Entertainment is never going to get cheaper. We can just try to find newer options to avoid paying the max prices.
There was never a real chance non-commercial funded streaming was ever going to be cheaper. The cable package is already expensive on a monthly basis and still needs considerable commercial load to get to break even for broadcasters. Streaming without commercials was always going to need to be considerably more expensive. The commercials pay for a whole lot.
It’ll stay the same price, but there will be way fewer choices. There’s just no way that Disney is going to continue to subsidize the travel channel and CNBC.
it’s not really a true dvr. If you add a show as your favorite, it will add any on demand episodes of the show. It also keeps adding additional airings of the show (so if the show replays in the middle of the night, or later in the week you’ll have multiple versions) sometimes it defaults to the on demand version, so just make sure from the drop down you choose a recording
Makes sense. The shows I've added to our library haven't had any new episodes air yet, so all I'm seeing are VOD options. I added a a show that will air at the top of hour so hopefully it records it and I can test it out.
YTTV having passed the test for me, I called Spectrum this morning to drop the TV service (keeping them as an ISP). The phone call lasted 97 minutes. Their retention department did miraculously find a promo that would allow me to keep everything in my existing package for nearly 80 dollars less a month for the next twelve months. I laughed pretty hard and noped them.
“Notably, the first NFL Monday Night Football game (ESPN) features two Spectrum-market teams; the New York Jets and the Buffalo Bills. To handle a potential rush of customers anxious about missing the game, Charter is preparing a one-touch QR code that would not only create a new YouTube TV or Fubo subscription, but would also downgrade from a Spectrum video bundle with a single click…” Good, long read
The "DVR" is actually better than a traditional DVR in many ways. There's no storage limit. You can have it "record" as many things at the same time as you'd like. The best part is if you follow a team or a league then you can search for and select them and it will record all of their games/events going forward so you don't have to worry about remembering to record in the future. For example, I have it record all PGA Tour events and all F1 events so it will automatically record all of them even though each weeks tournament or race has a different name. The only potential downside is that the storage lasts 9 months from recording date so if there is anything you want to keep on your DVR longer than that then there's no way to do it. It hasn't been an issue for me but I could see if you have a one off event you want to keep forever then it could be an issue.
I might be misreading this but why would charter want to make it easier for their customers to drop their service?
Maybe I'm a mark - but making canceling easy during a process like this would make me more likely to reconsider them in the future when YTTV inevitably loses ESPN.
I imagine they're anticipating their customer service is going to get blown up/overloaded. It's probably cheaper to just face the inevitable.
siap. Article from Sports Business Journal. Spoiler SBJ Media: Why this weekend is so important to Disney, Charter By John Ourand September 4, 2023 Here’s a special Labor Day column on how Charter’s public dispute with Disney/ESPN could affect the sports business. Disney-Charter fight could have long-term implications Charter’s decision to drop Disney and ESPN channels from its Spectrum cable systems was years in the making. Four years, in fact. That’s when the country’s second largest cable operator and the country’s most powerful programming network completed a carriage negotiation with little fanfare -- no public bickering, no channel blackouts. But behind the scenes during those negotiations in 2019, talks were much more contentious than originally believed, several sources said. At that time, Charter execs came close to deciding to leave the video business altogether. That was four years and around 30 million cable video subscribers ago. The cord-cutting trend, combined with higher ever-increasing affiliate rates for TV networks, makes it easier for Charter to make a move away from video today. It’s likely that these two will reach an agreement over the next few days or weeks. The two sides still are talking. I’m told Charter President and CEO Chris Winfrey and Disney CEO Bob Iger have been in contact over the weekend. Regardless of what a possible deal looks like, the die is cast. Charter has shown the stomach for dropping these channels is stronger than ever. The rate that Charter pays for TV networks -- especially sports -- has become so expensive that the cable operator’s margins are razor thin. Broadband and wireless are a much better business, with much higher margins, for cable operators. You can read reams of stories about what happened last Thursday when all of Disney’s channels went dark on Charter’s systems. Ben Mullin and Joe Flint have the best write-ups that I’ve seen. But the main point that should send shivers throughout the sports business is that Charter plans to exit the video business at some point over the next few years. For most of my cable industry sources, that point appears obvious. Cable operators have made these arguments so often for the past several decades that they have always rung hollow. Whenever they’ve had these disputes, cable operators always found enough money to do the deals. Programmers have held all the leverage since the beginning of cable. It was no surprise that Disney/ESPN’s current deal with Charter ended Aug. 31. College football’s opening weekend, followed by the start of the NFL, historically would have given Disney/ESPN a lot of leverage with angry fans threatening to cancel their service. But that leverage appears to have switched in this dispute. Nobody has seen hard numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that Charter was inundated with calls to cancel their service over the weekend. ESPN is such a powerful force because it has games and events that people want to see. The thing that's different about this dispute, though, is that Charter has a plan. It already has been referring upset subscribers to FuboTV for video. Why would it send its subscribers to a competing video service? Because Charter wants to make sure that the subscribers who ditch video keep their broadband and wireless packages with Charter. MoffettNathanson reported last week that Charter is "preparing a one-touch QR code that would not only create a new YouTube TV or Fubo subscription but would also downgrade from a Spectrum video bundle with a single click. To minimize any impact on broadband subscribership, they’ll lean more heavily than ever into their Spectrum One wireless/broadband bundle. Video is already being de-emphasized.” Despite steady negotiations over the weekend, sources said that Charter and Disney are no closer to a deal than they were last week. Disney wants to wait to see how much pain Charter is willing to take from angry sports fans ditching their video packages. Charter’s plan to refer those angry subscribers to other video outlets suggests that the cable operator is prepared to wait it out, as well. Topics to watch If Charter has more leverage, what should Disney do? This is the main question that I asked my best sources. They mainly agreed that Disney needs figure out if Charter really is as dug into its position as it appears to be. If Disney determines that Charter really is serious about moving on without video, it needs to find a middle ground that leads to a deal and keeps revenue from the cable bundle flowing for at least the next five years. Why not just cut the best deal to keep channels up on Charter? This is not just a Charter issue for Disney; it’s an industry one. All cable network contracts with the biggest cable operators carry clauses known as MFNs (Most Favored Nations). If Charter negotiates better terms than Comcast, for example, Comcast can automatically take Charter’s terms. Whatever deal Disney works out with Charter will be applied to the biggest distributors. That means that the biggest distributors will benefit if Disney bows to Charter’s demands. Why does this Charter deal matter so much? In general, cable channels make most of their money from ad sales and sponsorships. That’s not true with sports channels, especially ESPN, which has the biggest license fee among all cable channels, north of $10 per subscriber per month. Affiliate fees make up a big majority of ESPN’s revenue. Any drop in affiliate fees -- or even stagnation -- will hamper ESPN as it goes into the market to negotiate rights deals with leagues and conferences. And remember, Charter has 14.7 million subscribers, including systems in some of the country’s biggest markets: N.Y., L.A., Dallas. What’s the worst-case scenario? If Charter gets out of the video business, and if other cable operators follow suit, media rights could be reset lower, which would have broad implications on team values and player salaries. Leagues and teams still would have media rights deals. But they wouldn’t be the same as they’ve seen over the past three decades, when the cable model benefitted sports leagues and teams more than anything else. 12ft.io link
They didn't agree to the fee, hence the current issue. But ignoring that, why do you think it's better for them to just accept Disney's fee demand and also not try to get something to offset that? Disney has also spent billions on stock buybacks, perhaps they could shoulder the burden some on this too. What's being missed by some in this thread is that the best thing for us consumers to do is pressure both sides. Going straight to cancelling service when these carriage disputes happen tells the TV provider that they need to accept whatever fee the content providers is demanding. And so then TV providers increase the price of the service to makeup for that added cost. And then people on here cancel for another service and this whole thing repeats when that one goes through a carriage dispute. To afb 's original post, neither Spectrum nor any other TV provider actually think people are going to go at Disney rather than them about this, but trying to get consumers to see that there are two parties at fault here is one of the few good options they have.
He's saying Charter's valuable product is the broadband not the cable, so they're more willing to lose them as a cable customer as long as they can keep them as a broadband one. And so yeah, if Charter makes that switch easy, they stand a better chance of retaining them as a broadband customer.
Just video. This allows them to keep them for internet though edit: see that Ourands article was posted that answered this question
“Early Friday, Charter executives called the pay-TV ecosystem ‘broken.’ They said they pushed for a revamped deal with Disney that would see Charter cable customers receive access to Disney's ad-supported streaming services like Disney+ and ESPN+ at no additional cost. This seemed to be the sticking point as Charter said it accepted Disney's request for higher fees, although Charter executives didn't provide specifics on the negotiations as they remain hopeful to get a deal done.” https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/01/disney-charter-battle-over-spectrum-blackout.html Disney sucks too, but I will always side with a content provider over a cable company with a monopoly. I hope Charter and Comcast both fail.
Disney is trying to become an entertainment monopoly though so they can do stuff like this. It’s why I said earlier there is no reason to pick a side, it’s all trash.
Are you seriously asking me to name all of the entertainment options that aren’t Disney? On the other hand, why aren’t Charter and Comcast in any of the same markets?
There are alternatives to cable companies like Hulu+, YouTube tv, directv, etc if you want to get into that convo, but that’s not what I’m saying. The point is both companies have attempted to monopolize their industries so they can have all the say and force their decisions so now you have two monopolies from different industries battling each other.
One is attempting to. One has a literal monopoly. Yes it would be worse if Disney succeeded in doing what Charter already has. This is a weird argument.
I think it’s weird to believe that Disney and Charter are equally bad in this scenario. On the other hand, I’m doing that thing where I don’t care all that much but I’m now responding a million times and getting way deeper into the conversation that I had intended.
Of the two parties in this dispute, which of them provides content that the customer wants to consume, and which one stands in the way of that consumption?
You’re misguided if you think Disney didn’t buy up all these properties so they could try to strong arm cable providers. The same way a cable monopoly does it to their customers. You shouldn’t give them a pass just bc they provide content. If Disney wanted a deal to not stop consumption, they would.
Will someone think of the cable companies! they’re a leech on the whole process. They don’t add any value. They’re the car dealers of the entertainment world.
Right, so Charter wasn't willing to accept the higher fees unless Disney also included the streaming services in that price, and Disney wasn't on board with that, so then Charter didn't agree to the fee. You can't divorce those two elements in this situation. Why are you forcing yourself into this binary choice? You can (and should) think they're both being greedy and not acting in the interest of the consumer. I don't understand how you can make this argument when the reason Disney is able to demand such high fees for ESPN is 1) the lack of alternatives that exist for that product and 2) how easy it is to get from another TV provider. Considering Disney and other content providers don't deliver a lot of their content DTC, you really can't argue that TV providers are somehow standing in the way of consumption rather than actually being the ones enabling it. How is Disney profiting by delivering someone's creative work to a TV provider any better than a TV provider profiting off of delivering content to consumers? TV providers suck. Content providers do too. They're all greedy corporations. We should be pressuring both when these disputes happen. People in here treating Disney like they're Santa Claus battling the Grinch is weird (and also the reason why we all keep paying more for TV).
I'm pretty sure Charter thinks that as well and their Spectrum cable will be closed down within 5 years tops (if not sooner). They make way more money off broadband and mobile than they do cable. There's credible reporters saying it's legit that Charter is basically done with cable. Comcast is a different story because they're also an enormous content provider. Why the govt allows a provider to own national channels is absurd to begin with.
I have said it a thousand times but DirectTV Stream is the best product with Bally. But in my house and other houses I have used it, it's notably slower and glitchier than YTTV. By a fairly wide margin. The interface is clunkier and less intuitive than YTTV. I use both products all the time and it's not even close. If you don't care about watching your specific team on Bally there is zero reason to have DTVS over YTTV.
yeah i don’t disagree there, if it weren’t for the Braves i would use yttv. The dtv app runs much smoother on Roku based products. Our cheap TCL in the bedroom is googleplay/android and it’s definitely clunkier than when we use our Roku base tv. i bought a refurbished dtv stream box for our living room tv when my in laws or parents are over watching our kid so it’s more like a traditional tv box. I’ve had zero issues with it.
Biggest advantage for my sports viewing after moving to the other side of the country was being able to watch the braves now without messing with a VPN on MLB.tv. I have that plus YTTV which works fine + the Hulu/Disney/ESPN+ bundle.
good news so I can kick the can down the road some more and continue paying for cable. maybe I will cash in their free fubo trial anyway
"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." https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/09/disney-charter-dispute-over-espn-returning-spectrum/
The best thing about YouTube, if you decide you want to change, it's a push of a button. I switched from YouTube to Fubo in the spring because MLB Network dropped. I actually like Fubo but I don't blame YouTube (MLB Media can fuck off) and may switch back. Same as you, I still use a cable provider for Internet which at this point seems like they are fine with.
They've largely quit giving a shit about monopolies or oligopolies or other non-competitive stuff regardless of who's been in the white house.