Have you ever found yourself needing to sign up for multiple streaming services just to find the shows you want to watch? These costs add up extremely quickly, and with rampantly rising costs of streaming, suddenly the price of eggs isn't your biggest worry.
It is this concern that providers want to capitalize on. DirecTV, Xfinity, Spectrum and more offer streaming bundles intended to fix this problem. They offer their specific platform with thousands of channels along with access to other subscription services. You can pay one price for all the content you want - no exceptions.
Except there are exceptions.
Streaming services are protective of their intellectual properties, or IPs. When they provide access to their services as part of these bundles, they are effectively lending over their property through licensing agreements. When these licensing agreements fall apart, we have what's known as a carriage dispute - where neither party agrees on who has the right to "carry" a signal. This results in certain media going through a "blackout" - losing availability to consumers for an unspecified period of time.
How prevalent is this issue? What does our law say about it? And, can consumers do anything about it?
Many streaming services offer their own set of licensed content alongside originals. This incentivizes customers to purchase multiple platforms. Pictured: A collage of streaming services. Recent Carriage Disputes
Your provider of choice has likely been in this predicament recently.
In 2024, DirecTV subscribers had no access to several Disney channels for two weeks, including ESPN and ABC, causing subscribers to miss moments such as the beginning of Monday Night Football and the U.S. Open tennis tournament. According to DirecTV, this is due to Disney's increase in the price of its services alongside a refusal to make a "mini" version of Disney's offerings.
This disagreement escalated to a claim in front of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. The FCC tries to maintain a competitive market for communication technologies, empowered by the Communications Act of 1934 (which created the FCC) and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (ensuring fair rates for cable programming while requiring cable services to carry most local broadcast signals). The goal is to prevent total market control by cable providers.
Although these laws are at the crux of the FCC's main tasks today, they did not originally account for the advent of streaming platforms. Thus, in 2020, they updated their regulations to clarify the statute of limitations and procedures behind a carriage dispute claim, ensuring programs get back up as quickly as possible.
Thus, on September 14th, 2024, both DirecTV and Disney agreed to a precursory agreement, where subscribers to DirecTV can purchase Disney+, Hulu and more directly through their DirecTV program without bundling it with their cable plan.
Yet, DirecTV still wishes to escalate their claim with the FCC. According to J.D. candidate Drew Katz, writing for Brooklyn Law School, "DirecTV alleges that Disney is engaging in anti-competitive practices by not allowing DirecTV the same access to the 'skinny bundles' of content that Disney itself offers consumers, instead forcing DirecTV to pay for 'fat bundles.'
Customers don't want to pay for "fat bundles" of content, containing hundreds of shows most customers will never watch. Marketing all of these IPs is what streaming services want to do, however. This makes the law that was meant to govern cable companies suddenly more pertinent to streaming services than anyone else.
When platforms don't give in, the consumer ends up losing out. In February of this year, YouTube TV and Paramount Global faced setbacks in their negotiations of carriage fees and licensing. Had they let their agreement fall apart, channels such as Nickelodeon, CBS and MTV would've gone dark for YouTube TV subscribers. What Does This All Mean?
Potential customers have a much greater bargaining chip in lieu of this issue.
Many households have practiced "cord-cutting," which involves severing ties with cable companies in favor of streaming platforms. This sometimes involves the use of piracy to access the same media at a reduced price or completely for free. The House of Representatives has tried to curtail this by introducing the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA). If passed, internet providers will be required to shut down pirate websites.
People will always find a way to access the same media, however. Both cable companies and streaming services stand to lose should the content people pay for the convenience of accessing no longer becomes available.
Thus, consumers begin to place pressure - and that pressure has worked. Discovery Channel content on Sony's PlayStation libraries were slated to be removed on December 31st, 2023, yet was cancelled once a new licensing agreement was struck. Up until the announcement, fans were calling for refunds for the content they paid for.
It's a stark reminder that the content you buy is merely a license to watch that content for however long a company deems you're allowed to watch it. However, if companies want eyes glued to the TV screen, they first need to get those eyes in the first place. That's why the consumer and the potential customer are in the unique position to use cable & satellite companies, along with other platforms offering streaming bundles, to advocate on their behalf - not with their words, but with their money. Never be complacent with change - voice your concerns!
After all, you should never underestimate the power of your wallet.
Comments
Post a Comment