Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Wants To Overhaul HBO, Says It Isn't Profitable Enough (arstechnica.com)

AT&T recently acquired HBO, as part of the Time Warner acquisition, "and it is already considering an overhaul that would see HBO produce more video that can compete for the attention of smartphone users," reports Ars Technica. "AT&T wants to boost revenue both in advertising and subscriptions, even if that means upending HBO's longtime strategy of producing a relatively small number of high-quality shows."

At a recent corporate town hall meeting, John Stankey, the longtime AT&T executive and new head of Warner Media, laid out the challenges and opportunities he saw for the network to around 150 employees. He said, in part: "It's going to be a tough year. It's going to be a lot of work to alter and change direction a little bit. [...] You will work very hard, and this next year will -- my wife hates it when I say this -- feel like childbirth... You'll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it's not going to feel great while you're in the middle of it. She says, 'What do you know about this?' I just observe, 'Honey. We love our kids.'" Audio of the meeting was obtained by The New York Times. From the report: The talk, held at HBO headquarters in New York City, was hosted by HBO CEO Richard Plepler. HBO must compete with smartphones for people's attention, Stankey said in this exchange with Plepler: "We need hours a day," Mr. Stankey said, referring to the time viewers spend watching HBO programs. "It's not hours a week, and it's not hours a month. We need hours a day. You are competing with devices that sit in people's hands that capture their attention every 15 minutes." Continuing the theme, he added: "I want more hours of engagement. Why are more hours of engagement important? Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions, which I think is very important to play in tomorrow's world."

290 comments

  1. If it ain't broke, fix it by AlanBDee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    sigh!

    1. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Informative

      $4 billion profit on $2 billion investment per year isn't profitable enough?

    2. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      well no - that pays for the acquisition cost - what's needed now is new revenue...

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    3. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, it only has 30% of households in the US as subscribers (via teh AT&T CEO), which isn't enough. Also, just selling a product isn't enough. You need hours of engagement per day so you can collect data and deliver targeted advertisements. If there was a way to short just HBO, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's going to lose a lot of money overspending for six years or so, and in doing so lose it's current subscriber base

      Figure it gets broken out in a firesale to Disney/Comcast in 2025.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Acquisition was $80 billion... AT&T overpaid by $20 billion so it's got to get the money from somewhere I guess

    5. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by ole_timer · · Score: 2

      recall what a disaster the AOL Time Warner merger was. I wonder if ATT Time Warner will be the same in a year or two. I simply can't imagine that many people watch tv and movies.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    6. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Rewind · · Score: 1

      Of course not! That is barely even Scrooge McDuck vault money. You can't expect AT&T execs to swim in that like plebs!

      --
      ?
    7. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Race to the bottom... on your marks... get set... YOUTUBE!

    8. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to fix their distribution model, not their content. I WANT to pay for HBO shows in Canada, but not if it requires me to pay an extra 2X the cost to some a giant TELCO for other content I don't want. Until then, happy pirating.

    9. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get HBO without a TV subscription in the US. In Canada you need a TV subscription because your government sucks.

    10. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RIP HBO. Remove them from the niche the dominate. Yeah. While you're at it, dissect that golden egg goose.

    11. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...in doing so lose it's current subscriber base

      They'll never lose me. As long as they have John Oliver and Game of Thrones, I'll continue to pirate their shows faithfully.

    12. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, they're talking about "broadening their viewership" So goodbye John Oliver. And Game of Thrones is too expensive if you need to produce several hours a day.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    13. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They need to change something to make their own salaries worthwhile. No one gets bonuses for doing the exact same thing their predecessor has done.

      --
      -
    14. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Raenex · · Score: 2

      It's going to lose a lot of money overspending for six years or so

      I'm not sure about that. I'm more worried they're going to cut back spending on shows that make HBO worthwhile. They're going to destroy the brand chasing a fad du jour marketing metric.

    15. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The stupid part is that the AOL TW merger could have actually worked and had obvious synergies. AOL was a media delivery platform, Time Warner was the media, cable and broadband. AOL could have been iTunes. It could have been Netflix. It could have been Spotify. It had the nascent beginnings for these services in the likes of WinAmp, AOL Radio etc.

      But AOL ran its properties like silos and was crippled by lack of innovation or vision. Synergy to them was a few extra AOL keywords on some of its properties. This was a company so far up its own ass that it would run protracted marketing studies just to decide whether the fat AOL client should have 6 or 8 bookmark slots and relative support call costs from each.

    16. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      well no - that pays for the acquisition cost - what's needed now is new revenue...

      You never need to pay for acquisition. Unless you destroy the companies you buy, they pay for themselves in that it makes your company's net worth increase by what you paid.

      The only point you would need to pay for it, is if you mess it up, and end up writing it off, but that is pretty rare.

    17. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by gnick · · Score: 1

      I hope we don't lose either. They're my favorite things on HBO. GoT is the reason for a lot of subscriptions, so I don't think they'll abandon it in spite of cost. John Oliver has recently pissed of a big coal baron and the Chinese president, but is he really that divisive? His most recent main piece was on gene editing. I suppose his "We Got Him!" celebrations when DJT gets caught in a lie could be considered partisan.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    18. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Oh, they'll probably fuck up GoT and other excellent shows by spending less on them. But the total spending will go up. Cause they're gonna wanna 10x the amount of original programming.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    19. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      The stupid part is that the AOL TW merger could have actually worked and had obvious synergies. AOL was a media delivery platform, Time Warner was the media, cable and broadband. AOL could have been iTunes. It could have been Netflix. It could have been Spotify. It had the nascent beginnings for these services in the likes of WinAmp, AOL Radio etc. But AOL ran its properties like silos and was crippled by lack of innovation or vision. Synergy to them was a few extra AOL keywords on some of its properties. This was a company so far up its own ass that it would run protracted marketing studies just to decide whether the fat AOL client should have 6 or 8 bookmark slots and relative support call costs from each.

      When the feds approved the AOL/TW merger, they attached conditions. Remember this was shortly before cable ISP when most internet access was on dial-up. The feds foresaw that TW's cable system would give it a huge monopoly with AOL as a entertainment delivery system, so they mandated that if AOL was given access to TW's cable pipes then they had to open up their infrastructure to competitors. TW could not bring themselves to do that and AOL was never put on their cable pipes. With that, AOL the orphan of TW and was allowed to dry up.

      That's the reason why AOL was crippled and never became the iTunes or Netflix or Spotify.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    20. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The other problem is that somehow after the merger, despite AOL buying TW, it was TW's management who were left in charge, with AOL turning into just another division. And TW wasn't exactly run by people who understood the potential of what they had.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    21. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because all CEOs and MBAs think short term, they only care about the stock price, so they don't want to waste money on innovation

    22. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by quintus_horatius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purchased company always pays for the acquisition nowadays, and the sooner the better.

      A common strategy is to have the company you just purchased take out a bunch of debt in order to pay you back for the honor of being owned by you. They are then responsible for paying the debt back, while you walk off to the bank with your profit up front.

    23. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stupid part is that the AOL TW merger could have actually worked and had obvious synergies. AOL was a media delivery platform, Time Warner was the media, cable and broadband.

      The problem with the AOL/TW merger thing was the entire thing was financed with monopoly money ... aka AOL stocks.

      At the time, AOL's stock was ridiculously inflated in the middle of the .com-era, so AOL bought TW with pretend money while TW had real properties and revenue ... and AOL was clueless about how to go about doing that merger and essentially failed spectacularly.

      Before it happened, many of us were saying really loudly that allowing an over-hyped and over-valued stock to be used for the vehicle to purchase TW was stupid, and we were proven right.

      That AOL managed to buy them with pretend money and then manage to suck so badly is a testament to the fact that AOL had no fucking idea what they were doing.

      Honestly, I don't see AT&T having any more success in taking over HBO, because there is no reason to believe they have the slightest idea of how to create good content.

      I predict HBO will go from a company who makes good, original content to one which turns out stuff of the quality of some of the most pointless crap on Fox.

      Sadly, that may actually be more profitable.

    24. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess that the GoT is already spent. They started filming last year for the final season -- I'm not sure if they'll still be filming now or doing post-production, but either way it would be a colossal waste to kill it now.

      Still, that's only going to hold subscribers for 1 more year. After that? Who knows...

    25. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich get richer, screw the employees, right?

      Is a CEO, owner, founder, or chairman responsible for the financial welfare of employees and company? Does this include choosing to sell the company in a responsible manner to a responsible owner? Or does the new owner take on that responsibility and thus should be held liable in a court of law with a law restricting the level of debt a company can take on when purchased by another?

    26. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GoT is done.

    27. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's why my AOL Cable back in the day had a roadrunner IP forever.

      That 2001 cable was faster than todays...just saying. This 300mb service that gets 2.4MBps downloads is a joke. I was pulling over 20MBps on roadrunner.

    28. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in a nutshell, AOL was actually incapable of any of those things....

    29. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I watch HBO when I want to forget about my cell phone.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    30. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Wanna bet? It's IP. In the new AT&T world, expect a dozen spin off series with 1/50th the budget. Think Star Wars Christmas Special stuff, but financed by a company with billions to lose.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    31. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While at the same time they throw that word 'innovation' around as a stock price manipulator.

      These companies are disgusting, I already cancelled my HBO, ATT, and American Express this year... Although I know it will have ZERO impact :)

    32. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by cthulhu11 · · Score: 2

      Because when I have a 60" TV with a sound system, I *totally* want to squint at my phone instead.

    33. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oliver is super partisan man. His hatred for Trump is dripping, his coverage completely biased. He's a funny guy with good material and top tier delivery, but he is 100% foreign import Democrat.

    34. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hating Trump isn't partisan. It's one of the things that brings together everyone with any sense or decency.

    35. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they're talking about "broadening their viewership" So goodbye John Oliver. And Game of Thrones is too expensive if you need to produce several hours a day.

      Last Week Tonight is already renewed through 2020 so it would be more expensive to cancel and the next season is already the last GoT so ATT will need to find another way to destroy HBO. But I have absolute faith they will.

    36. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is your side allowed to have its partisan shows, channels, and talking heads, but our side isn't?

    37. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      good history - if I had any moderator points left i'd plus 1 each of you those that don't read history are doomed to repeat it...

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    38. Re: If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delusional

    39. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The purchased company always pays for the acquisition nowadays, and the sooner the better.

      A common strategy is to have the company you just purchased take out a bunch of debt in order to pay you back for the honor of being owned by you. They are then responsible for paying the debt back, while you walk off to the bank with your profit up front.

      Depends on the level. A more typical one is to issue more shares and pay with those shares, and at the same time make one-tme bonuses to the now redundant CxOs who negotiated the buyout or merger.

      Since the top management are typically not the major share holders unless they are founders, this is the best way for them to ehm.. acquire a bigger share or companies or just huge piles of cash. The whole thing is inexact enough in valution that you can extracts billions that way.

    40. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They better not scrap the last season!!

  2. Here comes president Camacho by RickyShade · · Score: 5, Funny

    "OW! MY BALLS!" will premier on AT&T's HBO.

    1. Re:Here comes president Camacho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard they were in talks with Pewdiepie to get him on HBO

    2. Re:Here comes president Camacho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monday is Rehabilitation Night.

    3. Re:Here comes president Camacho by nwf · · Score: 2

      We laugh, but based on the idiotic statements from Mr Stankey referenced in the excerpt above, I'd say we have pretty good odds of something like this show. I've heard pretty stupid things from executives before, but Mr Stankey is a cut above on the moron scale.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    4. Re:Here comes president Camacho by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, the second season of "OW! MY BALLS!" was pretty good. It won six Emmys that year.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Here comes president Camacho by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Still not as good as Ass.

    6. Re:Here comes president Camacho by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Well no, of course not. But that's like comparing an excellent sitcom to Goodfellas.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Here comes president Camacho by suezz · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. The only thing that guy knows is how to cut costs. That is what they are going to do at HBO. They will cut costs and people. That is the only senior management knows how to do. Looks like HBO is on the chopping block. I would hate to work there right now. I feel for the people. you are right stankey is a moron. the good old boy network doesn't work for creativity so they will do only what they know how to do and that is cut costs.

  3. God damnit AT&T. by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Overhaul your fucking network first. How come you can't provide more than 1 megabit of upload bandwidth even in the middle of the most densely-populated and theoretically profitable areas in the US? South Korea has 100 megabit synchronous fiber connections running to houses with dirt fucking floors! What the fuck is wrong with you assholes?

    1. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supply and demand. Create more demand for bandwidth by flooding HBO with crappy shows. Charge more for Internet services, and raise HBO subscription rates. AT&T profits.

    2. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      uploading is just for those evil pirates and server admins. good little consumers only CONSUME pre approved content.

      you're not being a good little consumer. a note has been made in your account.

    3. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come you can't provide more than 1 megabit of upload bandwidth even in the middle of the most densely-populated and theoretically profitable areas in the US?

      Because then the profits WOULD be theoretical!

    4. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overhaul your fucking network first. How come you can't provide more than 1 megabit of upload bandwidth even in the middle of the most densely-populated and theoretically profitable areas in the US? South Korea has 100 megabit synchronous fiber connections running to houses with dirt fucking floors! What the fuck is wrong with you assholes?

      I think you answered your own question. They are assholes. There is still nothing available at my mother's house. It has been just outside of DSL range for more than a decade. That is AT&T for you.

      I'm of the opinion that the bigger a company is the more they need to be held to higher, not lower, standards. If they fail, break them up.

    5. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand your gripe. Your mother clearly lives in a place that isn't densely populated. They aren't going to spend a half million in infrastructure to make mom happy. There has to be profit. You are American. Profit is king.

    6. Re:God damnit AT&T. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Oh they could do that. If they wanted to. But why would they provide quality, when profitability is what they're really after.

      And why would they care that you're complaining? What are you going to do? Jump ship to TimeWarner Cable? HA! That's a laugh. (They were already bought out by Charter two years ago).

    7. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand your gripe. Your mother clearly lives in a place that isn't densely populated. They aren't going to spend a half million in infrastructure to make mom happy. There has to be profit. You are American. Profit is king.

      AT&T could have easily made a profit by now, several times over likely....

      They could have also just charged more for outlying areas, but they didn't bother.

    8. Re: God damnit AT&T. by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Dear Narcocide

      Thank you for your enquiry. Unfortunately we have spent all our money buying Time Warner and consequently have none left for upgrades. We will be increasing prices and fees shortly to recoup the costs involved in the acquisition and to pay for future upgrades to our network, which we won't carry out.

      We look forward to providing our services to you for many years because we know you have no choice.

      Yours sincerely
      AT&T

    9. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Demand is already there, but no commensurate increase in bandwidth "Because muh netwurk management practices hur hur!". 1080p phone screens, network data caps and throttling to 480p...

      Gee AT&T why ARE you losing the battle for phone screens I wonder?

      Morons gotta moron. HBO we hardly knew ye. Your death will be painful and lingering long after you become just another outlet for pre-1970's movies.

    10. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Newfoundland, Canada's poorest Province and an island situated in the North Atlantic, I have residential gigabit fiber optic, and it is Symmetric. All the fiber optic plans are symmetric actually.

      No population center in North America >90,000 has any excuse.

    11. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose they serve a few dozen more customers at $500,000 (and that sounds cheap) how much are these people really going to pay for that service? For say 36 customers that works out to $13,888 per customer just to cover costs, before there's any profit. Are each of these customers going to shell out $100 per month for that service? Even at that rate it would take 11 years of payments, with no customer defections, just to break even. Have you been with the same ISP for 11 years straight? I know I haven't. Even if rural folks move less often, it's probably still rare to find that kind of customer loyalty in the US telecommunications business. The only way that people like your mother are going to get served high speed broadband is if Americans vote to increase their taxes and have the government subsidize it, as they have done in Korea and elsewhere, but Americans have a special hatred of taxes going back to the founding of their nation so that doesn't seem likely either.

    12. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Average · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't understand your gripe. Your mother clearly lives in a place that isn't densely populated. They aren't going to spend a half million in infrastructure to make mom happy.

      They sure as all hell have taken hundreds of millions of dollars in USF, CAF, USDA RUS, and myriad state-level incentives on the "we'll install broadband next year" promise for twenty straight "next years".

    13. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TDS is installing fiber and their stock is on a roll.

    14. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Tintivilus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Their service is great where they have competition. Speedtest.net just now showed 679 Mbps down and 776Mbps up on my advertised gigabit ($70/month) from AT&T in a neighborhood with multiple providers offering >100Mbps service

    15. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only way that people like your mother are going to get served high speed broadband is if Americans vote to increase their taxes and have the government subsidize it, as they have done in Korea and elsewhere, but Americans have a special hatred of taxes going back to the founding of their nation so that doesn't seem likely either.

      I'm not picking on you, honest, but it's this kind of logic that drives me nuts. The idea that the government has to "make it happen". It's ... dumb.

      You want high-speed internet in areas the big guys don't want to serve? Simple.. Remove the obstacles that make it so damn difficult for us little guys to do it. i.e. remove all of those laws that were passed to PROTECT the incumbents.

      I cover 100 sq miles of rural San Diego County with very reliable (and inexpensive) internet. But.. it's a goddamn battle every single day to expand further. The amount of red-tape would blow your mind. I know.. it's CA, but for fuck's sake....

      We do not have Capitalism in the United States. We have Cronyism and Protectionism.

      There is no reason, whatsoever, that the government should be protecting AT&T's rural monopolies. But, that's what we have and that's why a lot of people have no access to decent internet.

    16. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, yes, and yes!

      This is exactly it! This is the bullshit they have been pulling for ages. Although, it's been a lot longer than 20 years. AT&T has been promising 45mbps MINIMUM since at least 1991, and I know they were promising it earlier, but I can't find the data to back up my memory, so I'll settle on "since 1991". That's 27 years.

      I did find this blurb that will help to illustrate just how bad it is..

      ===========
      By 2014, we estimate that AT&T has collected about $150- $200 billion in excess phone charges and tax perks since the 1990’s to upgrade the state-based utility networks that should have supplied at least 45 Mbps (in both directions) to homes, offices, as well as schools and libraries.
      ============

    17. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because muh slow internet. Boo hoo... but can't start your own ISP.

    18. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suffered for many years in rural California on dial up (24.4 on a good day) with a fiber optic backbone line running right under my very street. I tried every trick I could with satellite being my only alternative option. Eventually a two way microwave on the roof solution was affordable, but terrible compared to what people can get in town in both price and bandwidth. My neighbors didn't care. We were ten miles from a medium city.

      People don't get this. I used to be a Republican because I advocated for small government exactly to do away with this kind of cronyism. Let the free market do it. Only to learn that the Republicans only pay lip service to small government ideals, then do the same as the Democrats but less efficiently and with even more pork. Those who vote Democrat in my circle do it largely with the good intention that a properly managed government project helps the most people with the least resources (without that capitalist fat). Both votes bring us to the same sick place. Government is out of control and in collusion with big business. There is no way to fix this by voting. We are locked in a two party system and both are corrupt to the point of being evil. In California I felt like being a Republican was pissing in the wind. Now with Trump running the show I've registered with no party affiliation.

      Now I live in a small German town and can have 100 down 20 up for 50 Euro a month no strings, no caps. My neighbors don't care what political party I support and allow me to live without fear of expressing my small government conservative political beliefs (as long as I don't go full Nazi - who were left leaning big government socialists). But I miss California.

      "The government that governs least, governs best." "Government is a necessary evil." "We get the government we deserve." "We have a republic, madam, if you can keep it!" Well, we the people lost it. We now have a big crony plutocracy ran as a police state. Perhaps we deserve it because of our own stupidity, complacency and arrogance. Oh, crappy Internet for high $ to boot. Thanks Al Gore!

    19. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not picking on you, honest, but it's this kind of logic that drives me nuts. The idea that the government has to "make it happen". It's ... dumb.

      You are right, and Europe is proof of it. Don't believe Europeans that tell you they have 100/100 megabit connections for 25 euro/month. All fake news. Doesn't exist. Didn't happen.

    20. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be mixing up what consumers and businesses could get and the backbone.

      I dare say that almost no-one but perhaps a few people sitting on university or military sites that essentially made up the backbone, had anything near 45mbps in 1991.

      Back then I was on a modem. Remember that WWW got to the public during 1991, before that it was E-mail, Usenet, FTP and Gopher. Not something that the public would be interested in and certainly not anything that warranted those speeds at the time.

      When I started my CS degree in 1995 my uni had a modem pool for the students and faculty which connected to the backbone of our national internet. The bottleneck was the modem speeds. For reference that same year our backbone got a new trans-atlantic cable connection that bumped the speed from 6mbps to 34mbps.

      You make it sound like AT&T promised a minimum of 45mbps to consumers back in 1991. I call bullshit on that. I don't care much for AT&T but the "facts" you present don't add up.

    21. Re: God damnit AT&T. by mr_jrt · · Score: 5, Informative

      You were doing so well until the nonsense about Nazis. I really don't get the American ignorance about Socialism, I really don't.

      Educate yourself:
      https://www.indy100.com/articl...
      https://www.snopes.com/news/20...
      http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-...

      It's really not that hard.

      --
      Boo.
    22. Re: God damnit AT&T. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      How did you solve the last mile problem?

      That's the biggest barrier to entering the broadband market. You have to make a huge investment in infrastructure, up against an incumbent who already has their infrastructure paid off. Sure there are laws that stop you installing new cables sometimes, but even if they went away it wouldn't really change the economics of having to build a brand new network by very much.

      The solution is for the government to force the existing networks to open up so you can use their last mile infrastructure. It makes so much sense - fewer cables all over the place, less disruption digging up roads and pavements, full coverage and finally some real competition on a level playing field.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:God damnit AT&T. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Their service is great where they have competition. Speedtest.net just now showed 679 Mbps down and 776Mbps up

      I don't know what you're talking about. I can only get AT&T in my area and I see slightly better bandwidth than that.

      You DO mean per month, right?

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    24. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO WRONG!
      People say Hitler can’t be a socialist because he crushed independent labor unions and killed socialists, they need to explain why Stalin gets to be a socialist even though he did likewise.

      Nazi ideologist Gregor Strasser proclaimed:
      We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!

    25. Re: God damnit AT&T. by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Do you build your own infrastructure or do you use AT&T's (or some one else's) like Sonic ( http://www.latimes.com/busines... ) does? I ask because given the huge costs for a small company in hooking up a hundred square mile region I feel it's quite likely that you use some other company's infrastructure that's only available to you because the FCC forces companies like AT&T to do so. If that's the case then your whole anti government post sort of falls apart.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    26. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems you utterly fail to acknowledge Big Money's role here...

    27. Re: God damnit AT&T. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You are right, and Europe is proof of it. Don't believe Europeans that tell you they have 100/100 megabit connections for 25 euro/month. All fake news. Doesn't exist. Didn't happen.

      And you all pay pretty much 50% and greater in taxes annually....over half your income???

      Nah, I'd rather decide myself how to spend the majority of my money, not the government.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, if that were the kind of regulation Republicans were campaigning on removing, I'd support them. But it's very obviously not. Unfortunately practically no politician on either side is seriously campaigning to remove regulations that protect cartels or de facto monopolies. I suspect it has to do with how lobbying and campaign contributions work.

    29. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, you're american, you know no other way. and are incapable of seeing other options. glad thats working for you. here's some other americentric bits, NIMBY; fuck everyone else, I got mine; I completely ignore the fact that my country was created by immigrants; etc etc etc.

    30. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin wasn't a socialist. He was an authoritarian.

    31. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK incumbents are not protected, distances are shorter, there is more competition, and prices are lower, and government still has to subsidise rural broadband. Part of the issue is probably the cheapness, as it means the slim profits don't support the cost of rural broadband

    32. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Big+Boss · · Score: 1

      Before you go off about EU taxes, go add up how much you pay in all the various taxes in most US states. In my area, it's above 50%. And I get far worse results for my money.

      Does that mean I want the EU system here? Not really. I honestly don't have a good solution. But I'm also not naive enough to believe that I'm taxed so much less that our friends across the pond. Their governments are just more honest about it is all.

    33. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also worth noting that in the US, most taxes are not just hidden, but also regressive. So not only does the average American pay just as much in taxes as most Europeans (while getting next to nothing for it), we also have structured things so that the majority of the tax burden falls on those who can least afford to pay it.

    34. Re:God damnit AT&T. by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      Presumably, according to the general consensus that all big companies run on selfishness and greed, if there were the demand (in the aggregate stastical sense) for greater bandwidth then it would be in their interests to supply it. If people were really willing to pay for greater bandwidth and the investment required was such that the ROI was reasonable, then a selfish greedy company would absolutely do it to maximise their profits.

      That no company (or at least very few companies) does this suggest that either the demand isn't there[1] or the investment required is too big to expect a reasonable or speedy return[2].

      [1] Demand being measured in terms of money willing to be spent, rather than just people moaning on internet forums but not actually being willing to change their behaviour.

      [2] I know nothing about the USA market, but I imagine the lack of population density in much of the country has a lot to do with this.

    35. Re: God damnit AT&T. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      but they do have more than 1.5mb/sec in a city?

    36. Re: God damnit AT&T. by sjames · · Score: 1

      We pay even more here once you consider the services not provided in the U.S. that we nevertheless need.

    37. Re: God damnit AT&T. by sjames · · Score: 1

      They DID promise that when they had their hands out for taxpayer dollars. They gfot the dollars, but the taxpayers didn't get much in return.

    38. Re:God damnit AT&T. by sjames · · Score: 1

      They don't provide the bandwidth even in densely packed cities. They have no incentive as long as competition is weak to non-existent.

      Part of the problem is free market cheerleaders that don't realize that 2 players in a market is not a healthy competitive environment. Basically, they have a grade school level understanding of the market.

    39. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The three links you display a very low level of understanding. Might I offer another source of thought on just how despicable the National Socialists actually were?

      mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

      If you can stomach it, please read what Hitler and Goebbels wrote in their own words. They were socialists.

    40. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ATT DSL is 3Mb. You can both fuck off.

    41. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jp provded a fucking quote. Your lazy ass didn't even have to google it. You still don't believe it. You don't want to believe it.

    42. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      typical leftie.. I say the government "doesn't HAVE to make it happen" and you interpret it as "the government can't make it happen"

      What the actual fuck? If English is not your first language, I'll give you a pass.. But if it is, why do you not understand what I said?

      Okay? I am one of those small guys making it happen.. No help from the government. I am only hindered by the government. Okay? We clear so far? I have dipped into ZERO taxes.. Still clear? If I didn't have to battle all the red tape I'd be at 200 or 300 sq miles by now.. i.e. I'd have most of rural eastern San Diego County covered.. But, I'm not there.. There are others covering those areas, small fries like me, but with ZERO competition. You have got to have at least two companies serving an area or you end up with what I call the "arrogance of the monopoly". I'll not bore you with the juicy details, but we'll just say that as soon as there was real competition the incumbent WISP cleaned up his act, cut his prices, and increased his data allotments...

      I don't know how shit is done where you are, but AT&T has been given HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in tax breaks and they have delivered NOTHING. But, the government continues to protect them with exclusive easements and downright banning anyone from being able to compete in their hard line markets.

      My point in all of this is to illustrate that, when not hindered by the government for stupid reasons, capitalism and small business can deliver. We don't NEED the government. We're doing it despite the government and we'd be way better off it they would remove the protectionist barriers.

      Your argument requires an expenditure of taxes. Mine does not. Which do you think is a better idea? How about we save those taxes and use them to feed the homeless?

    43. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Why the hell do you need anyone for last mile? I'm doing it with microwave. I can deliver you 1 gbps with zero wires. I'd be nice if the government gave us access to the wires, but really, they are in a shit state of repair and they are not needed. I'd be fine with the government getting out of EVERYONE's business and letting actual competition happen. Just let me put up transmitters on telephone (not power) poles with a reasonable fee to AT&T and I'd be peachy.

      The government handed them the utility easement so they have the right to modify it at their whim. I understand that AT&T paid to have the pole set and maintained. I'm not asking for something for nothing, but if Cox cable can attach to their poles for a small fee, so should I be able to do the same thing

    44. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1
      100% my own infrastructure. I use NOBODY else. I build the towers (Rohn 25's) myself, I place the transmitters myself, I work out the land leases myself.

      I PURCHASE fiber from AT&T, but that's it. To them I'm just a business customer. They are aware I'm an ISP, but they couldn't care less. I receive no special discounts or anything. I'm just another account number.

      The government does nothing to help me. Thanks for trying, but no... The only thing that one could, maybe, argue is that I benefit from the OTARD legislation, but that simply preempts local/county governments from interfering in the actual dish / receiver placement on privately owned homes/buildings.

      It'd be less accurate to call it "help" and more accurate to say "it keeps yokels from fucking with me"

    45. Re: God damnit AT&T. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So how do you make sure a competitor doesn't come along and disrupt your signal?

      Don't get me wrong, I hear what you're saying about big players using government to keep competition out but it also goes the other way as well. My example of Sonic above is a perfect example of that. They started in the town next to where I lived in the 90's and the only reason they were able to compete when people started abandoning dial-up in favor of broadband is because of FCC rules which certainly weren't written to stifle competition.

      Now Sonic serves quite a lot of Northern California and is in LA as well https://decisiondata.org/cover...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    46. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (as long as I don't go full Nazi - who were left leaning big government socialists)

      You just did.

    47. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I can't make sure he doesn't.. But I can mitigate it to an extent. The gear can be set to a frequency hopping mode, so unless the competition was to sit there with a scanner and learn the pattern, and then set his transmitter to the same pattern...

      But, we have lines of communication. Neither of us wants interference so we have some cooperation on frequency selection. I'd call it cooperative competition. Interference for him is just as bad as for me..

      If it really became a problem, there are licenses that can be purchased; 3.65GHz, for example, that mandate cooperation. Failure to engage in reasonable coordination can result in one party having their license revoked. Thus, one way or another, the interference goes away.

      The FCC may or may not specifically be preventing competition, but they are a single, and relatively small, department of the government.

      County / State regulations absolutely and unequivocally favor the incumbents. Sometimes they are so lopsided they actually BAN any form of competition, in whatever areas they can. Hence my reliance on OTARD.

      We've all heard the stories of cities passing laws to, for example, exclude Google Fiber.... It's absolutely blatant and un-American. Well, Google Fiber isn't the only one that gets picked on.

    48. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it doesn't. AT&T got billions with a "b" to put all of these lines in. Most of which they did not use for actually putting lines in. They were also granted virtual monopolies since they were able to negotiate exclusivity in town. I'd say being forced to at least let another company use their backbone for a fee is the very least they should do, since 1. They didn't pay for it and 2. While this situation is in place there will likely never be competition.

    49. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I'm not mixing up anything. I worked for AT&T in fiber construction. AT&T promised (if given tax breaks) that they would deliver 45 mbps to HOMES. Private single family HOMES. Not businesses, HOMES.

      We knew it was outlandish when they promised it, but what else are you going to say to justify an $80BN tax break? And as per usual, the government believed it.

      The 45mbps number wasn't pulled out of thin air... It's the speed of a T-3 line... They promised a speed they knew some folks were familiar with. Plenty of government buildings had T-3 lines at the time.

      Need fucking proof? Fine... Here it is:

      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

      Here are a couple of quotes for you:

      By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. And though it varies by state, counting the taxes, fees and surcharges that you have paid every month (many of these fees are actually revenues to the company or taxes on the company that you paid), it comes to about $4000-$5000.00 per household from 1992-2014, and that’s the low number.

      In fact, in 1992, the speed of broadband, as detailed in state laws, was 45 Mbps in both directions — by 2014, all of us should have been enjoying gigabit speeds (1000 Mbps).

      I didn't pull 45 mbps out of my ass and neither did AT&T. It's a super common speed..... And they fucking promised it to us for tax breaks and actual corporate grants AS WELL as being permitted to CHARGE EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THEIR NETWORK A FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SAID 45MBPS NETWORK.

      Please, call bullshit on it again....

  4. Quick translation guide by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You will work very hard, and this next year will -- my wife hates it when I say this -- feel like childbirth... - you will work 80+ hour weeks for at least the next year with no additional bonuses for anyone lower than VP level, so good luck keeping your personal life intact!

    You'll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it's not going to feel great while you're in the middle of it. - if you don't get fired or quit, you get a gold star for making it through!

    She says, 'What do you know about this?' I just observe, 'Honey. We love our kids. - The kids are going to feel pain and stress to toughen them up and be ready for anything in the real world!

    (I wish the existing employees luck. Things were already insanely busy at HBO.)

    1. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, this is a bonehead move. Anyone with talent is just going to pick up and leave to new, innovative competitors like Netflix. Or Amazon. Or Google. Or anyone else not run by some sluggish vertical monopoly willing fuck up a sure thing.

      HBO's properties will wither and die if mismanaged but there's no shortage of good companies willing to pay to crank out good content.

    2. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And just like childbirth, someone else will do all the hard stuff while he takes all the credit.

    3. Re:Quick translation guide by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've heard these speeches before. They often proceed layoffs the second year.
      So the company works you to death (in our case literally for one person and non-fatal heart attacks for five others plus the one unconscious contractor who we never found out what happened) and to divorce (a half dozen divorces) and *then* laid 95% of the staff off .

      HBO is going to suck terribly.

      It's like corporations have gone in sane and are taking hatchets to their own golden gooses.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re: Quick translation guide by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah that kind of speech is usually my sign to look for a new job.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's basically how I read it as well. AT&T views that HBO is successful and must change that. Hopefully Netflix and Amazon will pick up the slack since we can now expect no good programming to be coming from HBO.

    6. Re: Quick translation guide by nwf · · Score: 1

      Good news for Apple's new streaming TV service, for sure.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    7. Re:Quick translation guide by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      You missed the choice bit “Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising”. In other words: “I’ve seen how other companies pimp out their customers for data, and I want some of that action...”. Screw making an honest buck with subscriptions, that’s so 20th century.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to waste time RingTFA, but the statements from John Stankey in the summary alone are only one final over-the-top quote from being the end of a hilarious article in The Onion. Does he lack all self-awareness of what an incredible tool he's being? I guess so.

    9. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like corporations have gone in sane and are taking hatchets to their own golden gooses.

      Corporations are pretty much already insane, and frequently the people running things have no fucking idea what made something good, especially in the case of acquisitions. My three decades in the tech industry has made me believe that most acquisitions create short term value as they "achieve efficiencies" by cutting jobs, but in the long term they gut everything and destroy the value of the company they bought.

      Some fucking moron at the C-level just figures he'll hammer it into what he thinks it is supposed to be, and that he thinks will maximize value they squeeze out of it.

      In reality, they often destroy the value of it in the process, and then they're left with a division they've ruined that they eventually close because it's not profitable.

      Your average CEO has no fucking idea how to build something good, he knows how to do what he did at other companies. Sure, you saved a little money by eliminating jobs, but in the process you've fucked up the reasons why the company was worth buying in the first place.

      Most acquisitions seem to just ruin good things and eliminate jobs in the short term while failing to actually keep the good parts, because most CEOs really can't see past next quarter.

      Acquisitions is a shell game that in my experience creates less diversity and quality, and what you're left with is a larger company which is still badly managed and scrambling to find another distraction from that fact.

    10. Re: Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can have the credit, because in thus case the child will be stillborn, or maybe just severely deformed

    11. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully Netflix will buy WestWorld, and do right by it.

      Not sure where JohnnyO will land, but I suspect that he has already worn out his welcome with ATT.

  5. RIP HBO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had a good run.

  6. This is a fancy way to say layoffs by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    which you get with each and every merger. This is why we should stop allowing mega mergers. Big mergers are expensive and what's the first thing you do when you spend a bunch of money on a business expense? Try to make it back. Mergers destroy jobs.

    This was another good reason to oppose the Trump tax cuts. The mega-corps already said the money was all going to mergers and stock buybacks. The sort of thing that doesn't create jobs, it destroys them. Heck, it's easy to see why supply side economics fail. Businesses spend money to meet demand. Giving businesses more money does just that, gives them more money. Unless there's more demand they're just going to keep it. And if there's more demand they'll spend the money anyway. Yeah, there's a point where kleptocracy can kick in and choke a business, but you'd be surprised how far up that goes. Meanwhile the working class is choked with low wages and demand for everything is flat. Flat demand, flat job and wage growth.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt there will be any layoffs. AT&T announced at the meeting they don't have people to do the jobs and there wouldn't be layoffs. But it's worse than that. They're trying to turn HBO from a boutique content provider to one that supplies "hours of engagement a day" to a "broadened audience" and "provides data and [opportunities] for targeted advertising." So they're gonna kill the golden goose because they don't know what they bought, and turn it into an also-ran cable channel with 90% trash.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I doubt there will be any layoffs.

      That's nice. You're wrong, historically, but at least you get to feel like you contribute by being contrarian. Here's your prize.

    3. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt there will be any layoffs. AT&T announced at the meeting they don't have people to do the jobs and there wouldn't be layoffs.

      Oh, you sweet summer child.

      He said, in part: "It's going to be a tough year. It's going to be a lot of work to alter and change direction a little bit.

      Company execs talk in code during big company meetings. This is code for "start looking for a new job".

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    4. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by nwf · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Mr Stankey's big idea is to be like Netflix. By the time they figure out how to do that, Netflix will be 10 years ahead of them. He's chasing the past not looking toward the future. Seriously, how do people this dumb get to be executives?

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    5. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by slakdrgn · · Score: 1

      I've been here before from another industry! In my case we were already working extremely lean but we were extremely profitable. However, a larger industry that we essentially "work for" bought us out as they expanded their business. They liked we worked lean they said. A couple of years after the buyout we were lumped into a group of similar (but not really) focused companies. Being the only profitable business out of the 4 we propped the other businesses up and still made profit for the whole group (over $1B total revenue). Unfortunately that didn't last very long when the other two companies in the group got hit by new regulations. Suddenly we hit the black as a group, not the red but it didn't matter at that point. Various poor decisions and a few pissed off clients later that once proud 2k employee business is nothing but a name of a 15 person business unit that's riding remaining contracts and whatever legal loopholes the old business license might still allow.

    6. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by yabos · · Score: 1

      Ohhh, I bet they will lay a lot of people off. I worked for a company in Canada that was partially owned by Comcast/Time Warner. Comcast bought out Time Warner. There were rumours of layoffs, and some suit came up and we had a big meeting about how everything was great and nothing would change. Less than 2 years later the whole company was shut down.

    7. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Tax cuts happen.
      Record low unemployment, historic lows for blacks/Hispanics.
      Rsilvergun claims this is proof of massive layoffs, no evidence given. +5 Insightful.

      I have come to the conclusion that rsilvergun is a racist. He only supports policies that hurt minorities and blacks, and bitches and complains every time something helps them. The majority of people left on /. are the same, see his moderation.

    8. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Layoffs (post-merger) occur because of redundancy. while no doubt DirectTV and HBO Go have an overlap in the billing/account management side, AT&T doesn't have any content creation people to make the HBO folks redundant. And the plan he outlined are going to require more workers, not less.

      I mean, they'll all be out of a job in six years or so, because it seems like HBO is going to be ruined, but not from layoffs.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually what he is saying is that you should not look for a good job so that we can ride you like a mule and then put you down when we're done with you.

      you should definitely understand it as "start looking for a new job" though.

      Seriously, get out now.

    10. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Connections and proven sociopathic behavior.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unemployment numbers are good. All good. Record-level good.

      But these particular layoffs that didn't happen yet are already President Trump's fault.

      Holy F**k but your derangement syndrome is showing!

    12. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sort of thing that doesn't create jobs, it destroys them.

      Must be why we have more jobs than ever.

    13. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by nwf · · Score: 1

      Come on, give him proper credit. From that article, he seems sexist, too.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    14. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, there will be massive layoffs. Google said the same shit when they bought Motorola and proceeded to gank all the IP and can every employee. "We wouldn't put a 99-year lease on a building in Chicago if we were going to lay people off..." Yeah.

  7. Well, goodbye to that by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We need hours a day," Mr. Stankey said, referring to the time viewers spend watching HBO programs.

    So long, The Wire, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Deadwood ... you know, stuff that actually took time, care, and focus to produce. On the other hand, I still have to catch up on most of these series anyway.

    1. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Kjella · · Score: 1

      So long, The Wire, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Deadwood ... you know, stuff that actually took time, care, and focus to produce. On the other hand, I still have to catch up on most of these series anyway.

      Isn't that the target market? The people who, when they do get an hour or two off from the wife and kids they're willing and able to pay good money for some quality entertainment. Sure, hours a day you can get with any junk reality show or YouTube video, they cost almost nothing. But they're also worth almost nothing exactly because there's thousands of hours of filler like that. Unless you have some crazy viral video but that's just the online community's random whim of the day. Nothing made Gangnam Style that special. People just picked some random shit and made it an Internet hit. Good luck if they think they can reliably produce that.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      "We need hours a day," Mr. Stankey said, referring to the time viewers spend watching HBO programs.

      Guess ATT should have bought YouTube. Oh wait...

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    3. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      HBO is just returning to their roots. The 1980s, when HBO stood for "Hey, Beastmaster's on!"

    4. Re:Well, goodbye to that by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Other than GoT all those series finished up years ago.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    5. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long Westworld?

    6. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The new productions will include reality shows focused on motorcycles, garage sales, dangerous jobs, wedding dresses, houses and teenage moms. So long to my HBO subscription, the old series are watched through soon.

    7. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? They were still well-produced shows.

    8. Re:Well, goodbye to that by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      From that execs speech, I gather that his intended target market is just that: easily distracted people who watch cat videos on their cell phones. I don’t know how he thinks he’s going to compete in that market, but it won’t be with “the Wire”.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Were you expecting him to predict what HBO would've produced in 2020 if it wasn't for this merger?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    10. Re:Well, goodbye to that by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      I'm saying they are a bit behind considering The Sopranos ended over a decade ago. You know Rosebud is the name of the sled and they did make a second Godfather film?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    11. Re:Well, goodbye to that by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Vice is still rolling new episodes.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    12. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And viral videos are a declining fad too. When's the last time your office lunch room was rife with echos of the same video and people laughing?

    13. Re:Well, goodbye to that by dr.g · · Score: 1

      Well...HBO could add their signature touches to cat videos. I mean who could resist cats saying "Fuck!" and cats with big titties?

      --
      "To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
    14. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. This rang so true.

  8. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AT&T have decided to ruin one of the most successful brands in entertainment.

    Right now, HBO competes and holds its own against Netflix and Amazon, both of which continue to invest and profit st their expense. Rather than compete, HBO plans to cede this ground, kill the goose laying the golden eggs, and bet it all on a strategy that takes them out if a market they excel at and run head first into one they donâ(TM)t understand and are ill equipped to compete in.

    Thereâ(TM)s not a âoeplan Bâ here - once todayâ(TM)s creators abandon the HBO platform (which theyâ(TM)ll do in a heartbeat), thereâ(TM)s no going back if they change their minds later.

    1. Re: In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why you trade-marking your words?

    2. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure would be nice if smartphone keyboards had an option to use "dumb" double-quotes and single-quotes.

    3. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bet it all on a strategy that takes them out if a market they excel at and run head first into one they don't understand and are ill equipped to compete in.

      There's no "market" in "attention of smartphne users". At least not for HBO, I'd imagine. As an experiment with new content or types of content? Maybe. But pivoting
      their entire business to rely on that? I can't see it.
      Then again, I don't run a successful business, or have ruined a few with insane ideas, so what do I know?!

    4. Re:In other words... by Rashkae · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think there is. As it is now, HBO is *giving* all that market away to .. shall we say, grey market sites, (at best.) If HBO dedicated some time and effort to capturing those eyeballs for themselves, there might well be many opportunities to monitize it that are being overlooked.

      But I expect AT&T to just FUBAR it anyhow.

    5. Re:In other words... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think there is. As it is now, HBO is *giving* all that market away to .. shall we say, grey market sites, (at best.) If HBO dedicated some time and effort to capturing those eyeballs for themselves, there might well be many opportunities to monitize it that are being overlooked.

      But I expect AT&T to just FUBAR it anyhow.

      Getting ready to drop HBO in 3..2..

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re: In other words... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      My smartphone keyboard does "just fine" with straight quotes.

    7. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a setting buried in the iPhone that fixes that Apple-made problem. I think General->Keyboards->Smart Punctuation.

    8. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because money can buy it..

    9. Re: In other words... by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      They aren't. Slashdot sucks hard at Unicode. â(TM) should be an apostrophe.

  9. Where in the Internet Bible does it say ... by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    There shall be infinite number of eyeball hours to see everything everyone can produce?

    There is more to life.

    1. Re:Where in the Internet Bible does it say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first thought, too. Even if the media succeeds in preserving their share of our attention, or even increases average viewing time, it can only ever be incremental. Like it might go from 14 hours a day to 16. They have to work enormously hard to keep people watching, because there's nothing inherently positive about watching in the first place.

      So much of the media growth is predicated on the idea that they can occupy yet more viewing time. But what if people decide to do something else with their time? There's no inherent reason why people watch any video at all. It's visually compelling, sure, so children naturally eat it up, but if any given individual just decides to engage less, they'll find they have more time, more money, and more mental energy to enjoy life. One would hope entire nations would figure that out, and then what? It seems precarious as a business.

      I'd much rather make something people will always want (like healthy food, or means of transportation) than depend on people continuing to do something that isn't even in their own interest.

    2. Re:Where in the Internet Bible does it say ... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      There is more to life.

      You know you could keep the TV on, cut the sound, while you go outside for some outdoor activities. That will make HBO happy.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  10. Pepperidge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when if your company turned a profit you had a big Christmas party at the office?

    If your company makes money, you've won the game, good job. If it's not enough money, then you suffer from a mental disorder. Best thing to do is commit yourself. Second best thing is to start a second business and combine the profits from both.

    1. Re:Pepperidge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wallstreet doesn't care about being profitable. It's all about being more profitable (or less unprofitable) than last quarter so that the stock price will go up.

  11. Abort by zlives · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    this is why Roe V Wade is so essential,
    John Stankey needs to be aborted.

    1. Re:Abort by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      this is why Roe V Wade is so essential,
      John Stankey needs to be aborted.

      Marty McFly should've made himself more useful back in the 1950s!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  12. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, talk about corporate idiocy. This is burning platform memo level logic. These people are paid with hundreds of millions to come up with this shit. And when they blow, they get more hundreds of millions to bow out.

  13. AT&T is such a shitty company by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad I don't pay for TV in any way, and I'm also glad that I'm considering dumping them for phone service too, what a bunch of worthless bastards.

  14. Bright Side: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    AT&T saving people $10-15 a month as they cancel subscriptions for the once great network.

    1. Re:Bright Side: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pretty much a given. Seriously, HBO is currently one of the few services available for streaming at a decent price that truly creates good and enjoyable television. They're gonna fuck that because they want more potential data on viewers so they can better target advertising? That flat out is exactly the OPPOSITE of anything HBO has ever done.

      I swear, if they fuck up Westworld, we're out. Knowing how AT&T works, the first thing they'll do is go after the already super successful shows and try to hose the formula because "MOAR VIEWERS MOAR BETTAR! GIVES ME MOAR TITTAYS AND ESPLOSIONS! GET MICHAEL BAY ON THE LINE!"

      Fuck. This is the most depressing thing I've heard in days.

  15. C'est la vie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All great things must come to an end,
    it really was a good run, I think we all see the writing on the wall here,
    remember when this was happening to nickelodeon but we were a bit too young to put it all together?

    I remember it because they had an episode where ren raped stimpy while calling him a bitch...I wonder if that event will cycle and we will witness one of our beloved shows mutilated because of internal conflicts over the new power dynamic and watch as some artists with integrity stand up only to be made an example of.

    I think we are old enough now to pattern match what is going to happen next. I will turn HBO off now so as not to bother witnessing the oncoming greed and corner cutting train that is about to smash through so many well done productions.

    I'll just close it's eyes with some dignity and let it rest while remembering all the good shows it brought. It will be HBO in name only soon, like a cannibal wearing your moms skin and asking you if you want breakfast.

  16. Surveillance Capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sometimes the marketing models of these companies is a lot like those anti-drug ads from the 1980's.

    I want to surveil more customers, so I can learn more about them, so I can make them watch more, so I can surveil them and learn more about them.

    This business model is overwhelmingly dead, and yet, people keep coming back to it.

    1. Re: Surveillance Capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead? Its what the tech industry is relying on to enslave the world. Sad!

  17. Interesting, sparks will fly indeed by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess this is what happens when a communications executive takes over a bunch of creatives. I live near NYC and it's nothing like LA, but the entertainment work scene here is pretty much the opposite of AT&T. It's not quite Don Draper 3-martini lunches but former colleagues of mine who now work in that business say it's pretty close. People are creative and used to having a fair amount of freedom around the way they get the job done.

    When a creative company gets acquired by someone who just wants to squeeze it for all it's worth, they'll probably lose some of their better creative talent...those folks have options. AT&T is used to providing a cheap-to-deploy, incredibly high margin service. Once they start cracking the whip, the content quality is going to drop. I imagine the first thing they'll do is offshore every business process that isn't outsourced already. When that doesn't produce the savings, they're going to start cutting into the creatives' budget. No more personal assistants, free car service, free food, expense account dinners, etc.

    1. Re:Interesting, sparks will fly indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider that everything that has ever been done "for" mobile, the mobile web, and its previous incarnations, everything, every single idea any jerkoff had for mobile has only served to ruin and aggrivate the user experience. The break-through was that we could get identical content on mobile. Then everything went South, rapidly. Copyright holders started to deliniate, causing YouTube to block mobile for some content, and the mobile web (which could and should just as well the actual WWW) sprang up everywhere, every goddamn site has a shittier version of their site just for mobile, and often it cannot be avoided or turned off. Some asshole at AT&T came up with this line of bullshit about competing with mobile. This will not end well for HBO, mobile, or AT&T. Sometimes when the pressure is on, out comes a giant turd.

    2. Re:Interesting, sparks will fly indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T hasn't even managed to fix the mobile login site for DirecTV since their acquisition of that company. I would expect more of the same from the new company.

  18. a years from now... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    it'll be interesting to see if more video is consumed on smartphones or not...who watches this stuff anyhow?

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
    1. Re:a years from now... by Layth · · Score: 1

      instagram. they even switched their videos to be tallscreen instead of wide

  19. Kiss of goodbye by markdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > "and it is already considering an overhaul that would see HBO produce more video that can compete for the attention of smartphone users, even if that means upending HBO's longtime strategy of producing a relatively small number of high-quality shows."

    Well, I guess you can kiss HBO goodbye, then. Because that is the ONLY thing that makes it worth having; things like Westworld, Sopranos, Oz, Game of Thrones, Room 104, and such. PLENTY of other networks for the type of lower quality, high quantity stuff.

    If you want to get rid of something, please make it Bill Maher.

    1. Re:Kiss of goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just not touching the damn thing? If they change one thing, they will start to change more eventually AND try to force other channels to do the same.

  20. Says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why are more hours of engagement important? Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions, which I think is very important to play in tomorrow's world."

  21. Hint: Dumping porn a bad start by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the HBO Go app (the one you can use to subscribe to HBO a month at a time), they just dropped the whole "late night" (read: Soft Porn) section. But it's hardly a loss as for some time now they had let updates to that area languish to almost nothing. I have to imagine that subscribers are falling off in part because of that...

    What happened to the HBO of old that had sex positive and fun programming like "Real Sex"? Seems like everyone wants to be Netflix now with hot original dramatic shows, while abandoning aspects that make each service unique and provide extra value.

    The funny thing is that personally I only just started subscribing to HBO, for Game of Thrones, then Silicon Valley, then Westworld. But once I finish up those new seasons I'll probably let the subscription go again as not much of the other content really grabs me. Some more high-end adult content produced with some regularity might help convince me to stay...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Hint: Dumping porn a bad start by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      HBO is pretty good about producing new shows, so that as X ends, Y is there and replaces it, etc.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Hint: Dumping porn a bad start by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That is true that they do have a number of new shows in constant supply. But for some reason the hit rate with me is less than Netflix despite pretty high production values across the board. I've tried a number of the other series they have but none have grabbed me enough to keep watching.

      I would argue the shows they do have, despite seemingly being different, all kind of blend together with a similar tone for most. I think that's why I can't get too interested in picking up some of the other options they offer.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Hint: Dumping porn a bad start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out Real Time with Bill Maher. You'll enjoy that show. I guarantee it!

    4. Re:Hint: Dumping porn a bad start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying the lack of daily enguagement is causing you to unsubscribe from HBO?

    5. Re:Hint: Dumping porn a bad start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Netflix. It's like $8/month for basic, more than enough for a casual viewer. Check out "Altered Carbon" or "Anon". There's some sex & nudity. Don't watch it near the kids. But that's just background. The series is really pure ultra-hard-core Sci-Fi. "Altered Carbon" deals with immortality, and all the horrible evil that swapping bodies and being ultra-rich buys you. "Anon" deals with what happens when everything is recorded. Who watches the watchers? What happens when it gets hacked? And there's a lot more where that came from. Superhero stuff like Luke Cage. Cartoons for the kids. Works with Google's Chromecast.

      Seriously, check out the competition! And save a few bucks!

  22. The John Oliver show is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope he's looking for a new network cause he's screwed the exact people he complains about own him now and they son't seem fond of frivolous spending or political commentary that isn't pro-business.

  23. AT&T will slaughter that Golden Goose by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone not expect this? A cellular company bought HBO and their first thought is episodes are too long and everyone wants to watch them on their phone. Oh and they want to add advertising, forgetting of course that most of HBO's subscribers do so because it DOESN'T have advertising.

    They'll kill HBO with these plans before they ever evolve them to compete with Netflix. AT&T will slaughter the goose.

    1. Re:AT&T will slaughter that Golden Goose by avandesande · · Score: 1

      No way HBO can compete with barely watchable Netflix originals.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:AT&T will slaughter that Golden Goose by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      The point is that an HBO that is making quantity over quality is just another Netflix.

  24. Copying Youtube's business model won't work by shadesofgreen · · Score: 2

    Seems like ATT wants to monetize HBO viewers and introduce Ads on HBO and produce more content, that could be a good thing, however, their is a reason why HBO is so successful in consistently producing high quality content. If you are beholden to advertisers, then the quality of content will suffer, no more adult themed shows, as every fucking advertiser will try to push HBO to be politically correct and viewers will loose a genuine uncensored media outlet. It will be a sad day!

  25. Boost revenue in advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not going to both pay money and see commercials. Sorry, Mr. Stankey, you Christmas Poo, that dog don't hunt.

  26. Fuck AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T a are fat bloated company which grew because it had a monopoly and the government's eventual slap on the wrist didn't stop it's expansion. And who treat their customers like shit.

    HBO is a well-run company. A cultural treasure.

    Now AT&T gets to tell HBO what to do only because they've amassed so much cash through their shitty monopoly they could buy them.

    Their new boss at AT&T strikes me as an arrogant douchebag. Fuck him. Fuck AT&T. Fuck AT&T again. And fucks the courts for approving this deal. Fuck them all.

  27. " We need hours a day." by sehlat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    May I ask just how and when a population already struggling just to stay afloat will find those hours and the money to pay for them while they're working multiple jobs?

    1. Re:" We need hours a day." by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      It’s all the obese layabout welfare -abusers- that will be watching this content.

      Sorry, child. You too will lose your job to automation and AI, and won't have any alternative because all jobs up to your IQ level will have been automated away before you ever had the chance to try doing them. When that happens, just do as all the people whose IQ levels are below AI and become a beggar. It's what you'll deserve for "choosing" to not increase your IQ at the pace required by automation.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  28. asinine by JackSpratts · · Score: 1

    forget about retooling hbo. if you need the legitimacy of the brand that desperately, create a parallel channel, something like hbo light, and call it if you must hbolitening. there's your product for the smartphone obsessed! cat vids, car cams, czech councilmen throwing chairs...in the meantime leave the parent channel alone. shiela nevins bailed like rasputin.

  29. Weird to get an upfront "We're tanking" message by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more used to corporations doing a more subtle bait and switch game where they grow their popularity with quality products and then try and cut costs as subtly as possible. Outsourcing to China, using cheaper meat, getting rid of what their warranty covers.

    Having a CEO just come out and say "We're going to send this channel straight into the shitter" right to our face is just a weird amount of honesty. I mean, they coach it in positive terms as PR people are ought to do. But even they acknowledge it's going to be painful.

    HBO targeting PHONE audiences. So.... Westworld, but cut down to 6 second VINE clips. Season 10 of Game of Thrones will be flash animation with 3 characters remaining after the killing of the rest. And it won't be the expensive ones.

    1. Re:Weird to get an upfront "We're tanking" message by Black+Diamond · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This was an internal employee town hall meeting. Someone saw the writing on the wall, recorded the meeting and provided it to the press to see if they can get enough momentum to turn the tide against this change.

      They'll fail of course, but it's a noble effort nonetheless.

    2. Re:Weird to get an upfront "We're tanking" message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a CEO just come out and say "We're going to send this channel straight into the shitter" right to our face is just a weird amount of honesty.

      Two years ago during the presidential campaign, one of the candidates explicitly (and though it wasn't recognized at the time, honestly) spelled out how he intended to cause devastating harm to America and make every American ashamed. And so we elected him.

  30. How to make a profit with TV by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Study what is selling and what people enjoy watching that does not need a huge budget.
    Consider what a computer can design into the look and feel of a series.
    Find out what your audience will become interested in and return to watch due to its creative production.
    Vampires? That like humans as new best friends.
    A saga about people will billions of US $. To look after, spend, protect and enjoy. Who also want to make new friends
    Pirates with ships, maps and treasure.
    A hospital with amazing doctors. Really amazing with skills and who like to make friends after their shift.

    Most of the plots can be done with a low, low budget and many very well educated people can create years of plot for the above.
    A plot with history and pirate will cost more due to costume and location. The need for a real/digital ship design and a digital war.
    A plot with time travel to a modern time for the pirate crew could reduce the production costs. Rather then moving one person from 2018 back to complex pirate times.
    With the France, Spain and lots of Scotland.

    Make sure every show gets sold globally at the same time. Flood the online market with content so no nation/region has to wait.
    Sell that creative product direct to the world. Lots of simple shows that are charming and fun for a set demographics that they will pay for.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:How to make a profit with TV by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      So turn HBO into TBS. What could go wrong?

  31. They need to be split up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T is too big and too powerful. History repeating itself much like the new Third Reich in Washington.

  32. Objoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  33. Likely to lose my business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I started subscribing after noticing I was pirating a very high percentage of their content. They definitely earned my dollars. I'm not interested in mobile content, so if that's their new focus, I'll probably go back to not subscribing.

  34. Okay. Who gets the epidural? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... more video that can compete for the attention of smartphone users, ... AT&T wants to boost revenue both in advertising and subscriptions, ... upending HBO's longtime strategy of producing a relatively small number of high-quality shows.

    ... this next year will -- my wife hates it when I say this -- feel like childbirth...

    So a lot of pain, yelling and pooping? Sounds *wonderful*.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  35. Next, they'll rename the network. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    HBO must compete with smartphones for people's attention, ...

    PBO - Phone Box Office.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Next, they'll rename the network. by nwf · · Score: 1

      I think you mean PCB for Phone Click Bait, which seems to be what they are calling for. That's basically all people watch on phones anyway. I'd never watch Westworld on a phone.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    2. Re:Next, they'll rename the network. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it will have to be PBX, Phone Box eXtreme! Or maybe just Private Branch eXchange. Something like that.

  36. lets look at history 4 a sec.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It seems 2 me pretty much anything AT&T touches goes to shit.. in some form or another..
    1. ATT+pacbell
    2. ATT+@home
    3. ATT +Zenith/Bull business systems
    Those are just of the top of my head, i am sure there are PLENTY more.. Greedy profit motives..
    HBO is so fucked.. I am wondering when Bill Mahr/ John Oliver and or Vice leave (or are asked to leave) due to the controversial material they produce.
    Look out IFC you may get some interesting programming choices..

    1. Re:lets look at history 4 a sec.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very interesting and informative.
      Im surprised none of these fucks modded it correctly.
      fucking Millennials...

      Oh, Wait, im sorry I just noticed "Anonymous Coward " ok now I understand, like a cat, or a fish, if it's not all shinny and shit, its not worth modding?

      stupid..

    2. Re:lets look at history 4 a sec.. by nwf · · Score: 1

      I had @home in the early days. What a complete waste of a company. Almost nothing worked besides their basic internet service.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    3. Re:lets look at history 4 a sec.. by suezz · · Score: 1

      att will just move on to the next thing they buy. they had digital life now that is in the crapper. they have uverse now that is sunsetting they just keep buying and think they are being innovative without bothering improving what they have already. they buy things and then never sustain them. just move on to the next buy. meanwhile living off of the mobile phone business.

  37. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hint: The 'r' in his psuedonym stands for retard.

  38. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    found the idiot trumpster.
    Hey Trumpster, MEGA mergers are mostly bad. They reduce competition, reduces jobs, and promote monopoly behavior. ...but look over there socialism! be afraid! be very afraid! Did i say socialism? Like that has some meaning in this discussion outside your fever dreams? but socialism bad! therefore we have to watch every industry turn into the wonderful business model of comcast.

  39. An MBA's work is never finished. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    John Stankey is an MBA who was in charge of DirectTV over the last couple of years while it's been hemorrhaging customers. He introduced the DirectTV Now streaming service which was supposed to boost profits. So far, it's only helped to offset the number of subscribers lost. Unfortunately, since it's a lower cost service, their profits have tanked.

    Now they've acquired HBO and they want to make it cell-phone-friendly by cutting episodes to 20 minutes in the idiotic hope that doing the same thing will produce different results.

    How will AT&T produce more shows without reducing quality? Stankey said that AT&T and HBO will have to "figure [that] out."

    "I have an idea! Make more shows and more money! No, I don't know how to do either of those things. You guys have to figure that part out. Anyway, my work is done here. I'll take my bonus now!"

    1. Re:An MBA's work is never finished. by nwf · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised he didn't just say "we need to work smarter, not harder. Well, smarter and harder until I get my bonus. Then screw you all."

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    2. Re:An MBA's work is never finished. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >charge of DirectTV over the last couple of years while it's been hemorrhaging customers.

      Duh, that's the trend for all cable and satellite
      https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/cord-cutting-2017-high-cost-cancellation-pay-tv-1202728922/

      The cord-cutting numbers for 2017 are in, and they paint an increasingly dreary picture for pay-TV providers — which experienced their worst losses to date.

      Analysts estimate U.S. cable, satellite and telco operators shed between 3.1 million and 3.5 million traditional TV subscribers last year. That’s a significant acceleration over the 1.9 million the sector lost in 2016, per Kagan, with the sub base shrinking 3.7% in 2017.

      But there was growth in one sector:

      While traditional pay-TV declined by a net 3.3 million subs in 2017, online pay-TV services added 2.6 million, according to Wall Street firm MoffettNathanson. The latter category included Dish’s Sling TV, AT&T’s DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, Hulu’s live TV package, and Sony’s PlayStation Vue.

      Consumer are watching more content on their phones and cutting the cord on the old pay tv model. All Stankey is addressing is for those viewer HBO should produce content that can be consumed in 20-30 minute segments rather than the 1+ hour segment that most the HBO content is. The future of TV is content that can be viewed on phones.

      Also what you and the other /. doomsayers leave out is that according to TFA Plepler agreed with Stankey even if he was a little defensive about needing to make more money.

  40. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by alexgieg · · Score: 2

    Listen sweetcheeks - Megamergers aren't good or bad - they ARE.

    Thus talked the pseudo-conservative who wouldn't be able to distinguish his Russell Kirk from his Eric Voegelin from his G. K. Chesterton.

    Here, little fake-conservative, read some real ones for a change, will you? You may begin with Hilaire Belloc and proceed from there.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  41. I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop alienating half of the potential audiences by one sided political extremism. Shows like Last Week Tonight & Real Time have been non-stop Trump bashers so I stop tuning in. Last Week used to do some very good shows that exposed a lot of problems world wide. Since ultra liberal media kicked into overdrive - the content has been limited.

    Do a balanced show that might appeal to more than a specific demographic - increase viewership - increase profits.

    1. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's doubtful. HBO's CEO, Plepler, is a big time Democrat Gives millions to Democratic candidates and PACS. And you can obviously see how the liberal influence in HBO's lineup of political commentary and news shows. If he were to leave and ATT gets someone more politically neutral (at least as far as their public support for one party goes), then maybe you'd see some balance in their programming. Until that happens nothing is going to change, I think.

    2. Re:I have an idea by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      there's already an entire channel devoted to that point of view. it's called Fox "News"

  42. What's the new company called? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, all the good talent is leaving for a new internet-only production company that will take most of HBO's market share? Cool.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:What's the new company called? by akgooseman · · Score: 2

      AT&T will use the new net non-neutrality rules to ensure the new internet-only production company's content can't be viewed by AT&T's customers. And they'll likely conspire with other top tier ISPs to do the same -- the big boys gotta stick together.

  43. Ever been through a round of layoffs? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    when the layoffs are coming you never tell anyone they're coming. Otherwise they get busy looking for new jobs. The good people leave, the bad stop doing their work and everything goes to hell. There's an easy way to tell if a suit is lying when he says no layoffs are coming: lips are moving. It's a tell tale sign.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Ever been through a round of layoffs? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree in general. However, they're going to be so busy ruining HBO, they'll need all the bodies they can get. That part rings true, at least for now.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Ever been through a round of layoffs? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Layoffs are always proceeded by assurances of "no current plans to lay anyone off."

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  44. Netflix... by erp_consultant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Netflix has to be just loving this. AT&T will turn one of the only remaining traditional TV stations into complete and utter shit. Well, at least it will have plenty of company. Meanwhile watch how subscribers run for the hills as the price goes up and the quality goes down.

    AT&T has always been run as a monopoly. They haven't the faintest idea about customer service and now they are going to be in for a very rude awakening. RIP HBO.

    1. Re:Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So WHY do you keep feeding them??!

  45. the captain midnight guy is still around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ATT better look out!

  46. Hours a day? by CharlesAKAChuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, does anyone actually watch any SINGLE channel for hours a day? And of those, how many are watching hours a day of a single channel on a PHONE? Why in the world would anyone think that they're somehow able to make that the slightest bit enjoyable in any way? Has Stankey actually been a human being in America for very long, because any human being in America would quickly realize that nobody wants to stare at a cell phone for hours a day to watch a single channel. Nobody. And then to top it off, he goes right into collecting customer data to monetize it in the form of advertising and subscriptions-seriously, is the guy from another planet? How could that possibly be a good idea for any customer?

    1. Re:Hours a day? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Does leaving the TV on in the background but not paying much attention to it count?

      I used to be a big TV watcher, but as I've gotten older, just sitting staring passively at a screen just doesn't work for me, there are very few shows or movies I can muster that for.

      Usually the TV is background noise while I play video games, play board games or stuff with my daughter, read a book, or do chores around the house. My iPod and iPhone get more use for music and/or podcasts and audiobooks than the TV anymore....

    2. Re:Hours a day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then to top it off, he goes right into collecting customer data to monetize it in the form of advertising and subscriptions-seriously, is the guy from another planet?

      He's a CEO of a really large company, which means he only knows a few ways to make money and will keep doing them until they fire him.

      AT&T is used to saying "this is what we'll give you, and you'll like it". I predict they'll fail utterly here.

      How could that possibly be a good idea for any customer?

      You seem to think that either AT&T gives a fuck about customers, or has any actual clue of how to run a media company.

      You'd be wrong on both counts.

      AT&T has no core competencies in this field, and their management have no fucking clue what is required to make good programming.

      This will be a case of a big company buying another company, utterly ruining the purchased company, and then wondering why they're not turning a profit by producing a lower quality product nobody wants.

      AT&T thinks they're going to have more content, therefore more views, therefore more data and ad revenue and subscription revenue ... but when they make shitty content nobody wants to watch, they'll be incapable of understanding this, and they'll claim that piracy or some other bogeyman is why they're not succeeding.

      The reality is this will fail because they will make more garbage content, and where HBO used to imply good quality original programming, it will come to mean "more derivative programming which appeals to idiots".

    3. Re:Hours a day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Many people watch only one channel for hours at a time. The very first channel for this was CNN. Now it is more Fox news, ESPN, HGTV, Food Network and so on. Surprisingly large numbers on people will have the TV on only one channel almost all day.

      You have likely been around well adjusted halfway intelligent people. The rest would gladly stare at their phone to see short clips all day because they already do. the only problem HBO will have is anticipating just how horrible the content will need to be in order to take that market from youtube.

  47. ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are not people who are very bright. Released ATT Watch without a ROKU Channel.

    1. Re:ATT by sabbede · · Score: 1

      ATT Watch is part of their cell service, DirecTV Now is the one with a Roku channel. AT&T is so well organized that it's competing against itself.

  48. HBO is doomed by clay_buster · · Score: 1

    âoe we intend to kill the culture that made this company successful âoe

  49. I wish them luck by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    with their new jobs at Netflix and Amazon. The existing employees are all highly talented with a string of hits on their hands. They're also unionized.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  50. Netflix and Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are likely already offering the HBO talent jobs

  51. Welp. by Chas · · Score: 1

    There goes any value in HBO.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  52. They'll need a new name by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking a simple addition to reflect the new corporate reality for employees: H O BO.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  53. Surprised? Me? Nah... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

    I honestly can't say I'm particularly surprised about this seeing how the motivation behind corporate consolidations, when broken down, always come back to wanting to make a profit as big as possible. Disney didn't buy LucasFilm and their IP for any other reason than to make a lot of money from their IP and AT&T's takeover of Time Warner (who owns/owned HBO) is not any more different.

    Considering massive the 85.4 billion USD price they had to pay for the whole lot it's kind of obvious that getting parts of Time Warner, particularly HBO, to become drastically more profitable was what was not just plain greed, it was a necessity for the deal to make fiscal sense. You simply don't borrow 85 billion without paying a lot of interest every year or big amortizations.

    As an HBO subscriber it seems like this is probably the right time to un-subscribe from their service. I don't find most of their catalog all that appealing and mostly just watch their old shows (Sopranos, The Wire, etc.) along some of their newer stuff (Westworld being the only one I've actively followed even if the un-planned nature of the writing really has really started to show) so it's not like I'm going to miss out on all that much when I move back to Netflix and the local BBC equivalent's streaming service.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    1. Re:Surprised? Me? Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly can't say I'm particularly surprised about this seeing how the motivation behind corporate consolidations, when broken down, always come back to wanting to make a profit as big as possible. Disney didn't buy LucasFilm and their IP for any other reason than to make a lot of money from their IP and AT&T's takeover of Time Warner (who owns/owned HBO) is not any more different.

      But Disney is still a rare company which can see the long term goals for profit. They buy a cow and they see the dairy farm in their future. AT&T seems to want to suck all the milk from HBO's udders until they get only blood, then suck harder.

    2. Re:Surprised? Me? Nah... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Seeing how Disney decided to start releasing a new Star Wars movie every year I really wouldn't say they're any different from AT&T in this regard. Hell, it's almost if AT&T is copying what Disney was in the process of doing (at least until the first movie that lost money).

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    3. Re:Surprised? Me? Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unplanned nature of the writing is hilarious. HBO has done with Westworld what almost all successful US TV does. They "soap" the good show. Old soap operas had a rhythm that was sloooooow. This was to stretch the actual presentation of story. This saves budget and maximizes the amount of show produced for the minimum of creative effort. The slow pan to the face in the cam showing the painful expression over and over again. Dullsville. It's why most US TV is great the first season as the show is slamming out the creativity in order to secure a viewership. The show then goes to crap as it is "soaped". They even hire in the soap writers to rehash essentially the same old bizarre character oriented storylines in the new show world. The amazing thing is that some people appear to lap it up. They recite all the meaningless characters by name as they recount all the rehashed and repurposed "human story" drivel. The names of the characters are hardly worth knowing after the show is soaped.

      The Expanse is a show where this has not happened. It has remained story driven throughout. In fact it had more drivel at the beginning than towards the end. Perhaps not being completely successful and under constant threat of cancellation is what has caused this. The Expanse has been forced to present the story to keep viewers. Let's hope Amazon keeps them on their toes as there are few shows worth watching. None of them are on HBO.
      I don't see the great loss if HBO shrivels and dies. Rome was the last show they did that was any good at all. AMC and Showtime have beat the pants off HBO for quality of creative content with Dexter and Breaking Bad. Game of Thrones just doen't cut it ion comparison.

  54. Another stupid executive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These morons with MBAs but no experience actually creating something all think of themselves as "visionaries" but most could not have the vision to navigate out of a wet paper bag. The guy's no Steve Jobs.

    He claims to have a business idea that "need[s] hours a day" of each customer's attention - never gonna happen, dude. You're doomed to fail. The average adult with adult responsibilities does not have hours per day to give you. Certainly, people will set aside a couple of hours a couple times a week if the quality is there to justify it, but only kids and the elderly can spare that much time every day - and these groups lack the resources to make it worth "monetizing" them.

    Usually, an even moderately smart manager with such an idea would launch it with a PLAN to provide something to lure the customers in, but apparently not this idiot. Don't pity him for being a prime example of the peter principle - like most such worthless people in management positions, he almost certainly has a better "golden parachute" than all the people working below him who are likely to be harmed when he fails.

    People with stock in this company should think about this and consider adjusting their portfolios, not because of this little non-plan plan but rather because of the sign it is of the dearth of quality in management there.

  55. D*mn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RIP HBO

  56. Quality Shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if they didn't focus on having nudity for the sake of nudity every 5 minutes, they could focus on actual story writing. I'm not even religious and even I think the nudity is too much.

    1. Re:Quality Shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      always male genitals nudity no clits or labia to vaginal holes.

  57. It shows I think we need more antitrust action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the pipe owners could own some small tv studios. But buying a giant media company? This is concentrating too much power into a few hands. I understand that there can be economies of scale in industries, but the cable, phone, and media companies are already pretty damn big. I would like for the major media companies to be spun off from the pipe owners by law.

  58. Don't, please by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    Don't ruin Game of Thrones :(

    --
    I tend to rant.
    1. Re:Don't, please by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Looks like GoT is ending just in time. Now if I could get my wife uninterested in Westworld, we can completely drop HBO....

      Luckily our cable co let's us swap premium channels. We can drop HBO till the new and final GoT season starts, and for Westworld. After Westworld, won't see any reason to go back...

    2. Re:Don't, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, the show creators have already taken care of that. It's become so nonsensical as to be practically unwatchable over the last two seasons. Can't wait to see how utterly horrible they make the ending.

    3. Re:Don't, please by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Westworld S2 is iffy for me, at episode 6 and I feel like the entire Japanese theme was throwaway material. Interesting show, but they should've left it up to the imagination after Season 1, which was very well executed.

      --
      I tend to rant.
  59. ATM CARDS by preshp77 · · Score: 0

    Do you know that you can hack any ATM machine !!! We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be used to hack any ATM machine, this ATM cards can be used to withdraw cash at the ATM or swipe, stores and outlets. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested buyers worldwide, the cards has a daily withdrawal limit of $5000 in ATM and up to $100,000 spending limit in it stores. We also have credit cards for online shopping, we give the credit cards details to our interested clients worldwide including the credit card cvv.if you are in need of any other cyber hacking services, we are here for you at any time any day. Here is our price list for ATM cards: BALANCE PRICE $2500 ----------------$200 $5,000----------------$300 $10,000 ------------- $650 $20,000 ------------- $1,200 $35,000 --------------$1,900 $50,000 ------------- $2,700 $100,000------------- $5,200 The price include shipping fees,order now: via email...braeckmansj@outlook.com

  60. And all for pointless "MOAR PROFITS" mind you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because taking money for your work is not enough.
    Even taking money on top of that, that they didn’t work for (called "profit"), is not enough either!
    They want more money that they didn't work for!
    "Ideally" exponentially more! Because that is totally sustainable forever! --.--

    Nevermind things like creating something good, improving humanity, or even just treating other people (e.g. employees) not like shit and having their lives mean something ... Who cares about that? All that's needed is profit for ... profit's sake.

  61. Shoot these fuckers on site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are turning our country into Russia.

  62. YouTube by Immerial · · Score: 1

    That's where people watch hours of a day. If they made it a serious YouTube competitor, it's they only way it could work and meet their requirements. >>> Which they will not because it would take too much investment... and they are already in the hole after the merger. So... it's doomed.

  63. Well.... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    " Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions, which I think is very important to play in tomorrow's world."

    Your world sucks, please die and take everyone that wants that world with you....

  64. If Netflix is the example, HBO is doomed by swb · · Score: 1

    When Netflix first started announcing they were spending the GDP of a small country on original content I figured we might get something like another HBO. Original programming at most other content providers was either a slave to traditional ratings, hobbled by censorship or broadcast standards, or a small-budget.

    The first couple of Netflix efforts were pretty good -- House of Cards had real talent on its cast and the production value was top notch. But since then it's seemed to slip. Every time I turn on Netflix anymore, there's more "original" content than I can keep up with but every time I try something I'm totally underwhelmed. Nobody casts, cheap production values, empty, formulaic scripts, it's really ordinary.

    I used to think the only obstacle to more HBO-quality content was just the usual business model in entertainment, now I'm mostly convinced that it's a fragile mixture of both money and some kind of production side magic that is very difficult to get right. HBO has too few shows (at least to fill my time), but it's because they're hard to make.

    If AT&T thinks that HBO is just a sausage machine and if you only turn the handle faster you can get more sausage, they're wrong and trying to do so will just degrade the product.

    1. Re:If Netflix is the example, HBO is doomed by jeffporcaro · · Score: 1

      "Ozark" is surprisingly good on Netflix. It got mediocre reviews, but it was very well-done and different, and fun to watch, and engaging. Great acting. Great writing. Kind of like HBO used to be. Second season is under production, we're looking forward to it.

      --
      It is not the doing of things that is difficult. What is difficult is getting in the right mood to do them. ~~ Brancusi
    2. Re:If Netflix is the example, HBO is doomed by swb · · Score: 1

      I like Ozark, too, but there's far too much crap served up as "Netflix Originals" that isn't remotely HBO quality. It's barely AMC Originals quality.

  65. Look more closely by sabbede · · Score: 1

    They aren't talking about ads on HBO, they're talking about using HBO to gather monetizable data on viewers. Which may be far shittier behavior.

    1. Re:Look more closely by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      He did mention direct advertising as well. You should read the text of the interview, it's horrifying how out of touch with the HBO audience this guy is.

  66. I worked for idiots like these once... by Spinlock_1977 · · Score: 1

    And it certainly didn't turn out well for them, or their online media biz. They messed with something that was working due to their over-sized egos and unfounded "I know better" attitude, doubled its size and halved its performance unnecessarily, and 18 months later they all had to go looking for new jobs because they ruined a highly effective development team.

    Stankey better hope he gets promoted before the inevitable tanking of HBO.
       

    --
    - The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
  67. So basically ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically HBO is going to be turned into a mill to crank out shit mass-market programming to keep AT&T happy, instead of a place which makes good quality original programming.

    Once again proving that mergers really turn good companies into shit in service of profits for companies which are already shit.

    Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions, which I think is very important to play in tomorrow's world.

    The beatings will continue until morale improves, and once again large companies turn good things into utter garbage, because they are unqualified to understand why it was a good thing in the first place.

    Stankey sounds like just another short-sighted corporate douchebag who doesn't understand what they've bought.

    HBO will now go from the company who gave us Oz and the Sopranos into the next mill turning out shit like Celebrity Big Brother or other drivel.

    Way to destroy that brand!!

  68. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by alexgieg · · Score: 1

    Aww, how cute! It's a kindergarten-level discussion now!

    Me: "You're X."
    You: "No! You are X! And ugly and stupid and I'm not your friend anymore!" (shows the tongue)

    Begone, little troll. I've dealt with much stronger opponents. You're not up to the task. :D

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  69. I think they're doing it wrong by Urinal+Pube · · Score: 1

    I was a paid HBO subscriber for years, but after the buyout, ATT now offered it to me for free so I cancelled my paid subscription.

  70. news flash: corporations want to make $$$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >...corporate consolidations, when broken down, always come back to wanting to make a profit as big as possible. Disney didn't buy LucasFilm and their IP for any other reason than to make a lot of money from their IP and AT&T's takeover of Time Warner (who owns/owned HBO) is not any more different.

    Duh. How many years did you spend in night school studying for that BA degree to figure that out?

  71. If you're not pirating yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I want more hours of engagement. Why are more hours of engagement important? Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions, which I think is very important to play in tomorrow's world."

    In other words, to whatever consumers are still paying for HBO instead of pirating it, we're about to offer people big incentives for them to rethink their positions.

    HBO's new slogan: "Are you sure you don't want to learn how to pirate?"

  72. As if NetFlix weren't bad enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. Let's hear it for profit. /s

    I already cancelled my HBO, so alas, I will miss the 35 new highly produced/barely written Game of Thrones spinoffs. We are experiencing the start up bubble already, I predict the streaming bubble is next. The 'TV renaissance' is dead and gone, that's for sure.

  73. Beastmaster was the bomb by huckamania · · Score: 1

    I also remember HBO showing shorts like 'Hardware Wars' and 'Godzilla vs Bambi'. If they could tap into that, I could see some potential there.

    1. Re:Beastmaster was the bomb by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

      That's what YouTube is for.

    2. Re:Beastmaster was the bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HBO trying to be a direct Youtube competitor is not going to work out well for HBO.
      The only overlap between the two are Youtube reactors reacting to HBO shows.

  74. Conservative Republican == oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't get this. I used to be a Republican because I advocated for small government exactly to do away with this kind of cronyism.

    This is hiliarious; I didn't need to keep reading (although I did) to know exactly where this was going.

    Anyone who is conservative, it makes sense if you used to be a Republican. But it's damn near inconceivable that there is a single conservative left in the Republican party. The right wing has abandoned that ship.

    Idealistic conservatives vote Libertarian.

    Practical conservatives vote Democrat.

    No conservatives ever vote Republican anymore. If someone tells you they vote Republican, they're either a radical leftist, or they're simply just not the slighest bit in touch with politics, and probably can't even tell you the name of the vice president or house majority leader.

    1. Re:Conservative Republican == oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that Librarians get nothing done and Democrats make things worse. I agree with you if we go back to Kennedy... but he was little different than Regan on economic policy. Back when Gingrich ran on the platform of a balanced budget, term limits and reform it was conceivable that republicans would go back to small government conservatism and subsidiarity. No chance, they never planed to. It was a scam to get votes. No different than Obama's Hope and Change.

      Funny thing is, Democrats are the party of Dixie, Jim Crow and the KKK. How soon we forget.

    2. Re:Conservative Republican == oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Librarians get more done than Libertarians. Damn.

  75. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dealt with me? You just described your posting to a t.

    I notice you couldn't be bothered with actually refuting the argument but had to resort to whataboutism... tsk tsk... a perfect gamma troll you be.

  76. Exec Likely Correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... with some modifications of his statements.

    "It's going to be a tough year..." Yes, certainly. He will make this so.

    "You'll look back on it and be very fond of it..." Oh, so close! Well not really close at all. Fondness is incredibly unlikely, more like hatred, disappointment, disgust, contempt...

    "...it's not going to feel great while you're in the middle of it." Ah, likely true. The problem is, "the middle of it" has an indefinite end date, and quite possibly no end date at all. Look forward to unending "not greatness" then!

  77. If it aint broke, break it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T: "If it aint broke, break it."
    FTFY

  78. Profitable Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, the magic goose isn't laying enough golden eggs to pay off its purchase price in five years! I bet if I strangle it and starve it, I can coax more eggs from it!

  79. 3 or 4 good shows a week isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we want 20 crap ones

  80. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by alexgieg · · Score: 1

    What? Replying to your glancing over Simple Wikipedia's article on Belloc and, for lack of a better word, "concluding" he or any true conservative are in favor of central-anything? Sure! Here's the polite reply: "Read the book then come back."

    You don't want to know the impolite one. ;)

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  81. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    "as they can help smaller companies survive and flourish when guided by the right hand"

    [Citation needed]

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  82. They don't get it by nowwith25percentmore · · Score: 1

    I subscribe to HBO precisely because HBO is not the low-quality ad-riddled turd AT&T wants to make of it. I was one of the people that contacted HBO years before they launched their HBO Now! unbundled streaming service and told them that I wanted to buy such a product from them. I dumped AT&T as my cell carrier and later as my ISP precisely because they don't care about what I want to buy from them.

  83. Ow my balls! by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Buying HBO and then making them produce shite? I think there will be a few leaving parties this year!

  84. Sdrew that... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Just what we consumers need: more corporate tentacles into our psychy!
    Advertisements on HBO shows now?
    I have yet to watch more than 90 minutes of HBO this month as it is; with the incessant reruns of lousy movies,
    and mediocre mini-series, it is already not worth the premium cost.
    (Oh. Wait! I guess that would justify advertisements on HBO!
    Kinda sucks the way we humans tend to fuck things up as we go along!)

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  85. Gag, cough, puke by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    AT&T, don't mess with HBO, you don't need to screw up a good thing.

  86. nudity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they want to start showing female genitals they always allowing penises testicles and erections where are the labia and clitorises and vaginal holes? the mpaa are sexist to the hilt allowing a male in a sexually excited state but ban any sign of female genitals opting for a childish pubic wig.

  87. Email Address by ehlo · · Score: 1

    John Stankey's email address is JS9991@att.com.

  88. Start by overhauling interfaces by izzo+nizzo · · Score: 1

    HBO already has plenty of incredible content. How many people still haven't seen Big Love or even Six Feet Under? Besides which, they are complex enough to watch multiple times. If they improved their interfaces, they could get a lot more enjoyment into the subscription, and gain an hour or so from YouTube and Netflix.

    Some trivial examples:
    - allow me to binge without seeing 'previously on' scenes, 'upcoming on' scenes, or theme song
    - sort series menu in additional ways besides alphabetical
    - a film is removed from watchlist after viewing. A series has its subsequent episode put on watchlist after viewing.
    - let me see the old Carlin specials
    - metadata on actors. HBO has hundreds of instances where a given actor has been in several of their series. Put that in the interface!