Comcast Weighs Pulling Some Content From Hulu in Effort to Boost Peacock

S

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
2,454
885
Sorry, how does any of that explain how streaming is ever going to make money?

Newsflash. EVERYONE who wants streaming currently has streaming. And streaming is paying more for content than it takes in. That simple.

As to your rant.

I'm not out to save money. Life is too short. I, like most consumers, use streaming as a supplement.

False. The majority of "live TV" content remains on linear TV.

Yes, this is bad. Now, to get everything, one must pay for 8 or 10 services. Bundling protects the consumer.

Depending on one's particular internet set up. But the millions of people with bad internet, or no internet, they don't matter. Fly over people.

Incorrect. Unless you watch every single thing on a particular service, you are, just like everyone else, paying for content you don't want. In linear TV, you are paying a little because it is spread out across millions of customers and the consumer is protected. With streaming, you are paying a lot, and the consumer is unprotected. But with either, you are paying for things you don't watch.

See above. Unless you can get billed by the show, nope.

And SOME MNF games were on ESPN+ , some were not. I enjoyed ALL of them, because life is too short. I'm down a few pennies. At the end of the day, it won't matter how much money I have in my bank account. You show em.
 
meStevo

meStevo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Aug 20, 2004
16,610
13,706
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
EVERYONE who wants streaming currently has streaming.

I mean, given you were saying this about Sunday Ticket to people who in that very thread wanted it but didn't want DirecTV says a lot about the veracity of the bulk of your arguments, especially with all this 'life is short' and painting people saving thousands a year and still getting most if not all of what they want to watch as 'saving pennies' :oldlaugh

Even when you have since been corrected after 50+ posts proclaiming Sunday Ticket would not be available a la carte you still doubt or disagree with that when it's one of the few concrete things we know about the new deal. It's clear you are living in some kind of bubble where you are picking and choosing facts to believe at this point.
 
Y

Yespage

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Feb 27, 2010
14,980
14,388
Ohio
Paramount+ has a head-start on Peacock and is already at 47 million paid subscribers, it has been reported that most of Peacock’s subs are the freebies.

As for if any of those companies merging, I have a friend that works at Netflix that gives me all the inside info, the only company right now that wants to do any buying for entertainment is Amazon, they have tons of cash, a great cash to debt ratio, so no issues getting any deal financed, they already bought MGM, part of NFL Media, TNF and is about to toss 2-3 billion for Sunday Ticket.

The Discovery/Warner deal is the exception since Discovery is getting a great deal because AT&T is really hurting right now and needs money, Cash on hand is only $20 Billion while long term debt ( a lot is coming due soon) is a whopper $155 Billion, that is a real bad cash to debt ratio, specially since AT&T’s net income for the twelve months ending September 30, 2021 was $944M, a 91.39% decline year-over-year.



Hulu is actually gaining subs still, up to 43 million and even if Disney did merge the two, what do they do with Hulu Live, which just gained more subscribers, they are at a tad above 4 million, so half what Dish Network’s Sat Service has and they have been offering a Live TV Service for about 3 years vs the 20+ years of Dish Network

Disney always wanted a Cable TV service, maybe they want to try it with with Hulu Live, I cannot see why of course, since everything has been moving to a every company has their own paid app service.
Man, remember when studios just got paid by Netflix to show the content, meaning these studios were making money on the distribution, because they didn't have to be responsible for any of it? They just got the check in the mail from Netflix.

Now we are seeing studios losing money trying to out-Netflix Netflix... but Netflix only worked because everyone went there. Now it is fragmented, costs more... and no one is really making money.

Corporations, watch us make a great thing (Netflix programming and distribution model) turn into something that sucks for them and the customer!
 
Bruce

Bruce

Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
9,906
11,122
Man, remember when studios just got paid by Netflix to show the content, meaning these studios were making money on the distribution, because they didn't have to be responsible for any of it? They just got the check in the mail from Netflix.

Now we are seeing studios losing money trying to out-Netflix Netflix... but Netflix only worked because everyone went there. Now it is fragmented, costs more... and no one is really making money.

Corporations, watch us make a great thing (Netflix programming and distribution model) turn into something that sucks!
Actually back then, Netflix was losing tons of money, it was only when they started having original content the road to profitability started.

And today, some of the streaming services will do the same, Disney I have no doubt, Paramount+ is the surprise, they gain 7 million new subscribers every quarter.

Some will not make it, actually the worse one now is Warner/Discovery, while they have streaming, they still have Cable Channels-Discovery, Food Network, CNN, TNT, TBS, etc, , advertising dead right now, per sub fees is down about 32% because of people leaving, 50 Billion in debt, losing 2-3 billion more every quarter, interest and bond payments due and only about 2 billion left in cash.

All those investment insider things I get say they will be lucky to avoid bankruptcy this year.
 
N

NashGuy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 24, 2009
1,372
710
Nashville, TN USA
Yes that nice.

What, exactly needs to happen for streaming to actually make money?
I'd tell you to look at Netflix, which is actually making money now after several years of losses. What did they do? They built up a big library of varied content appealing to lots of different tastes that helped attract and retain subscribers. And they distributed globally, not only marketing in other countries but also producing content appealing to local tastes.

All of these streaming services, when they launched, admitted that they would lose millions each year for several years before becoming profitable, just as Netflix did.

But Netflix had the first-mover advantage. They were able to get a lot of folks to stump up a little more each money for Netflix as an add-on to cable TV, similar to HBO. And then, of course, they also attracted all those cord-cutters who were happy to use Netflix as a skinny, cheap replacement for cable TV.

It seems to me, though, that in order for these other later streaming services to become profitable, it's going to require more and more folks to drop cable TV and shift some of those subscription dollars over to them instead. There probably aren't enough households willing to spend $70+ on cable TV and then also pay for four or five streaming services too.

I'm not sure how important profitability is for Prime Video or Apple TV+, given that those services are relatively minor parts of much larger, highly profitable companies. To the extent that those companies see their streaming services as cost centers that somehow support the larger business, then fine.

So that leaves us with the other four: Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal, and Paramount. And all four of them make money on traditional broadcast and cable TV networks, a business which I earlier stated will likely need to further erode in order for their streaming services to ultimately survive. Which puts them in a tricky position. All of them already let their streaming services cannibalize content from their linear networks to some extent. I think they should fully embrace that trend, so that eventually their DTC app includes their live cable channels while, on the other hand, a subscription to a cable package with their live channels automatically includes their DTC app.

Another problem they face is that there are just too many of them, too much competition. So among those four, we'll see a merger and/or a drop-out from the streaming race. Instead of four global DTC streaming services from these studios, we'll probably end up with just two, joining Netflix, Prime Video and Apple TV+ as the long-term survivors. That shake-out should happen in the next couple years...
 
Bruce

Bruce

Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
9,906
11,122
Sorry, how does any of that explain how streaming is ever going to make money?
As they gain subscribers, profit will come, worked for Netflix, how is AT&T going to get back the $50 Billion that DirecTV has lost?
Newsflash. EVERYONE who wants streaming currently has streaming. And streaming is paying more for content than it takes in. That simple.
And the gains Streaming Services get that are reported every quarter do not exist.

Netflix had a net gain of 9 million in 2022, so obviously not everyone, Paramount+ gains 7 million every quarter, where are those coming from if everyone that wants it has it.
As to your rant.

I'm not out to save money. Life is too short. I, like most consumers, use streaming as a supplement.
I prefer not wasting my money and investing, I am 56, retired at 52, house is paid for, cars, never have to worry unless the economy craters, but then everyone is screwed .

By being careful has allowed me the above, considering I grew up extremely poor, I am extra proud of the above.
False. The majority of "live TV" content remains on linear TV.
True, the majority of content on Live TV Channels are also on streaming services, CBS and all other Viacom Cable Channels on Paramount+, NBC and Universal owned Cable Channels on Peacock, ABC , Fox and all of Disney and Fox Cable Channels on Hulu and Disney+, Warner/Discovery Cable Channels on HBOMAX and Discovery, AMC+.

The only thing left is a few sporting events, like I wrote before, end of 2025 at the latest.
Yes, this is bad. Now, to get everything, one must pay for 8 or 10 services. Bundling protects the consumer.
That is the plus, you can have as many as you want or little, for example, do not get Discovery+ or AMC+ because I never watch them.
Depending on one's particular internet set up. But the millions of people with bad internet, or no internet, they don't matter. Fly over people.
The vast majority have fast enough internet, now at 90% of Households.
Incorrect. Unless you watch every single thing on a particular service, you are, just like everyone else, paying for content you don't want. In linear TV, you are paying a little because it is spread out across millions of customers and the consumer is protected.
Paying a little?

The average DirecTV monthly bill is $140, that is not a little, just because you pay $65 because you share it with your landlord definitely does not mean everyone else does.

Heck Comcast is $50-60 with just the fees added on the monthly bill of at least $70.
With streaming, you are paying a lot, and the consumer is unprotected. But with either, you are paying for things you don't watch.
How is the customer unprotected, that makes no sense, if you want just Hulu and Paramount, just get that, if you want everything get that, even if you subscribe to every on demand streaming service it is less then the average direcTV bill, and with tons more content and better quality.

And SOME MNF games were on ESPN+ , some were not. I enjoyed ALL of them, because life is too short. I'm down a few pennies. At the end of the day, it won't matter how much money I have in my bank account. You show em.
And you were saying none, then you kept going on and saying only the Manning Cast would be on ESPN+, you kept saying that over and over, even when other members were telling you were incorrect.
 
Last edited:
M

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
693
460
Mankato, MN
Peacock running another deal. This time for 29.99 for a year (so save $20)
Yes it includes ads
code is NEWYEAR23
This Code is valid January 24, 2023 – February 7, 2023
 
Bruce

Bruce

Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
9,906
11,122
Peacock running another deal. This time for 29.99 for a year (so save $20)
Yes it includes ads
code is NEWYEAR23
This Code is valid January 24, 2023 – February 7, 2023
I received a deal at $50, no commercials, a couple of months ago.

I had it for a year for $30, cancelled when that was up and received the offer a couple days later in my email, thought $50 was fair and signed back up.

With AMC+, had it for $30 for the year, that was up, cancelled, still not received a win back offer yet, it is not worth full price at all.

I constantly get win back offers for Discovery+ also, I canceled that last March when my wife passed (she loved watching Food Network), usually it is something like $1.99 for 6 months offer, no interest from me at all.
 
M

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
693
460
Mankato, MN
eh I'm on the 99 cent a month for a year
Mainly use it for WWE so if I watch something else I can deal with the commercials
 
M

MrMars

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
626
42
USA
I'm wondering how they are deriving their cost numbers? Since essentially Peacock is merely streaming already existing content and the cost of that content has already been written off against the OTA network where, exactly, are these huge numbers coming from? I can understand wanting to pull your content back in house in order to bolster your offerings library and pulling it back will result in loss of the fees being paid but in proper bookkeeping you can't write that off as a "cost". A server setup would cost a couple million, maybe, so again, where are these huge numbers coming from? Fudging?
They do have original programing that they produce just for Peacock, not sure it adds up to the figures above. None seem like they are extremely high budget shows.

The WWE/Peacock deal is roughly 200 million a year. The EPL deal is 450 million a year. They are games on NBC/USA but they are a decent amount that are exclusive to Peacock so i'm sure some of that contract is included too.

I would think they would be some internal deal for the NBC OTA shows to come out with a cost. Similar to how NBC cable channels collect fees from Comcast for their channels. I know HBO Max has pulled shows WB owns the rights too in order to cut cost, so there is some sort of cost for "owned" programing.
 
S

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
2,454
885
As they gain subscribers, profit will come, worked for Netflix, how is AT&T going to get back the $50 Billion that DirecTV has lost?
Wow. You do understand the difference between operating profit and purchase price.

AT&T overpaid for DirecTV. But DirecTV continues to make money. The overpayment is a matter for the stock market to sort out. No money was "lost".

Streaming operates at loss. That is real money. Evey day it spends more than it takes in. You, and they, have no plan for it to make money.
Netflix had a net gain of 9 million in 2022, so obviously not everyone, Paramount+ gains 7 million every quarter, where are those coming from if everyone that wants it has it.
Well why don't they have it then?

They are sitting around dumbfounded, trying to figure out how to subscribe to it?

EVERYONE who wants it, has it.
I prefer not wasting my money and investing, I am 56, retired at 52, house is paid for, cars, never have to worry unless the economy craters, but then everyone is screwed .

You show em.

I'm too busy enjoying life.

Which is why I am on this TELEVISION ENTHUAST website talking about television.

Not coupons, reusing oil filters, riding the bus, or how I really don't miss the TV shows I won't buy.

Because I have everything. Life is too short.


Majority. All. Two different concepts.

Life is too short. All, please.
The only thing left is a few sporting events, like I wrote before, end of 2025 at the latest.
And, please show me the math.

The experts say that ESPN should cost upwards of $50.

Why are they wrong and you right.

Math please.
The vast majority have fast enough internet, now at 90% of Households.
Not really, but OK. So you now understand that 10% of the country has TV needs that can only be met by DBS (same people with crap internet have crap cable).
Paying a little?
Yes. Basic business.

With linear TV, the cost of any one particular channel, or genre, is spread out among millions and millions of customers. Everyone pays a little, and a vast plethora of content is produced. With streaming, the costs are spread out across far less people.

Result. The consumer is unprotected. Eventually? Rebundling and less content.

The consumer is protected by bundling. Much more content is produced.

And cable and DBS remain awash in profit.

Unlike streaming.


 
Keith Brannen

Keith Brannen

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 2, 2006
2,128
956
Southwestern Ontario
Netflix had a net gain of 9 million in 2022, so obviously not everyone, Paramount+ gains 7 million every quarter, where are those coming from if everyone that wants it has it.

Netlix's gain of 9 million in 2022 was WORLDWIDE numbers. In the US/Canada, they lost just under a million from the previous year.

See page 10 of the following report (which was originally posted by Mr Tony):
 
Bruce

Bruce

Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
9,906
11,122
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
30,203
7,835
Moscow Russia
Wow. You do understand the difference between operating profit and purchase price.

AT&T overpaid for DirecTV. But DirecTV continues to make money. The overpayment is a matter for the stock market to sort out. No money was "lost".

Streaming operates at loss. That is real money. Evey day it spends more than it takes in. You, and they, have no plan for it to make money.

Well why don't they have it then?

They are sitting around dumbfounded, trying to figure out how to subscribe to it?

EVERYONE who wants it, has it.


You show em.

I'm too busy enjoying life.

Which is why I am on this TELEVISION ENTHUAST website talking about television.

Not coupons, reusing oil filters, riding the bus, or how I really don't miss the TV shows I won't buy.

Because I have everything. Life is too short.



Majority. All. Two different concepts.

Life is too short. All, please.

And, please show me the math.

The experts say that ESPN should cost upwards of $50.

Why are they wrong and you right.

Math please.

Not really, but OK. So you now understand that 10% of the country has TV needs that can only be met by DBS (same people with crap internet have crap cable).

Yes. Basic business.

With linear TV, the cost of any one particular channel, or genre, is spread out among millions and millions of customers. Everyone pays a little, and a vast plethora of content is produced. With streaming, the costs are spread out across far less people.

Result. The consumer is unprotected. Eventually? Rebundling and less content.

The consumer is protected by bundling. Much more content is produced.

And cable and DBS remain awash in profit.

Unlike streaming.
The reason sports hasn't switched to streaming is piracy...its a huge issue with soccer ( football) across the pond in europe...as streaming prices increase..piracy will increase..but the production costs of live sports is a tremendous expense that is easy to recoup with satellite/ cable

 
Keith Brannen

Keith Brannen

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 2, 2006
2,128
956
Southwestern Ontario
Hence why I said they had a gain of 9 million, does not matter here or elsewhere else, they have 9 million more paying for the service.
It does matter. Especially since this whole thread has been US centric, and it was in reply to another US centric post:

Newsflash. EVERYONE who wants streaming currently has streaming. And streaming is paying more for content than it takes in. That simple.
 
Bruce

Bruce

Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
9,906
11,122
The reason sports hasn't switched to streaming is piracy...its a huge issue with soccer ( football) across the pond in europe...as streaming prices increase..piracy will increase..but the production costs of live sports is a tremendous expense that is easy to recoup with satellite/ cable

Sports have been streaming for years, it is only now that some are an exclusive with streaming.
 
ncted

ncted

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,520
3,762
Durham, NC
  • Like
Reactions: dishdude
Bruce

Bruce

Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
9,906
11,122
Wow. You do understand the difference between operating profit and purchase price.

AT&T overpaid for DirecTV. But DirecTV continues to make money. The overpayment is a matter for the stock market to sort out. No money was "lost".
Ok, since AT&T bought them, show me where they have made back the $52 Billion dollars difference between then and today, net income, profit.

They still paid in real money $67 Billion dollars (including debt), so if they made 8 billion in profit the last 9 years, they are short $58 Billion.

Then if the value of company is only $15 billion as they list it in the TPG deal, $15+ 8 they made, $23 Billion, so a loss of $44 Billion, real money.
You show em.

I'm too busy enjoying life.
As am I.

I can do whatever I what, buy whatever , watch whatever i want, spend time with my dogs, go to the gym, going to Disney Hollywood in 2 weeks with my daughter to check out Galaxy Edge, play Video Games on my PS5 and XBOX X, read Omnibus’, etc, etc.

Being retired for 4 years now, only 56 this year, all I had to do was save money and invest
Which is why I am on this TELEVISION ENTHUAST website talking about television.
And I have a Television, so I am here, have a 85” Sony Z9K, also have a Optoma Laser Projector with a 165” Screen in my outside theater.

We can talk about Sound Systems next if you wish.
Not coupons, reusing oil filters, riding the bus, or how I really don't miss the TV shows I won't buy.
I have no idea why you are against saving money, by being careful we have bought 3 houses and sold 2, put 2 kids thru college, put myself thru college ( with some help from the Army), never bought a used car, but at the same time, never overspent on a new car ( until now, have a Mach E and buying a Tesla next week).

And put enough away into our investment account over 30 years that I never will have to worry.

And again, I grew up extremely poor, I appreciate money and know how to treat it properly.by not wasting it.
Because I have everything. Life is too short.
Of course you do.
The experts say that ESPN should cost upwards of $50.
Again, that price was if it became a Netflix service only, not if it is on both Traditional Providers and streaming.

Live TV Providers are down another, at least, 6 million subscribers, that is another $54 million, or $648 million on top of all the other losses they already have in per sub fees.

If you a want better example, if Live TV still had 100 million subs, instead of 68 million, that is a total of $3.456 Billion yearly they are now losing out on.
With linear TV, the cost of any one particular channel, or genre, is spread out among millions and millions of customers. Everyone pays a little, and a vast plethora of content is produced. With streaming, the costs are spread out across far less people.
Why do you want to keep spending everyone’s money and make them pay for content they do not want or never watch?

And that little adds up, when the average Cable/Sat bill is well over $100, most of the content is reruns and stuck most do not watch, glad there are alternatives.

You only pay $65 because you share your DirecTV account with your landlord, yet you want everyone else to cover the expense.

That is pretty hypocritical.
And cable and DBS remain awash in profit.
Based on how much AT&T paid for DirecTV, they are still in the red.

And look at Comcast 4th Quarter report, right in future guidance, they said profits will continue to erode due to the losses in Video Subscribers.
Unlike streaming.
Again, it will take some time, some will make profit quicker, some might take a little while, some will not make it.

But no matter how you spin it, Paid Traditional Live TV has been losing subs the last 9 years and the number of losses increases every year, 2022, at least 6 million gone, that is up, 4.5 million losses in 2021.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: meStevo
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
30,203
7,835
Moscow Russia
Well, yes and no. Ever heard of Reddit streams? ;)

Also, I've watched plenty of NFL games on Amazon, Paramount+, and Peacock so...

If you overprice it..people will more likely steal it..with directv sunday ticket was discounted on a service they paid for..with streaming..its full price on bundled with a bunch of non sports channels which may or may not interest people...with my example of extremly popular european soccer ( nfl would be our closest sports equivalent).. more people steal than pay the extremely high price for it...law enforcement concentrates on breaking up illegal streaming operations instead of routine crimes...it will be fun to see how this shakes out....analog cable theft in the 80s and 90s was common but digital cable put the kabosh on it..streaming is much harder to control
 

Similar threads

E
Replies
1
Views
512
Bruce
Bruce
M
Replies
1
Views
283
Mr Tony
M
M
Replies
23
Views
2K
navychop
navychop
M
Replies
1
Views
395
NashGuy
N
Scott Greczkowski
Replies
3
Views
631
Bruce
Bruce

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 61)

  • ncted
  • zoomer
  • Wescopc
  • pamajestic
  • Yespage
  • Don in CT
  • Art7220
  • SamCdbs
  • djont57
  • long dog
  • TNGuy84
  • plw
  • phlatwound
  • brice52
  • Howard Simmons
  • DRCars
  • Elsguy
  • catamount
  • Keith Brannen
  • NashGuy
  • Bruce
  • Mr Tony
  • Bobby
  • klang
  • meStevo
  • thomasjk
  • zippyfrog
  • dishdude
  • Juan
  • TheKrell
  • LEEHRAT
  • ibanez_ax
  • dfergie
  • lparsons21
  • KAB
  • evetsmc
  • mwdxer1
  • jimgoe
  • jwestpfahl
  • mc6809e
  • MrMars
  • llokey
  • Ronnie-
  • jwill
  • dperez
  • johnr475
  • WALLYWOMBAT
  • TVEngineerArk
  • clucas
  • worstman1
  • glrush
  • DS0816
  • satjay
  • Radioguy41
  • forecheck
  • harshness
  • primestar31
  • Rolling Joe
  • FTA4PA
  • TazMan258
  • metzmda
Top