I think your last comment is kind of the gist I was getting after. Sure, DirecTV can beef up their library... but they need a way to offer it to people that already have infrastructure in place to view that content (like a decent Internet connection and a Roku) for a lower price than to people that do not have the infrastructure in place (live out in the middle of no where without a quality Internet connection). Because if you don't, then you're in the same boat you're in now. Nobody with a decent Internet connection isn't going to pay to gain access to the content that requires unneeded infrastructure to be able to view. Rather than re-invent the wheel - I just proposed that DirecTV could use their existing satellite infrastructure to provide a pseudo NetFlix or Amazon or whatever streaming platform. Instead of paying $12.99 for a NetFlix account, maybe a DirecTV NetFlix account would cost $25 - DirecTV would pay NetFlix $13 for the NetFlix account and keep the $12 for themselves, maintaining infrastructure cost and profit. If someone lives out in the middle of no where without the infrastructure... if they want NetFlix or whatever, I think they'd pay $25/mo for the experience, maybe higher... I don't know what the cut off point would be. I doubt they'd pay $50. If DirecTV had their own library, then they'd have to battle all of the other streaming on-demand players (NetFlix, Amazon, Hulu, etc) to get the rights to that content and then would only be able to provide the content that they won the right to, to their infrastructure customers. If you lived out in the middle of no where and liked Seinfeld - then you're still SOL. The idea definitely deserves scrutiny and it may not be feasible. I'm just saying if DirecTV is looking for an avenue to remain relevant, that's one to explore.