Disney/ESPN

Donate To GopherHole
S

State of Football

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
669
Reaction score
501
Points
93
Not being able to watch CFB due to Disney disputes with tv providers sums up a terrible weekend of college football. It’s making it hard to enjoy what use to be a passion.

More time on the lake and deer stand!
 

DirecTV Stream has served me well while others have struggled to watch Twins, Wolves and Wild. I guess the good news here is that it won't affect any Gopher games if they can figure it out relatively soon.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
DirecTV Stream has served me well while others have struggled to watch Twins, Wolves and Wild. I guess the good news here is that it won't affect any Gopher games if they can figure it out relatively soon.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Our turn I guess. Still stinks
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
DirecTV Stream has served me well while others have struggled to watch Twins, Wolves and Wild. I guess the good news here is that it won't affect any Gopher games if they can figure it out relatively soon.
Click to expand...
I have DirecTV Stream. I was able to watch LSU - USC on my phone using ESPN app.
Click on the game and clicked on ESPN 3 Watch Now. Popped right up
 

If you go to that link from a blacked out channel, you should be able to get $20 off your bill for this month.
 




it stinks. fans are getting caught in the middle between the distributors (Comcast, DirecTV, etc) and the providers (ESPN, BTN etc)

bottom line is that the cable and satellite model that has been the staple of TV for decades is breaking down. distributors are losing subscribers to cord-cutting. DirecTV has gone from 21-million subscribers to 11-million.

so the distributors are fighting back against the providers. the distributors want to break up the "bundle" and offer customers smaller packages. these fights over new carriage agreements are only going to get worse.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
it stinks. fans are getting caught in the middle between the distributors (Comcast, DirecTV, etc) and the providers (ESPN, BTN etc)

bottom line is that the cable and satellite model that has been the staple of TV for decades is breaking down. distributors are losing subscribers to cord-cutting. DirecTV has gone from 21-million subscribers to 11-million.

so the distributors are fighting back against the providers. the distributors want to break up the "bundle" and offer customers smaller packages. these fights over new carriage agreements are only going to get worse.
Click to expand...
shouldn't have been so greedy and charged so much. Their fault they are losing subscribers and not adapting prices and business models. Why pay $150 per month for cable when YouTube offers the same thing for $80
 



Flecknation said:
shouldn't have been so greedy and charged so much. Their fault they are losing subscribers and not adapting prices and business models. Why pay $150 per month for cable when YouTube offers the same thing for $80
Click to expand...
I pay 108 a month for DirecTV Stream. In order to watch everything I want, that was the cheapest (legal) way. I know some people don't care about the Twins and/or Wolves, but I watch 95% of their games.
 


Breakin' The Plane said:
I pay 108 a month for DirecTV Stream. In order to watch everything I want, that was the cheapest (legal) way. I know some people don't care about the Twins and/or Wolves, but I watch 95% of their games.
Click to expand...

This is what I have for the same reasons as yours. Somehow I get it $5 cheaper than you at $103.

I blame the media companies far more than the cable providers in these disputes. ESPN already costs cable companies far more to carry that channel than any other channel, yet they want more money due to signing new, ridiculous deals with the NCAA, NBA this year.

On top of that, the NFL, college, etc, are now putting games on all of these different networks, and companies like DTV who want to go to an a la carte subscription for consumers, are blocked by companies like Disney.

The greed is 100% on Disney/media companies and not on the providers like DTV.
 

to follow up on Weather Guy -

I assume most people know this, but if some don't...

the way the cable bundle traditionally works is like this: Cable Company XYZ wants to carry ESPN. ESPN says that's fine, but we will not give you ESPN as a stand-alone offering. If you want ESPN, you have to take all of our Disney-owned channels including Freeform, FX, the Disney Channel, Lifetime, etc. so XYZ has to pay Disney for all those channels, and the XYZ customers pay a monthly fee for each channel, whether they watch them or not. some fees may only be like 50-cents per channel per month, but others, like ESPN or the Bally RSN's, can be up to $10/month.

so when Grandma Betty gets XYZ cable, roughly $10 of her monthly bill is paying for ESPN, even if she never watches one minute of ESPN. it's the same deal with Warner Brothers/Discovery and all the major providers - you have to take all of their channels, which is why your traditional cable lineup has 110 channels but you only watch about 10 of them.

now, the distributors, like XYZ cable, are fighting back - saying they want to be able to offer customers smaller packages at a lower cost - AND they want to put some of the more expensive sports channels on a separate tier, so Grandma Betty doesn't have to pay for Bally Sports Idaho unless she signs up for the sports tier.

this is what is triggering all of these recent disputes.
 




GopherWeatherGuy said:
This is what I have for the same reasons as yours. Somehow I get it $5 cheaper than you at $103.

I blame the media companies far more than the cable providers in these disputes. ESPN already costs cable companies far more to carry that channel than any other channel, yet they want more money due to signing new, ridiculous deals with the NCAA, NBA this year.

On top of that, the NFL, college, etc, are now putting games on all of these different networks, and companies like DTV who want to go to an a la carte subscription for consumers, are blocked by companies like Disney.

The greed is 100% on Disney/media companies and not on the providers like DTV.
Click to expand...
I get some stupid low tier movie package that for some reason includes the Smithsonian Network as well, that my wife insists on, even though we have access to all the Smithsonian programming via Paramount Plus. It's all one giant clusterbleep.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
The greed is 100% on Disney/media companies and not on the providers like DTV.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that the 100% Greed part is not shared at least in part by providers like DTV and other.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
to follow up on Weather Guy -

I assume most people know this, but if some don't...

the way the cable bundle traditionally works is like this: Cable Company XYZ wants to carry ESPN. ESPN says that's fine, but we will not give you ESPN as a stand-alone offering. If you want ESPN, you have to take all of our Disney-owned channels including Freeform, FX, the Disney Channel, Lifetime, etc. so XYZ has to pay Disney for all those channels, and the XYZ customers pay a monthly fee for each channel, whether they watch them or not. some fees may only be like 50-cents per channel per month, but others, like ESPN or the Bally RSN's, can be up to $10/month.

so when Grandma Betty gets XYZ cable, roughly $10 of her monthly bill is paying for ESPN, even if she never watches one minute of ESPN. it's the same deal with Warner Brothers/Discovery and all the major providers - you have to take all of their channels, which is why your traditional cable lineup has 110 channels but you only watch about 10 of them.

now, the distributors, like XYZ cable, are fighting back - saying they want to be able to offer customers smaller packages at a lower cost - AND they want to put some of the more expensive sports channels on a separate tier, so Grandma Betty doesn't have to pay for Bally Sports Idaho unless she signs up for the sports tier.

this is what is triggering all of these recent disputes.
Click to expand...

I think the unbundling of sports channels from the main tiers could be the death knell to pure play providers like DirecTV, Dish, etc. I spend quality time in an RV with a couple new smart TVs installed and have found that we can get literally hundreds of channels free with internet and antenna. This includes many basic cable channels.

Sports and easy DVR are the only thing keeping us with packaged service (currently YouTube TV, formerly Dish and Xfinity). My wife only needs a DVR and couldn't care less about ESPN etc. I'm the main one holding us back because I need the sports channels, especially during football season.

New Smart TVs provide free access to a ton of content with internet access.
 

as I've said in other threads, I live in a small city that has its own municipal cable TV system. but the cost of operating the system has risen to the point where the city can't break even without jacking up the rates to a point where no one would subscribe.

so the city is working on a plan to offer a streaming service, and turn off the cable TV system. I know the telecom manager and he's promised me that, when they're ready, I will be one of the first people to beta-test the new streaming service.

the city expects that they will lose some customers, but they would rather turn a small profit on streaming with fewer subscribers as opposed to losing money running a cable TV system. the main source of revenue is their internet service. that is keeping cable TV afloat right now.
 

I know people hate doing this, but one of my favorite parts of having DirecTV, was calling them up to cancel right as my contract was ending, just to see what I could get them to throw at me to re-up. Got a few years of Sunday Ticket and plenty of HBO by doing that.

I'm in no contract now, so that's kind of what I don't understand about these disputes. I know people don't like to change, but there's very little stopping me from cancelling DirecTV stream and moving to YouTube.
 

Ope3 said:
I have a hard time believing that the 100% Greed part is not shared at least in part by providers like DTV and other.
Click to expand...

Maybe 99%? The providers are bleeding customers and money because the networks continue to raise prices, and the providers have no choice other than pass those expenses onto the customers.

Look at how much money AT&T lost on DirecTV and Time Warner. Meanwhile Disney/ESPN just paid 84 billion this year to extend their contracts with the NBA and NCAA. Where is Disney getting that money from? By jacking up the price on the providers. DTV is the latest to feel the brunt of this because their contract just expired with Disney.

The greed starts with the leagues and the absurd contracts they are getting from companies like Disney. At the end of the day, the cable companies and the consumers are the ones that suffer.
 

Ope3 said:
I have a hard time believing that the 100% Greed part is not shared at least in part by providers like DTV and other.
Click to expand...
DirecTV (content provider): owned by AT&T, who also owns Turner Broadcasting (content producer).

Comcast (content provider): owns NBC Universal, who owns NBC, Peacock, NBC Sports (content producers).

Hulu (content provider): Owned by both Disney, who owns ABC and ESPN (content producers), as well as Fox (content producer).

It is such a disgusting clusterfu** of anti-trust conflicts of interest that you cannot just blame the content producers. The content producers and the providers are often one in the same.
 

forever a gopher said:
DirecTV (content provider): owned by AT&T, who also owns Turner Broadcasting (content producer).

Comcast (content provider): owns NBC Universal, who owns NBC, Peacock, NBC Sports (content producers).

Hulu (content provider): Owned by both Disney, who owns ABC and ESPN (content producers), as well as Fox (content producer).

It is such a disgusting clusterfu** of anti-trust conflicts of interest that you cannot just blame the content producers. The content producers and the providers are often one in the same.
Click to expand...
Direct TV mostly no longer owned by AT&T, it is a hedge fund.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
I pay 108 a month for DirecTV Stream. In order to watch everything I want, that was the cheapest (legal) way. I know some people don't care about the Twins and/or Wolves, but I watch 95% of their games.
Click to expand...
Same here. But sub in the Wild for Wolves.
 

Ope3 said:
I have a hard time believing that the 100% Greed part is not shared at least in part by providers like DTV and other.
Click to expand...
It's certainly both. Both have long-term financial issues and are clinging to every $. DirecTV likely won't exist in 10 years.
 

gopherdudepart2 said:
Direct TV mostly no longer owned by AT&T, it is a hedge fund.
Click to expand...
AT&T still either owns a majority or owns the hedge fund. You get caught in log-in hell half the time when you try to log in to view your account as AT&T and DirecTV are still linked.
 

howeda7 said:
It's certainly both. Both have long-term financial issues and are clinging to every $. DirecTV likely won't exist in 10 years.
Click to expand...
DirecTV's streaming service is good and a relatively good value. I've had it for a few months and have been impressed (aside from the Disney dispute). It's the only streaming service that offered all the channels I want.
 

So I'm pretty much the least knowledgeable person in the world on this stuff, but isn't a good chunk of the funding behind the huge contracts NBA players are getting based on these huge TV deals that are being signed by the league? So if networks, providers, etc. can't hold up their end of the bargain and eventually lose enough customers, does this whole thing blow up in everyone's face?

I'm just using the NBA as one example but obviously similar concepts apply to CFB, NFL, etc.

Help me understand how all that works.
 

Word said:
DirecTV's streaming service is good and a relatively good value. I've had it for a few months and have been impressed (aside from the Disney dispute). It's the only streaming service that offered all the channels I want.
Click to expand...
Plus for me was that since we had plain old DirecTV for years, the guide and all that stuff is basically the same. I bought refurbished versions of their streaming devices and it's more user friendly than using my TV or Fire remote.
 

Word said:
DirecTV's streaming service is good and a relatively good value. I've had it for a few months and have been impressed (aside from the Disney dispute). It's the only streaming service that offered all the channels I want.
Click to expand...
Same for our family
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom