The Disney Entertainment vs. Charter/Spectrum Cable Dispute Explained

By Jen Maravegias | TV | September 5, 2023 |

By Jen Maravegias | TV | September 5, 2023 |

If you’re a sports fan and also a Charter/Spectrum Cable subscriber, you probably had a disappointing weekend. Just as the US Open Tennis and college football season kicked off, Disney Entertainment’s carriage deal with Charter/Spectrum ended abruptly on August 31, interrupting prime-time programming.

Disney Entertainment owns ABC, ESPN, Freeform, FX, National Geographic, and all its subsidiary channels. While I often side with networks in such disputes, Disney is the culprit here. The current multichannel video landscape—what most of us think of as TV or cable—is broken and expensive. Despite continually rising prices, these services lack flexibility and don’t consider corresponding streaming options. Disney Entertainment’s networks, especially because of sports offerings, command high fees from MVPDs (Multichannel Video Programming Distributors like Charter/Spectrum). When Disney raises its fees, MVPDs inevitably follow suit.

In a presentation titled “The Future of Multichannel Video,” which you can view here, Charter highlighted that programmers like Disney are eroding their traditional channel offerings (like FX) by enriching their streaming platforms (FX on Hulu) without extending the same content to MVPDs. Yet, they still charge MVPDs as if they had access to the top-tier programming. This strategy may be costly and shortsighted for all involved.

Charter suggested a “customer-centric” new model for their carriage deal with Disney. The proposal fell flat, ending the partnership. Although the dispute will likely be resolved—probably at consumers’ expense—it further tarnishes Disney’s reputation, especially considering their difficult negotiations with organizations like the WGA and SAG/AFTRA. (Though I still support them in their battle with DeSantis.)

I recently convinced my husband to switch to a more affordable YouTube TV subscription. We haven’t entirely cut the cord, but I feel better about not paying for unused channels. My child doesn’t watch The Disney Channel but does enjoy Star Wars and the I Am Groot series. I have no interest in watching The Waterboy on FX, but I do enjoy Justified: City Primeval. Essentially, Charter/Spectrum argues that Disney shouldn’t double-charge by requiring subscriptions for both cable and streaming services. Customers who pay for cable should at least gain access to the ad-supported tiers of Hulu and Disney+. It only seems fair.

[HBO] Max serves as a good example. Subscribing through an MVPD grants free access to its streaming platform, offering the best of both worlds at no additional cost. With the rising popularity of connected TVs and ad-supported tiers, advertisers are shifting focus to streaming services.

If audiences continue moving away from traditional TV, and advertisers follow suit, providers and programmers must negotiate more equitable, straightforward deals before the “TV bubble” bursts.