Spectrum vs. Disney -- A Development Tracking Thread

#27
#27
knoxvol52 said:
I blame both Disney for hacking price up and Spectrum knowing the contract was running out should have had this resolved 6-12 months ago....
Click to expand...
I blame Disney for the problem 100%, but then I blame Disney for a lot more problems than just this. Unless Spectrum agreed to Disney's price, Disney was always going to wait it out until the start of the season for super leverage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alavolfan and BruisedOrange
#29
#29
1SmokinVol said:
A good 50% at least of spectrum subscribers don't even watch ESPN. ESPN shooting itself in it's woke foot.
Click to expand...
If Disney was just ESPN, that would be fine. They have a good piece of Hulu original content, ABC original content, National Geographic content, FX content, and of course all the Disney, Marvel, etc content.

There's a good chance most subscribers watch something Disney related at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpookyAction, BruisedOrange and Sea Ray
#30
#30
The biggest sticking point is that Charter wants to have Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ in the bundle without any extra payment
 
  • Like
Reactions: Erich
#33
#33
I hate cable companies -- but I hate Disney more. Disney is a plague on joy and imagination. They use their profits to buy our favorite things and sell them back to us covered with advertising and paywalls -- and every time you look away, they raise the prices and tell you that there's no way you can put a price tag on memories from your childhood.

And specific to sports, they have ruined ESPN. Their bloodless corporate messaging and tone has devoured the sports landscape, digesting it into a sterile paste of commercials and noxious cultural content vomited up to attract filthy casuals who cheerfully say "I don't have a team, I just love the sport itself!" as they spill more overpriced chili on their five dollar Walmart tshirts that don't even match the color of whatever team they told people at work they were following last week, but whose quarterback they couldn't even pick out on the field even if they saw him throwing the damn ball - not that they ever watch a whole game to begin with.

Sorry ... I just ... I really really really dislike Disney. Disney is a plague. If Spectrum is arguing with them, then I'm with Spectrum. I don't like cable companies at all either, but in this fight, I would bet Disney's "price hike" was likely exorbitant. And even if it wasn't, I hate 'em anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fryeguy93, alavolfan, LAVol1 and 2 others
#34
#34
TheDeeble said:
But what’s preventing the same thing from happening to Fubo or YouTube in a year or twos time when the actual content owner wants more money? In this instance is Fubo and YouTube not just the next Comcast/spectrum/charter/direct tv?

This isn’t just going to be an ESPN/Disney thing in the future either right? Currently there’s disputes with ABC and CBS going on with direct tv and dish if I understand directly. I’m guessing everyone with their own streaming service could be pulling stuff like the before long.
Click to expand...
This is the VHS vs Beta battle and both will soon be replaced by DVD(all invoices paid directly to streamer…IE…Disney, Apple, Peacock, CBS and Amazon).

There is a reason that even the little guys like lifetime, Discovery, Foxnation are all creating their own delivery platform. They see the avalanche coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruisedOrange
#36
#36
Dadof2Vols said:
This is the VHS vs Beta battle and both will soon be replaced by DVD(all invoices paid directly to streamer…IE…Disney, Apple, Peacock, CBS and Amazon).

There is a reason that even the little guys like lifetime, Discovery, Foxnation are all creating their own delivery platform. They see the avalanche coming.
Click to expand...
We're used to this in other aspects of life. Park for longer? Pay more. Eat more? Pay more. Stay longer in a hotel? Pay more. Electricity, water, and gas? Use more, pay more.

Maybe TV should be metered. Watch more? Pay more. If our hours watching were metered, perhaps we'd find different things to do instead of being the potato I often am all weekend watching football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruisedOrange
#37
#37
Has anyone contacted Spectrum/Charter about deducting the cost out of the monthly bill since these channels are missing as a service? Curious.
 
#38
#38
Dadof2Vols said:
That’s a red herring. You can already get that platform for free in some places like Verizon.
Click to expand...
Well according to both parties that's the issue.

In this case, a source close to Disney says that the main sticking point is what role Disney’s streaming services should play. They say that Charter wants to have Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ in the bundle without any extra payment. Disney is said to have offered a menu of options, which could include Charter selling the Disney services to its customers, or bundling it with other offerings.

Charter, meanwhile, told Wall Street analysts that programmers like Disney built their streaming services off of the cash generated by their linear channels, and shifted programming investments from linear to streaming.



So the big holdup is streaming. Will it remain an a la carte offering as it stands today, or will Charter tie it to its linear offerings in some capacity? There are also some concerns around distribution, and how widely available Disney’s channels will need to be.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Disney vs. Charter Spectrum: The Sticking Points, Where Things Stand and More

Disney's streaming services are at the heart of the dispute, sources say.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
 
#40
#40
MurphyVol said:
Well according to both parties that's the issue.

In this case, a source close to Disney says that the main sticking point is what role Disney’s streaming services should play. They say that Charter wants to have Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ in the bundle without any extra payment. Disney is said to have offered a menu of options, which could include Charter selling the Disney services to its customers, or bundling it with other offerings.

Charter, meanwhile, told Wall Street analysts that programmers like Disney built their streaming services off of the cash generated by their linear channels, and shifted programming investments from linear to streaming.



So the big holdup is streaming. Will it remain an a la carte offering as it stands today, or will Charter tie it to its linear offerings in some capacity? There are also some concerns around distribution, and how widely available Disney’s channels will need to be.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Disney vs. Charter Spectrum: The Sticking Points, Where Things Stand and More

Disney's streaming services are at the heart of the dispute, sources say.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
Click to expand...
My point was without explanation is that I see Charter saying we are either PARTNERS with you in streaming or we are out.

Charter is toying with getting out since 2019, Iger opened it up a month ago by saying that Disney was open to creative partnerships. I see this as more Charter saying put up or shut up or we are out. Once the deadline passed and they pissed off half their customers, Charter isn’t toying around by raising stakes with quarters, they pushed all their cards to middle of table and said F—-U Disney/Iger, we are willing to walk away from you.

Remember that half of Charters 15m subscribers don’t watch sports but that Half still have to pay the ungodly Disney subsidy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SayUWantAreVOLution
#41
#41
TheVolsFrog said:
Spectrum would pay the 2.x billion that disney wants but Spectrum wanted Disney+ included and Disney said no
Look at it how some carriers offer Netflix,HBOMax etc as part of being a customer. That's what Spectrum wants to do
Disney is bleeding money also.
Spectrum wants to get away from the way cable is done currently which actually for the consumer is a good thing
Spectrum wants to be more of an ISP providing internet and mobile services.
ESPN will likely be direct to consumer soon and possibly through Apple.

Both companies are out to maximize their profits but in this case what Spectrum wants also benefits the consumer.
What Spectrum is going through, YoutubeTV will be doing the same when it's contract time
Click to expand...
YouTube did this dance with Disney a couple of years ago, also around or in football season. They payed.

The Mouse is definitely evil but they have a diverse portfolio of channels.

Charter will pay. Or Charter will get out of the TV provider business. It's that simple.

Whoever IS in the TV provider business will pay the Mouse until the business becomes direct to consumer, then we will pay the Mouse.

It's very classic capitalism. You have a unique product people really want, sell it at a premium. If they won't pay, they won't get it.

www.cnbc.com

Google's YouTube TV reaches a deal to restore access to Disney channels

Alphabet's YouTube said on Sunday it has reached a deal with Walt Disney to distribute all Disney-owned channels on its platform.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpookyAction
#42
#42
Dadof2Vols said:
My point was without explanation is that I see Charter saying we are either PARTNERS with you in streaming or we are out.

Charter is toying with getting out since 2019, Iger opened it up a month ago by saying that Disney was open to creative partnerships. I see this as more Charter saying put up or shut up or we are out. Once the deadline passed and they pissed off half their customers, Charter isn’t toying around by raising stakes with quarters, they pushed all their cards to middle of table and said F—-U Disney/Iger, we are willing to walk away from you.

Remember that half of Charters 15m subscribers don’t watch sports but that Half still have to pay the ungodly Disney subsidy.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to figure out why Charter thinks Disney wants another streaming partner. That's essentially what Hulu is doing for them.

What does Charter have that Disney really needs? The Charter subscribers want content and they don't care if it's Charter, Hulu, YT TV, etc.

What does Charter bring Disney in the deal?
 
#43
#43
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
YouTube did this dance with Disney a couple of years ago, also around or in football season. They payed.

The Mouse is definitely evil but they have a diverse portfolio of channels.

Charter will pay. Or Charter will get out of the TV provider business. It's that simple.

Whoever IS in the TV provider business will pay the Mouse until the business becomes direct to consumer, then we will pay the Mouse.

It's very classic capitalism. You have a unique product people really want, sell it at a premium. If they won't pay, they won't get it.

www.cnbc.com

Google's YouTube TV reaches a deal to restore access to Disney channels

Alphabet's YouTube said on Sunday it has reached a deal with Walt Disney to distribute all Disney-owned channels on its platform.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...
Guess we’ll see as Spectrum says they’re prepared to move on with out the Mouse.
YouTube will be doing the dance again but YouTube also said they’re dropping the cost of their service by $15 since they no longer had the Mouse so the Mouse apparently gave in to what YT wanted.
 
#44
#44
Here is what I have been able to piece together about this dispute:

Disney and Spectrum are each trying to paint each other as the "baddie" in this dispute but it is really shades of grey for both.

Let's place this situation in context. Disney is badly under performing financially and wants to more effectively monetize ESPN so that it becomes a profit center rather than a cost center. They have been public about their plan to shift all their ESPN cable channels to a direct to consumer stream, which I assume would sit along ESPN+ (and they will make this change sometime in the next two years).

Spectrum, like the cable market in general, has been bleeding customers and knows that easy access to a broad range of sports programming is their last lifeline.

So, the dispute is not about $ per se as much as access. Spectrum wants Disney to make ESPN+ and Disney + available to customers who buy into the right tier. That degree of access would be a big win for Spectrum because it gives their remaining customers a reason to stay and it can justify a rate increase, without people going ballistic.

Disney could be balking on the access issue or asking for more $ in carriage fees than Charter thinks it can get back from customers at the new rate. In other words, if the Charter/Disney bundle is too expensive, then people will continue to migrate to Hulu, Sling or youtube TV.

I am betting the actual hold-up is the first one--Disney balking at access-- because the new contract will likely be in place for several more years after Disney converts its ESPN channels to a direct to customer stream. So, was Spectrum also also asking for the new deal to allow their customers to have free access to the new Streaming version of ESPN? (which is quite similar to the deal they currently have with MAX).

Again, it makes all the sense in the world for Spectrum to want future access to this impending ESPN direct-to-consumer streaming service so it is not wiped when Disney makes the switch. Conversely, it is equally rational for Disney to balk at the idea of cannabilizing its future earnings when ESPN goes streaming-- in other words, they want all ESPN watchers to sign up for the new streaming service immediately and not have a large set of Spectrum not having to enroll. Again, the only way that deal would be attractive to Disney is if they charge Spectrum very high carriage fees, which of course would only hasten Spectrum's inevitable demise.

So, we have to big companies, who are struggling financially, trying to make their investors happy (and customers be damned when push comes to shove). Spectrum cable is a dying business trying to prolong their life whereas Disney is following market trends by going to a streaming model (but unfortunately, very few streaming services have proven to be profitable as of yet). So, we have a battle of a failed business model on its last breaths and what seems to be an unsustainable model on the streaming side.

Neither company has that many incentives to compromise. Disney is foregoing some revenue now but they are probably thinking more about downstream revenues. Spectrum needs this deal to survive or as their CEO announced, they will likely just get out of the cable business completely.
But no matter what happens, you can rest assured that sports fan are going to be paying a lot more $ in the future to watch their favorite sports and events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SKBubba
#46
#46
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I'm trying to figure out why Charter thinks Disney wants another streaming partner. That's essentially what Hulu is doing for them.

What does Charter have that Disney really needs? The Charter subscribers want content and they don't care if it's Charter, Hulu, YT TV, etc.

What does Charter bring Disney in the deal?
Click to expand...
Charter not having ESPN makes Hulu (which Disney mostly owns) more attractive to 1/2 Charter subscribers.
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
With YouTube having this same issue last yr, Direct TV is still negotiating with their ABC offering you cannot escape it. You can change providers now and your new one has issues with Disney next yr. This Spectrum - Disney contest has going forward ramifications which is why I don't see it getting settled quickly. I have Spectrum so hope I am wrong but starting do research on other providers. Will hold out until I find one I like.

Also read Disney wants to sell ESPN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruisedOrange, madtownvol and Dadof2Vols
#49
#49
So here is my question. As an ISP can Charter block Disney Streaming Platforms from its network? I know they have the technical ability to do that. But is it legal for them to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruisedOrange
#50
#50
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I'm trying to figure out why Charter thinks Disney wants another streaming partner. That's essentially what Hulu is doing for them.

What does Charter have that Disney really needs? The Charter subscribers want content and they don't care if it's Charter, Hulu, YT TV, etc.

What does Charter bring Disney in the deal?
Click to expand...
Probably 10m more subscribers. But Disney does interesting accounting as they count subscribers separately for each of their properties so if 2/3 or 10m of Charters subscribers weren’t current Disney subscribers and Charter brought those and Disney counted them 3 times one for each property(HULU, Disney+, ESPN+), Disney can actually say 30m more Subscribers. Wall Street would get impressed but I don’t think Disney wants them at the price that Charter does which is 0.

I really believe Charter is ready to walk away.

If charter walks away and Half of Charter’s 15m subscribers move to other services then Disney loses. Let’s just take ESPN and ignore what Charter pays for all of the Disney properties. If half of charters customers who want sports walks away and Charter is currently paying $10 for each subscriber, then when those 7.5m subscribers walk away and Charter walks away then Disney loses $10*15m not the 7.5m*$10 Representing those who walked.

Yes Disney will get the $10 from the 7.5m that go to other services but they won’t get $10 for the 7.5m left at Charter who now get their bill decreased. This subsidy by non sports watchers is the whole escalating cost of cable that has non sports people subsidizing sports watchers.

Disney then has to get that 7.5m*$10 from the providers left paying the ransom.

Remember Disney is losing money on ESPN, their streaming properties and their over the air networks. Any reduction of money coming into ESPN (7.5m*$10 a month or $900m a year) is really needed by Disney.

Without the bundling Disney noose around Charter’s neck they might be the cheapest provider for non sports watchers and might grow their subscribers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruisedOrange, volfan102455, Tman44 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top