FTFYIt's hard to side with Disney on this. They're kicking a deadhorsemouse.
FTFYIt's hard to side with Disney on this. They're kicking a deadhorsemouse.
True, but from what I know of those, I have T-Mobile, they are for a limited time. At least that's how the Paramount+ worked. Plus, charter is a bigger player in the space. As I'm still a Dish customer, my experience in the area is very limited. But, it appears that will have to change at some point.It's no different than the various deals giving customers of one service access to the ad supported versions of various streaming services. Paramount+ ad version is free to Walmart+ subs and various T-Mobile subs. Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ are included for various Verizon subs.
The difference is Charter wants them for free, to give away to subscribers of the regular channels.It's no different than the various deals giving customers of one service access to the ad supported versions of various streaming services. Paramount+ ad version is free to Walmart+ subs and various T-Mobile subs. Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ are included for various Verizon subs.
Well, that is one way to look at it. Another perspective is that Charter agreed to pay for them with the increased carriage fees. I think Charter should just get out of the TV business. The barely make any profit from it, despite what they charge.The difference is Charter wants them for free, to give away to subscribers of the regular channels.
Wal-Mart pays Paramount for the rights, a discounted price, yes, like wholesale basically, same for T-Mobile, Verizon and all the other giveaways.
They need to follow the example of the small/middle sized cable companies, like Fios, WOW, Frontier, make a deal with YTTV for example, then try to get a cut of that, say $5 per subscriber, margins/profits probably would be the same.Well, that is one way to look at it. Another perspective is that Charter agreed to pay for them with the increased carriage fees. I think Charter should just get out of the TV business. The barely make any profit from it, despite what they charge.
Well if Charter did not get free access to the streaming services, which is what they told the board of directors they wanted to make the deal, then Charter folded.Damn. I was hoping Charter wouldn't bend. Or maybe it was Disney who bent?
So, basically you have to pay Charter’s way too expensive price to get a discount on Disney’s streaming service, no thanks.They aren't getting free streaming services out of it, so Charter blinked, yeah.
Disney-Charter dispute ends with new deal
ESPN and the other Disney networks will be returning to Charter's Spectrum cable systems after the sides reached agreement on a new deal.www.sportsmediawatch.com
The key point of contention between the sides was the inclusion of Disney’s direct-to-subscriber platforms ESPN+, Disney+ and Hulu, which Charter wanted to bundle with the linear networks free-of-charge. Per CNBC, the new agreement will allow Charter to provide access to those services at a discounted price.
Doubtful, they smell blood with the RSNs.Will they fold to Diamond?
From the cordcutters article: "As part of the deal, Spectrum customers will get the ad-tier version of Disney+ for free “in the coming months” as part of a wholesale agreement."Well if Charter did not get free access to the streaming services, which is what they told the board of directors they wanted to make the deal, then Charter folded.
So get Charter’s expensive service, get free the ad version of Disney+, which helps Disney make even more money from the ads.From the cordcutters article: "As part of the deal, Spectrum customers will get the ad-tier version of Disney+ for free “in the coming months” as part of a wholesale agreement."
Where free means free with the latest price increase.