


The "problem" seems to be more of a threat that is perceived by people with a chicken little attitude than a reality.

AT&T could make it more difficult for their subscribers to access Peacock's servers to try to hurt Comcast ... but they are getting out of the content business so they will no longer be competing content company to content company. Except for zero rating data (charging data for using Peacock but not their service) it is in AT&T's best interest not to play silly games blocking or throttling other company's content.

Comcast has made it easier to get Peacock via Xfinity (discounted service and one free streaming box for each broadband subscriber) but they have not locked Peacock streaming content to "Xfinity only" or imposed any unreasonable conditions.

"Unreasonable conditions" seem to be more of a fear than reality.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> I don't think the Blacklist thing is because of Netflix who don't have any episodes of the current season. I think it is an NBC thing because you can watch it next day on the regular NBC app with commercials you can't FF through.


That makes the situation even weirder. Networks almost always have "stacking rights" to stream at least the most recent five eps of their shows wherever they want. Which is how virtually all ABC, Fox and NBC shows have at least their most five recent eps available next-day on Hulu, as well as on their own network apps. Who knows whether this is a situation where there's some weird wrinkle in the contract between NBCU and Sony (the show's distributor) or if it's just NBCU trying to protect NBC viewership at Peacock's expense. The show ranked 50th in the ratings last season, behind several other NBC series. So it's not like it's their prize property. Who knows...


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> The "problem" seems to be more of a threat that is perceived by people with a chicken little attitude than a reality.


Perhaps, but I get a nagging feeling that there must still be something to the narrow distribution of Comcast's Philadelphia and Houston sports channels (other than team performance) that is related to Comcast making greater than reasonable demands. There have also been some accusations aimed at TWC regarding the LA RSN market. It is possible that this is just sour grapes but it does make me wonder.


> AT&T could make it more difficult for their subscribers to access Peacock's servers to try to hurt Comcast ... but they are getting out of the content business so they will no longer be competing content company to content company. Except for zero rating data (charging data for using Peacock but not their service) it is in AT&T's best interest not to play silly games blocking or throttling other company's content.


I don't think this would fly in the current environment


> Comcast has made it easier to get Peacock via Xfinity (discounted service and one free streaming box for each broadband subscriber) but they have not locked Peacock streaming content to "Xfinity only" or imposed any unreasonable conditions.


Peacock Plus streaming is free for Comcast customers. It didn't coincide with a rate change, they just decided to throw it in. This would only be an issue if what NBC Universal charges Comcast is significantly less than what they might charge AT&T to be able to offer "free" Peacock and I'm not entirely convinced that isn't the case. It is also possible that AT&T wasn't interested but I think the sports channels (CSN Philly and CSN Houston) are a better example.


----------



## NashGuy

ViacomCBS could be a takeover target amid media merger frenzy, analyst says in double upgrade

"Comcast is most likely acquirer but Big Tech buyers could also be possible, according to Bank of America"

If either NBCU or ViacomCBS really want to scale up, their only option at this point is each other. If they marry, the most logical path IMO would be to imitate what Warner did with the evolution of HBO to HBO Max and do that with Showtime, which already has about 28 million subs paying for it. Create one big direct-to-consumer app that would pool all their content, i.e. all the stuff currently in Showtime, Peacock Premium, and Paramount+ Premium. Set the pricing for it (all ad-free) the same as the new price for Showtime (maybe $13/mo). Include the new app with any Showtime subscription but give the app a new brand name, emphasizing how much content it offers from so many different brands/channels/studios. Offer a cheaper version of the app with ads for a few bucks less.


----------



## phrelin

There are some things we have to keep in mind, the first of which I'll call "size." I'm going to quote Wikipedia:.

About Comcast:

It is the second-largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world by revenue (behind AT&T), the largest pay-TV company, the largest cable TV company and largest home Internet service provider in the United States, and the nation's third-largest home telephone service provider. Comcast provides services to U.S. residential and commercial customers in 40 states and in the District of Columbia. As the parent company of the international media company NBCUniversal since 2011, Comcast is a producer of feature films and television programs intended for theatrical exhibition and over-the-air and cable television broadcast, respectively.

Comcast owns and operates the Xfinity residential cable communications subsidiary, Comcast Business, a commercial services provider, Xfinity Mobile, an MVNO of Verizon, over-the-air national broadcast network channels (NBC, Telemundo, TeleXitos, and Cozi TV), multiple cable-only channels (including MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Syfy, NBCSN, Oxygen, Bravo, and E!, among others), the film studio Universal Pictures, the VOD streaming service Peacock, animation studios (DreamWorks Animation, Illumination, Universal Animation Studios) and Universal Parks & Resorts. It also has significant holdings in digital distribution, such as thePlatform, which it acquired in 2006 and ad tech company FreeWheel, which it acquired in 2014. Since October 2018, it is also the parent company of mass media pan-European company Sky Group, making it the biggest media company with more than 53 million subscribers in the U.S. and Europe.

*Revenue:* US$103.56 billion (2020)
*Total assets:* US$273.69 billion (2020)​
For comparison, let's look at the Walt Disney Company:

The company is known for its film studio division, The Walt Disney Studios, which includes Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Studios, and Searchlight Pictures. Disney's other main business units include divisions in television, broadcasting, streaming media, theme park resorts, consumer products, publishing, and international operations. Through these various segments, Disney owns and operates the ABC broadcast network; cable television networks such as Disney Channel, ESPN, Freeform, FX, and National Geographic; publishing, merchandising, music, and theater divisions; direct-to-consumer streaming services such as Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+, and Hotstar; and Disney Parks, Experiences and Products, a group of 14 theme parks, resort hotels, and cruise lines around the world.[

*Revenue:* US$65.388 billion (2020)
*Total assets:* US$201.549 billion (2020)​
By most standards these two corporations are huge.

Now let's take a look at ViacomCBS:

The company's main assets include the Paramount Pictures film and television studio, the CBS Entertainment Group (consisting of the CBS television network, television stations, and other CBS-branded assets), domestic networks (consisting of U.S.-based basic and premium-tier cable television networks including MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Comedy Central, and Showtime), international networks (consisting of international versions of domestic ViacomCBS networks as well as region-specific networks), the company's streaming services, including Paramount+ and Pluto TV, and the Simon & Schuster book publisher (sale to Penguin Random House pending in 2021).

*Revenue:* US$25.29 billion (2020)
*Total assets:* US$52.66 billion (2020)​
When I look at these numbers in the context of Comcast's NBCU merger regulatory history, I really don't see a smooth approval process for acquiring ViacomCBS. It seems like it would be a rough road even for Disney.

Handing off control of WarnerMedia to Discovery creating a combined company worth of $100+ billion forcused mostly on content is one thing. But combining Comcast and ViacomCBS would raise many red flags, maybe too many.

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## raott

Verizon apparently adding new bundles next week.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/21/verizon-t-mobile-building-digital-bundles.html


----------



## NashGuy

phrelin said:


> There are some things we have to keep in mind, the first of which I'll call "size." I'm going to quote Wikipedia:.
> 
> About Comcast:
> 
> It is the second-largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world by revenue (behind AT&T), the largest pay-TV company, the largest cable TV company and largest home Internet service provider in the United States, and the nation's third-largest home telephone service provider. Comcast provides services to U.S. residential and commercial customers in 40 states and in the District of Columbia. As the parent company of the international media company NBCUniversal since 2011, Comcast is a producer of feature films and television programs intended for theatrical exhibition and over-the-air and cable television broadcast, respectively.
> 
> Comcast owns and operates the Xfinity residential cable communications subsidiary, Comcast Business, a commercial services provider, Xfinity Mobile, an MVNO of Verizon, over-the-air national broadcast network channels (NBC, Telemundo, TeleXitos, and Cozi TV), multiple cable-only channels (including MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Syfy, NBCSN, Oxygen, Bravo, and E!, among others), the film studio Universal Pictures, the VOD streaming service Peacock, animation studios (DreamWorks Animation, Illumination, Universal Animation Studios) and Universal Parks & Resorts. It also has significant holdings in digital distribution, such as thePlatform, which it acquired in 2006 and ad tech company FreeWheel, which it acquired in 2014. Since October 2018, it is also the parent company of mass media pan-European company Sky Group, making it the biggest media company with more than 53 million subscribers in the U.S. and Europe.
> 
> *Revenue:*  US$103.56 billion (2020)
> *Total assets:* US$273.69 billion (2020)​
> For comparison, let's look at the Walt Disney Company:
> 
> The company is known for its film studio division, The Walt Disney Studios, which includes Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Studios, and Searchlight Pictures. Disney's other main business units include divisions in television, broadcasting, streaming media, theme park resorts, consumer products, publishing, and international operations. Through these various segments, Disney owns and operates the ABC broadcast network; cable television networks such as Disney Channel, ESPN, Freeform, FX, and National Geographic; publishing, merchandising, music, and theater divisions; direct-to-consumer streaming services such as Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+, and Hotstar; and Disney Parks, Experiences and Products, a group of 14 theme parks, resort hotels, and cruise lines around the world.[
> 
> *Revenue:* US$65.388 billion (2020)
> *Total assets:* US$201.549 billion (2020)​
> By most standards these two corporations are huge.
> 
> Now let's take a look at ViacomCBS:
> 
> The company's main assets include the Paramount Pictures film and television studio, the CBS Entertainment Group (consisting of the CBS television network, television stations, and other CBS-branded assets), domestic networks (consisting of U.S.-based basic and premium-tier cable television networks including MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Comedy Central, and Showtime), international networks (consisting of international versions of domestic ViacomCBS networks as well as region-specific networks), the company's streaming services, including Paramount+ and Pluto TV, and the Simon & Schuster book publisher (sale to Penguin Random House pending in 2021).
> 
> *Revenue:* US$25.29 billion (2020)
> *Total assets:* US$52.66 billion (2020)​
> When I look at these numbers in the context of Comcast's NBCU merger regulatory history, I really don't see a smooth approval process for acquiring ViacomCBS. It seems like it would be a rough road even for Disney.
> 
> Handing off control of WarnerMedia to Discovery creating a combined company worth of $100+ billion forcused mostly on content is one thing. But combining Comcast and ViacomCBS would raise many red flags, maybe too many.
> 
> Just my opinion, of course.


This chart is the handiest thing I've found when thinking about the state of the media industry and who might gobble up whom:

Here's who owns everything in the media today

Rather than revenue or total assets, as you've stated above, it shows market cap, i.e. the total market value of the corporation's outstanding stock, a measure by which Disney ($314 bn) is considerably larger than Comcast ($253 bn). And Disney is a pure media company while Comcast is part distribution (cable TV & broadband) and part media (NBCU).

I question whether Disney should have been allowed to purchase nearly all of Fox a few years ago, because that created a media behemoth over 40% larger than the now-number-two media company Netflix, with a current market cap of $222 bn. And now everyone is scrambling to scale up to be somewhere in the ball park with those two. Given how much larger Disney is than everyone else, I have to think that they would be barred from acquiring any other media company.

If the government allowed the Disney deal to go through (with a few concessions, like selling off Fox's RSNs since Disney already had such a huge sports presence with ESPN), it's hard to see how they can block smaller deals. ViacomCBS only has a market cap of about $27 bn. Adding that to Comcast's $253bn still puts the two together at only $280 bn, well behind Disney. But just as the government forced Disney to sell off the Fox RSNs, it would also force Comcast to choose between NBC and CBS and sell off (or spin off) one of the two, as they wouldn't allow one company to own more than one of the big 4 broadcast networks. (I think WarnerDiscovery would be a logical buyer for whichever network they chose to sell. Or perhaps the cast-off network and its news division would be a small standalone company, kind of like the current Fox.)

The government should not, IMO, have allowed a company like Comcast, with a business in cable TV and broadband distribution, to own a media company with a bunch of cable networks and content studios, like NBCU. But that deal sailed through. (And later, when the DOJ tried to stop a similar acquisition to happen with the AT&T/Time Warner deal, the government lost decisively at trial.) So given the precedent set, I'm not sure why they'd have a problem with Comcast/NBCU getting incrementally larger by buying ViacomCBS.

Who knows, maybe this time they'd force Comcast to spin off NBCU to merge with ViacomCBS, or maybe Comcast would voluntarily do so, as it would probably unlock greater stock market value for them as two separate companies. Back when Comcast purchased the remaining 49% of NBCU from GE in 2013, they paid $16.7 bn for it, suggesting a total value of $34.1 bn. It should be worth more now, but nowhere close to half of Comcast's $253 bn market cap. At any rate, a pure media NBCU+ViacomCBS, with one of the two broadcast networks divested, would likely have a market cap smaller than the forthcoming WarnerDiscovery (which should have a market cap north of $100 bn) and way, way less than either Disney or Netflix. (Meanwhile, here are the market caps of tech giants who dabble in media: Apple at $2.1 trillion and Amazon and Google at $1.6 trillion.)


----------



## SamC

No two companies that both own broadcast networks will ever be allowed to merge, no matter what party is in power. 

Anyway, common ownership of content production and linear distribution systems protects the consumer. Since a system wants channels from it rival linear distribution company, and v-v, outrageous demands are held in check.


----------



## NYDutch

SamC said:


> No two companies that both own broadcast networks will ever be allowed to merge, no matter what party is in power.
> 
> Anyway, common ownership of content production and linear distribution systems protects the consumer. Since a system wants channels from it rival linear distribution company, and v-v, outrageous demands are held in check.


So companies like Dish and smaller cable systems that don't own any content production have nothing to worry about? Really?


----------



## NashGuy

SamC said:


> No two companies that both own broadcast networks will ever be allowed to merge, no matter what party is in power.


I don't see any reason why NBCU and ViacomCBS wouldn't be allowed to merge on the condition that they divest either NBC or CBS, including their news division and O&O local stations. That sort of remedy is typical in mergers like this.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

NashGuy said:


> I don't see any reason why NBCU and ViacomCBS wouldn't be allowed to merge on the condition that they divest either NBC or CBS, including their news division and O&O local stations. That sort of remedy is typical in mergers like this.


Arguably, the main value of ViacomCBS is CBS over Viacom. Prior to ViacomCBS re-merging, YouTubeTV and Hulu Live had CBS but could skip out on the Viacom channels. The Viacom channels were less essential and only now propped up by the CBS side.

I don't think Comcast would have interest in merging to just acquire Viacom junk like MTV and TV Land, and then have to divest CBS and all the owned stations. I don't read the Warner deal with Discovery much like an NBC and CBS tie up, which would face higher opposition and logistically difficult. I also don't see a scenario where Comcast dumps NBCUniversal or NBC Universal are split in the near future.


----------



## NYDutch

"AT&T will pay Discovery a $1.77 billion breakup fee if it backs out of its deal to sell off its WarnerMedia segment, according to a Plan of Merger filed on Thursday."

"If Discovery backs out of the deal, it will owe AT&T a breakup fee of $720 million. The terms were disclosed in a filing on Thursday. If regulators kill the deal, no party will have to pay a breakup fee. The deal is expected to close by mid-2022."

AT&T Owes $1.8 Billion Breakup Fee in WarnerMedia/Discovery Deal - Variety


----------



## SamC

NashGuy said:


> I don't see any reason why NBCU and ViacomCBS wouldn't be allowed to merge on the condition that they divest either NBC or CBS, including their news division and O&O local stations. That sort of remedy is typical in mergers like this.


Well, yeah, but that is really not a merger, now is it? And there are not a lot of companies out there that do not own an OTA network who would have the $$ and the industry experience to buy one.


----------



## inkahauts

NashGuy said:


> I don't see any reason why NBCU and ViacomCBS wouldn't be allowed to merge on the condition that they divest either NBC or CBS, including their news division and O&O local stations. That sort of remedy is typical in mergers like this.


 CBS would never go for that, they just got back together with Viacom.


----------



## NashGuy

SamC said:


> Well, yeah, but that is really not a merger, now is it? And there are not a lot of companies out there that do not own an OTA network who would have the $$ and the industry experience to buy one.


Was it a merger when Disney purchased most of Fox, but the government forced Disney to divest the Fox Sports RSNs as a condition of the merger since Disney already had so much of the cable sports market with their ESPN channels? Of course it was.

Complicated deals happen all the time. I'm not saying that NBCU and ViacomCBS *will* merge but if they do, the resulting company likely won't be allowed by the government to own both broadcast networks. But it would still be a significant deal if one company ended up with two major film and TV studios (Universal and Paramount), two middling streaming services (Peacock and Paramount+), plus Showtime, all the Viacom cable channels (Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.), all the NBCU cable channels (USA, Bravo, SyFy, etc.) plus either NBC or CBS, along with their news division and O&O local stations in major markets.

Whichever network got spun off, whether NBC or CBS, might end up as a small standalone company, as Fox has done after selling their studios and most of their cable channels. Or it might be acquired by Warner/Discovery. It's also possible, though IMO unlikely, that Amazon or Apple might acquire the spun-off network.


----------



## NashGuy

rnbmusicfan said:


> Arguably, the main value of ViacomCBS is CBS over Viacom. Prior to ViacomCBS re-merging, YouTubeTV and Hulu Live had CBS but could skip out on the Viacom channels. The Viacom channels were less essential and only now propped up by the CBS side.


But keep in mind that ViacomCBS also includes the Paramount film and TV studios, which have a huge back catalog of thousands of hours of content (along with the ability to churn out future hit movies and shows). And that's what you need to be a successful global direct-to-consumer streaming service. ViacomCBS also owns Showtime, whose premium library could add a bit of prestige appeal to a hypothetical new super-streamer. (Some wonder why Showtime hasn't already been absorbed into Paramount+ the way that HBO was absorbed into HBO Max.)


----------



## NashGuy

inkahauts said:


> CBS would never go for that, they just got back together with Viacom.


Honestly, it really comes down to what Shari Redstone decides. She has to decide whether to try to further build ViacomCBS (which was formed by the merger of two companies her family already controlled separately, CBS and Viacom) or sell it off, possibly in parts.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/12/shari-redstone-now-fully-controls-the-fate-of-viacomcbs.html


----------



## harsh

NYDutch said:


> "AT&T will pay Discovery a $1.77 billion breakup fee if it backs out of its deal to sell off its WarnerMedia segment, according to a Plan of Merger filed on Thursday."


AT&T's Time-Warner merger jilting penalty was set at $1.7 billion.

This certainly measures AT&T's commitment to relieving themselves of WarnerMedia. Add to that the fact that Discovery's decidedly minority (29%) investment is enabling them to appoint six of the thirteen Board members (to include the CEO). AT&T gets to pick seven and appoint one of those the Chairman.


----------



## wmb

inkahauts said:


> CBS would never go for that, they just got back together with Viacom.


Sounds like Westinghouse got the band back together.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rnbmusicfan

NashGuy said:


> Was it a merger when Disney purchased most of Fox, but the government forced Disney to divest the Fox Sports RSNs as a condition of the merger since Disney already had so much of the cable sports market with their ESPN channels? Of course it was.
> 
> Complicated deals happen all the time. I'm not saying that NBCU and ViacomCBS *will* merge but if they do, the resulting company likely won't be allowed by the government to own both broadcast networks. But it would still be a significant deal if one company ended up with two major film and TV studios (Universal and Paramount), two middling streaming services (Peacock and Paramount+), plus Showtime, all the Viacom cable channels (Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.), all the NBCU cable channels (USA, Bravo, SyFy, etc.) plus either NBC or CBS, along with their news division and O&O local stations in major markets.
> 
> Whichever network got spun off, whether NBC or CBS, might end up as a small standalone company, as Fox has done after selling their studios and most of their cable channels. Or it might be acquired by Warner/Discovery. It's also possible, though IMO unlikely, that Amazon or Apple might acquire the spun-off network.


If Comcast wanted Viacom for just increasing its content and boost its streaming service (which I don't even think is it's primary MO), it would have made more sense to buy out Viacom prior to CBS and Viacom merging again. Either of the two (Comcast or ViacomCBS) could buy out smaller untied media companies, with less regulatory issues, if wanted.

When I read articles that HBO and Discovery are rivals or combined, they make a better rival company to Netflix, I pause. The two didn't compete in any ways and combining reality TV content with HBO perhaps in one streaming service doesn't make a better streaming service. I wonder how it is more profitable if HBO subscription was $15, and Discovery $7, combining the two and charging less per subscriber, makes it a better option (or is more profitable for Discovery HBO) over Peacock or another streaming provider, that has totally different content.

Just look at Netflix's history also. It started from nowhere. These media companies merging doesn't prevent a new Netflix, or a new service like even something small like CuriosityStream - that actually is a more direct competitor to Discovery than HBO, from arising as well.


----------



## Claude A Greiner

Looks like Dish may be loosing the discovery channels soon 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

rnbmusicfan said:


> If Comcast wanted Viacom for just increasing its content and boost its streaming service (which I don't even think is it's primary MO), it would have made more sense to buy out Viacom prior to CBS and Viacom merging again. Either of the two (Comcast or ViacomCBS) could buy out smaller untied media companies, with less regulatory issues, if wanted.


Well, given the controlling interest that National Amusements (i.e. the Redstone family) had in both Viacom and CBS, Comcast would have had to make a deal with them to buy just Viacom. But it didn't appear that that was something that Shari Redstone, or her ailing father Sumner (who died last summer), wanted. Instead, the thinking in the Redstone/CBS/Viacom circles appeared to have been "We need to scale up," not sell off and strip down. And the biggest, easiest step in scaling up was re-combining Viacom and CBS, given the Redstones' controlling interest in both. Actually, just before the Viacom/CBS deal transpired, CBS had also made an unsolicited (and unaccepted) bid to purchase Starz from Lionsgate, and insider chatter after the deal was struck was that the united company would be on the move for further deals to get bigger. So back in 2019, when Viacom and CBS announced they would reunite, I don't think there would have been a willingness to sell off just Viacom to Comcast/NBCU.

Meanwhile, Comcast/NBCU wouldn't have felt the same degree of pressure to further scale up back in 2019 that they might today, in the wake of the Warner/Discovery deal. The chess board looks different now. The options are shrinking. Discovery would have been a logical target for either Comcast/NBCU or ViacomCBS. But now it's unavailable after the surprise deal with Warner. And Sony Pictures, another mid-size player seemingly ripe for a deal, is suddenly less interesting after just striking a new long-term output deal with Netflix for exclusive pay-1 window rights to their upcoming theatrical films. (So if, say, ViacomCBS merged with Sony, they still couldn't put Sony's upcoming theatrical movies on Paramount+ or Showtime because they're already committed to Netflix.) Lastly, MGM looks like it's about to get snatched up by Amazon for around $9 billion.

So what does that leave? Just little Lionsgate/Starz (market cap of about $3.8 bn) and AMC (about $2.2 bn). Well, there's also what remains of Fox (which owns little content now, just the broadcast network, Fox News, and their three cable sports nets), worth about $21.5 bn. But Fox is not an attractive or plausible partner for either Comcast/NBCU or ViacomCBS for a variety of reasons. So I keep coming back to some kind of deal between Comcast/NBCU and ViacomCBS. Because if either of them really hope to scale up and become a major global player in the streaming wars, their only option may be each other. Well, that's not the *only* option. We can imagine other tie-ups that seem less plausible, such as Apple or Amazon buying either of them. Or possibly WarnerDiscovery merging with either. Although in all those scenarios, a deal with NBCU would almost certainly require Comcast spinning it off.



rnbmusicfan said:


> When I read articles that HBO and Discovery are rivals or combined, they make a better rival company to Netflix, I pause. The two didn't compete in any ways and combining reality TV content with HBO perhaps in one streaming service doesn't make a better streaming service. I wonder how it is more profitable if HBO subscription was $15, and Discovery $7, combining the two and charging less per subscriber, makes it a better option (or is more profitable for Discovery HBO) over Peacock or another streaming provider, that has totally different content.
> 
> Just look at Netflix's history also. It started from nowhere. These media companies merging doesn't prevent a new Netflix, or a new service like even something small like CuriosityStream - that actually is a more direct competitor to Discovery than HBO, from arising as well.


Yes, look at Netflix. What they did is take on a lot of debt at first to license, and increasingly produce, a lot of content sold to subscribers at a loss for years before they got enough subscribers globally to be profitable. They had the first-mover advantage in the world of streaming and now they're an entrenched leader in the space.

So, no, it's not immediately more profitable for Warner and Discovery to pool all their stuff into HBO Max still at $15, or two services bundled at a discount for maybe $19, versus selling them separately at full price ($15 + $7). But it's what they must do if they want to compete with Netflix, which has many more hours of content than HBO Max with a lower average price. It's the same reason that HBO absorbed lots more content, and a greater variety of content, to morph into HBO Max, yet didn't raise their price above the $15 level HBO had charged. So how is HBO Max more profitable than the old HBO? It's not, at least not yet anyway. Price is the same but their content costs have gone up. But if it can get enough additional subscribers around the world than HBO alone would've gotten, then yes, it will be more profitable because those additional subscribers will more than offset the investment in all the additional content. This is the game that Netflix invented and it's what everyone else must do if they want a chance to succeed as a major direct-to-consumer streaming service.

You're right that Discovery and HBO don't really compete in terms of the sort of content offered. But if the goal is to build a big service, with lots of hours of content, and something for everyone, then they're a good match, because they complement each other. And the sort of reality/lifestyle/documentary content Discovery does is relatively cheap to produce. So while Warner brings the buzzed-about appointment TV, the Discovery side will furnish a lot of empty-calorie comfort-food TV that's easy to watch and can even be enjoyed in the background while doing something else.

As far as another new DTC streaming competitor emerging to challenge the current competitors, it seems unlikely. The barriers to entry are high: you need a LOT of cash that can be spent to acquire a ton of content, and market the service to get a LOT of subscribers around the world. And there is only room for so many such big, broad services that can co-exist because consumers will only subscribe to so many of them at the same time. The window is starting to close and we'll known who the survivors are by 2025, if not sooner.


----------



## NashGuy

Claude A Greiner said:


> Looks like Dish may be loosing the discovery channels soon


Nah. DISH never lost Warner's basic cable Turner nets, so why would they lose the Discovery nets? Also, DISH has been testing HBO and Cinemax channels recently on their sats, so it looks like they may finally soon return after being gone over two years.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Nah. DISH never lost Warner's basic cable Turner nets, so why would they lose the Discovery nets? Also, DISH has been testing HBO and Cinemax channels recently on their sats, so it looks like they may finally soon return after being gone over two years.


Exactly. It appears that HBO is returning to DISH. One shouldn't use the WarnerMedia/Discovery deal to speculate that channels will be lost.


----------



## Claude A Greiner

NashGuy said:


> Nah. DISH never lost Warner's basic cable Turner nets, so why would they lose the Discovery nets? Also, DISH has been testing HBO and Cinemax channels recently on their sats, so it looks like they may finally soon return after being gone over two years.


But it's been gone so long, the damage has already been done.

Anyone wanting HBO, either subscribes to HBO streaming service or has switched providers.

I don't see HBO offering Dish a lower price to come back, and I don't see Charlie paying a higher price considering what I just said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Claude A Greiner said:


> But it's been gone so long, the damage has already been done.
> 
> Anyone wanting HBO, either subscribes to HBO streaming service or has switched providers.
> 
> I don't see HBO offering Dish a lower price to come back, and I don't see Charlie paying a higher price considering what I just said.


And yet several HBO/Cinemax channels were uplinked for testing on May 12th.
4 HBO channels and 2 Cinemax channels via Satellite - 3 more linear HBO/Cinemax channels via linear streaming integrated in the guide (all 9 in HD).
DISH will also have all 9 channels in SD via linear streaming integrated in the guide (good for rain fade backup).

No, unless additional channels are uplinked it won't be the same packages that were removed 11/1/2018, but the signs are positive for a return.
The issue in 2018 was not the price HBO requested it was the minimum number of subscribers HBO wanted DISH to provide.
Remove that sticking point and Mr Ergen could be paying the same price as HBO requested in 2018.

In any case, the eventual merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery will not immediately change each company's contracts with DISH. There is no reason to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the continuance of Discovery channels on DISH.


----------



## NashGuy

John Malone, who owns a big stake in Discovery, confirms that Comcast/NBCU wanted to acquire Warner. He leaves the door open for a future deal of some sort between Warner/Discovery and NBCU. At the very least, I'm sure they would like to renew HBO's movie output deal with Universal that expires at the end of this year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/24/joh...an-roberts-wanted-to-acquire-warnermedia.html


----------



## raott

raott said:


> Verizon apparently adding new bundles next week.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/21/verizon-t-mobile-building-digital-bundles.html


Verizon's new bundles came out a day or two ago. Unfortunately, it's not access to any more streaming services and not one I'm really interested in. Free Apple Arcade and Google Play.


----------



## NashGuy

Here's an interesting write-up pondering potential future media mergers:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/29/media-mergers-whos-next-.html

The last one proposed, Disney+AMC, is the least likely IMO (and in the author's estimation as well). Disney is huge already and shouldn't be allowed any further acquisitions. And I can't really see how buying AMC would do much for Disney overall anyhow. It might help Hulu a bit but I'm not convinced that the long-term fate of Hulu isn't to simply be absorbed into Disney+ as an adult-skewing content hub much like Star in the European version of Disney+ now.

If Comcast decides to hold onto NBCU and try to make Peacock a global streaming powerhouse without merging with ViacomCBS (or WarnerDiscovery), then they should try to acquire not just Lionsgate/Starz, as the article suggests, but also AMC Networks. And maybe the privately held media arm of Hallmark too. Because they'll need all the content they can get to scale up and compete.

The second proposed tie-up in the article, WarnerDiscovery+ViacomCBS, is an interesting one. It would give them two broadcast nets, CBS and The CW (which is currently jointly owned by those two separate companies). CBS News could be merged into CNN. (Imagine seeing the CBS eye icon as part of the CNN logo. Perhaps the CNN acronym would come to stand for "CBS News Network" instead of "Cable News Network".) I suppose Showtime would just be absorbed into HBO Max, with its subscriber base converted over. And for that matter, I guess Paramount+ would be absorbed into HBO Max too. Throw in all that Discovery+ content and, man, what a content bundle! Pluto TV might live on as the company's free ad-supported service.


----------



## techguy88

> The second proposed tie-up in the article, WarnerDiscovery+ViacomCBS, is an interesting one. It would give them two broadcast nets, CBS and The CW (which is currently jointly owned by those two separate companies). CBS News could be merged into CNN. (Imagine seeing the CBS eye icon as part of the CNN logo. Perhaps the CNN acronym would come to stand for "CBS News Network" instead of "Cable News Network".) I suppose Showtime would just be absorbed into HBO Max, with its subscriber base converted over. And for that matter, I guess Paramount+ would be absorbed into HBO Max too. Throw in all that Discovery+ content and, man, what a content bundle! Pluto TV might live on as the company's free ad-supported service.


A theoretical WarnerDiscovery+ViacomCBS is more plausible than Disney getting bigger at this point.

These areas would most likely go through without change:

*Broadcast/Over-the-air Networks*: The FCC only has a ownership cap on the 4 highest rated networks (ABC, CBS, Fox & NBC). The Big 4 can't be owned by the same company which is why Fox network went with Fox Corporation. Fox Corporation also owns MyNetworkTV (which is the 6th highest rated network and was created as a replacement for WB/UPN affiliates left out of The CW.) A merged WarnerDiscovery+ViacomCBS can fully own The CW alongside CBS since old Viacom (before the breakup) and CBS Corporation owned 100% of CBS & UPN.
*Sports*: Since CBS Sports Network is not a highly rated national sports network this combined entity could easily keep AT&T/WM's 16% stake in MLB Network, operational control over NBA TV and the 4 AT&T SportsNet RSNs. All this would do is unify the rights of March Madness under 1 company.
*News*: Since CBS News does not have a traditional linear network (unlike NBC News & MSNBC) the combined company most likely will be allowed to keep CNN, HLN & CNN International in their current form or place them under CBS News.
If Disney-Fox merger is used as a precedent then this would pass:

*Movie Studios*: The combined company should be able to own both Warner Bros & Paramount given Disney kept their studios and now owns 20th Century Fox. Paramount is smaller than 20th Century Fox before the Disney acquisition.
These areas will face scrutiny:

*Traditional linear channels*: In short WarnerMedia owns 5 entertainment channels (i.e. TBS, TNT, TCM, TruTV, Adult Swim). Discovery owns 16 English channels (i.e. Discovery, TLC, HGTV, Animal Plant, OWN, Travel and more). ViacomCBS owns over 20 channels (BET plus 5 sister networks, Comedy Central, CMT, Logo, MTV plus MTV2 and 3 more sister networks, Paramount Network, Pop TV, Smithsonian Channel, TV Land, VH1.) This is not counting their premium, kids & Spanish channels.
A merged WarnerMedia-Discovery will own 21 English entertainment channels with TBS & TNT being the most expensive outside of sports. A combined WM-Disovery & ViacomCBS would defiantly have to divest some of these as the FCC/DOJ will not allow 1 company to own over 40+ entertainment channels especially in areas where they overlap. Like either TBS (which is comedy based) or Comedy Central would have to go. Same goes for OWN & BET one needs to be divested.
The alternate option would be a requirement to force a combined WM-Discovery & ViacomCBS not to pull channels during a contract dispute instead go to arbitration through the FCC. A secondary requirement could require the combined company to keep the legacy WM networks, legacy Discovery networks & ViacomCBS networks on separate contracts with MVPDs/vMVPDs.

*Kids channels*: Disney Channel, Cartoon Network & Nickelodeon are the Big 3 of this area in terms of carriage fees & ratings. The FCC/DOJ most likely won't let 1 conglomerate own more than 1 of the Big 3 Kids Channels. WM-Discovery should have no issue keeping Cartoon Network/Boomerang and Discovery Family. However a divesture would most likely occur between Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon if a WM-Discovery & ViacomCBS merger would to occur.
*Premium Services*: HBO, Showtime & Starz are often seen as the Big 3. Given how competitive HBO & Showtime are one of these could be targeted by the DOJ to be divested.
*Streaming Services*: This could be the first mega merger to cause the DOJ to examine how competitive the overall streaming landscape is since WM owns HBO Max & Boomerang. Discovery owns discovery+. ViacomCBS owns Paramount+, Showtime, BET+, Noggin and PlutoTV.
A theoretical WM-Discovery & ViacomCBS merger involves a total 8 standalone streaming services (7 paid, 1 free). HBOMax & Paramount+/Showtime are typically grouped into the same category as competitors by the press.
WM also own Crunchyroll until the DOJ is done reviewing the Sony-AT&T deal.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> These areas will face scrutiny:


Eh, _maybe_. I can imagine that a combined Warner/Discovery/ViacomCBS would have to make some concessions, most likely with regard to their basic cable nets and how they deal with MVPDs. But I think that a lot of your take here in rooted in the past, not where media is moving, which is away from traditional cable TV and toward direct-to-consumer streaming. For instance, I don't think it would matter much to the DOJ that, in this hypothetical scenario, HBO Max might absorb Showtime and fledgling streamers Paramount+ and discovery+. Not when you consider the powerhouses that Netflix, Disney, Amazon and Google already are in streaming.

I think the concept of "premium cable services" is probably untenable in the long run. HBO is already morphing into the bigger, broader HBO Max. I think Showtime and Starz will probably both ultimately get sucked into something larger, at least on the streaming side, given their ownership by ViacomCBS and Lionsgate, respectively. Not sure how many more days little Epix has left now that its parent MGM is getting sucked into Amazon.


----------



## b4pjoe

AT&T to spin off WarnerMedia in $43 billion Discovery media merger, cuts dividend


----------



## b4pjoe

Speculation Is on Fire Around HBO Max’s Future, Planned Layoffs in Major Streaming Shake-Up


----------



## harsh

This doesn't seem to bode well for HBO or Warner Brothers.


----------



## b4pjoe

Rumors Are Swirling About The Death Of HBO Max And People Are Freaking Out About Their Favorite Shows


----------



## harsh

Does HBO offer much in the way of "favorite shows" any more? Other than John Oliver and maybe Bill Maher, I'm waiting ... and waiting... for _House of the Dragon_ before I think about subscribing again.

Their front page still has a Juneteenth reference. _9 to 5_ and _Cadillac Man_ ?!?!?!

I'm also boggled that they bill "_The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_" (2013) a "theatrical premiere". The mighty appears to have done a face plant.


----------



## b4pjoe

They have quite a bit of original programming that is probably going to go away.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> They have quite a bit of original programming that is probably going to go away.


But is this programming generally considered to be compelling or is it just keeping people employed?


----------



## b4pjoe

Over 74 million subscribers seems to like the service. They would not be subscribing if they didn't like the content.


----------



## Mike Lang

We should learn late this afternoon what's happening with HBO Max.


----------



## b4pjoe

‘Fixer Upper’ and Other Magnolia Network Shows Coming to HBO Max in September

My guess is they are moving this garbage to HBO Max to make it seem like it is not garbage.


----------



## b4pjoe

CNN Originals Hub to Debut on Discovery+ in August


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> ‘Fixer Upper’ and Other Magnolia Network Shows Coming to HBO Max in September
> 
> My guess is they are moving this garbage to HBO Max to make it seem like it is not garbage.


No, it's because Chip & Joanna Gaines had a problem with their boss at Discovery and wanted to be shifted under HBO chief Casey Bloys. And their Magnolia content is definitely higher-end and glossier than the vast majority of HGTV stuff, so it kinda sorta fits at HBO, I guess.

But I really think this is just a short-term move. Because it looks like Zaslav is taking a hatchet to HBO Max and going to whittle it way down and then stick all of it under an HBO content hub inside of Discovery+.

I'll admit, I had the results of this merger all wrong. (But so did everyone.) I saw HBO Max swallowing Discovery+. Turns out it's probably going to be the other way around. SMH...


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> And their Magnolia content is definitely higher-end and glossier than the vast majority of HGTV stuff


That is an opinion. And I disagree with it. Everything on the Magnolia Network is trash in my opinion except for the few holdovers from DIY.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> That is an opinion. And I disagree with it. Everything on the Magnolia Network is trash in my opinion except for the few holdovers from DIY.


Whether you like it or not is one thing (which I don't care about). But the production values and cost to produce most of that Magnolia content are higher than the typical HGTV (and certainly DIY) fare.


----------



## b4pjoe

Their ratings are not doing so good.

Magnolia Network (formerly known as DIY Network until January 5, 2022) is a television channel in the United States launched on September 30, 1999. Magnolia Network is currently the 67th most popular channel on TV, watched by a total number of 156,000 people (down -4% from last week) during primetime, as of the average weekly audience measurement for the period ending July 24, 2022.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Over 74 million subscribers seems to like the service. They would not be subscribing if they didn't like the content.


At this point, the reason they are subscribing may well be inertia and FOMO rather than actually watching programs on the service/plex.


----------



## b4pjoe

Warner Bros. Discovery Reports 92.1M Combined Streaming Subscribers In First Full Earnings Since Merger


The company is on a mission to find billions of dollars in cost savings.



www.hollywoodreporter.com


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Their ratings are not doing so good.
> 
> Magnolia Network (formerly known as DIY Network until January 5, 2022) is a television channel in the United States launched on September 30, 1999. Magnolia Network is currently the 67th most popular channel on TV, watched by a total number of 156,000 people (down -4% from last week) during primetime, as of the average weekly audience measurement for the period ending July 24, 2022.


Yeah, probably one reason why Zas is willing to largely allow HBO to cannibalize Magnolia, since it's not going so great as a linear channel anyhow. (Lots of cable channel packages lack it, as DIY was never a main-tier channel and Magnolia simply replaced DIY. YouTube TV doesn't have it and it's only part of an optional add-on package with Hulu Live.)


----------



## b4pjoe

Plus the world isn't so in love with Chip and Joanna Gaines like they once were. Right now about 50% of airtime on their network is old reruns of Fixer Upper. The only time I watch their network is when Maine Cabin Masters, Restoring Galveston, or Barnwood Builders is on. All holdovers from DIY.


----------



## b4pjoe

Merged HBO Max/Discovery+ Streaming Service Eyed for Summer '23


Prepare to say goodbye to HBO Max (and Discovery+).




tvline.com


----------



## NashGuy

I think the upshot of all this is that the strategy has shifted from Jason Kilar's bold vision that saw direct-to-consumer streaming as what will inevitably replace cable TV and, to some extent, theatrical movie viewing. He wanted to get on with the transformation and grow HBO Max into something that could compete head-to-head with Netflix as a global force, rapidly grow its subscriber base, and ensure it would be one of the few surviving profitable global general entertainment services left standing when the dust settles in, say, 2026.

But the new chief, David Zaslav, is nearly totally reversing that trajectory. He's pulling back, trying to play it safe, and focusing on maximizing near-term profits to pay down the huge debt load that WBD was saddled with from AT&T (which is, to some extent, understandable). He wants to protect theatrical revenue, VOD/DVD revenue, and linear cable revenue, while maximizing return on direct-to-consumer streaming by combining HBO Max and Discovery+ into a single scaled-back service that focuses on their core brands, and then also launching a FAST app featuring older "rerun" series and movies to maximize ad revenue. As he put it, he's not interested in maximizing subscribers but in maximizing profits. And he'll get there by nickel-and-diming customers and content suppliers/creators. (Consider the fact that he's trashing the completed Batgirl movie, intended to go directly to HBO Max, just to get an immediate tax write-off.)

We'll see what they end up offering us and at what price. But I'm a bit skeptical about Zaslav's prospects. It wouldn't surprise me to see this merger fail, with Warner+HBO ending up sold off to combine with parts or all of NBCUniversal and/or Paramount down the road, leaving Discovery solely focused on their declining linear cable channels and just licensing that content out to third-party streamers as they did before the launch of Discovery+.


----------



## RVD26

b4pjoe said:


> Over 74 million subscribers seems to like the service. They would not be subscribing if they didn't like the content.


I'm curious to know how many of those subscribers are like myself that get HBO Max for free either through AT&T or DirecTV?

I hardly ever watch anything on there. Any excitement I had when I first started streaming has completely disappeared. None of the new content is compelling at all and I've watched all the old stuff I want to watch already. 

I stream Discovery+ much more often so not surprising they will take over HBO Max and not the other way around. I'm just curious how long before they raise the price on Discovery+ once they do combine HBO Max.


----------



## NashGuy

RVD26 said:


> I'm curious to know how many of those subscribers are like myself that get HBO Max for free either through AT&T or DirecTV?
> 
> I hardly ever watch anything on there. Any excitement I had when I first started streaming has completely disappeared. None of the new content is compelling at all and I've watched all the old stuff I want to watch already.
> 
> I stream Discovery+ much more often so not surprising they will take over HBO Max and not the other way around. I'm just curious how long before they raise the price on Discovery+ once they do combine HBO Max.


HBO Max has way more subs than Discovery+. And both services have a fair number of folks getting it free (HBO Max from AT&T, Discovery+ from Verizon and maybe others).

They did say something about phasing in the price increase for existing D+ subs once the combination happens in order to try to retain as many of them as possible as opposed to running a ton off from sticker shock by doing the full price increase in a single month. This suggests to me that their plan really is to use D+ as the vehicle for the combined service which seems crazy to me given how many more subs HBO Max has. I guess they're going to let all those HBO Max folks fall off a cliff and just shut down that app next summer and hope as many as possible sign back up for D+ under whatever brand name it uses at that point.


----------



## b4pjoe

It does seem risky to combine both services. Existing prices with ads is $9.99 and $4.99. TOTAL: $14.98. Ad-free is $14.99 and $6.99. TOTAL: $21.98. The people that only subscribe to HBO Max, about 50 million people, might just not subscribe at all for example if they subscribe to ad free currently at $14.99 and that price is going to jump to around $21.98 per month because Discovery content is included which is not content they ever wanted. Same for people that only subscribe to Discovery+. They surely won't want to pay more for a service that has HBO if they never wanted HBO. I don't see how they will ever make the price of both services any cheaper than the combined cost right now. That would be a price reduction which is unheard of in today's world. By the time it rolls around in 2023 I can see them wanting $24.99 for the combined service. The smart thing to do would be to keep it as is but that is not what they are planning.

And what happens with the DirecTV Premier package that includes HBO Max. Would it include the new HBO/D+ combined content?


----------



## inkahauts

If he was smart.. he’d roll everything into the HBO max app, and make the price the current HBO max price and that’s it.

I’m not convinced what he is planning won’t be to do just that. Create an entirely new app that has discovery and HBO sections similar to how the max app has the dc sections for example now…. And by the time they are ready to shut down the dual apps, have everyone paying the same on both apps…. And then simply upgrade both apps to the one new unified app.

Heck they may start putting both apps content on both apps over time and then roll out a unified app.


He is foolish to run from TV movies… but I don’t actually believe he is. He said he doesn’t see the point in making theatrical budget movies for streaming. And I don’t really disagree with him on that either. 

I have a feeling his goal is to make HBO max similar to what HBO always was and was known for. High quality tv and theatrical showings. Not junky movies and tv shows with massive budgets pushed to streaming to try and increase numbers. Massive budgets only for shows like GOT….


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> It does seem risky to combine both services. Existing prices with ads is $9.99 and $4.99. TOTAL: $14.98. Ad-free is $14.99 and $6.99. TOTAL: $21.98. The people that only subscribe to HBO Max, about 50 million people, might just not subscribe at all for example if they subscribe to ad free currently at $14.99 and that price is going to jump to around $21.98 per month because Discovery content is included which is not content they ever wanted. Same for people that only subscribe to Discovery+. They surely won't want to pay more for a service that has HBO if they never wanted HBO. I don't see how they will ever make the price of both services any cheaper than the combined cost right now. That would be a price reduction which is unheard of in today's world. By the time it rolls around in 2023 I can see them wanting $24.99 for the combined service.


Nah, they're smart enough to know that such a service (something that combines the entirety of the current HBO Max and Discovery+) -- without even any live sports or news -- would get very, very few takers at price points of $14.98 with ads and $21.98 ad-free. They still must compete against the significantly more popular Netflix and Disney+ Hulu, both at lower prices.

So if they can't jack up prices significantly, how do they make the combined service more profitable?

First, they shrink the combined content library by taking a lot of the older series and movies and monetizing that stuff separately. Some of it will get licensed out to competing services (e.g. Netflix, Prime Video) but a lot of it will get placed in a new WBD FAST (free ad-supported TV) app which they'll aggressively market. FAST is the biggest growth area in streaming these days and I don't see that changing as economically pinched consumers, especially younger ones to whom all that old content is "new," don't mind watching some ads in exchange for quality content that costs nothing.

Second, they'll lower the cost basis of the new content showcased in the combined service. Zaslav says they're going to "dramatically" increase spending on HBO content. IDK, maybe that's true. But it's also true that HBO won't get theatrical movies as soon, only after they've wrung out every penny possible at the box office, and then on VOD, and then on disc. And we're also not going to see any more straight-to-streaming movies either. I also expect that there will be even less cannibalization of the basic cable nets' current content than we've seen so far (and HBO Max has been much less cannibalistic than Hulu or Peacock). Zas _thinks_ this will help prop up his cable sub numbers but I don't think it will, as cable is a lost cause at this point and the cord-cutting trend just relentlessly continues on.

So while HBO Max was conceived by Warner as their direct-to-consumer replacement for HBO plus their basic cable nets, i.e. their own little mini-bundle, Zas does not see it that way. He sees it much more as a place for relatively new content that is mostly supplemental to the basic cable bundle. Library content will largely shift elsewhere (to their FAST and/or competing SVODs and FASTs), while their basic cable nets focus on live sports, live news, and exclusive premier windows for various popular shows from Discovery personalities.

What I still don't have clarity on is whether the combined service always includes HBO or if it is instead an optional add-on. In the latter scenario, I could imagine the service marketed as "Discovery+ HBO" with the base Discovery+ tier costing maybe $5 with ads or $8 ad-free, and then always ad-free HBO costing an extra $8/mo more on top of that, for totals of $13 and $16.

But if HBO is a non-optional part of the service -- and there's really no reason to think it won't be, based on everything we're heard so far -- then I could see "HBO Discovery" costing $10 or $11 with ads in the non-HBO stuff or $16 for the whole thing ad-free.


----------



## b4pjoe

Right now both services have around 100 million subscribers. If they do indeed cannibalize HBO Max like in your example exprect that number to decrease dramatically. While their new ad-supported free version of streaming will help it will still lose overall in my opinion. HBO Max is doing pretty well the way it is. If it ain't broke don't fix it. And yet they most surely will.


----------



## James Long

Are HBO Max streaming subscribers split out separately from HBO MVPD subscribers?

I receive HBO Max as part of my DISH subscription ... I generally watch the content via the channels on DISH (which are not the complete linear lineup). DIRECTV subscribers also receive HBO Max as part of their subscription to the linear satellite channels. They may or may not ever touch the streaming content. HBO Max has been bundled with linear on other MVPDs as well.

If HBO Max is stripped of content (requiring a subscription to the new Time Warner Discovery streaming service) I may not notice (since I have streamed little content separate from the OnDemand library available via the DISH receiver). I have gone directly to HBO Max's service for some content. For subscribers like me, we may never notice any change in HBO Max as long as the major content stays (currently linear movies and produced for HBO content). Losing content I did not know I had access to is not a loss.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> Are HBO Max streaming subscribers split out separately from HBO MVPD subscribers?


I would think not. A subscriber is a subscriber no matter where they come from. The more subscribers you can claim the better. Who knows for sure though?



James Long said:


> I receive HBO Max as part of my DISH subscription ... I generally watch the content via the channels on DISH (which are not the complete linear lineup). DIRECTV subscribers also receive HBO Max as part of their subscription to the linear satellite channels. They may or may not ever touch the streaming content. HBO Max has been bundled with linear on other MVPDs as well.


I get HBO through DirecTV and am just the opposite. I exclusively watch it on the streaming app on an ATV.



James Long said:


> If HBO Max is stripped of content (requiring a subscription to the new Time Warner Discovery streaming service) I may not notice (since I have streamed little content separate from the OnDemand library available via the DISH receiver). I have gone directly to HBO Max's service for some content. For subscribers like me, we may never notice any change in HBO Max as long as the major content stays (currently linear movies and produced for HBO content). Losing content I did not know I had access to is not a loss.


Would you notice if the price goes up because they added content you don't necessarily want (Discovery+)?


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> Would you notice if the price goes up because they added content you don't necessarily want (Discovery+)?


I expect the via MVPD price to remain the same. Perhaps a minor adjustment but not a huge jump that includes additional content.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Are HBO Max streaming subscribers split out separately from HBO MVPD subscribers?
> 
> I receive HBO Max as part of my DISH subscription ... I generally watch the content via the channels on DISH (which are not the complete linear lineup). DIRECTV subscribers also receive HBO Max as part of their subscription to the linear satellite channels. They may or may not ever touch the streaming content. HBO Max has been bundled with linear on other MVPDs as well.
> 
> If HBO Max is stripped of content (requiring a subscription to the new Time Warner Discovery streaming service) I may not notice (since I have streamed little content separate from the OnDemand library available via the DISH receiver). I have gone directly to HBO Max's service for some content. For subscribers like me, we may never notice any change in HBO Max as long as the major content stays (currently linear movies and produced for HBO content). Losing content I did not know I had access to is not a loss.


At this point, an HBO subscription through any MVPD includes access to the HBO Max app at no additional cost. (In this way, HBO Max replaced the old HBO Go app.) So yes, when they report HBO Max sub numbers, they're including all HBO subs, regardless of how they subscribe, whom they pay through, and whether they've even downloaded the app. Unless you're getting a special deal (e.g. free access via select AT&T plans), you're paying $15/mo for fully ad-free HBO/HBO Max regardless. (Although folks who sign up via the app/website, as opposed to via an MVPD, can pay $10/mo for HBO Max with ads in the non-HBO stuff while the HBO content is still completely ad-free.)

You're missing quite a bit of great content from HBO Max if you only watch HBO linear, which does not feature those Max Originals like Hacks, The Flight Attendant, The Staircase, Peacemaker, Minx, Our Flag Means Death, The Tourist, etc. But you're right that there are still a good number, I'm sure, of HBO MVPD subs who only watch via the linear cable channels and its related VOD platform. So for those folks, all this is much ado about nothing. They may actually even see _more_ new content appear on the HBO linear channels they watch if, as I suspect, some of that money flowing into Max Originals gets diverted into a bigger slate of HBO Originals.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> I expect the via MVPD price to remain the same. Perhaps a minor adjustment but not a huge jump that includes additional content.


Yes, my guess is that HBO via MPVD might go up a buck, to a regular $16/mo, and include a completely ad-free version of the forthcoming HBO Discovery app, just as it currently includes the completely ad-free version of HBO Max. But I also suspect that WBD may have to go back to all those MVPDs and amend their contracts given that they state that HBO comes with HBO Max and all signs point to WBD shutting down the HBO Max app and evolving Discovery+ into the combined HBO Discovery service which would presumably be included with an HBO MVPD subscription at no extra cost.


----------

