[Claud]

It’s a start and for an online presence it’s a good start but for TV broadcasting it’s a drop in the bucket these days. I’d say $500 million would be a good start for a TV channel on cable and satellite. No chance of getting on over the air broadcasting unless it’s a small local station but nothing national.

There is a dwindling sentiment that still thinks TV is the "real" media while YouTube, for example, is fringe. The younger folks simply do not think that way. In their minds, YouTube IS the media.

I'm 46 and I still have vestiges of the idea of old media dominance. But even I haven't had broadcast TV in my house in years. Or cable. Or satellite. If you ask me what I watch, I'll say it's all online.

There's not really any good reason to outlay all that money to break into a failing business model, when it'll go farther and have more influence online.

[poconopundit]

MILO has something networks pay big money for: star power with the common touch. People like the guy because he's smart, funny, he can debate lefties and win, plus he's his own man.

I attended his Georgia Millennials For Trump during the election cycle. And he proved there he could attract the local politicians and younger crowd.

Even after the rally, he hung around for 45 minutes to shake hands and do selfies with people.

In our War against the Left, he's the first warrior to successfully break through the lines on the Hollywood front. Bill Mayer fed him to the the lions on his show, and he came out without a scratch.

[Drew68]

There is a dwindling sentiment that still thinks TV is the "real" media while YouTube, for example, is fringe.

Yep. And many of them are posting here on the 3,855th most popular website in America (when they're not outside, yelling at clouds).

[Boomer]

I only have Internet access as well. Been that way for at least a year now and see no need to change anything.

I can almost everything I want to see online and without commercials so why bother with pay tv...