Charter and Disney aren’t budging in their blackout fight as NFL season kicks off

Published

2 years ago

September 7, 2023

admin

Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

The kickoff to the NFL season is Thursday night, and Charter Communications doesn’t appear to be moving down the field in its negotiations with Disney.

Last week, Charter and Disney’s talks over contract fees spilled into the public when the two were unable to reach an agreement and millions of consumers across the U.S. saw Disney-owned networks like ESPN and FX go dark.

On Thursday, Charter CEO Chris Winfrey said that “Disney will be who decides” what happens in the dispute.

“Sitting here today, if I had anything material to highlight I would, so that should tell you something on how we’re doing,” Winfrey said at the Goldman Sachs’ Communacopia and Technology conference, regarding the state of the negotiations as the beginning of the NFL season nears. He added both companies feel a sense of urgency to resolve this quickly.

Disney’s latest statement also indicated that the stalemate persists.

“It’s unfortunate that Charter decided to abandon their consumers by denying them access to our great programming,” Disney said Thursday. “The question for Charter is clear: Do you care about your subscribers and what they’re telling you they want – or not? Disney stands ready to resolve this dispute and do what’s in the best interest of Charter’s customers.”

Disney added that Charter, one of the biggest pay-TV providers in the U.S., has rejected multiple offers to extend negotiations before the blackout on Aug. 31.

Adding to the pressure is the kickoff of the NFL season – with ESPN’s first “Monday Night Football” game of the season occurring in a few days – as well as the U.S. Open and beginning of college football season.

Carriage fights and blackouts are not uncommon in the industry. But Charter’s proclamation about the pay-TV model and push for programmers like Disney to make their streaming services available to cable customers at no additional cost has sent shockwaves through an industry grappling with cord-cutting as streaming remains an unprofitable business.

But in a rare move, Winfrey and Charter executives held an investor call the day after Disney channels went dark for its customers. Charter executives said they pushed for a revamped deal with Disney that would see Charter’s Spectrum cable customers receive access to Disney’s ad-supported streaming services Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu at no additional cost.

This seems to be the sticking point in negotiations. Charter said it was willing to pay the increase requested by Disney.

Winfrey said Thursday a big issue with content companies like Disney has been that they are focused on streaming “as if it’s a completely separate business,” when much of companies’ cash flow stems from the traditional pay-TV bundle.

Last week, Winfrey put the media industry on notice when he said the pay-TV model is broken and needs to change in order to survive.

Disney has shot back, saying Charter refused to enter into a deal after it offered favorable terms, without elaborating on specifics. The company also added that its traditional TV networks and streaming services aren’t the same and therefore shouldn’t be offered for free to cable TV customers.

Live sports have continued to garner the highest ratings and considered to be the glue holding the pay-TV bundle together.

Meanwhile, Disney has pushed for Charter’s customers to sign up for alternative internet-TV bundles like its own Hulu +Live TV, as well as competitors like Fubo or YouTube TV.

“Disney deeply values its relationship with its viewers and is hopeful Charter is ready to have more conversations that will restore access to its content to Spectrum customers as quickly as possible,” Disney said in a statement over the weekend. “However, if you are one of these frustrated customers, it can be infuriating to not be able to access the content you want.”

Since the dispute began late last Thursday, Hulu + Live TV sign-ups are more than 60% higher than expected, a Disney Entertainment spokesperson said.

Technology

SpaceX aims for $800 billion valuation in secondary share sale, WSJ reports

Published

12 hours ago

December 6, 2025

admin

SpaceX aims for 0 billion valuation in secondary share sale, WSJ reports

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is initiating a secondary share sale that would give the company a valuation of up to $800 billion, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

SpaceX is also telling some investors it will consider going public possibly around the end of next year, the report said.

At the elevated price, Musk’s aerospace and defense contractor would be valued above ChatGPT maker OpenAI, which wrapped up a share sale at a $500 billion valuation in October.

SpaceX has been investing heavily in reusable rockets, launch facilities and satellites, while competing for government contracts with newer space players, including Jeff Bezos‘ Blue Origin. SpaceX is far ahead, and operates the world’s largest network of satellites in low earth orbit through Starlink, which powers satellite internet services under the same brand name.

A SpaceX IPO would include its Starlink business, which the company previously considered spinning out.

Musk recently discussed whether SpaceX would go public during Tesla‘s annual shareholders meeting last month. Musk, who is the CEO of both companies, said he doesn’t love running publicly traded businesses, in part because they draw “spurious lawsuits,” and can “make it very difficult to operate effectively.”

However, Musk said during the meeting that he wanted to “try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX,” adding, “maybe at some point, SpaceX should become a public company despite all the downsides.”

WATCH: What retail investors should know about OpenAI and SpaceX

Technology

Judge finalizes remedies in Google antitrust case

Published

14 hours ago

December 5, 2025

admin

Judge finalizes remedies in Google antitrust case

The logo for Google LLC is seen at the Google Store Chelsea in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., November 17, 2021.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

A U.S. judge on Friday finalized his decision for the consequences Google will face for its search monopoly ruling, adding new details to the decided remedies.

Last year, Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in its core market of internet search, and in September, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the most severe consequences that were proposed by the Department of Justice.

That included the proposal of a forced sale of Google’s Chrome browser, which provides data that helps the company’s advertising business deliver targeted ads. Alphabet shares popped 8% in extended trading as investors celebrated what they viewed as minimal consequences from a historic defeat last year in the landmark antitrust case.

Investors largely shrugged off the ruling as non-impactful to Google. However some told CNBC it’s still a bite that could “sting.”

Mehta on Friday issued additional details for his ruling in new filings.

“The age-old saying ‘the devil is in the details’ may not have been devised with the drafting of an antitrust remedies judgment in mind, but it sure does fit,” Mehta wrote in one of the Friday filings.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has previously said it will appeal the remedies.

In August 2024, Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and held a monopoly in search and related advertising. The antitrust trial started in September 2023.

In his September decision, Mehta said the company would be able to make payments to preload products, but it could not have exclusive contracts that condition payments or licensing. Google was also ordered to loosen its hold on search data. Mehta in September also ruled that Google would have to make available certain search index data and user interaction data, though “not ads data.”

The DOJ had asked Google to stop the practice of “compelled syndication,” which refers to the practice of making certain deals with companies to ensure its search engine remains the default choice in browsers and smartphones.

The judge’s September ruling didn’t end the practice entirely — Mehta ruled out that Google couldn’t enter into exclusive deals, which was a win for the company. Google pays Apple billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine on iPhones. It’s lucrative for Apple and a valuable way for Google to get more search volume and users.

Mehta’s new details

In the Friday filings, Mehta wrote that Google cannot enter into any deal like the one it’s had with Apple “unless the agreement terminates no more than one year after the date it is entered.”

This includes deals involving generative artificial intelligence products, including any “application, software, service, feature, tool, functionality, or product” that involve or use genAI or large-language models, Mehta wrote.

GenAI “plays a significant role in these remedies,” Mehta wrote.

The judge also reiterated the web index data it will require Google to share with certain competitors.

Google has to share some of the raw search interaction data it uses to train its ranking and AI systems, but it does not have to share the actual algorithms — just the data that feeds them.” In September, Mehta said those data sets represent a “small fraction” of Google’s overall traffic, but argued the company’s models are trained on data that contributed to Google’s edge over competitors.

The company must make this data available to qualified competitors at least twice, one of the Friday filing states. Google must share that data in a “syndication license” model whose term will be five years from the date the license is signed, the filing states.

Mehta on Friday also included requirements on the makeup of a technical committee that will determine the firms Google must share its data with.

Committee “members shall be experts in some combination of software engineering, information retrieval, artificial intelligence, economics, behavioral science, and data privacy and data security,” the filing states.

The judge went on to say that no committee member can have a conflict of interest, such as having worked for Google or any of its competitors in the six months prior to or one year after serving in the role.

Google is also required to appoint an internal compliance officer that will be responsible “for administering Google’s antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure compliance with this Final Judgment,” per one of the filings. The company must also appoint a senior business executive “whom Google shall make available to update the Court on Google’s compliance at regular status conferences or as otherwise ordered.”

This is breaking news. Check back for updates.