1SmokinVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 564
- Likes
- 510
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.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....
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.A good 50% at least of spectrum subscribers don't even watch ESPN. ESPN shooting itself in it's woke foot.
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).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.
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.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.
Well according to both parties that's the issue.That’s a red herring. You can already get that platform for free in some places like Verizon.
My point was without explanation is that I see Charter saying we are either PARTNERS with you in streaming or we are out.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.
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
YouTube did this dance with Disney a couple of years ago, also around or in football season. They payed.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
I'm trying to figure out why Charter thinks Disney wants another streaming partner. That's essentially what Hulu is doing for them.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.
Guess we’ll see as Spectrum says they’re prepared to move on with out the Mouse.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.
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
Charter not having ESPN makes Hulu (which Disney mostly owns) more attractive to 1/2 Charter subscribers.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?
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'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?