YouTube TV Loses ESPN, ABC and Other Disney Channels
- Reference: 0179924412
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/25/10/31/2017209/youtube-tv-loses-espn-abc-and-other-disney-channels
- Source link:
> "Last week Disney used the threat of a blackout on YouTube TV as a negotiating tactic to force deal terms that would raise prices on our customers," YouTube said in an announcement on [2]its blog . "They're now following through on that threat, suspending their content on YouTube TV." YouTube added that Disney's decision harms its subscribers while benefiting its own live TV products, such as Hulu+Live TV and Fubo.
>
> In a statement sent to the [3]Los Angeles Times , however, Disney accused Google's YouTube TV of choosing to deny "subscribers the content they value most by refusing to pay fair rates for [its] channels, including ESPN and ABC." Disney also accused Google of using its market dominance to "eliminate competition and undercut the industry-standard terms" that other pay-TV distributors have agreed to pay for its content.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/youtube/youtube-tv-loses-espn-abc-and-other-disney-channels-113026329.html
[2] https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/disney-youtube-tv/?sjid=11269581620476450138-NA
[3] https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-10-30/espn-abc-disney-blackout-youtube-tv-contract-dispute
I don't think I've heard of YouTube TV. (Score:1)
Is it another Netflix without the "originals"? I've seen videos in my regular feed that had a price tag, so I assume those are part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Is it another Netflix without the "originals"? I've seen videos in my regular feed that had a price tag, so I assume those are part of it.
No, it's more like a traditional cable TV company - but on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. I now see that it's only available in the US, so it's no wonder I'd never heard of it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a direct competitor to Disney's Hulu Live.
why is ESPN forced into the basic package when it' (Score:1)
why is ESPN forced into the basic package when it's an stand alone package?
Re: (Score:2)
So that ESPN is ensure massive revenues, just like Fox News. There are agreements that bundles are mandatory so you can't cut the vampires out.
Re:why is ESPN forced into the basic package when (Score:4, Informative)
> So that ESPN is ensure massive revenues, just like Fox News. There are agreements that bundles are mandatory so you can't cut the vampires out.
It's worse than that. ESPN has massive revenue, but also massive costs. Contrast with Disney, where the cost of production is dirt cheap by comparison, and what you conclude is that Disney/ABC is basically taking advantage of knowing that a lot of folks want sports to force mandated bundling so that all those people who don't watch ESPN end up helping pay for the ones who do, both by paying for the ESPN part and the Disney part, which ends up subsidizing the ESPN part.
The worst thing that can happen to a streaming service is getting sports. We need to keep streaming sports on their own a la carte services. As soon as you start bundling it in, the cost of the service skyrockets while the quality of the content plummets, because sports is such a huge fiscal black hole.
Re: (Score:3)
You have this almost completely backwards. Sports fans currently subsidize scripted television to an almost outrageous extent. I used to work for Sling. Disney doesn't have to push ESPN and ABC Sports on the providers. It has to convince them to carry (and pay for) the rest of the channels. If sports fans could get access to the games that they wanted without having to pay for scripted television scripted television as we know it would disappear overnight. What we would be left with is the sort of thi
Sodomize YouTube (Score:3)
They censored and deplatformed me for years... so I hope they burn.
Free speech is not political, it is common sense! I want to hear from everyone.
This is nothing different (Score:2)
than what goes on periodically with other cable companies. I expect that eventually they will reach an agreement, that will end up in high costs for the users. The only difference that I see is that YouTube TV is actually offering a refund for the lost service. That is something that I have never seen any other cable company do.
Re: (Score:3)
If they could get people to give up $20 in exchange for ESPN and ABC Sports that is the best deal they could possibly make. Most of YouTubeTV's customers pay for the sports package. They could get the other content somewhere else for less. YouTubeTV is hoping that they can stave off the mass exodus as people realize that they won't be able to watch the games that they signed up for, and that their cable TV replacement is basically worthless.
No mention of the 4 BILLION they lost? (Score:2)
I'm a YTTV subscriber and received an e-mail just the day before the cutoff that Google would not be renewing their contract. They did mention Disney's live TV offerings. They did not mention the almost 4 BILLION dollars Disney lost due to their trying to stifle Jimmy Kimmel.
I'm sure that Disney raising rates, bundling Hulu with D+ and raising rates, and now this attempt to get more money from Google for carrying their content...have nothing to do with the tremendous loss they suffered due to their own stu
Re:No mention of the 4 BILLION they lost? (Score:5, Informative)
Disney does this every time it negotiates its contract, and it is always during Football season. I used to work for Sling they did this to us twice while I worked there.
This is how live television actually works these days. Disney has a pile of channels that they can't hardly give away. Remember, we aren't talking about shows (although most shows don't matter either). We are talking about channels . When was the last time you channel surfed trying to find something on the air? My guess is that it was decades ago. Well, all those channels still exist, and the live television providers still pretend that someone cares whether re-runs of Wizard of Waverly Place is playing on whatever channel reruns of that show play on these days.
It's 2025. Sane people watch pre-recorded stuff when they have time. The industry calls that Video on Demand. They stream these shows from someone that let's them watch when they want to watch, and that keeps track of where they are when the stop. They don't tune in every day at 3:30 PM and watch reruns of their favorite show. If you are old enough, like me, you probably remember sitting down with all of your friends every week to watch the newest episode of Star Trek the Next Generation, or whatever. Remember how terrible that was. You had to make an appointment to watch television or you missed an episode and you couldn't watch it until it was in re-runs.
Well, those days are so dead no one even mourns them any more.
Disney knows this, and YouTubeTV knows this as well. Everyone involved in live television knows this. The only reason that people even have live television subscriptions is so that they can watch sports while the game is happening live . And in the United States that means that mostly boils down to watching football.
So every few years each of the live television companies (all of the cable companies, essentially) have to renegotiate with Disney. Every year the story is precisely the same. Viewership on everyone's live channels is down at least 25%. The market is shedding customers like crazy. Disney wants to raise prices at least 30%, and they also want the companies to carry (and pay for) a wide array of channels that absolutely no one watches. Meanwhile, the broadcasters just wants access to ESPN and ABC Sports. The reason that people pay money for YouTubeTV is that want to be able to watch the live sports content, and to a lesser extent the live news. Even that basically amounts to the sports news. They want to watch the College football games on Saturday, and the NFL games on Sunday. They want to be able to have a baseball game playing in the background, or catch their NBA team play. They want to hear the talking heads talk about sports, and they want to see the highlights. To accomplish this they are willing to pay approximately 4 times the cost of the fanciest Netflix subscription, maybe more if they have to rush out and sign up for another service because YouTubeTV no longer has access to ESPN and ABC Sports.
Before you think that YouTubeTV is probably gouging their customers you probably should know that YouTubeTV almost certainly pays basically every penny that their customers pay them directly to the content providers like Disney. All of the providers do this, but Disney is by far the worst. In Disney's defense they have the content that people actually want to see. Sling used the entirety of the proceeds from its subscribers to pay the various provider fees, and I actually suspect that YouTubeTV was subsidizing its customers. With the packages that they carry I suspect that they sold packages at a loss. So when Disney comes back and asks for more, with the overall pie shrinking every year. It is no wonder that YouTubeTV opted to turn out the lights.
One thing is certain, this definitely isn't about Jimmy Kimmel. That sort of content has already been moved irrevocably to normal YouTube. Absolutely no one is watching it on live television. Jimmy's return had just
[1]Read the rest of this comment...
[1] https://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23834740&cid=65765456
Re: (Score:2)
Nice post. Informative. Plus one.
"Nobody" is a word you throw around a lot. I know you're exaggerating, but A LOT of people, especially boomers, still watch live TV other than sports on the regular. Is it 14 million on one show? No. 14 million overall? I'd not be surprised if it was more.
My parents watch a lot of live TV. They enjoy the stream of something familiar and long form without having to choose. This is much like how YouTube operates, as it keeps autoplaying the next thing. It's just that
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely tend to speak in hyperbole. I actually appreciate that reminder. That sort of thing really doesn't help make any of my points.
The reality is that there are lots of people that have televisions on all day long, and there are plenty of businesses (for example restaurants) where they might have multiple televisions on all day long. Television is still a very powerful way to reach a fairly wide audience, even if live television has fallen a long. Heck, much of the content that gets the most v
Re: (Score:2)
> "It's 2025. Sane people watch pre-recorded stuff when they have time. The industry calls that Video on Demand. They stream these shows from someone that let's them watch when they want to watch, and that keeps track of where they are when the stop. They don't tune in every day at 3:30 PM and watch reruns of their favorite show. If you are old enough, like me, you probably remember sitting down with all of your friends every week to watch the newest episode of Star Trek the Next Generation, or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
The DVR revolution was a huge deal, and it also created a split between scripted and unscripted television. Once DVRs came out they quickly became a very popular way to watch scripted television. Since you were already time shifting your programs, it made sense to also skip over the ads. Live sports (and news), on the other hand tend to be watched live. People might wander off to get a snack when the commercials come on, but they rarely miss all of the commercials. Some sports fans will record a game a
F*ck Disney (Score:2)
F*ck ESPN, and f*ck Google TV too.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious post is obvious.
and the real loser is... (Score:2)
Again the People lose, here in the US and abroad.
WEYD rocks.
Re:and the real loser is... (Score:4, Informative)
And once again, the pirates win. These companies will never learn.
Re: (Score:2)
How do the pirates win? How can any of this affect non-customers?
I know you think you're being insightful and clever, but you are neither.
Re: (Score:2)
> How do the pirates win? How can any of this affect non-customers?
You are missing the point, this affects current customers which will lead to some of them becoming "non-customers" which is a win for them since they will have less problems and ads, plus they'll have more disposable income they can spend to their liking on something else.
> I know you think you're being insightful and clever, but you are neither.
It's insightful and clever when compared to the actions of the companies involved which seems hellbent on accelerating the enshittification.
Re: (Score:1)
they think because they can goat other people to high rates it applys to all.
Re: and the real loser is... (Score:3)
I don't even watch tv anymore, but I think that if YouTube is issuing a credit, that's fair. Many cable providers don't even carry any of the Disney/ABC/ESPN channels anymore precisely because Disney charges too fucking much, mainly because they bundle a lot of very expensive shit into a package deal where most people only watch a fraction of it and just don't get their money's worth. Probably high time the whole industry tells them to go fuck themselves.
I dropped Netflix to the bottom tier (free with my TM
Re: (Score:2)
> Many cable providers don't even carry any of the Disney/ABC/ESPN channels anymore precisely because Disney charges too fucking much
Really? Which ones? This is newsworthy specifically because they all do, but when negotiations happen, it gets attention. This has happened with other providers. It is expected that a standard tier cable/streaming includes ABC, ESPN, Fox, NBC, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
No I win - as I aint forced to pay for ESPN - it isnt free in those bundles they always put it in.
Re: (Score:2)
For most people paying for live television ESPN (and ABC Sports) is the part that they actually want. That's why these negotiations always happen during Football season. Disney is trying to get YouTubeTV to pay for a bunch of channels whose viewership drops every year and they use the access to the live sporting events that people care about as a club.