DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[Jwaire]

But ESPN isn't on Hulu+Live, so its cost doesn't tell us anything about what Disney gets from Fubo and YouTube.

What? ESPN, ESPN2, etc are on Hulu Live. They're not limited to ESPN+. Yeah, we don't know what they get from any of them not even Hulu. Is it more? Is it less? I haven't seen numbers.

And many people live where they don't line of sight to nearby TV transmitters.

Well, you were specifically referring to O&O stations in New York (WABC) and LA (KABC). Being a huge metro, I figure it's easier to get OTA but apparently not.

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/new-york-ny-ota.275729/page-1112

I always encourage family members to pick up a $30 OTA antenna just for weather emergencies or outages. You'd be surprised what you find out there!

And, of course, a lot of big sports games aren't even on broadcast TV stations any more. In fact, I just saw a TV commercial for Amazon Prime's Thursday Night Football airings a few minutes ago; as of this season, they have exclusive rights to those games.

I consider some of those on Amazon Tier 2 games, but yeah they make a ton from cable operators and streamers. Just look at the drama with the Apple, the PAC-12 and Big Ten. PAC-12 basically disbanded over it.

You can say greed, but these media deals basically end up paying for the rest of the sports at the college. So in some respects, it matters. But it's getting ludicrous.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/20...washington-big-ten-official-arizona-asu-utah/

I’m worried Charter and Disney will NEVER come to an agreement at all. They’ve laid their ties to rest. Now Charter will take its own cable TV operations off the air.

It's apparently Charter's goal. I just don't get it.

 

[afan]

I'm up to four Internet Service Providers (3 fiber, 1 cable) in my neighborhood. This summer, I've watched as my yard has been dug up 3x to run fiber lines and I live in a mid-size suburb in a very rural state. That doesn't even include things like StarLink that are coming

That's great for you but not everywhere has options. I'm not rural, suburb of Seattle 15ish miles away and we have comcast as our only internet provider. The one company that came in, forget which, line stops at our driveway. Most people in my area don't have any option either unless they want dial up We are far from being rural.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disn...ulu-live-amid-contract-dispute-180234213.html

Disney pushes Charter subscribers to sign up for Hulu Live amid contract dispute
Alexandra Canal · Senior Reporter
Tue, September 5, 2023 at 11:02 AM PDT

A contract dispute between Disney (DIS) and Charter (CHTR) continued on Tuesday after the media giant pulled its owned and operated channels including ESPN and ABC off Charter Spectrum cable systems late last week.

Disney urged Spectrum subscribers to opt for Hulu + Live TV to circumvent blackouts after viewers were unable to watch the US Open and a slew of high-profile college football games over the weekend through ESPN and its affiliate channels. In addition to ESPN, other Disney Entertainment channels affected include the Disney Channel, Freeform, National Geographic, and local news stations on the ABC network.

"Despite the ongoing dispute, consumers have many other choices—such as Hulu + Live TV—that allow them to enjoy the great programming for which Disney Entertainment is known," the company said in a blog post on Tuesday.

Disney added it "deeply values its relationship with its viewers" and is hopeful a resolution with Charter can be reached "as quickly as possible."

Charter did not immediately respond to Yahoo Finance's request for comment.

How we got here

The companies had reached a stalemate over whether Disney should give Charter subscribers free access to its ad-supported streaming services as part of Charter's cable package. Charter also alleged Disney has insisted on higher rates and limited flexibility for consumers.

"[Disney] wants to require customers to pay twice to get content apps with the linear video they have already paid for," the telecommunications giant said on Friday. "This is not a typical carriage dispute. It is significant for Charter, and we think it is even more significant for programmers and the broader video ecosystem."

In a fiery response Friday afternoon, Disney Entertainment said Charter refused to enter into a new agreement that reflects market-based terms, writing in part: "Contrary to their claims, we have offered Charter the most favorable terms on rates, distribution, packaging, advertising and more."

Carriage fee issues have mounted in recent years amid the steep declines in linear television viewership as more subscribers cut the cord and opt for streaming services.

According to the latest data from Nielsen released last month, linear TV viewership fell below 50% in July for the first time.

'Devastating impact' on traditional media

Analysts weighed in on the longer-term implications if Charter and Disney don't reach a deal.

"If this posture were to be extrapolated across all other major video distributors, we believe it would have a devastating impact on the profits and losses of the entire traditional media & entertainment group," Bank of America analyst Jessica Reif Ehrlich wrote on Tuesday.

"The result would lead to a significant decline in highly profitable linear subscribers that would be only partially recouped by likely fewer and less profitable direct-to-consumer subs," she continued. That would amplify longer-term leverage concerns for media companies like Paramount Global (PARA), Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), and Fox (FOX), which carry significant debt loads.

Charter and the Walt Disney Co. blamed each other Friday, Sept. 1, 2023 in a business dispute that cut off Disney-owned stations to customers on the eve of a big sports weekend for US Open tennis and college football fans. (Richard Drew/AP Photo, File)
Wells Fargo analyst Steve Cahall said last week that Charter's dispute with Disney represents "a line in the sand intended to change the norms of network distribution."

It's a high-stakes battle for both sides. Cahall estimated Charter would lose about 1.8 million subscribers in the case of a permanent blackout of Disney's channels. That suggests a hit of approximately $3.7 billion in Charter's annualized revenue, or roughly 7% of consensus full-year 2024 revenue.

Cahall said costs would primarily be offset by declining programing expenses, adding, "[We] actually see this as a far bigger deal for media than Charter. We estimate just 5% of CHTR's EBITDA is video, while plenty of media/broadcast stocks get nearly 100% of EBITDA from linear networks/stations."

Now this is an example of Disney being unfair, anti-competitive, and committing acts of cheating. IMO, they don’t deserve to have full ownership of Hulu, nor any ownership of it at all.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Now this is an example of Disney being unfair, anti-competitive, and committing acts of cheating. IMO, they don’t deserve to have full ownership of Hulu, nor any ownership of it at all.

Disney isn’t only suggesting Hulu as an alternative. Article is misleading:

https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-charter-espn-nfl/

“Yet, if the impasse continues, consumers luckily have many other choices—such as Hulu + Live TV, DIRECTV Stream, YouTube TV, Sling, and Fubo—that allow them to enjoy the Disney Entertainment’s programming. Also, it should be noted that the ABC Owned Television Stations will always be available over the air at no cost to the consumer.”

 

[hildarumpole]

Cable carriage fees are easy money for Disney/ABC/ESPN. They get paid even if a cable customer never watches any of their networks. With streaming, they'll have to hustle to hit the same level of revenue. Churn is going to be a big problem as sports seasons come and go. The death of cable is inevitable, but Disney can ill-afford a sudden loss in steady revenue at this time. The transition on their part could have been managed better, but Iger doesn't seem to know what time it is.

 

[peder]

I do admire Disney speedrunning the death of cable. It's not an easy thing to be basically walking away from that guaranteed revenue in pursuit of the disruptive option.

 

[irlandaise]

What? ESPN, ESPN2, etc are on Hulu Live. They're not limited to ESPN+. Yeah, we don't know what they get from any of them not even Hulu. Is it more? Is it less? I haven't seen numbers.

Oh, okay. I was talking the other day with someone who's affected by the Charter dust-up and he said that Hulu+Live didn't have ESPN and ESPN2, just some minor ESPN channels. I guess he was wrong. He and his wife decided to go with Sling, since all this happened in the middle of the U.S. Open and the beginning of football season, so they needed to get ESPN back right away.

 

[irlandaise]

Augh!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700367125074874472

Here are the offers:

 

[Cfabar1]

This is turning into Bob Iger's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Year.

Seeing his video on the D23 App this morning we thought "he's not having fun anymore"....

 

[jerry557]

It's apparently Charter's goal. I just don't get it.

The cable companies are looking to change their pricing options and structures to adapt to the changing market demands. A lot of customers of these companies don't like the idea of paying for a bunch of channels they never watch. Only 1/3rd of Charter's customers watch ESPN. So Charter does not want to pay more for that and force all the customers to pay more. The cable companies are trying to salvage their business by adapting to the changing market conditions. When you ask people why they are "cutting the cord" it's because they demand more flexibility in the pricing options. And the cable companies are trying to change the way the industry has worked since the 1980s in order to do that.

Also, the cable companies would ultimately like to bundle services that include streaming. Because the top content is no longer put on many of these cable channels, meanwhile the networks keep demanding more money anyway. For example, Disney doesn't put it's best content on their cable channel. If you've ever watched the Disney Channel lately, it's really pretty bad quality stuff. Kids watch it because they don't care. But Disney doesn't put its best movies or shows on there. Certainly it's very different from the 80s and 90s. If you were a kid that grew up in those decades, the Disney Channel was VERY different than what it is today. Instead now, Disney puts its best content on Disney+ and charges a premium price on top of what they charge for their cable channels. And the cable companies have no access to that premium content yet has to pay increasing prices for Disney's cable channels.

Carrier disputes are not uncommon. They happen from time to time. But I think we will start to see these more and more because the cable companies are trying to change the way the industry does business in order to survive. So not only Charter but Comcast and Frontier and others are going to start playing hardball in these negotiations. Disney and other networks are betting on that more consumers will cut the cord and start signing up for Disney+ and ESPN+. Either way, the consumer is going to end up paying more money. Who's fault is that? Well....it's Disney's fault. Their streaming service is failing. ESPN is failing. All because their content has not been that good and their management has screwed up. And they want YOU to pay more money to make up those losses. So I'm not so sure Disney is going to come out ahead here. Are people going to cancel Spectrum and then sign up for a dozen streaming services and pay even more money? Doubtful.

 

[Jwaire]

The cable companies are looking to change their pricing options and structures to adapt to the changing market demands. A lot of customers of these companies don't like the idea of paying for a bunch of channels they never watch. Only 1/3rd of Charter's customers watch ESPN. So Charter does not want to pay more for that and force all the customers to pay more. The cable companies are trying to salvage their business by adapting to the changing market conditions. When you ask people why they are "cutting the cord" it's because they demand more flexibility in the pricing options. And the cable companies are trying to change the way the industry has worked since the 1980s in order to do that.

Also, the cable companies would ultimately like to bundle services that include streaming. Because the top content is no longer put on many of these cable channels, meanwhile the networks keep demanding more money anyway. For example, Disney doesn't put it's best content on their cable channel. If you've ever watched the Disney Channel lately, it's really pretty bad quality stuff. Kids watch it because they don't care. But Disney doesn't put its best movies or shows on there. Certainly it's very different from the 80s and 90s. If you were a kid that grew up in those decades, the Disney Channel was VERY different than what it is today. Instead now, Disney puts its best content on Disney+ and charges a premium price on top of what they charge for their cable channels. And the cable companies have no access to that premium content yet has to pay increasing prices for Disney's cable channels.

Carrier disputes are not uncommon. They happen from time to time. But I think we will start to see these more and more because the cable companies are trying to change the way the industry does business in order to survive. So not only Charter but Comcast and Frontier and others are going to start playing hardball in these negotiations. Disney and other networks are betting on that more consumers will cut the cord and start signing up for Disney+ and ESPN+. Either way, the consumer is going to end up paying more money. Who's fault is that? Well....it's Disney's fault. Their streaming service is failing. ESPN is failing. All because their content has not been that good and their management has screwed up. And they want YOU to pay more money to make up those losses. So I'm not so sure Disney is going to come out ahead here. Are people going to cancel Spectrum and then sign up for a dozen streaming services and pay even more money? Doubtful.

I understand the dispute. I understand why they happen. I don't understand Charter's goal of trying to get their customers to cancel their cable TV service.

The decline of the Disney Channel doesn't matter. Basic cable channels have been terrible for years.

Losing cable tv subscribers leaves Charter as solely an Internet Service Provider, which is becoming a commodity business. They're doomed anyway unless they have a stranglehold on a regional market like the poster above mentioned.

There's no way a cable company wants to lower its average service price. So you're telling me they are trying to bundle YouTube TV or Sling with their internet service? That tells me there's a kickback to be had there or they wouldn't bother.

So that's the goal! They think their customers are going to subscribe to their internet service + a streaming package (Sling, Hulu, etc.) through them instead of their cable TV service + internet service? In theory, this new package nets Charter around the same or more margin as their typical cable tv bundle.

In my neighborhood (keep in mind this just happened in the last 18 months or less), I was paying $149.95 + tax for just cable Internet (350Mbps down/up).

A fiber provider, Brightspeed, came in last year and offered $60 per month for 1Gbps up/down fiber service (you're talking 3-4x the speed of cable) with no plan increases for 5 years.

It completely decimated our cable provider. They ended up selling off to a French telecom. I actually don't know anyone in the neighborhood that still has their service. That provider probably went from a 75%+ uptake to 10% or less.

Then two more fiber providers came in this summer including Xfinity Gig (Comcast Fiber). While it may not be happening to everyone right now, this is obviously the future. You're going to get more providers in your areas once exclusive deals expire, your local governments get their acts together, federal grants to build out Internet, etc.

There's also the "5G at Home" products from Verizon and AT&T that are becoming more available and Starlink.

It just seems risky to me. I'd try to hold onto those customers as long as possible. But maybe they aren't earning enough margin from them to matter.

 

[Jwaire]

Seeing his video on the D23 App this morning we thought "he's not having fun anymore"....

You weren't kidding. I missed his intro video because only Disney has an event at the crack of dawn on a Saturday, but on rewatch he looked exhausted.

 

[irlandaise]

I understand the dispute. I understand why they happen. I don't understand Charter's goal of trying to get their customers to cancel their cable TV service.

I don't think Charter is trying to get people to cancel TV, simply that it won't hurt Charter's bottom line much if they do. Charter is better positioned to lose TV customers than Comcast is because they don't own any TV channels, so they don't have to protect that business division. That means Charter can play hardball with Disney because they don't care whether customers get TV directly from them or via a streaming service that goes over their Internet connections.

p.s. I don't know why or whether it matters, but Spectrum is back to the multi-slide "Here's why you should complain to Disney" screens on the Disney channels, not the Fubo offer slide they had earlier today.

 

[wabbott]

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/c...ket-charterdisney-standoff-has-nfl-concerned/​

'Sunday Ticket’ confusion, Charter/Disney standoff has NFL concerned​

The Associated Press
9/10/23

LOS ANGELES — The NFL had its second-largest audience for Thursday’s Kickoff Game since 2015. All is not well for the league or many viewers for Sunday and Monday’s games.

With YouTube and YouTube TV becoming the exclusive home of “NFL Sunday Ticket”, some viewers have been been confused over DirecTV advertising that all NFL games can be viewed on its service.

DirecTV has an ad on its webpage featuring Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce and refers to “access to every in-market & out-of-market pro football game.”

DirecTV was the home of “NFL Sunday Ticket” from 1994 until last season. YouTube agreed to a seven-year deal last December to take over the package of out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on CBS and Fox.

“YouTube and YouTube TV are the only place to go for fans at home wanting to subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket,” NFL EVP of Communications Jeff Miller said. “We are aware of consumer confusion resulting from advertising in the marketplace. The NFL wants its millions of fans to know where to get NFL Sunday Ticket and that we stand against deceptive advertising.”

Technically, DirecTV isn’t wrong about being able to access “Sunday Ticket” on its service, but it requires reading of the fine print.

DirecTV customers can access YouTube and YouTube TV online through its receivers, where they can sign up and watch the games. It is the same way viewers have to access Amazon Prime Video’s “Thursday Night Football” games or other streaming platforms.
While DirecTV lost the residential rights, it is distributing the package to commercial businesses that have its service. The only place DirecTV residential customers can order the package directly from the satellite service is Puerto Rico.

“If consumers are confused, it’s because where to watch which football games is more fragmented than ever. Our advertising is clear, and just as we’ve done for 30 years, we’ll continue to deliver access to the national, regional, and local sports our customers want without having to switch inputs on their TV,” said Jon Greer, DirecTV’s Head of Communications.

Another headache for the NFL is the standoff between Spectrum/Charter and Disney Entertainment. Spectrum subscribers in New York City could be blacked out from viewing Aaron Rodgers’ Jets debut on Monday night against Buffalo because ESPN and WABC went dark on Aug. 31.

Buffalo also has a heavy presence of Spectrum subscribers, but they will be able to see the game because the ABC station is not owned by Disney. That is the same situation in Milwaukee and Green Bay, where Rodgers played for 18 seasons before being traded to New York during the offseason.

In some good TV news for the league, Detroit’s 21-20 victory over Kansas City averaged 26.8 million viewers on NBC, Peacock and the league’s digital properties, a 24% increase over last year’s opener when Buffalo routed the Los Angeles Rams.

Thursday night’s audience was just shy of the 26.9 who watched the 2021 opener, when Tampa Bay defeated Dallas on a last-second field goal.

 

[Disney Bobby]

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/c...ket-charterdisney-standoff-has-nfl-concerned/​

'Sunday Ticket’ confusion, Charter/Disney standoff has NFL concerned​

The Associated Press
9/10/23

LOS ANGELES — The NFL had its second-largest audience for Thursday’s Kickoff Game since 2015. All is not well for the league or many viewers for Sunday and Monday’s games.

With YouTube and YouTube TV becoming the exclusive home of “NFL Sunday Ticket”, some viewers have been been confused over DirecTV advertising that all NFL games can be viewed on its service.

DirecTV has an ad on its webpage featuring Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce and refers to “access to every in-market & out-of-market pro football game.”

DirecTV was the home of “NFL Sunday Ticket” from 1994 until last season. YouTube agreed to a seven-year deal last December to take over the package of out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on CBS and Fox.

“YouTube and YouTube TV are the only place to go for fans at home wanting to subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket,” NFL EVP of Communications Jeff Miller said. “We are aware of consumer confusion resulting from advertising in the marketplace. The NFL wants its millions of fans to know where to get NFL Sunday Ticket and that we stand against deceptive advertising.”

Technically, DirecTV isn’t wrong about being able to access “Sunday Ticket” on its service, but it requires reading of the fine print.

DirecTV customers can access YouTube and YouTube TV online through its receivers, where they can sign up and watch the games. It is the same way viewers have to access Amazon Prime Video’s “Thursday Night Football” games or other streaming platforms.
While DirecTV lost the residential rights, it is distributing the package to commercial businesses that have its service. The only place DirecTV residential customers can order the package directly from the satellite service is Puerto Rico.

“If consumers are confused, it’s because where to watch which football games is more fragmented than ever. Our advertising is clear, and just as we’ve done for 30 years, we’ll continue to deliver access to the national, regional, and local sports our customers want without having to switch inputs on their TV,” said Jon Greer, DirecTV’s Head of Communications.

Another headache for the NFL is the standoff between Spectrum/Charter and Disney Entertainment. Spectrum subscribers in New York City could be blacked out from viewing Aaron Rodgers’ Jets debut on Monday night against Buffalo because ESPN and WABC went dark on Aug. 31.

Buffalo also has a heavy presence of Spectrum subscribers, but they will be able to see the game because the ABC station is not owned by Disney. That is the same situation in Milwaukee and Green Bay, where Rodgers played for 18 seasons before being traded to New York during the offseason.

In some good TV news for the league, Detroit’s 21-20 victory over Kansas City averaged 26.8 million viewers on NBC, Peacock and the league’s digital properties, a 24% increase over last year’s opener when Buffalo routed the Los Angeles Rams.

Thursday night’s audience was just shy of the 26.9 who watched the 2021 opener, when Tampa Bay defeated Dallas on a last-second field goal.

Really questionable on DirecTV's part. Having an app on your receiver to pay to access youtubetv so you can have "access to every in-market and out-of-market pro football game" is not the same as offering NFL Sunday Ticket. If that were the case Roku offers "access" to just about everything.

 

[Disney Bobby]

Consumer this week: I want the ability to pay for just the channels I want to watch. Packages are too expensive.

Consumer next week: Channels cost too much individually. Why can't they bundle them and cut me a deal?

Not that businesses can't be greedy, but the consumer can't have it both ways. It's like asking for a group discount, and then say, ""well, just give me one or two at that price". Not how it works.

But this is nothing new or unique to the entertainment industry. You see it everywhere. People are so used to having your way, right away at Burger King now that they think anything they want can and should happen. Many want goods/services to be cheap, but high quality. But also made here to support American jobs, and those jobs should be high paying. But those companies better make a ton of profit from the high quality. cheaply price goods that are made by well paid employees, because that 401k needs to look good. It's not just having it both ways anymore. It's having it every way, without compromise. I want what i want, I'm entitled to it, and anything else is robbery or unfair. lol

 

[Jason_V]

Going totally off the top of my head but the dividend was nothing much to get excited about -sure, it’s something but no one is getting rich off a DIS dividend. If you want dividends I could roll a dozen off without blinking. Not being critical …it’s just not a “dividend” stock

100%. Never said I was going to get rich off of it. I have plenty of other dividend stocks for that. Only that it is nice when a stock that was previously not providing a dividend starts to do so again. Another source of passive income.

 

[Scalemaster34]

Consumer this week: I want the ability to pay for just the channels I want to watch. Packages are too expensive.

Consumer next week: Channels cost too much individually. Why can't they bundle them and cut me a deal?

Yeah à la carte is ending up being rather expensive as well, as streamers keep raising their rate in an attempt to find profitability. And we are back to many of the basic options, have commercials yet again. At least with broadcast you didn't have to watch the same commercial over and over...

 

[HokieRaven5]

The Walt Disney Company And Charter Communications Announce Transformative Agreement For Distribution Of Disney’s Linear Networks And Direct-To-Consumer Services

The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) and Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR) today announced a transformative, multiyear distribution agreement that maximizes value for consumers and supports the linear TV experience as the industry continues to evolve. As part of the deal, the majority of Disney’s networks and stations will be immediately restored to Spectrum’s video customers.

In a joint statement, Robert A. Iger, CEO, The Walt Disney Company, and Chris Winfrey, CEO, Charter Communications, said: “Our collective goal has always been to build an innovative model for the future. This deal recognizes both the continued value of linear television and the growing popularity of streaming services while addressing the evolving needs of our consumers. We also want to thank our mutual customers for their patience this past week and are pleased that Spectrum viewers once again have access to Disney’s high-quality sports, news and entertainment programming, in time for Monday Night Football.”

Among the key deal points:

• • In the coming months, the Disney+ Basic ad-supported offering will be provided to customers who purchase the Spectrum TV Select package, as part of a wholesale arrangement.
  • ESPN+ will be provided to Spectrum TV Select Plus subscribers.
  • The ESPN flagship direct-to-consumer service will be made available to Spectrum TV Select subscribers when it launches.
  • Charter will maintain flexibility to offer a range of video packages at varying price points based upon different customer viewing preferences.

Charter will also use its significant distribution capabilities to offer Disney’s direct-to-consumer services to all its customers – in particular its large broadband-only customer base – for purchase at retail rates. These include Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+, as well as The Disney Bundle.

Effective immediately, Spectrum TV will provide its customers widespread access to a more curated lineup of 19 networks from The Walt Disney Company. Spectrum will continue to carry the ABC Owned Television Stations, Disney Channel, FX and the Nat Geo Channel, in addition to the full suite of ESPN networks. Networks that will no longer be included in Spectrum TV video packages are Baby TV, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FXM, FXX, Nat Geo Wild and Nat Geo Mundo.

To preserve all these valuable business models, the parties have also renewed their commitment to lead the industry in mitigating the effects of unauthorized password sharing.

 

[BrianL]

Okay, Nextar & DirecTV - take a hint!