Disney Networks Dispute Recitifed
- Thread starter LQQK
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 418
- Views 34K
It will that's the future but not in our lifetime. I feel a combination will be required for years to come until internet is built up.
They do its hard to find and must be searched. Such as I found the original Mickey Mouse Club and many others.
Off topic, but Disney promised their vault when they started up Disney+ 3 years ago. Little of their library has been released. It has been disappointing.
The Walt Disney Company Forces Channel Blackout for Millions of DISH TV and SLING TV Customers
The Walt Disney Company today forced a channel blackout on DISH TV and SLING TV, affecting favorites such as ESPN, FX, Disney Channel, Freeform and National Geographic, as well as ABC locals in eight markets...
RONZ said it was available; I was just correcting him, like any good Internet denizen...
I tried it this morning and yes it is gone now. At the time of my post it was still active
Our local ABC affiliate disappeared for a brief period of time but then came back and has remained on!
I agree the medium is slowly dying as streaming takes over as the next big thing. I don't agree though, that a temporary Disney take down is enough to "break the camels back" as some seem to think.
My guess would be that they were seeing significant progress up to the last minute.
How did you do your math? Maybe I missed a zero somewhere, but I come out to $3.42/subscriber/month. $1B (number claimed by Dish) divided by 8M (number of Dish subscribers = $125/subscriber. Divide that by 36 (assuming a new contract would be 3 years) and you get $3.42. Now, that's assuming the $1B Dish says Disney is asking for doesn't already include whatever the current amount being paid by each subscriber currently.
But is your local ABC actually owned by Disney? There's only seven markets where that occurs.
Since the typical 3 year contracts contain annual increases, I took the $1B to be for the first year. Dish did say Disney wants $1B more than the current price.
Really?
You people are sorely misinformed. This isn't "Dish doing this", it's Disney doing this. Disney demanded that the channels be removed, not Dish. Disney wants an excessive hike in rates, not Dish. And every dispute, it's the same thing. If Dish pays that rate hike, every provider will expect the same when their contract is up, not to mention that price increase will go to the customers, not Dish.
Dish is friggin' fighting for YOU while people cry about missing channels, not to mention, in almost every case, the contracts end up getting done - other than Bally Sports and the Regional channels.
I can tell you as a 9 year tech, most subscribers would be more upset if they lost Hallmark and Grit than ESPN and FX
Last edited:
Don't forget that Dish (any company) will spin the narrative to make themselves look better (or their competition look worse). Dish saying Disney wants $1B more than current price is probably true. But they didn't say they wanted $1B more each year. That's an assumption on your part, and probably exactly what Dish wants you to think. The $1B more could also be over the life the contract (what I based it on). That also fits the narrative that Disney wants $1B more. But if Dish admits that, it's easy to do the math that it's a whopping extra $3.50/month for a subscriber. That's little more than a penny a day. So if Dish came out and said Disney wants us to charge you an extra penny a day for these 20 channels, what do you think a customer is going to do? Side with Dish?
Now, you may be right, maybe is is an extra $1B/year. But then why wouldn't Dish say that? It would make Disney look even more greedy. I'm guessing they can't say it because it's not true.
Take ANY claim from ANY company with a huge grain of salt.
I believe you. I watch more programs on Grit than I do on ESPN. Grit features old Westerns, which typically are half movie and half commercial. I fast forward through the commercials. I've seen most of them before (when I had Encore Westerns). They are like comfort food, compared to modern programming which is like eating liver and onions.
Hallmark is for girls like Grit is for boys.
HOWEVER, I would miss the few games I do watch on ESPN more than the many old movies I watch on Grit. But, that's just me.
People here act like they know what's going on in the negotiations. How hard of a line was Charlie taking? How hard of a line was Disney taking? Did Charlie agree to a "reasonable" increase or did he say no to any increase? You have no idea if Disney wants an "excessive hike in rates" because you don't know what they asked for. You just know what Dish CLAIMS they asked for.
Really the only leverage either side has in these negotiations is the removal of channels. It's like negotiating for a car. The buyer (in this case Dish) can stick to their offer and refuse to buy. The seller can stick to their offer and refuse to sell. I'm assuming the numbers were so far apart, someone decided removal of the channels was the next step.
I agree the viewers are the ones getting hurt. I still think if you want to end all retrans negotiations, come up with a ratings based calculation (ie: every ratings point = $x). Average the ratings over the last year of a contract. The better the ratings, the more retrans money (so now there's an incentive for the programmer to provide better shows). I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but I think it can be done.
I haven't tried YTTV, but there are very few times I've seen anything on Dish that doesn't look over-compressed. There are some channels that look better than others, but there are a lot of channels that might as well be widescreen SD. On streaming channels, it's the opposite. There are very few things that don't seem to be full fidelity.
Well what ALL the providers need to do is band together to stand up to the content owners. (I suggested this on AVSforum once and someone said "that would be collusion." Yes, it would. But what the content owners are doing now is also collusion against the public, who are the people whom laws are supposed to be protecting.)
More like a mis-step. The thing was not ready for prime time.
