They won't really feel the pinch unless they lose another 20 million subs within the next five years or so, and even then, they can probably remain profitable and let sweetheart carriage deals with Sling TV and Apple TV pick up the slack.
For a while... but if they don't do something different, they're facing a long (or perhaps not all that long) decline into irrelevance, followed by bankruptcy.
The bill's requirement for service providers to install secret, unspecified, state-provided means of analyzing suspicious patterns -- for example, visits to websites advocating terrorism, or contacts with persons under investigation -- could potentially be applied to a virtually unlimited set of indicators, Human Rights Watch said.
These channel packages are not the biggest threat to ESPN's future. Their biggest threat is people growing up without cable TV and without being accustomed to watching sports at all. Those people will not care about televised sports and will not be willing to pay to get it. They should be desperately trying to make sure as many people as possible have access to sports programming, lest in 30 years they don't have a viable customer base. But I doubt they're looking ahead beyond the next broadcast rights deal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
We already have laws on the books to address monopolies, we don't need to bring the Internet under regulations written for the telephone monopolies of the 1930's. Net neutrality is government overreach - not designed to ensure a free market but to bring the Internet, which has flourished because of limited government regulation, under government control.
Where did you get this idea? Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious what sources of information you used to come to this understanding of net neutrality.
" But at the last minute, the Justice Department balked. In particular, senior officials were uncomfortable with bringing two machine-gun charges, each of which carried mandatory 30-year prison sentences.
The lead agent, John Patarini, felt that dropping this mandatory chunk of prison time would allow those involved to walk away from killing 17 civilians with five-to-seven year sentences. "
To me the most disturbing thing is that killing 17 people results in 5-7 years in prison, and carrying an illegal weapon gets you 30-60. That is seriously messed up.
"Had the work gone into the public domain upon his death, it's likely..."
"The sentiment is nice, but an unproven concept at best."
I like how you just switch debate tactics 180 degrees depending on what will support your position at the moment. It helps demonstrate that you are saying whatever is necessary to support your agenda, not striving to arrive at a factual conclusion.