Pelican Parts Forums - Spectrum Sucks

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Spectrum Sucks (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1145640-spectrum-sucks.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pavulon (Post 12081053)

Why don't people just switch cable providers? There must be a good reason because it seems a lot less dramatic than all of this.

THat's not always possible. There are many, many places around the country where you may only have 1 option for cable TV. I would assume that there would be at least one Satellite provider available as well, but that's not always a good solution for every situation either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Por_sha911 (Post 12081194)

So does Disney get revenue from commercials during a broadcast or does Spectrum?

That's an interesting question. I've always assumed that commercials were channel based, but then there are often local commercials. It seems unlikely that those are going to be channel based.

Quote:

ESPN issues statement regarding Spectrum cable dispute
By Mike Florio
Published September 3, 2023 01:36 PM

Disney and Charter Communications have a corporate dispute that has caused millions of Spectrum customers to lose access to all Disney-owned networks, including ESPN. On Sunday, ESPN issued a statement regarding the situation.

Titled “Here’s What You Need To Know About the Dispute Between Spectrum and Disney Entertainment,” it’s a predictable propaganda piece aimed at getting consumers to pressure Charter to cave in its position.

“To cut through the noise, here are some important points to consider as the dispute disrupts one of the biggest TV weekends of the year,” the message explains.

The bias is obvious and inherent. Consumers are smart enough to see that. And the message from ESPN is consistent with its corporate alignment.

“Although Charter claims that they value their customers, they declined Disney’s offer to extend negotiations which would have kept Disney-owned networks up for consumers in the middle of perennial programming events like the US Open and college football,” ESPN asserts.

The reality, however, is that all negotiations have to end, either in a deal or in the declaration of an impasse. When is the perfect time for consumers to lose access to ESPN? There’s always something either happening or coming soon. Currently, it’s tennis and college football. In a week, it will be the NFL. Then comes hockey. Then comes basketball, NBA followed by college. There’s always something that consumers will miss when ESPN goes dark on them.

The statement also addresses the heart of the dispute — consumer access to streaming platforms that, in Charter’s opinion, the increased subscription fees subsidize.

“Even though Charter also claims to value Disney’s direct-to-consumer services, the cable company is demanding these different services for free — as they have stated publicly — which does not make economic sense,” the ESPN statement declares. “Moreover, it does not make sense for consumers who desire the flexibility to have our streaming platforms as standalone services.”

The message includes this borderline cartoonish effort to pressure Charter: “Labor Day weekend is supposed to be one of the more relaxing holidays of the year in the U.S. Unfortunately, Charter has made it a stressful one for its customers — many of whom have been experiencing up to three-hour hold times to cancel their cable subscription after Disney’s networks went dark.”

The entire dispute represents a shared failure by both Disney and Charter. Disney can blame Charter for requesting terms that don’t make “economic sense,” and Charter can blame Disney for requesting terms that don’t make “economic sense.” When it was time to go to their mutual bottom-line positions as removal of the Disney channels loomed, they both failed to put the interests of consumers above their economic objectives.

Disney clearly wants to do a deal. Near the bottom of the email, ESPN says that “Disney deeply values its relationship with its viewers and is hopeful Charter is ready to have more conversations that will restore access to its content to Spectrum customers as quickly as possible.”

Eventually, a deal will be done. Someone will blink. Both sides will give a little. A solution will be found.

Along the way, the consumers will lose; Charter and Disney are equally responsible for that. Despite any efforts by ESPN to paint Charter as the villain, the better message would be for ESPN to apologize for the failure of its corporate overlord to work in a mature and productive way with Charter to keep the ESPN channels available to Spectrum customers, to ask Charter to apologize as well, and to commit to getting the situation resolved before the Jets host the Bills in eight days — which frankly is a far bigger deal than the US Open or college football.

Anything other than that is just more of the “noise” that ESPN claims its self-serving statement will “cut through.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/espn-issues-statement-regarding-spectrum-cable-dispute

It has nothing to do with disney jacking up
the price to provide espn and other channels even though
the quality of the content continues to falter.

Spectrum would be glad to simply pass on the
increasing costs to the consumer,
but evidently some here would prefer them to
eat the rising cost without increasing their prices
until they no longer are in business.
That'd show em!

This has more to do with disney than spectrum.
Bailing on spectrum while they are negotiating (on your behalf)
is a vote to support disney and their over-charging.

But hey, disney needs to do SOMETHNIG
to get their stock price off the floor
because of their gross mismanagement.

I saw lots of angry social media comments over the weekend, mainly from people wanting to watch the US Open. Spectrum replies to these by blaming Disney. Its a 2 way street and they are both at fault. It really chaps my behind that we are paying this month's bill and not getting what we are paying for. Spectrum states that they made a fair offer and it was rejected. So their position is to just F over their customer by quitting and having Disney pull the plug. Sort of like taking your toys out of the sandbox and going home.

I really like the ease of use with cable but this is causing me to rethink my position.

I pay for ESPN+ so was able to see some stuff. But ESPN and ESPN3 app are pass though on my Firestick and login is thru Spectrum. So any content on those still can't be watched on the App. So I was able to watch Italy GP but not pre race or post race. And now that US Open is in second week the matches are almost all on ESPN so no love for me.

Its a tough choice to switch. My FIL has ATT something that is always broken or constantly requires login over and over. I think my only other option is Direct TV but I'm not certain.

Again, they are both at fault.

Spectrum has sucked long before this Disney business. It may be a problem now but 6 months ago when I was trying to deal with them the Disney problem was not a thing. Spectrum just sucks.

I read today that Medvedev said he had to watch tennis on a pirate website to see Novak's game. I'm wondering what websites are out there. Has anyone found one that works well and without viruses?

Spectrum might be able to pay a little more for Disney (without raising subscriber rates) if they weren't advertising on every channel hundreds of times a day. Their ad budget must be yuuuuuuuge.

Ben Shelton (Go Gators!) advanced to the US Open semi-finals last night in an epic quarter-finals match.

How do I know this?

I watched it LIVE on ESPN with my new You Tube TV account!
-----------------

Ben Shelton got past Frances Tiafoe in an All-American battle with a 6-2, 3-6, 7-6 (9-7), 6-2 result on Tuesday night in the 2023 US Open quarterfinals, earning a ticket to his first ever Grand Slam semifinal. The 20-year-old Shelton is now the youngest American to reach the last four of the US Open since Michael Chang in 1992.

https://www.cbssports.com/tennis/news/us-open-2023-ben-shelton-advances-to-semifinals-after-taking-down-fellow-american-frances-tiafoe/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 12083258)

Spectrum might be able to pay a little more for Disney (without raising subscriber rates) if they weren't advertising on every channel hundreds of times a day. Their ad budget must be yuuuuuuuge.

I can heat my house all winter just on the letters Spectrum sends me begging me to sign up again. I send all the SiriusXM letters to my neighbor so that he can be warm too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 12083550)

Between YT TV and the Firestick I can watch almost anything out there.

The Disney vs. Charter Fight May Permanently Change the Way You Watch TV
Spectrum's parent company either wants Disney+ for free, or to be free of Disney.

Typically, carriage disputes are the boring, semi-annual battles in which distributors (in this case, Disney) try to get more money from the cable providers (here, Spectrum) who carry their product. The push, pull, and posturing usually includes the distributor threatening to go dark and remove the channels; sometimes, as in this case, that actually happens. Currently, Disney-owned network ABC and cable channels ESPN, Freeform, the Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, National Geographic, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, and Nat Geo Wild are unavailable to 14.7 million Spectrum subscribers.

This is where the narrative starts to get weird: Charter has already agreed to pay Disney its market-price increase. But in return, it wants to offer ad-supported Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu to its Spectrum customers — for free.

The Charter argument comes down to this: Distributors like Disney were so desperate to grow in streaming they deprived linear cable channels of the good stuff and kept for their own pay services. So why should Charter customers have to pay for the linear channels and the streaming services?

“We’re on the edge of a precipice,” said Charter president and CEO Chris Winfrey’s position on a Friday conference call. “We’re either moving forward with a new collaborative video model or we’re moving on.”

To put it another way: Charter is more than willing to consider a world in which they don’t carry Disney channels — or any other provider that won’t come to terms. It’s no longer scared of the cord-cutters; the real profit is in broadband internet.

Cable providers have already demonstrated their willingness to live without content providers who won’t meet their terms. In 2019, Dish dropped Diamond Sports’ package of regional sports networks; later, outlets like YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV did the same and Diamond Sports never recovered.

This example is particularly relevant for Disney, since sports rights are the most expensive in the entire television industry and Disney’s ESPN is the most expensive sports channel in the world. That also makes it the most expensive single channel in Charter’s cable-channels package, and passing those costs to the consumer generates more cord cutting.

Disney linear channels went dark for Spectrum (Charter) customers last week. If and when they come back, the whole game may be forever changed.

Typically, carriage disputes are the boring, semi-annual battles in which distributors (in this case, Disney) try to get more money from the cable providers (here, Spectrum) who carry their product. The push, pull, and posturing usually includes the distributor threatening to go dark and remove the channels; sometimes, as in this case, that actually happens. Currently, Disney-owned network ABC and cable channels ESPN, Freeform, the Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, National Geographic, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, and Nat Geo Wild are unavailable to 14.7 million Spectrum subscribers.

This is where the narrative starts to get weird: Charter has already agreed to pay Disney its market-price increase. But in return, it wants to offer ad-supported Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu to its Spectrum customers — for free.

The Charter argument comes down to this: Distributors like Disney were so desperate to grow in streaming they deprived linear cable channels of the good stuff and kept for their own pay services. So why should Charter customers have to pay for the linear channels and the streaming services?

“We’re on the edge of a precipice,” said Charter president and CEO Chris Winfrey’s position on a Friday conference call. “We’re either moving forward with a new collaborative video model or we’re moving on.”

To put it another way: Charter is more than willing to consider a world in which they don’t carry Disney channels — or any other provider that won’t come to terms. It’s no longer scared of the cord-cutters; the real profit is in broadband internet.

Cable providers have already demonstrated their willingness to live without content providers who won’t meet their terms. In 2019, Dish dropped Diamond Sports’ package of regional sports networks; later, outlets like YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV did the same and Diamond Sports never recovered.

This example is particularly relevant for Disney, since sports rights are the most expensive in the entire television industry and Disney’s ESPN is the most expensive sports channel in the world.

Disney stated that Winfrey’s “collaborative” idea “does not make economic sense.” Time will tell if that is correct or incorrect, but it definitely does not make sense for Disney. Meanwhile, according to media analysts at MoffettNathanson, Charter has “nothing to lose,” and Disney is likely to learn that lesson “the hard way.” (All analyst notes in this story were obtained independently by IndieWire.)

Barton Crockett, a media analyst at investment bank Rosenblatt Securities, believes Bob Iger will not only blink first, but will end up conceding “to a lot.”

For now, Disney is pushing viewers toward its own Hulu + Live TV, as well as to other options like YouTube TV. (It’s also generating some goodwill: Disney announced Wednesday it is temporarily slashing prices to $1.99/month for three months of ad-supported Disney+.)

Charter is also pushing customers elsewhere; it is so chill with losing video customers that it is preparing a QR code that would immediately downgrade its own customers from a Spectrum cable package to a YouTube TV or Fubo subscription. Charter would get a piece of that sale and maintain the broadband account.

Charter stated that it pays Disney more than $2.2 billion per year in affiliate fees; Crockett estimates that Disney gets more than $1 billion on top of that in the split of advertising revenue. Macquarie analyst Tim Nollen calculated that Charter’s blackout impacts about 20 percent of ESPN’s current linear-subscriber base, which will cost Disney $5 billion in revenue.

Not having those Charter subscribers also hurts Disney’s ability to renegotiate future sports rights — and could open the door for an Apple or Amazon to swoop in for the rights to the NBA and other sports.

For Charter, shedding Disney’s high costs could work out fine. Crockett estimates Spectrum could drop about one-third of its base subs and break even on dumping Disney, but that probably wouldn’t be an issue. Charter has stated that 25 percent of its subscriber base watches Disney channels, and only half of those are “avid” watchers.

Disney linear channels went dark for Spectrum (Charter) customers last week. If and when they come back, the whole game may be forever changed.

Typically, carriage disputes are the boring, semi-annual battles in which distributors (in this case, Disney) try to get more money from the cable providers (here, Spectrum) who carry their product. The push, pull, and posturing usually includes the distributor threatening to go dark and remove the channels; sometimes, as in this case, that actually happens. Currently, Disney-owned network ABC and cable channels ESPN, Freeform, the Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, National Geographic, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, and Nat Geo Wild are unavailable to 14.7 million Spectrum subscribers.

This is where the narrative starts to get weird: Charter has already agreed to pay Disney its market-price increase. But in return, it wants to offer ad-supported Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu to its Spectrum customers — for free.

The Charter argument comes down to this: Distributors like Disney were so desperate to grow in streaming they deprived linear cable channels of the good stuff and kept for their own pay services. So why should Charter customers have to pay for the linear channels and the streaming services?

For Charter, shedding Disney’s high costs could work out fine. Crockett estimates Spectrum could drop about one-third of its base subs and break even on dumping Disney, but that probably wouldn’t be an issue. Charter has stated that 25 percent of its subscriber base watches Disney channels, and only half of those are “avid” watchers.

“If Charter has success dropping Disney, other operators will follow suit, setting up death spiral risk for Disney’s TV networks,” Crockett wrote.

More: https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/disney-vs-charter-carriage-dispute-streaming-analysis-1234902374/

I called them today and they gave a $15 per month "until it is resolved".
This buys some time to see if I want to fool with other options.
I looked at FUBO but even their highest priced package didn't include some channels we want so that is out.

For whatever reason, Spectrum sent a $0.01 check when we parted ways a year ago. So absurd. Still have it.

Spectrum does suck. Just moved to Coeur d'Alene from the Portland area. Thought saying good bye to Xfinity was a good thing....so expensive.
In Idaho, first had to fight pixelation and loss of the internet nearly every night.
Then Disney took out half my channels.
Finally, signed up for a bigger package....none of the channels could be seen...said I had to subscribe to all of them....even though my package included them all.
Went back to the store.
Oh, you have to pull the plug on the cable box to "reset" it....really?
Did that, then lost everything....took me the entire afternoon to get it all back.
What a PITA.

Wall Street Journal today:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1694342930.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1694343026.jpg

I don’t have Spectrum but pay a fortune every month.
I want to switch to YouTube streaming but then have to get Tennis Channel separate from them. Does that mean two bills every month?

Besides the $15/mo credit Spectrum is also offering a free Fubo subscription, Don't know how long it's going to be free, but US Open and Mon. night football are there

I think it is only a few months and I don't want the hassle to set it up.