Disney, AT&T in Carriage Dispute Impacting ABC, ESPN
- Thread starter AMike
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 145
- Views 9K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
IMHO, a true "cord cutter" is a person who ONLY watches OTA TV and things that are free, such as Pluto, Stirr, or youtube. If you pay for Sling or Netflix or whatever, you have not cut a cord, you have just swapped one bill for another.
And this brings us to what is, apparently, one of the issues. This is not a traditional price along dispute. DirecTV (on behalf of us, the consumer) wants $X and Disney wants $Y. DirecTV wants to prohibit or set %age limits on DirecTV (and eventually everyone else, since DirecTV will set the market) offering a sports free package. In other words, Disney want the contract to say either that the most basic package must have, at least, ESPN 1, 2 and News; or that not more than some %age, say 5% of customers will be permitted to buy a future sports free package.
And this brings us to what is, apparently, one of the issues. This is not a traditional price along dispute. DirecTV (on behalf of us, the consumer) wants $X and Disney wants $Y. DirecTV wants to prohibit or set %age limits on DirecTV (and eventually everyone else, since DirecTV will set the market) offering a sports free package. In other words, Disney want the contract to say either that the most basic package must have, at least, ESPN 1, 2 and News; or that not more than some %age, say 5% of customers will be permitted to buy a future sports free package.
There are cellular packages, so you could stream without a 'cord'. And solar power/batteries so you don't need a cord to the electric company either. This type of setup (maybe with satellite internet instead of cellular) is the reality for people who live in truly rural areas.
satellite and streaming do not go together
data caps do not make it viable
data caps do not make it viable
I don't agree there would be no cable or satellite. In fact I might say you have it backwards if not for getting the programming to the consumer via Cable or Satellite there would be no ESPN or certainly not as we know it. As it is even Networks with affiliates and towers everywhere also depend on Cable/Satellite to reach everyone as witnessed with the outcome of just about every locals dispute.
Going even further, ESPN is very dependant on people paying 12 months a year as are RSN's. They can't afford to do business as they have been and let people only get their channel only for the months a particular sport is on, or to save money for a few months.
What maybe you are confusing is that live Sports is generally the one "must see as it happens now" programming. And in that light they are valuable to everyone, providers and advertisers and sports does bring in dollars. Certainly providers don't want to lose ESPN, but ESPN needs them too.
Once upon a time I would agree with you Tampa8. But today Sports and especially ESPN is so ingrained in our TV culture that I think ESPN holds the cards. Of the millions of "D" subscribers, sports is either the only reason they subscribe to "D" or more than 50% of the reason. Not just for live sports. Many subscribers do not work at all (retired) or do not work the traditional 8-5 Monday thru Friday job. These folks watch Sports Center, First Take, NFL Live, Around the Horn, PTI, Will Cain Show, Fantasy Football News. Live sports is the bread and butter but it's not the whole sandwich.
the average person does not know what they pay for these channels
ask them if they want a lower bill
see what answers you get
The average person says they don't watch sports so why do they have all of these sports channels.
Most likely Disney did not like the way the negations were going so they went on offense.
understood, and people have it because its in the pack.
many people wont care if it goes, and would welcome the lower cost
this could be what directv is holding out for, removing it from lower packs to lower cost
And Disney would never allow it, this is why they are throwing Disney Channel in the negotiations. They want this done as a packaged deal on the cheapest tier possible.
yep, they do
i really wish the negotiations were public.
i also which every channel was done on its own, no packages
It's only going to get worse when these ATT/Turner deals and Fox/Disney deals come up for renewal in a few years. Those will be done as huge bundles.
Let ESPN go dark and see what happens. You want to see a reaction from the subscribers, take away ESPN. Forget the other Disney channels. Losing ESPN for sports bars alone this time of year would be devastating to "D".
I highly doubt either side will let this go far. Disney makes too much money off of carriage fees to lose and DTV needs the sports fan base. Most likely they will throw some new sidecar deals in to satisfy both sides.
Even if it isn’t a great matchup, if NFL fans can’t watch “their” team, and that team is on MNF, they will look at other options.
Live sports is one thing that fans of it vastly prefer live.
You'd end up paying more if you had to buy each channel individually, or more likely 90% of channels would go away because not enough people would be willing pay what they'd have to ask to keep operating.
I hear they could be off DIRECTV tonight at Midnight.
No deal is in sight yet.
No deal is in sight yet.
