Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
This is a very good point.
I wonder how much of that stuff on Food Network, TBS, Discovery is on other streaming services, though. I wonder how many of those services Comcast has some stake in.
Take TBS, which I think still does Seinfeld reruns. WBD pulls TBS from Comcast networks, in theory. Comcast would just drive its subscribers to adopting the Peacock/Apple+/Netflix package for an extra fifteen bucks a month on their Comcast bill and tell folks that they can just catch Seinfeld that way, on demand.
I'm not possibly going to be able to list out every show, both original or syndicated, that WBD networks show throughout the day, but I wonder if Comcast has made the calculation that WBD's networks have watered themselves down by sharing a lot of rights to the shows that make them popular with streaming networks, and Comcast can just point viewers who tuned in for 90-Day Fiance or Pawn Stars to whatever streaming service that they've got a stake in that also has those shows available.
And I think Comcast is clearly willing to bleed money now to put themselves in a superior position later. Peacock is the obvious example - it's way too cheap in subscription price to have all the sports it already does, but Comcast is willing to eat those losses now so that they become an essential streamer to sports fans, then recoup that later through higher subscription fees. I think it's plausible that they'd also be willing to let WBD stations go dark on their cable service now to bleed out WBD to the point that it's begging for any carriage fee for TNT to get back on the air...or to bleed it enough that they can just acquire the parts of WBD that they want outright themselves.
The folks running Comcast NBC are diabolical. I don't think it should be legal to own both a cable company/ISP and a TV network/streamer. They have few or no viable cable/ISP competitors in the parts of America that they're in, so they leverage the sure profit from customers who have to have at least an ISP to work, etc., to loss-lead in TV and streaming, driving out competitors who can't afford to lose as much money as they can and driving down asset value so they can acquire them or pay them less. It's good strategy based on how things work, but there should be laws against a conglomerate being in both those businesses at the same time. That and internet service should be declared a public good and there should be a non-profit option run by local or state governments. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.
I said this a while back that Comcast/NBC was always going to be in a good position because of their broadband service. If people aren't buying Peacock or watching cable anymore? Fine... let's jack up the prices to broadband... which in turn screws over streamers as well...
I'm not sure how it's "legal" exactly lol but the government doesn't seem to care about it.
As for all of the calculations, I'm sure WBD lawyers and Comcast lawyers/financial are all looking at the upcoming "war" and seeing what they are willing to deal with and what they can't deal with...
The article posted above doesn't do the entire situation justice. They are basically saying that WBD has "no leverage" left and I'm not so sure about that. We will see shortly...
When Zaslav (wrongly) made the comment that WBD doesn't "need" the NBA.. I'm sure this was all on his mind. Their main goal is slashing debt and then attempting another merger. There was a while where it looked like WBD could merge with Paramount but that's not happening now. Skydance is taking over Paramount.
In the end, I could see NBC Universal attempting to buy WBD as well but I don't think the government goes for that. Apple might be a better play with less red tape.
All of the cable networks will eventually die off... but someone needs to purchase Warner Bros. Pictures, HBO and all of the IP they own like DC characters (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc.) and Harry Potter and whatever else they own..