- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 20,561
- Reaction Score
- 44,706
That's right. YoutubeTV didn't work in Puerto Rico. I had to to watch the BC game on streameast at the airport.
Good summary here from Andrew Marchand.
Charter has already agreed to pay Disney more money for ESPN. That is not in dispute.
The dispute is Charter wants subscribers to have access to Disney+ and ESPN+. I agree with them on that point!
Aaron Rodgers’ Jets debut could help force end to Charter-ESPN battle
If the Spectrum versus ESPN battle is the Super Bowl of cable rights disputes, then Aaron Rodgers may be the one who settles it.nypost.com
Instead of any form of physical punishment, prisons are forcing recalcitrant prisoners to watch BC sports on the ACCN... As a result incidents of bad behavior have declined to record lows...Interesting topic. I have seen some investment presentations on the subject and Disney/ESPN is one of the top streamers and the clear leader in the clubhouse when it comes to sports streaming. The key question for Disney/ESPN is can they attract enough subscribers/price high enough to offset the captive cable subscriber losses. We will see, but I'm skeptical. But, must watch teams/games will become very valuable to the streamers as that will drive subscribers and pricing.
I have always said that the streaming world is a positive for UConn sports. Why? UConn athletics are undervalued, in my opinion, from a media value standpoint. Heck UConn women's basketball is worth more than BC athletics media value as UConn's women's basketball draws the fans. What currently props up BC's value is football games against Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida St.,... not the size of BC's fanbase.
Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.He does not understand Spectrum's position.
Spectrum is saying that non-ESPN watchers shouldn't have to pay for ESPN, not that people should get stuff for free. Now if ESPN is going to sell a competitive product outside of Spectrum, and is demanding that every Spectrum customer pay for ESPN, I think it is very reasonable for Spectrum to say that its customers should not have to pay twice for two very similar products, even if there are some differences on the ESPN+ end.
You could just do PPV at that point. For live sports it could be 50 cents or a dollar per hour. Each basketball game is $2 and football is $3.Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.
Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.
Oh, goodness no. Cable is in clear decline. That’s why Charter wants to quit entirely.Not the way @zls44 sees it. He thinks cable is making a COMEBACK!!!!!!!
Back in the real world, I agree with you. And the implications of this extend beyond just ESPN and Fox, although ESPN was by far the biggest beneficiary of carriage fees relative to viewers.
Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.
Cable companies already invested a huge amount of money into their outdated coaxial infrastructure. They will do their best to try to offer internet over that along with cable TV.Oh, goodness no. Cable is in clear decline. That’s why Charter wants to quit entirely.
But they won’t. Not yet.
Charter caved.
They always do.
CABLE IS BACK, BABY!!!!!!
It is funny that you claim to be a UConn fan, yet you are hoping for an outcome that is both A) extremely unlikely (Cable regaining subscribers) and B) very bad for UConn. You actually are rooting for UConn's athletic program to die.
He hated the Big12 potential move and said the ACC was a better fit. You can't fit where you're not wanted. But whatever. Kicking the can down the road with this move.CABLE IS BACK, BABY!!!!!!
It is funny that you claim to be a UConn fan, yet you are hoping for an outcome that is both A) extremely unlikely (Cable regaining subscribers) and B) very bad for UConn. You actually are rooting for UConn's athletic program to die.
At least this is funny.I was right. You were wrong.
It’s amazing how this happens every time. Undefeated.
Charter caved.
They always do.
What was I wrong about?I was right. You were wrong.
It’s amazing how this happens every time. Undefeated.
Charter caved.
They always do.
Everyone got something they wanted.
Well, not the consumers, of course. But there’s a lot for Disney and Charter here to like.
From a stock perspective, it's a mixed deal for Disney. Investors are focused on streaming when they value Disney. Disney will get high subscribers, but at a lower than average rate and investors don't like a declining average revenue per user.Disney wants people on the ad supported tiers (of Disney+) to continue to increase the ad rates for its streaming content. Being able to count all Charter subscribers as ad tier subscribers helps them… essentially bringing the cable model to the streaming content.
They’ll get some lessor fee (a “wholesale” rate) on the streaming channels, count the subs to help with ad rates, plus take the increases in ESPN. Charter drops a bunch of the lessor Fox, NatGeo and Disney channels from its lineup.
I don’t know that either side caved, it looks like both achieved goals they can sell as wins to their subscribers/share-holders.
Lol, the only way this is a win for Disney is they avoided the absolute worst case scenario. If Charter pulled its subscribers the ramifications would have potentially been catastrophic . Disney avoided that. Kudos. But they still have a steep uphill battle. It’s simply a slower death. I don’t think you called that.I was right. You were wrong.
It’s amazing how this happens every time. Undefeated.