Wall Street Executive Says Dish Could File For Bankruptcy In The Next 4 To 6 Months; + more notable news

They have been moving their spectrum into a new subsidiary, EchoStar Wireless Holdings, to issue new bonds to pay their $2 billion in debt payments due in November. They keep getting new loans to pay the old loans.
They have $26 billion in debt right now. They are doing everything to make it to 2026 when many of their spectrum restrictions expire.
Such a mess.

Dish is one of those companies that is in a losing battle. The era of "channels in a grid guide" with physical hard drives and DVR's attached is coming to an end. They know it. Cable companies know it. DirecTV knows it.

So all of them have been doing their best to change and/or diversify their business as best they can, and where DirecTV came up with a fairly robust off-satellite streaming system that is now hybrid to their satellite systems to slowly migrate off of satellites, Dish instead gambled on wireless frequencies and wireless service instead.

Whether that is going to pay off..... I do not know. Wireless networks are not going anywhere, it is a profitable business, and it is a good field to do business in right now, but it is also not easy to break into the "big three" market either....

Dish, like every other television supplier (except YouTubeTV) is losing customers every quarter, every year so they know their days are numbered as far as television services are considered..... so they HAVE to diversify. Sling is their streaming service, which seems to be very popular, and I have had it on occasion before the Olympics were all on Peacock, but in the end..... that isn't enough to sustain their business as the concept of channels is being replaced by newer on-demand technology with 4k (and beyond, eventually) content.

Their gamble might pay off..... but it is all but assured their satellite service (just like DirecTV) won't last another decade. And if it does, it will be in a slimmed down version without locals.

I'm sure you are aware every streaming "Live TV" is in a grid guide format. I sub to Philo, it too is in a grid guide. When you watch just OnDemand tv, like netflix, prime video, Hulu, etc, you get icons. Like what you see standing in front of a Red Box DVD distribution machine. Those streaming services let you scroll through all the cool looking icons till you find what you are looking for (icon surfing) and select it. Now, I've set up my Roku channel, Phil, even my OTA selections as fav's and it just narrows it down. So, I wouldn't sell your stock in "grid tv" because IMO, any service that pushes 200 or 300 channels (with only maybe 40 worth watching) are just being dumb if they don't organize in a logical no brainer fashion.

It's an ever evolving market. But if you look at it closely..... the combined cable/satellite/iptv companies have lost around 6 million customers in 2023 alone, and they aren't flocking to the services you mentioned.

Over the last 15 years, "cable" (I will use this term for the combined traditional services) has lost roughly 30 million customers, and the combined OTT services currently have roughly 12 million customers, with Youtube TV leading the pack at 8 million, Sling at 2 million, Fubo at 1.5 million, and the remainder is spread among "niche" services like Philo, FRNDLY, etc.

That means that the vast majority - around two-thirds or 18 million people - that left traditional TV services prefer either to have no service at all (OTA antenna) or prefer an on-demand service where you can just call up your favorite programs Star Trek Holodeck style, including talking to a computer to ask it what you want. "Hey Roku", "Alexa, ", "Hey Siri," etc....

The market for "channels" is starting to crumble, and the numbers released for Q1 2024 so far reveal that the industry is well on its way for another 6-7 million customers lost by the end of the year.

People don't want to wait for a show to come on at "8/9c" anymore, just to record it on a physical hard drive. And the numbers of cord cutting confirm this..... if it was ONLY price, people would 100% go "like for like" and select something like YouTubeTV to still get the channels they like.... but the vast majority of people leaving traditional cable..... go to on-demand services.

Let's face it: Channels are on their way out. While I believe that the broadcast networks will still have a LONG life ahead..... I believe the majority of channels will slowly erode away, and its content will be added to the various streaming services over time.

The environment has already changed drastically over the last few years alone. For instance, my wife watches a few series on Hallmark Channel, and since we don't have cable..... she could never watch them. Now, however, every Hallmark show is on Peacock the day after airing, which means no one has to buy cable anymore. The same is true for ALL Christmas movies, with the caveat Peacock only has them for 3 days after airing...... something about rights without a doubt, but if you are a big fan and watch those movies all through December, you can watch every single one of them without cable. (It should also be noted the Hallmark channel as a "channel" comes with Peacock too, so you can still catch them at the reruns....or watch random Christmas movies)

How things will evolve over time..... we will have to see. But if I had to make a choice between buying shares from streaming services, or cable companies....... it most certainly would not be cable companies.

They lost their customers not because the made it easy to find what you wanted to watch. They Nickled/dimed people to death. They didn't let you pick your OWN hardware (except VCR/DVD Player, they had OnDemand, they had a bazillion channels with only a few worth watching. Like Live TV is today on Plex, Prime, Youtube, etc. Charging people for a full package deal, cable/internet/phone, people got tired of paying $200+ a month when they could pay $50-100 a month just for internet, then let people pay for a few shows here, a few there. Go monthly (which I feel is going to end once all the mergers are together) and ads, many will pay extra but even that niche crowd are finding that TOS is a bitch, not what boxes like Roku are stuffing pause ads on your tv. Ads/commercials never really bothered me as just a click or two on the remote would skip right past. HOWEVER, with streaming, you can't do that most times.

And you are right. People don't (or can't) wait for a show to come on at 8/9c anymore, nope, they just need to wait till the next day or like I always did, just dvr it. Philo has a nice way to time shift but you can get all the seasons so if you wanna go back, you can. However, with the likes of plex, prime tv, samsung, Roku, you have NO WAY to dvr anything, unless you have Plex pass and a NAS box, then you can dvr anything you want when you want and watch it whenever. Don't get me wrong, lots to love about streaming. But people didn't jump ship for the "grid" channel flipping format of cable tv. They did it because of greed, distain for "da man" or just got board and wanted change to save a little money and feel they were getting value. The new is/will wear off and we are already heading back to where we were with big cable, just isn't taking us 30 years to get there.

It's also a weirdly overcomplicated service. Every modern tech buzzword was used - overreliance on public cloud instead of building out actual core network infrastructure (much higher latency and poorer routing, sites/services think you're on a VPN as you appear to be on an AWS IP address), the decision to build a network without fully functional VoNR support, and the resulting need to use highly customised devices.

Comparing this to a launch of a new network in my own country and it was a lot simpler. This was the days of 3G, and made a 2G roaming deal with a competitor during the years where they didn't yet have native nationwide coverage. Didn't need a special phone. Aside from calls dropping as you moved from native to roaming coverage it worked fine.

And yet streaming becomes more like what use to be. Funny that.

»www.cltel.com/articles/w ··· e-cable/

The market changes all the time. If you want everything you can possibly get, just like you may want all 250 channels..... you will pay for it. But streaming still has a massive edge over traditional cable:

- Can choose your own hardware. Yes, I know there is still CableCard and TiVo, but besides TiVo there really aren't any other brands, and CableCard is on its way out. With streaming, you can pick anything you prefer, whether that is a streaming device such as a Roku, Apple TV, Android TV, Amazon Fire.... a smart TV with apps built in, or something like a game console such as a PS/5 or XBox, which come with streaming capabilities built in - and a game controller to control it.

- No "middle man". You are buying your content directly from the supplier, not from a cable company who is going to want a cut. The flow of money with cable is more or less this: You --> Cable company --> Channel owner --> Content creator. -- With streaming, it is this: You --> Streaming Provider --> Content creator. With the Streaming Provider also being a Content Creator in many case, your money flow is a lot tighter, and there are less people wanting a piece of the pie.

- No need to record, no worries about missing recordings (or power outages). If you miss a recording on cable for whatever reason.... you are pretty much out of luck if it was a first time run on a broadcast network, because it will likely not be repeated again until it moves to a cable network for re-runs. You would have to use streaming to pick up on the missed episode. With streaming, the episodes will just be there waiting, and when you want to watch one on your schedule you can. No need to worry about DVR space.

- Separated billing for services. Some people think this is an annoyance, but it also has a very valuable power: You can still choose what services you want, and which you do not want. Want NBC owned content? Pay for Peacock. Hate Disney and their wokeness? Don't pay for Disney+. Want all the Star Trek stuff? Pay for Paramount+, and just cancel it at the end of the season. And so on, and so on..... You can try to call your cable company and propose that you would like to have NBC, but not ABC, and only CBS for the next 3 months before you cancel it..... and you already know what the result of that conversation is going to be, if they even recover from laughing.

- Works anywhere, and on any device. Streaming services work on any US based IP address, and in many cases (Amazon, Netflix, Disney+ for instance) they work virtually worldwide - certainly in the most prominent democratic countries. You can download a set of shows, and take them onto the airplane with you. As the IFE systems in planes only show so much, and internet is expensive and spotty.... you can take your own offline shows on a tablet and watch them anywhere you want, including 30,000ft up in the air. Try to ask your cable company if you can take those 10 Law & Order episodes you recorded with you on a mobile device to watch in an airplane..... and well, see above on how that conversation will go.

- Streaming allows you to stream anywhere from 2 to 4 screens at a time, depending on service. Netflix is a bit of an oddball with different tiers, but most of them allow for 3 screens, so taking that as an average, If you have 5 streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Max, Peacock, Hulu, and Paramount+) you can watch *everything* on 15 televisions, should you have that many..... No extra cost for a "box". No extra cost for a "cable card". With most people having 2 or 3 TV's or so, you can literally never run out of content to watch without paying a dime extra because you now want to watch something on another device.

- Finally: Original shows and content. Certain popular franchises will NEVER EVER be on television again, except old content, and those are Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel based series, Lord of the Rings (1 series so far, season 2 upcoming), and in the future there will be more Battlestar Galactica and Star Gate based series. These are of course pullers for their respective media companies, but the fact that all of the above have decided to go with streaming versus a channel to display their content on should be very telling. And I am just making note of the SciFi/Fantasy stuff because that is a part I am interested in, but this goes for other franchises and other content as well.

So while these articles are nice, they do not represent the truth of the matter, and they only focus on what the price comparison is when you want it all, and have some form of FOMO on missing out on shows.

Meanwhile, I will catch up on the latest Star Trek Discovery season, and then cancel Paramount+...... and re-sub to Disney+ to catch up on some of the Star Wars later this summer.

When ACP ended I dumped X1 for DirecTV stream so I could get a new customer offer from Comcast on high speed internet (they opened existing customers who were eligible for ACP for new customer offers). I pay $50 a month for 500/20 with my own modem and I pay $119 (after taxes/fees) for DirecTV stream with two dongles and remotes. I pay $17 (after taxes/fees) for Vonage.

I've never used Vonage so my POV is subjective. I did use Sunrocket, Google Voice, Comcast and WOW phone, but I've had (even if I was using phone from big cable) MagicJack since 2008. I've always just paid for the 3-5 years at a time service. Don't think I made much over $100 for the WHOLE time span. I've never had a problem with them. It's like pay and forget. I've heard horror stories with customer service but you can find the bad in almost every VoIP service. I've just never experienced it. IMO one of the best features they give you is blocking of numbers and the automated call screening (where someone calls and must press a random number to get through), really stops those robo calls, or people too lazy and you didn't want to talk to them anyway.

Does DTV charge you for regional sports/bcst channels? I've thought about hitching up to Dish (because they are the underdog) unless AT&T would give me a deal since I have their gig fiber service, but I just can't pull the trigger on paying out over $100 a month tv when with all the free "live tv" channels on Roku, Plex, etc.. and having my own DVR service via Plex pass, can't justify it, yet.

They do charge regional sports fee but not local broadcast fee on the streaming service. The good thing about DirecTV stream is it’s a streaming service with a dongle and it has a remote that has the functionality and feel of traditional TV and you don’t have to drill holes or trash the roof of a house you don’t own. When I had Xfinity I had the tech run the lines through existing holes that were drilled by prior occupants as I did not want to be responsible for drilling into the property. On the back of the house there is a bunch of holes where a bunch of satellite dishes have been removed. When I dumped X1 I went out to the box on the side of the house, disconnected the splitter and connected the line going to the modem directly to the combo MoCA PoE filter/ground block so it’s the only line coming off the drop and there are no open lines allowing ingress or signal leakage.

Fortunately Comcast HSI is unlimited in my area so I can stream all I want whether it’s DirecTV stream or other content. I got DTV stream for local channels, Weather Channel, Fox News and RSNs.

Sports, music, home shopping, local channels, even PBS, should be in blocks (like food groups). Let the consumer decide what they want. If you pick the sports block, then you pay the extra fee, or roll it into the price. But I have a hard time paying for local bcst tv if I can get it FREE over the air. So, I wouldn't choose it. If they treated tv like how a grocery store treats it's food, we would be better off. You don't find ice cream scattered all over the store, nor do you find T-bone steak sitting next to the Campbells soup. If I choose to bring my own bags, then don't charge me for bags I don't need/use. It's not hard for big cable to have blocked their tv into groups like that, they just chose not to.

And yet the broadcast stations pushed for the DTV conversion so that their signals would become useless. They want their viewers on cable or satellite so they can get retransmission fees. Where I live it’s nearly impossible to get TV reception.

Google has no reason to make new chromecast models if 3rd parties are spending the money to make android streaming boxes.
They get access to all the data without having to spend any dev money. These 3rd parties are also paying google money to "Certify" their streaming devices with google.

Not to mention that not a single one of these Boxes have made me want to upgrade from my Nvidia shield android TV. Can anybody come up with something they can beat something that that was originally released in 2015? Pathetic. So I wish they would stop it so that somebody could innovate again 🤦‍♀️

Commodities generally aren't innovative.

I realize that but this is kind of an extreme case. Here I have a box that I bought in 2017, which was that years revision, that was originally released in 2015, and I can't even find a single reason why I would want to upgrade it. And the 2017 edition has the same CPU. They just updated the remote and the storage, aside of the outside aesthetics. The new remote had the same layout but it was Bluetooth instead of Wi-Fi direct and didn't have a headphone jack. The only thing I would ever consider trading it for and I wouldn't pay full price is the 2019 edition of the shield TV. Mostly because it has AI upscaling for all those old TV shows without having to have your computer do it, which can be tricky when you throw DRM on top of things. I mean that upscaling does look amazing but $200-$300 is a lot for a TV box. And I will say it's worth every penny if you're buying it from scratch. But not as an upgrade to the previous edition. The 2019 edition only brings that feature to the table, for most uses.