The Business of Hollywood & Streaming

[atomheartbevo 88914]

3 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

and I use Tubi quite frequently

[Chopper 16353]

The newest bundle on the market. Doesn't include espn. But if you just have hulu no ads it makes it less expensive to add max for a month if you're a churner.

[thunderlounge 7619]

No 4k Max option?

Fuck all that. 

[Gene Parmesan 3951]

Is there a HULU/MAX option?  Disney and Espn+ offer me nothing.  I thought ESPN+ would be stuff that's on ESPN, but it's more like stuff on the Ocho.

[HornOnTheBayou 8852]

42 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Is there a HULU/MAX option?  Disney and Espn+ offer me nothing.  I thought ESPN+ would be stuff that's on ESPN, but it's more like stuff on the Ocho.

With UT moving to the SEC, ESPN+ is going to have all the Longhorn sports that aren't on the major channels. So basically everything that was on the Longhorn network.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4959]

On 7/25/2024 at 1:20 PM, Gene Parmesan said:

Is there a HULU/MAX option?  Disney and Espn+ offer me nothing.  I thought ESPN+ would be stuff that's on ESPN, but it's more like stuff on the Ocho.

Obviously never seen Bluey. 

[Chopper 16353]

ABC and ESPN are blacked out on Direct TV as of this moment. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-09-01/directv-espn-abc-disney-blackout

[thunderlounge 7619]

DTV gonna eat shit over this one.

[Chuckie Finster 22285]

DTV gonna eat shit over this one.

I’ve kept my DTV subscription largely due to laziness, but yeah - this will be the last straw for me.

[thunderlounge 7619]

16 hours ago, Chopper said:

ABC and ESPN are blacked out on Direct TV as of this moment. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-09-01/directv-espn-abc-disney-blackout

 

Quote

For the past year, DirecTV executives have been working on plans to increase its offerings to consumers.

DirecTV wants to offer genre-themed packages — think sports or general entertainment — to provide cheaper plans for customers who refuse to pay $100 or more each month for a traditional bundle with more than 100 television channels. Executives want to appeal to customers who have long pined for a way to sign up for only the channels they actually watch.

But, according to DirecTV, existing contracts with programmers prevent it from widely offering customers curated packages.

“Instead of allowing distributors like DirecTV to also develop smaller, more tailored packages at prices that reflect the value they get from the content, programmers have continued to impose and enforce strict bundling requirements,” DirecTV said in a position paper in late August.

The expiration of the 2019 distribution deal with Disney has given DirecTV an opening to try to change contract terms.

The satellite TV company said it has asked Disney to ease a key distribution requirement — minimum penetration rates. For example, Disney’s deals require that DirecTV and other distributors provide ESPN to a minimum of nearly 80% of its customer base.

DirecTV maintains that such “antiquated” penetration rates “force pay TV customers to subscribe to many channels they may not watch,” and the contracts limit DirecTV’s ability to offer smaller and less-expensive packages. During the negotiations, Disney said it offered DirecTV with more flexibility to tailor “skinny” genre-themed packages that it wanted for its customers.

The Burbank company also agreed to work with DirecTV on the minimum penetration rates, Thun said.

 

So it seems that the mouse wants a high penetration rate, and dtv wants to be able to create targeted bundles.

To me, outside looking in, why can't dtv keep what they offer now for packages, including espn on all (and expanding with sports pack), but also offer a tailored sports pack?

 

Seems like the mouse wins twice to me. If dtv not only kept their current, but added new customers with the new targeted packages, seems like an increase in numbers for everyone to me.

Not that I personally give two shits about dtv and their holding subscribers over a barrel, but some folks have no other choice.

 

[Chopper 16353]

1 hour ago, thunderlounge said:

To me, outside looking in, why can't dtv keep what they offer now for packages, including espn on all (and expanding with sports pack), but also offer a tailored sports pack?

 

The short answer is that Disney is trying to compete against DTV and all the other cable/satellite/streaming providers by offering themselves better arrangements than they're offering to any other company, including DTV. This is anticompetitive behavior. Disney is planning to offer a "skinny bundle" of sports only, but they're trying to avoid allowing any other company to offer the same option. They're trying to force the other providers to pay for channels like all the Disney tv stations, Fx, NatGeo, etc. for the privilege of offering the live sports related channels. 

Below is a letter DTV, Dish, Fubo and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sent to Congress a couple months ago about the issue.

 

Quote

 

Dear Chairs & Ranking Members:

We are writing to urge your Committees to hold hearings on the future of competition in pay-TV. Recent developments in the pay-TV market – including the programming giants’ new joint venture, a streaming TV service that would control 80% of national live sports broadcasts – raise serious competition concerns that call for Congress’s immediate oversight.

 The JV between Disney, Fox, and Warner is expected to launch this fall, in time for the next NFL and college football seasons. In addition to controlling 80% of all national live sports broadcasts, the JV will control approximately 55% of all live sports (regional and national).² We cannot think of any scenario in the history of the United States where consumer interests have been served when such an important industry – here, access to live sports – is effectively controlled by three programming giants which decided to combine forces instead of competing against each other.

 

 

Worse yet, these same programming giants enforce anticompetitive and inflationary contract restrictions on distributors that will insulate the JV’s streaming service from head-to-head competition because these contract restrictions prohibit competing distributors from offering consumers their own “skinny,” live sports bundle. However one measures it, the JV will eventually dominate the distribution market for live sports and will drive out competition, leaving consumers captive to the JV for live sports – unless Congress and regulators intervene.

When one vertically integrated company has the power and incentive to drive out its competitors – as this JV will – policymakers have previously stepped in to protect competition and consumers. For example, in the 1992 Cable Act, Congress enacted new program access rules that prevented vertically integrated cable operators from discriminating against new entrants in the pay-TV business, namely the then-nascent satellite TV providers trying to compete with cable.

We are at the same inflection point now. The JV partners demand that their competitors offer “big fat bundles” of programming (as described by Disney’s CEO³) that include many unwanted but expensive channels, while their own JV service offers a much skinnier package consisting only of “must have” sports channels. Americans love their live sports and entertainment, and they expect Congress to ensure competition and choice in accessing these shows. We thus urge you and your colleagues to hold hearings as soon as possible on the future of pay TV.

 

 

Sincerely,

FuboTV Inc., DirectTV, American Economic Liberties Project, Open Markets Institute, DISH Network, Newsmax, Inc., Sports Fan Coalition, Electronic Frontier Foundation

 

 

[thunderlounge 7619]

The combined venture, which has been blocked for now, yes.