When is the last time DirecTV added a new channel?

You can't "liquidate" Directv. The asset value would be pretty low - far lower than its value as a going concern. It still generates $4 billion profit per year.
Oh I am fairly certain they can find a way to liquidate it. I know some people that could liquidate a kids lemonade stand
 
I have never heard of someone liquidating a profitable company. You might sell a company that has lessening profits, but not shut it down.
 
If one of those Private Equity Firms only bought a minority stake in it what parts of DTV would they own? Could they sell those parts just owning a minority stake?
 
Last edited:
Wall Street has the "analysists" who get hot and cold on, among other things, societal trends. Right now they are convinced that the race to the bottom that is cord-cutting is going to eventually become near universal. For a listed company like AT&T they have to answer to this crew, and thus DirecTV has become a "bad asset" despite MAKING $4B/YEAR.

Private equity is just that, private. It will buy the system and continue to rake in the $$ for decades to come. Eventually these "analysists" will start reading some other crowd's blog and the PE outfit will again float DirecTV on the market and it will reap the rewards.

As to the idea that PE only buys things to "liquidate" them, no. Yes that does happen, but it is a small part of what PE does. In any case, the liquidation value of DirecTV is darn near zero. Some satellites that may or may not be able to do some other thing. On Earth, boxes that would no longer work, having no signals to receive. A few trucks and some office furniture. About it.

As to the DISH DirecTV merger, it will never happen. The two companies market segments and marketing theories are totally different.
 
How many different Retro channels do you need ?
Heh. Well, I guess that depends on how many different old shows you like. Each of those channels has different ones. Walker, Texas Ranger on this one, Alice on that one, MASH on another one. Some of those classic (and not-so-classic) old shows are available on various streaming services but a lot still aren't.
 
The new owners can't afford to run it into the ground. AT&T can lose $30 billion and not miss a beat. The new owners have to be more savvy and protect their investment.

As for how many retro channels I need, I would be satisfied with eight. Don't forget, they are all for free.
The new owners will take it over as its makes money ... they have no desire to improve it ... (as much as I'd like to see that )

As for channels, I'd be happy if I could get my 4 local channels with the OTA antenna ... currently I cannot get my local Fox station OTA.
Heh. Well, I guess that depends on how many different old shows you like. Each of those channels has different ones. Walker, Texas Ranger on this one, Alice on that one, MASH on another one. Some of those classic (and not-so-classic) old shows are available on various streaming services but a lot still aren't.
Then I guess that is why they have 70 different streaming services, so everyone can charge whatever they want and shows can be scattered all over the place ... thats the best thing that could happen for Sat and Cable ... eventually people will get tired of having to have this service to watch that show and another for another show and yet another for something else and they will go back to where you can get them all at one place.
 
Then I guess that is why they have 70 different streaming services, so everyone can charge whatever they want and shows can be scattered all over the place ... thats the best thing that could happen for Sat and Cable ... eventually people will get tired of having to have this service to watch that show and another for another show and yet another for something else and they will go back to where you can get them all at one place.
LOL, that will never happen. First off, a lot of new content is *only* available from streaming services, not on any cable channels at all. Second, while you might complain about content being scattered across multiple streaming services, I see it as giving consumers options. If you only want to spend a little money (say, somewhere between $5 and $15), you can just subscribe to a single paid service at a time and switch them out on a monthly basis since you're only committed for that long. Or, if you like, you can spend a lot of money and subscribe to lots, or even all, of the various streaming services. And using an aggregated UI, like the TV app on Apple TV, or the Google TV software on the new Chromecast, helps you search, browse, and keep track of content across lots of different services at once.

The main thing that's keeping cable TV afloat any more is the live sports content that is exclusive to it. That and simple inertia/familiarity. But with each passing year, cable TV will have fewer and fewer subscribers while subscription streaming services continue to grow.
 
LOL, that will never happen. First off, a lot of new content is *only* available from streaming services, not on any cable channels at all. Second, while you might complain about content being scattered across multiple streaming services, I see it as giving consumers options. If you only want to spend a little money (say, somewhere between $5 and $15), you can just subscribe to a single paid service at a time and switch them out on a monthly basis since you're only committed for that long. Or, if you like, you can spend a lot of money and subscribe to lots, or even all, of the various streaming services. And using an aggregated UI, like the TV app on Apple TV, or the Google TV software on the new Chromecast, helps you search, browse, and keep track of content across lots of different services at once.

The main thing that's keeping cable TV afloat any more is the live sports content that is exclusive to it. That and simple inertia/familiarity. But with each passing year, cable TV will have fewer and fewer subscribers while subscription streaming services continue to grow.
They still have some new shows on cable.
 
That psychic hotline channel sounds like one of those that they are paid to carry, like the shopping channels. Presumably the business model is that they'll find enough suckers to make enough money to pay their "psychics", pay off Directv, and still have profit left over. Basically a 24x7 infomercial channel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MitchDeerfield
The Diginets also pay to be carried, not with cash but with barter advertising for DirecTV. No one at AT&T has really cared about DirecTV for a couple of years, just how to get rid of it.

Dish sent me a letter yesterday offering me a $400 Visa Gift Card to sign a two year contract with them, so DTV should up its game.
 
The Diginets also pay to be carried, not with cash but with barter advertising for DirecTV. No one at AT&T has really cared about DirecTV for a couple of years, just how to get rid of it.

Dish sent me a letter yesterday offering me a $400 Visa Gift Card to sign a two year contract with them, so DTV should up its game.
D* doesn't care at all what DISH offers you ... nor would any other company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: comp9
D* doesn't care at all what DISH offers you ... nor would any other company.
Then why does DirecTV match Dish dollar for dollar?
I believe they added an linear AMC + network last week
Don't they charge another $7 a month for that? I am talking about adding free ad-supported channels, like Dish does. I don't care about ads, because I can just fast forward through them if I like.
 
Then why does DirecTV match Dish dollar for dollar?

Don't they charge another $7 a month for that? I am talking about adding free ad-supported channels, like Dish does. I don't care about ads, because I can just fast forward through them if I like.
Directv doesn’t match dish dollar for dollar on anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)