Entertainment News

AT&T has announced that it’s merging AT&T TV Now and AT&T TV in an effort to bring “more value and simplicity” to its streaming service offerings. 

“AT&T TV Now has merged with AT&T TV to bring you the best live and on-demand experience,” the company said in an update on its website. 

Although the telecom and media giant has stopped allowing new sign-ups for AT&T TV Now, existing users will be able to continue using the service without disruptions or price changes.  

AT&T TV Now was designed to replace the company’s “DirecTV Now” satellite service, which launched in November 2016. The “skinny bundle” offering was initially priced at $35 per month and offered cord-cutters more than 100 channels. However, AT&T raised the price over time, and many early adopters stopped using the service. 

Going forward, the telecom’s AT&T TV offering -- which is more similar to traditional cable than AT&T TV Now -- will be offered with a month-to-month payment option. Current contracts will remain in effect, but customers can move to the month-to-month plan once their current contract expires. 

Prices for the non-contractual options start at $70 per month. That price gets customers an Entertainment package that includes ESPN, CNN, and FX, as well as local broadcast channels and 20 hours of cloud DVR. For $10 extra per month, the company will add additional DVR storage. 

Consumers can also choose to sign up for a two-year contract. Doing so drops the price of the Entertainment package’s first-year price to $60 per month. In the second year, that price increases to $93 per month. 

AMC Theatres has secured a $100 million investment to help keep the beleaguered movie chain afloat, but it says it still needs another $750 million of additional liquidity to fund the company’s cash requirements through the end of 2021.

Mudrick Capital came to AMC’s rescue with the additional funding. The company is an investment firm specializing in distressed credit investing, focused on “find(ing) investments with attractive risk reward ratios.” It also holds second lien notes issued by AMC and, if need be, will convert $100 million of existing AMC debt into AMC common stock.

If all else fails?

Should AMC fail to get more help, it repeated that it may have to enter bankruptcy proceedings. While 400 of its nearly 600 U.S. theaters are still open, bankruptcy may force it to close the rest of those theaters’ doors.

“Given the uncertainty regarding our ability to raise material amounts of additional liquidity and the uncertainty as to the time at which attendance levels might normalize, substantial doubt exists about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time,” AMC said in a regulatory filing.

Another COVID-19 casualty

It’s no surprise, but AMC puts much of the blame squarely on the pandemic’s shoulders. 

“A significant spike in coronavirus cases, together with delays of major movie releases or the direct or simultaneous release of movie titles to the home video or streaming markets in lieu of theatre exhibition, have led to theatre closures, prevented the opening of theatres in major markets and have had, and are expected to continue to have in the future, a material adverse impact on theatre attendance levels and our business,” AMC said.

The company’s finger-pointing toward delays and simultaneous releases of movies was aimed directly at Warner Brothers, who recently decided to release its entire 2021 movie slate on its streaming service HBO Max and in theaters simultaneously. AMC has fretted about this possibility for months, and it said in the filing that other studios may follow. 

AMC found some respite over the summer with Universal, which it struck a deal with to make movies available sooner outside of theaters. However, that’s the only handshake deal it has been able to make so far.

Disney+ is raising its monthly subscription price to $7.99 a month, a $1 increase. The new price will go into effect March 26, 2021. 

With the price hike, subscribers will pay $79.99 per year. Disney is also raising the price of the Disney Bundle -- which has Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN Plus -- to $13.99 a month (also a $1 increase). 

Since launching in November 2019, Disney+ has amassed a whopping 86.8 million subscribers. During a four-hour presentation for investors on Thursday, Disney said it’s putting a lot of money into new content and needs to raise prices for subscribers as a result. 

As many as 20 new Marvel and Star Wars series and more than two dozen Disney and Pixar movies or series are headed straight to Disney+, according to the company. Disney+ will be the first to receive movies like “Pinocchio,” starring Tom Hanks and directed by Robert Zemeckis, and “Peter Pan and Wendy,” starring Jude Law (both of which are still in production).

The price increase comes a little over a month after fellow streaming giant Netflix raised the prices of its standard and premium subscription plans. At the time, Netflix’s COO and chief product officer Greg Peters said Netflix will “occasionally go back and ask [customers] to pay a little bit more to keep that virtuous cycle of investment and value creation going.” 

Hulu is raising the roof on its rates for their Hulu + Live TV package by $10 per month -- an aggressive 18 percent increase over the current $54.99 price. It’s the third major price hike for a live TV streaming service in 2020, and it brings Hulu up to the same price point as YouTube TV and FuboTV, both of which started charging $65 per month during the summer.

Hulu subscribers have reportedly been notified about the price increase and have until December 18 to fish or cut bait from the service. Hulu’s on-demand streaming service has 32.5 million subscribers for a total of 36.6 million Hulu subscribers. 

Streaming services are Disney’s new cash cows

The price jump comes just days after Disney CEO Bob Chapek praised Hulu’s live TV offering during the company’s quarterly earnings call, saying its subscription base was “growing rapidly.”

Actually, Chapek has several reasons to be happy. Disney has 120 million paid subscribers between Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+. If the company can get half of Hulu’s current 36.6 million subscribers to pay the extra $10 per month, it becomes a bonafide cash cow, bringing another $180 million a month to the table. 

“We’ve got a product that we’re really excited about and ... it really gives the utility that consumers might normally find from the cable or satellite subscriber and be able to get it over-the-top directly to their homes,” Chapek said on the call. 

ConsumerAffairs’ Hulu reviewers seem to agree with Chapek, giving the service close to a 4-star rating and applauding the service for everything he says it offers.

Is cord-cutting still worth it?

While bundling streaming services seems like a smart idea, by the time you add up a few to get what you consider the perfect little personal network, it may not be. Things can add up quickly when a service increases its rates a dollar here or there. A good case in point is Netflix, which has bumped up its subscription price five times in the last 10 years.

“Sad as it is, we shouldn’t be surprised,” mused cord-cutting watcher Jared Newman. “If there was any doubt left about how the pay TV industry would respond to cord cutting, this latest price hike makes the endgame clear: There will be no pivot toward flexible packages, lower prices, or the mythical a la carte cable TV service. The prevailing strategy is now a scorched earth one, with routine price increases imposed on a shrinking number of pay TV subscribers.”

AMC Entertainment has announced that it’s launching a private theater rental program. 

The movie theater chain was hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and recently reported a staggering $905.8 million quarterly loss. Company officials are hoping to bolster revenue by offering consumers the option of renting out an entire theater for as little as $99. 

On its official website, AMC said private screenings will have COVID-19 safety measures in place, and the number of guests allowed in each theater will be capped at 20. 

“As part of our AMC Safe & Clean initiative, private movie showings can accommodate 1-20 total guests (host included), so the auditorium can remain at 40% capacity (or less based on municipality guidelines), leaving plenty of space for social distancing,” the company said. 

Masks will be required “unless you are actively enjoying food or drinks,” AMC said. The company added that outside food and drink may not be brought into private screenings. 

Test showed significant interest

Consumers who rent out a theater can choose from one of the movies AMC is offering. The theater chain is currently offering 17 films including “Jurassic Park” and “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” New releases -- such as “Tenet,” “The War With Grandpa” and “Freaky” -- can be viewed for a higher price of between $149 to $349, depending on location.

AMC said it recently tested the program and it drew “110,000 inquiries around the country” in the span of a month -- more than four times higher than the total number of requests it got in all of 2019 for private theater rentals.

“The results and feedback from our guests about AMC Safe & Clean have been overwhelmingly positive, and Private Theatre Rentals at AMC provides an additional layer of safety and security to those moviegoers who are looking to see movies with just their family members and friends,” Elizabeth Frank, executive give president of worldwide programming and chief content officer, said in a statement. 

“It’s unprecedented for AMC to receive 110,000 contacts in four weeks about a private theatre rental, based only on word of mouth and organic publicity, and we are excited about and appreciative of the interest this has sparked among AMC guests,” she said. 

It’s full steam ahead at Netflix. After adding 26 million new subscribers worldwide in the first half of the 2020 pandemic, its users are going to have to pony up another dollar or two per month starting soon. 

On Thursday, the company raised the prices of its standard and premium plans to $13.99 (from $12.99) and $17.99 (from $15.99) per month, about the same jump in price it took in 2019.

While that price increase might appear incidental, it could sure mean a lot to Netflix’s bottom line. Tacking on a dollar or two per month to its 73 million U.S. subscribers and an estimated 195 million worldwide is a healthy shot of black ink to the company’s bottom line. 

The changes to expect

The big change for Netflix is the monthly subscription price, but there a few other items that Netflix users should take note of:

• When the price will go up. So as not to be surprised when the price increase comes, current Netflix subscribers will be notified 30 days before any rate change happens. They should be ready to see the updated prices on their bill sometime in the next two months, according to a comment Netflix made to CNBC.

• Basic plan changes. The basic plan holds steady at $8.99 a month, the same price Netflix rolled out in 2019.

• Free trials. Will there be more free trials? Those appear to be in limbo. While Netflix continues to offer free trials outside of the U.S., it recently closed the lid on the promotion in the U.S. and began emphasizing that it lets subscribers cancel anytime at no cost.

• Streaming quality. While Netflix didn’t mention any changes in quality, ConsumerAffairs reminds Apple Mac users who want to use their computers to stream Netflix 4K (reportedly when Apple’s next system software, macOS Big Sur, is released) that Netflix will only stream in 4K to Macs that have a T2 security chip.

Becoming part of the conversation

As ConsumerAffairs read the transcript for its latest earnings call, our biggest takeaway was that Netflix wants to be fundamental in the viewer’s go-to streaming services. 

Netflix’ co-founder, Wilmot Reed Hastings, said the company has come to realize there are no gimmicks or techniques, but that it’s really about member satisfaction. In his words, “If we please you on a Wednesday night, you're more likely to come back on a Thursday night.”

“Primarily, what we're trying to do in our marketing is get people to talk about those things that they're watching and got to get it into the conversation … and to excite the fan base so that when they're talking about a movie, they're talking about a Netflix movie. And when they're talking about a TV show, they're talking about a Netflix TV show. And that's the thing that we're building toward every day,” added Theodore A. Sarandos, the company’s Co-CEO, Chief Content Officer & Director.

A new survey of U.S. moviegoers from Comscore shows that movie fans are starting to feel more confident heading off to a theater, mostly because of the aggressive safety procedures implemented by exhibitors. 

The survey results are a welcome sigh of relief for theaters, especially for the country’s largest theatre chain, AMC, which was about to throw in the towel after trying every trick it could -- including 15-cent movies -- to try and stay afloat while moviegoers hunkered down at home bingeing on Netflix and other streaming services. 

The key takeaways

Comscore’s survey revealed three key insights into the rehabbed moviegoer experience:

• Consumers had positive experiences. An impressive 92 percent had a positive experience at the movies with 60 percent of those saying, “It was great, glad to be back at the movies.”

• Boredom was a driving factor: Pandemic-driven boredom turned out to be a big reason why movie fans have returned to the box office. Fifty-one percent say they were driven back to the movies by their desire to socialize, particularly with their friends and family, and get back to normal outside-the-home routines.

• New films brought in customers. Finally, aside from going to the movies being considered a safe activity, recently released blockbuster films were considered very compelling as “a new film I had to see” was one of the most important factors in their decision to return to the movie theater.

“Now that US moviegoers have begun going back to the multiplex, exhibition is clearly doing a great job of creating an environment that exudes the essential values of health and safety in the era of COVID-19,” said Paul Dergarabedian, Senior Media Analyst, Comscore. 

“A great in-theater experience combined with new and exciting movies from the most notable studios are a combination that is resonating strongly with audiences who are responding enthusiastically to their big screen theatrical experience.”

Trivia nights and classrooms?

Yes, the public’s perception that it’s safe to return to the theaters is a good sign, but not every theater has the muscle and reserves that a chain like AMC does. In some situations, smaller operators are turning to other ways to generate some income while the pandemic is still a factor.

In its coverage of the situation, CNBC found that National Amusements, owner of the Showcase Cinemas chain, is working with libraries to show movies that are based on books and also with museums to play documentaries that are tied to exhibits.

Another creative play or two came from the smaller players. Some turned parking lots into concert venues, others traded blockbuster opening weekends for trivia nights, and some of the more future-thinking ones cut deals with local colleges to rent out the space for in-person learning.

“We’ve made the commitment to keep our doors open, keep our people working,” Jason Ostrow, vice president of development at Texas-based chain Star Cinema Grill, told CNBC “Their sole purpose is to innovate and find ways to drive business however they can.”

How bad have things gotten for the movie industry? So bad that AMC Theatres, the planet’s biggest movie chain, says it could completely run out of money by the end of the year. 

Early Tuesday, the company said that its cash on hand would be "largely depleted" by the end of 2020 or early 2021. It noted two reasons for that, including a "reduced movie slate for the fourth quarter" and "the absence of significant increases in attendance from current levels."

Holding out hope

Despite the dire picture and the misfortune of other movie chains, AMC thinks it has two ways out of its money problem. If more customers started buying tickets, that would help. So would finding new ways to borrow money.

However, the film industry isn’t helping to make that first wish happen. As an example, Sony Pictures said it’s not releasing movies that it thinks have big box office appeal -- like ‘Morbius’ and ‘Ghostbusters: Afterlife’ -- until the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is over. Other filmmakers are following suit, pushing films like Marvel's "Black Widow" and the new James Bond "No Time to Die" to 2021. 

Over at Universal, company brass have decided to take an alternate route of skipping coronavirus-shuttered theatres altogether by going direct to digital. That move paid off handsomely, with ‘Trolls: The World Tour’ raking in nearly $100 million in three weeks. Pixar also went the digital route, pulling "Soul" from theaters to debut on Disney's streaming service Disney+.

It can’t be said that AMC hasn’t tried to find something that works. Earlier this year, it reopened some of its theatres with a 15-cent ticket deal. After Universal did its end-around with ‘Trolls,’ AMC struck a deal with the film company that drastically shortened the length of time that films have to play in theaters before they can be parceled out for on-demand, rental, or for sale. That was apparently nothing more than a band-aid when the chain needed a giant tourniquet.

For the moment -- or until cash reserves completely dry up -- AMC is keeping 520 of its 600 locations open. If it can get people back inside, it promises a healthy and safe environment by requiring social distancing and mask wearing all the way up to high tech solutions like electrostatic sprayers, HEPA vacuums, and enhanced air filtration. 

​Regal Cinemas will temporarily close all 536 of its locations in the U.S. on October 8 due to limited consumer demand and a “challenging theatrical landscape.” Regal’s parent company, Cineworld Group, said Monday that the pandemic has led to prolonged theater closures in key markets, which has taken a massive toll on its business. 

Additionally, studios haven’t been releasing new movies due to suppressed demand and the popularity of streaming. The lack of new movies has, in turn, perpetuated low demand, even after Regal implemented new COVID-19 protocols. 

"This is not a decision we made lightly, and we did everything in our power to support a safe and sustainable reopening in the U.S.– from putting in place robust health and safety measures at our theatres to joining our industry in making a collective commitment to the CinemaSafe protocols to reaching out to state and local officials to educate them on these initiatives.

“We are especially grateful for and proud of the hard work our employees put in to adapt our theatres to the new protocols and cannot underscore enough how difficult this decision was," said Mooky Greidinger, CEO of Cineworld.

Will resume business at “appropriate” time

Regal said it will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation as it pertains to its business. The theater chain said it hopes to resume operations “at the appropriate time, when key markets have more concrete guidance on their reopening status and, in turn, studios are able to bring their pipeline of major releases back to the big screen.” 

In the U.S., the suspension of operations will affect about 40,000 jobs. Cineworld will also be suspending operations at 127 Cineworld and Picturehouse cinemas in the U.K.

With the pandemic still keeping consumers at home, Disney+ has added a new co-watching feature to enable friends and family to watch movies together while in different places. 

The streaming platform’s new GroupWatch feature was already in the works before the COVID-19 pandemic, but company officials said they sped up its timeline for deployment in light of the circumstances.  

The new Disney+ feature will let people synchronize movie viewings, enabling friends and family to stay connected even while physically apart. The technology doesn’t require a browser extension and will work on any device. 

Watching with other subscribers

Jerrell Jimerson, chief product officer for Disney’s streaming services, said the co-watching feature was designed to be “super easy for consumers to use.” After selecting “GroupWatch” from the Details menu of a movie or show on Disney+, users can invite up to six other Disney+ subscribers to participate in the viewing. 

Once the movie or show has started, participants can play, rewind or fast forward the video for the whole group and share emojis in response to what’s happening. Jimerson said that although the feature doesn’t have a chat option, other communication capabilities could soon be added.  

“There are other opportunities to integrate communication capabilities, but we haven’t shared any timing on those things,” he told TechCrunch.

The new co-watching feature was launched Tuesday. It works on the Disney+ website, smart TVs and connected devices, and on the Android and iPhone apps. 

AMC is planning to reopen 100 of its theaters next week with new safety measures and 15-cent movies.

The movie theater chain said Thursday that it will offer “moves in 2020 at 1920 prices” on opening day, August 20. After that, the company will be offering $5 tickets to movies like "Inception," "Black Panther," "Back to the Future," and "The Empire Strikes Back.” 

Guests will be required to wear masks to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. The company said it will be selling masks at the theater for a dollar. AMC will also be allowing fewer guests into theaters to promote social distancing, stepping up cleaning procedures, and upgrading its ventilation systems. 

“Masks are required for guests and crew throughout the theater,” AMC said on its website. “Your mask must cover your nose and mouth and fit snugly around your face and chin. Neck gaiters, open-chin bandanas and masks with vents or exhalation valves are not acceptable at this time.” 

Reopening two-thirds of theaters 

AMC has delayed its reopening several times amid the ongoing health crisis. The chain initially planned to reopen theaters with a mask-optional policy, but consumer backlash prompted it to scrap that plan. AMC said in June that it would reopen on July 15, but a lack of movies being offered by studios forced it to push back that date. 

The company now says that two-thirds of its 600 U.S. theaters will be open by September 3. The rest of its locations will open "only after authorized to do so by state and local officials.”

"We are thrilled to once again open our doors to American moviegoers who are looking for an opportunity to get out of their houses and apartments and escape into the magic of the movies," Adam Aron, AMC's CEO, said in a statement on Thursday.

A full list of AMC theaters that will be reopening next week can be viewed on the company’s website.

Get out your mouse ears -- Disney World is gearing up for a reopening.

In a pitch to the Orange County Economic Recovery Task Force in Florida on Wednesday, Disney proposed a phased reopening of Walt Disney World Resort theme parks that is planned to begin on July 11.

With Shanghai Disney Resort and Disney Springs at Walt Disney World Resort already reopened and operating smoothly, Disney feels it has all the proper safety and sanitation measures in place to move things forward.

The new timeline

Pending Orange County and state approval, here are the dates Disney World attractions will reopen:

Magic Kingdom Park and Disney’s Animal Kingdom. A phased reopening for the general public will begin July 11.

EPCOT and Disney’s Hollywood Studios. July 15 is the requested date for those two park sections. 

Expect changes

Disney’s devotees may not get the same exact experience they had the last time they visited a park if they plan to go during the reopening. The company said that visitors should expect changes on how the theme parks will be managed all the way down to how cast members will engage with guests and “create magical Disney memories.”

Its list of modifications goes like this:

Deliberate approach. Disney is not simply opening the gates and letting everyone in. It’s taking a phased approach with limits on attendance and controlled guest density that aligns with guidance on physical distancing. 

Until further notice, experiences that draw large group gatherings, such as parades and nighttime spectaculars, are on hold. The “high-touch” like makeovers, playgrounds, and character meet and greets are also temporarily unavailable. Nonetheless, Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, and Snow White will still be roaming the park grounds to entertain and bring some smiles.

New reservation system. There will be no more going to the ticket window when you get there and buying an admission on the spot. Attendance will be managed through a new reservation system that will require all guests to secure their reservation in advance. 

No new ticket sales or hotel reservations. For visitors who have an existing ticket, they’re good to go. However, the resort is pausing new ticket sales and Disney Resort hotel reservations. Additional details are available on the Disney Parks Blog.

Resorts and campgrounds reopen June 15 and June 22. Disney Vacation Club resorts in Vero Beach, Florida, and Hilton Head, South Carolina, will open to members and guests starting on June 15. Vacation Club resorts at Walt Disney World and Disney’s Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground plan on reopening June 22.

Shopping and dining. The World of Disney retail shop at the Disney Springs shopping and dining complex at Walt Disney World has already reopened. The remainder of those venues will be phased in over the next month or so. 

Enhanced safety protocols. Disney is taking its responsibility in this area seriously and asks guests to do the same. “Our destinations will continue to follow enhanced safety protocols based upon applicable guidance from health authorities and government agencies,” the company said in a news release. 

Those new protocols include anyone 3 years old or older -- even cast members. Here are the new requirements:

• Face coverings: Guests will be required to wear appropriate face coverings in theme parks and common areas of resort hotels. 

• Temperature checks: All guests will undergo temperature screenings prior to entering a theme park. To add another layer of safety for visitors, cast members will also have temperature checks. 

• Paying for things: Cashless transactions are preferred. 

There have been a lot of “disrupter” businesses in the last decade that threatened to shake up the status quo. MoviePass is one that just didn’t work out.

MoviePass presented itself as a subscription service that allowed consumers to see an unlimited number of movies in theaters for a monthly subscription fee. The company filed for bankruptcy this week and said it would liquidate its assets.

In the end, MoviePass faced some headwinds that other disrupters like Uber and AirBnb didn’t. It didn’t help that the Hollywood box office went into a nosedive over the last couple of years. There just weren’t that many movies that consumers wanted to see.

At the same time, Nexflix was spending billions of dollars on content. For the same subscription fee, consumers could stay at home and watch great content, usually on big-screen 4k TV sets.

Not much of a surprise

The bankruptcy did not come as much of a surprise. In September, MoviePass lowered the curtain, suspending operations and not saying when, or if, it would resume. In July, the service informed its subscribers that it would be temporarily interrupting service while it worked on improving its app. Prior to that, it had been forced to change its business model numerous times in an effort to overcome financial struggles. 

At its peak, MoviePass was able to sign up nearly 3 million subscribers who paid $9.95 a month. But as there was less and less to see at movie theaters, subscribers dwindled to a low of 225,000 in April of last year.

When it filed for bankruptcy this week, the company listed, by name, 12,000 subscribers it said were creditors -- who had paid in advance and were owed refunds. According to CNN, that list took up 174 pages of the filing.

MoviePass’ problems gained momentum in 2018 when it suffered severe cash flow issues. In early 2019, the parent company was delisted on the NASDAQ stock exchange. 

NBCUniversal is joining the streaming sweepstakes, announcing the launch of a new video service called Peacock. 

The service, which will debut later this year, is made up of three tiers: a limited content package that will be free, a premium tier that will contain ads, and an ad-free platform.

Peacock will offer more than 600 movies and 400 series, as well as live and on-demand content across news, sports, late-night, and reality. 

Parent company Comcast is one of the nation’s largest cable TV providers, so the new service appears carefully designed not to cannibalize that revenue. Peacock Free will be available to everyone at no charge so there’s less pressure for cord-cutting.

Over 7,500 hours of programming

Peacock’s free tier will offer more than 7,500 hours of NBCUniversal programming. Subscribers will get next-day access to current seasons of new broadcast series, complete classic series, popular movies, curated daily news, and sports programming that includes Olympics coverage.

Peacock Premium is another ad-supported tier but costs $4.99 a month. It will include about twice the amount of content offered on the free tier. It will be provided at no charge to 24 million Comcast and Cox subscribers.

The third tier is just like Peacock Premium but without ads. That will be provided to subscribers for $9.99 a month. The service will be available to Comcast and Cox subscribers in April and will roll out for all other consumers in July.

“This is a very exciting time for our company, as we chart the future of entertainment,” said Steve Burke, chairman of NBCUniversal. “We have one of the most enviable collections of media brands and the strongest ad sales track record in the business. Capitalizing on these key strengths, we are taking a unique approach to streaming that brings value to customers, advertisers and shareholders.”

Following Disney

Peacock follows the wildly successful launch of Disney+ in late 2019. Sandwiched in between AppleTV+ at $4.99 a month and Netflix’s basic service at $8.99 a month, Disney+’s initial price is $7 per month. Because Disney now owns Hulu and already had ESPN in its portfolio, consumers who add in services from either of those two channels will get an extra $5 off, creating a $13 a month bundle for Disney+, Hulu (with ads), and ESPN Plus.

Disney says it has signed-up more than 10 million subscribers to its new video service since launching in early November. Peacock has now made the streaming field even more crowded.

While more options are good for consumers, it may be an even bigger challenge to figure where to spend a monthly subscription budget. For its 13th annual Digital Media Trends survey released in March 2019, Deloitte surveyed more than 2,000 digital consumers across the U.S. and found that nearly half said the rapidly growing market for streaming services is causing them to experience “subscription fatigue.”

Deloitte’s survey showed strong growth in streaming video subscription services, with 69 percent of households now subscribing to one or more.

The Mouse is officially in the house. 

Say hello to Disney+, the new subscription video on-demand (SVOD) streaming service from the Walt DIsney Company. The service is making its debut Tuesday in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands.

All in all, Disney+ will have at its fingertips close to 7,000 television episodes and 500 films. To kick-start the service, the company will lean heavily on five properties: 

• Star Wars: Included will be the first six films of the Star Wars franchise, plus The Force Awakens and Rogue One

• National Geographic: Since Disney owns 73 percent of National Geographic Partners, it’s a no-brainer to include all that National Geographic already has on the shelf and in current production. National Geographic will also be producing the documentary series Magic of the Animal Kingdom and The World According to Jeff Goldblum.

• Pixar: The animation studio is a motherlode of its own with 21 feature films, including all the Toy Story movies, Finding Dory, Coco, and The Incredibles.

• Marvel: Most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films will all be available from day one; however, seven films -- Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, Ant-Man and the Wasp, The Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Spider-Man: Far From Home -- won’t be available for a while because the rights to many of those were previously licensed to Netflix. In other cases, the distribution rights for some films are shared with different studios (e.g., Sony Pictures for the Spider-Man films).

• Disney: As any video-consuming person knows, this is a goldmine of its own. The entire Disney film library, including films currently in the "Disney Vault" -- Pinocchio, Fantasia, Snow White, The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, etc. -- will eventually find their way into the channel. And for the D'oh!’ers among you, Disney+ also owns the rights to the first 30 seasons of The Simpsons, and those are expected to be part of the lineup at launch. 

To sweeten the deal for Disney-loving consumers, the service has also created a boatload of new original -- and exclusive -- series and movies. Those include High School Musical: The Musical: The Series; Forky Asks a Question (Forky, by the way, is a character in Toy Story); a new version of Lady and the Tramp; and the video version of the young adult novel Stargirl.

How do you get Disney+ and what does it cost?

Out of the chute, Disney+ will be available on the web, so consumers can use their computers to watch its content. Offerings can also be found on certain apps -- like its own Disney+ app, Android TV, and Apple TV -- and devices such as Roku, PlayStation 4, a variety of smart TVs, and both Amazon’s Fire HD and Fire TV.

The company deserves kudos for going the distance for consumers with disabilities so they can also enjoy the service. The app will offer support for closed captioning, descriptive audio, and navigation assistance.

Cost-wise, it appears to be a good deal -- or at least a competitive one. Sandwiched in between AppleTV+ at $4.99 a month and Netflix’s basic service at $8.99 a month, Disney+’s initial price will be $7 per month. And because Disney now owns Hulu and already had ESPN in its portfolio, consumers who add in services from either of those two channels will get an extra $5 off, creating a $13 a month bundle for Disney+, Hulu (with ads), and ESPN Plus.

Goodies galore -- and one little bump in the road

With all that will be taking place over the next year or so with NBC-Universal’s new streaming service, changes at Hulu, and the recent roll-out of AppleTV+, Disney+ is starting out gloves off and in full bravado, daring competitors to match its consumer offerings and allowing subscribers to:

• Get it for free -- or close to free, anyway. CNET reports that Verizon is giving away a whole year of Disney+ with its Unlimited plans;

• Watch commercial-free;

• Concurrently stream video content on up to four registered devices with no up-charges;

• Have access to unlimited downloads of shows and movies on the Disney+ app to watch offline later on up to 10 mobile or tablet devices, with no constraints on the number of times a title can be downloaded per year; and

• Share with up to seven other people. Interestingly, at least as far as ConsumerAffairs’ report on Netflix, HBO, and other SVODs going after consumers who allow others outside their household to use their subscription, Disney+ says that subscribers “can set up to seven different profiles.” There’s not one mention of “household,” “family,” or finger-wag warning that users better not let others ride on their subscription’s coattails. 

The bump in the road? CNN reported that as many as 8,415 site visitors experienced issues as soon as the service launched. Users were greeted by error pages starring Disney's own Wreck-It Ralph.

"Unable to connect to Disney+," said the error page, with Wreck-It Ralph holding a WiFi signal, reading, "There seems to be an issue connecting to the Disney+ service." 

However, the issue turned out to be temporary. EntertainmentWeekly reported that it was able to get the service going after a few restarts of the Disney+ app.

Around and around and around we go…

...and where this streaming service merry-go-round stops, nobody knows.

With all the buy-outs, shake-outs, and roll-outs in the streaming service game, the next couple of years will be interesting to say the least. 

“While competition is generally considered a positive thing for consumers, and rightly so, there can be too much of a good thing, as subscribers of video streaming services may soon come to learn,”  says Statista’s Felix Richter. “The industry that was once dominated by Netflix could become too fragmented for its own good.”

What Richter is essentially saying is that all the little pieces that Netflix had licensing deals for and could lose in the shake-out might force consumers to piecemeal their perfect world of shows together by subscribing to multiple services to get all they want. Cases-in-point are Friends, The Office, and the Disney and Marvel movies -- all of which consumers could find inside Netflix.

However, that smorgasbord is closing down: Disney is pulling its content out of Netflix; Friends will move to HBO Max in 2020; and shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation will eventually be exclusive to NBC-Universal’s new Peacock service.

“For consumers this means either limiting their content choices or subscribing to multiple streaming services rather than just one,” Richter says. “For existing streaming services, Netflix in particular, the situation is also highly dangerous. According to a survey conducted by Morning Consult and the Hollywood Reporter earlier this year, many Netflix subscribers would cancel their subscription in case the service loses some of the aforementioned content.”

Netflix announced Monday morning that it’s planning to offer another $2 billion in debt to fund its investment in content. The streaming giant also offered $2 billion in new debt for the same purpose back in April. 

The company said it intends to use the net proceeds from its latest offering “for general corporate purposes, which may include content acquisitions, production and development, capital expenditures, investments, working capital and potential acquisitions and strategic transactions.”

The move comes ahead of the November launch of highly anticipated streaming services from both Disney and Apple. 

Rising streaming competition

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings insisted last week that the company isn’t particularly worried about new competition in the streaming market. In a letter to shareholders accompanying its third quarter earnings report, Netflix said Apple TV+ and Disney+ aren’t likely to bump Netflix from its current spot as an industry leader. 

Hastings said that Disney is going to be a “great competitor,” but he assured investors that the new services will only bolster the streaming industry’s ability to compete with linear TV.  

“We’re all relatively small compared to linear TV,” Hastings said. “So we’re not really competing with each other, but with broadcast.”

Netflix executives said the launch of the new streaming services will be “noisy” and may bring “some modest headwind” to its near-term growth. However, the company said it doesn’t anticipate a big impact on its long-term growth. 

Netflix’s latest investment will help to fuel and sustain its expansive content lineup, which it says is crucial to keeping its subscriber numbers up.  

On Thursday, Netflix released its third quarter earnings report and said in an accompanying letter to shareholders that it’s not particularly worried about the November launch of Apple TV+ and Disney+. 

While the new streaming services do represent “increased competition,” Netflix said the soon-to-launch services won’t offer consumers the same amount and selection of content that it currently does. 

“The upcoming arrival of services like Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max, and Peacock is increased competition, but we are all small compared to linear TV,” the company said. “While the new competitors have some great titles (especially catalog titles), none have the variety, diversity, and quality of new original programming that we are producing around the world.” 

‘Modest headwind’ 

The streaming giant said the rollout of Apple TV+ (on November 1) and Disney+ (on November 12) may bring “some modest headwind” to its near-term growth. However, it expects to bounce back and “grow nicely” in the long term. 

CEO Reed Hastings said the newcomers to the streaming market don’t represent a “big change” in the competitive landscape, but he admits that linear TV providers do still pose a threat. 

“We’re all relatively small compared to linear TV,” Hastings said, according to CNBC. “So we’re not really competing with each other, but with broadcast.”

With new services on the way, Hastings predicted that more consumers will begin subscribing to multiple streaming services because of their unique content offerings. As a result, they’ll stop paying for linear TV and have more to spend on streaming services. 

“In our view, the likely outcome from the launch of these new services will be to accelerate the shift from linear TV to on demand consumption of entertainment,” he said. 

In an effort to contend with competition from the at-home streaming service industry, theater chain AMC Entertainment is launching its own streaming program, according to the New York Times. 

The service, dubbed AMC Theatres On Demand, will offer about 2,000 movies for U.S. consumers to rent or buy, allowing them to stream shows at home after they’ve left theaters. Prices will range from $3 and $6 for rentals and $10 and $20 for purchases.

AMC reportedly struck deals with five major movie studios -- Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Sony, and Paramount -- who signed on to offer their movies on the platform. 

The theater chain previously introduced a service called AMC Stubs, which allowed subscribers to see up to three movies per week at movie theaters.

“The addition of AMC Theatres On Demand, which extends our movie offerings for AMC Stubs members into their homes, makes perfect sense for AMC Theatres, for our studio partners and for our millions of movie-loving guests,” Adam Aron, CEO and President, AMC Theatres, said in a statement. “Through the launch of AMC Theatres On Demand, we can reach movie lovers directly and make it easy for them to access films digitally.”

The company says new releases will become available on the service the same time they become available digitally, “following the traditional theatrical window set by each studio for each movie.” 

Consumers can rent or purchase movies on AMC’s website or mobile app, or through a Roku or SmartTV. AMC said it plans to add more services and devices “in the near future.” The full service is set to launch this week.

Teens prefer YouTube to Netflix, according to a survey released this week by Piper Jaffray. The firm’s semiannual “Taking Stock With Teens” survey found that 37 percent of teens’ daily video consumption is spent on YouTube, while 35 percent is spent on Netflix. 

Piper Jaffray, an investment bank, said the demographic’s increasing preference for watching videos on YouTube instead of Netflix can be attributed to the platform’s “wide array of teen-oriented content,” such as music videos, video game streaming, and influencer videos. 

While YouTube was teens’ video-viewing platform of choice, the survey found that Netflix was more popular among teens compared to Hulu and Amazon Prime Video. Of the 9,500 teens surveyed, Hulu was preferred by 7 percent and Amazon Prime Video was preferred by just 3 percent of teens. 

Piper Jaffray analysts said competition in the subscription streaming service industry is to be expected in the coming months when Disney launches its Disney+ service and Apple launches Apple TV+ -- “but we believe the market will support multiple players, with Netflix leading the way,” the analysts said. 

"Looking into 2020 and beyond, despite increasing competition from Disney and Apple, we are optimistic regarding ongoing international sub growth and price increases,” the analysts wrote.

The survey also found that cable TV consumption has continued to drop among teens, just as it has among other demographics. Just 12 percent of teens’ daily video time was spent watching cable TV, which represented a 2 percent decrease from the firm’s spring survey and a 14 percent decrease since 2016 when that number was 26 percent.

A federal appeals court has vacated a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that would have liberalized media ownership rules.

In a 2-1 vote, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the agency did not “adequately consider the effect its sweeping rule changes will have on ownership of broadcast media by women and racial minorities."

The court ruled against the FCC because it said it "cited no evidence whatsoever regarding gender diversity," the judges wrote. The FCC had previously stated that there was no available data on female media ownership.

The court said the FCC’s failure to address the impact on female ownership was egregious enough but added that the agency failed to properly consider the evidence of minority ownership.

Drastic changes

Rules covering radio and TV station ownership have changed drastically in the last 40 years. It was not that long ago that the FCC prevented one company from owning more than seven AM, FM, and TV stations, and none in the same market.

Today one company may own hundreds of stations, including multiple stations in a single market.

The FCC adopted a rule in 2017 that eliminated some of the cross-ownership rules, declaring that they had little effect on diversity of ownership. 

The court ruling also overturned a 2018 FCC order that created a special program to help new players in the broadcast industry. The court found that the FCC's definition of "new entrant" made "no overt reference to race, gender, or social disadvantage." 

The FCC says it plans to appeal the court’s ruling. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai complained that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently assumed FCC authority, attempting to block the agency from modernizing broadcast regulations.

MoviePass announced on Friday that it would be shutting down its service on Saturday, September 14. At this time, it’s unclear whether the movie subscription service plans to resume service at any point in the future. 

In a press release, MoviePass parent company Helios and Matheson Analytics said the company’s "efforts to recapitalize MoviePass have not been successful to date." 

"The Company is unable to predict if or when the MoviePass service will continue.” Helios and Matheson Analytics wrote. “The Company is continuing its efforts to seek financing to fund its operations."

In July, MoviePass informed its subscribers that it would be temporarily interrupting service while it worked on improving its app. Prior to that, the company had been forced to change its business model numerous times in an effort to overcome financial struggles. 

Refunds promised 

The service was able to amass nearly 3 million subscribers by offering a $9.95 per month subscription plan, but profitability challenges ensued and subscriber numbers dwindled. As of April, MoviePass’ subscriber count was down to 225,000. 

On its website, MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe assured subscribers that they will be given a refund for any period of service they had already paid for.  

“Subscribers will not need to request a refund or contact MoviePass customer service to receive a refund,” Lowe wrote. “Subscribers will not be charged during the service interruption. At this point, we are unable to predict if or when the MoviePass service will continue.” 

"We still deeply believe in the need for the MoviePass service in the marketplace, to maintain affordable access to theaters and provide movie lovers with choices of where to go to the movies," he continued. "Although we do not currently know what the future holds for the MoviePass service, we hope to find a path that will enable us to continue the service in the future."

CBS and Viacom, two entertainment companies that once were one company, are joining forces once again. The two entertainment companies have announced an all-stock merger that will form a new company called ViacomCBS Inc.

Should the deal close as expected, CBS’ broadcast network will be part of an entertainment package that will include Viacom's MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central, as well as its Paramount film and TV studio and CBS’ showtime cable network.

Bob Bakish, who heads Viacom, will become CEO of the new company. He’s confident the merged operation can shake things up in the industry.

“Our unique ability to produce premium and popular content for global audiences at scale – for our own platforms and for our partners around the world – will enable us to maximize our business for today, while positioning us to lead for years to come,” Bakish said. 

Not unexpected

Wall Street had been pushing for months for the former partners to patch things up and get back together. The announcement was hardly a surprise to investors who say both companies will be much stronger under one roof.

Industry analysts say the combined company will own a number of powerful consumer brands, as well as one of the largest libraries of valuable intellectual property. The collection includes more than 140,000 TV episodes and more than 3,600 film titles.

The two companies have spent more than $13 billion on content in the last 12 months and that level of investment is expected to continue. The combined company will own the lucrative Star Trek and Mission Impossible franchises.

Broadcast and cable

The combined company will also have one foot in broadcasting and another in cable. While its stations cover key U.S. markets, its cable operations will reach more than 4.3 billion cumulative TV subscribers worldwide. Internationally, it will own broadcast networks in the UK, Argentina and Australia, as well as pay-TV networks across more than 180 countries. 

It will also have significant global production capabilities across five continents – creating content in 45 languages.

CBS and Viacom merged for the first time in 1999, only to split apart in 2005. But as other media mergers took place around them the two companies found themselves much smaller than their rivals and at a competitive disadvantage.

Cord-cutters rejoice! Another new streaming service bundle has been announced that will deliver sports, TV shows, movies, and children’s content.

Disney announced this week that it will be bundling ESPN+, Hulu, and Disney+ into one package that consumers can access for $12.99 per month. The offering will become available on November 12.

Disney has been positioning itself to be a major player in the streaming space over the last year. In May, the company took total control of Hulu in a deal with Comcast. The company also announced details for Disney+ back in April; that service will provide consumers with access to kid-friendly classic movies, over a dozen Pixar films, and newer titles that are scheduled for release this year. 

“If consumers want sports, they can subscribe to ESPN+. If they want adult content, they can subscribe to Hulu, and if they want family, there’s Disney(+),” Disney CEO Bob Iger pointed out at the time.

With the new bundle option, that choice may have just gotten easier.

If you’ve cancelled your cable TV subscription and are relying on video streaming services for your entertainment, you are no longer just a trend-setter. You may soon be in the majority.

A new forecast from eMarketer predicts that the number of pay TV households in the U.S. will drop by 4 percent by the end of the year to around 86.5 million homes. It further expects the freefall to continue, with pay TV subscriptions falling below 80 million by 2021.

In fact, eMarketer researchers say it won’t be long before there will be as many households going without a pay TV subscription as there are subscribers. The company suggests the industry has arrived at a tipping point, with more consumers preferring to subscribe to services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu that cost little more than $10 a month.

That space is about to get even more crowded as Disney, WarnerMedia, and Apple get ready to launch streaming services of their own. And then there’s YouTube, which costs nothing.

Follow the money

According to eMarketer, money may have a lot to do with the wave of cord-cutting. The researchers say pay TV providers have responded to their loss of business by trying to increase profit margins. 

They often offer an attractive introductory price that surges once that limited time period ends. Subscribers often drop the service once the price goes up. There is also little flexibility if a subscriber asks for a lower price in return for not cancelling.

While pay TV services are losing customers, they are also facing higher costs -- which is putting many companies in an increasingly difficult position.

"Their answer has been to raise prices across the board, and it seems that they are willing to lose customers rather than retain them with unprofitable deals," the authors wrote.

Previous research

eMarketer’s research is in line with previous reporting on the subject. Earlier this year, the Convergence Research Group projected that 34 percent of American cable and satellite TV subscribers would cut the cord by the end of 2019.

These consumers sometimes opt for personal bundling of services like Hulu or Sling, where they subscribe to specialty channels they have a particular interest in, like the SEC Sports Network.

Live programming, it seems, is the main thing keeping consumers paying more to subscribe to pay TV services. Sports fans depend on ESPN to see games, and political junkies are hooked on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News.

Local news, of course, is still available for free over the air. Viewers may need an external antenna, but they can receive it in HD over a regular TV set if they live near a TV station.

MoviePass, a movie subscription service that has struggled to stay afloat amid profitability hurdles, has announced that its app and website have been temporarily shut down while it makes “improvements.” 

“For the past several months, MoviePass has been working hard to improve our groundbreaking subscription service to ensure it meets the vision that we have for it,” the company wrote on its website. “We are temporarily not accepting new subscribers as we work on these improvements.”

MoviePass said it estimates the process will take several weeks.

Financial issues

MoviePass sought to win consumers over with its initial $10 a month all-you-can-watch deal. But in 2018, its subscriber numbers plunged as the company faced repercussions from its unsustainable business model. 

In an effort to turn its troubles paying vendors and theatres around, the company changed its subscription plans and limited the number of movies subscribers could see. But customers who had become frustrated with the changes and quit the service drove MoviePass’ subscriber count down to 225,000 by April 2019 from more than 3 million last year, according to Variety. 

MoviePass said it plans to spend the next several weeks trying to “recapitalize in order to facilitate a seamless transition and improved subscriber experience once the service continues.”

The temporary shut down is necessary for the company to work on a revamped version of its app, MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe said in a statement.

“There’s never a good time to have to do this,” Lowe said. “But to complete the improved version of our app, one that we believe will provide a much better experience for our subscribers, it has to be done.”

A Washington State court has ordered Comcast to pay nearly $9.1 million for allegedly charging consumers in the state for a service protection plan without their consent. The court found that the unauthorized charges affected about 31,000 Comcast customers in the state.

In addition to the penalties paid to the state, Comcast has been ordered to make restitution to affected consumers.

“Comcast refused to accept responsibility for its egregious conduct that resulted in Washingtonians losing money every month for a product they did not want or request,” said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “Instead of making things right for Washingtonians, Comcast sent an army of corporate lawyers into court to try to avoid accountability.”

The $9.1 million penalty is the largest trial award in a state consumer protection case in Washington, even before restitution to taken into consideration. In a statement, Comcast said it is pleased to have resolved the matter and has “fully addressed” the issues raised in the lawsuit.

Allegedly hid the true cost

The court found that Comcast added the additional subscription to the accounts of 30,946 Washingtonians without their knowledge or consent. Additionally it found that the company’s sales reps did not disclose the trust cost of the plan when they sold it to more than 18,000 other consumers.

The court ruled that Comcast must refund affected consumers and pay 12 percent interest on the restitution. The court did not specify the amount of restitution.

“Despite Comcast’s systemic guidelines and policies, the practice of subscribing customers without meaningful consent was widespread,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

Reviewed the tapes

Ferguson says a review of 1,400 customer call recordings and internal company documents shows the sales reps were adding the additional charges to customers’ accounts without their consent and that the company knew they were doing it.

The attorney general says that in at least 34 percent of customer accounts connected to the calls, Comcast added the charge without consent, sometimes after the customer had declined the plan.

The practice is known as “slamming” and was widely used by telephone companies nearly two  decades ago to switch a customer’s long distance service without their permission. Ferguson charges that Comcast did not respond to numerous complaints about the alleged “slamming” until his office filed its lawsuit in 2017.

Ferguson’s complaint says Comcast collected more than $85 million in gross revenue from Washington in monthly charges for the service plan.

With cable and satellite video providers playing carrot-and-stick with their “introductory price” scheme and then walloping the consumer with a more costly “regular” rate after the introductory period is over, consumers are doing the same thing back to the providers by playing the “binge-and-cancel” game.

On Thursday, Axios laid out a new study showing that more than 30 percent of all consumers are likely to cancel a subscription streaming service after the show or series they are watching has ended. A more timely data point came out of that Axios/Harris poll, which revealed that 16 percent of HBO subscribers say they planned to cancel their subscriptions once “Game of Thrones” completed its run.

Not all consumers play this game, but evidence is growing that most people plan to hang onto subscription services for less than 6 months after their original sign-up. The bulk of those gamers are from Gen Y millennials at 44 percent. Those numbers drop off slightly with older millennials (41 percent), baby boomers (34 percent), and Gen Xers (30 percent).

An interesting side note in Axios’ research is that the subscription service game is less likely to occur when consumers primarily rely on cable as their primary source. The reasons are logical: consumers don’t want to go through the hassle of rewiring their system and returning the cable box. Signing up or cancelling streaming services can be done online without having to talk to anyone who begs you to stay or offers an “if you’ll stay” deal.

Where this game is headed

Streaming services are onto the binge-and-cancel game and are doing their best to plug the dike. Many are tossing in additional services -- like Spotify recently offering free Hulu with a subscription. Others -- like Amazon Prime -- are creating cultural events like the pop-up delicatessen it rolled out in an effort to buoy its comedy series “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.”

This game is going to take a while to play out, so buckle up. Companies are already wheeling and dealing like crazy. Only last week, ConsumerAffairs wrote about the NBCUniversal-Disney-Comcast swap meet.

This week came news that  WarnerMedia is launching its own streaming video subscription service later this year. That one alone could be a disrupter, simply from the fact that it has the rights to fan favorites like Friends, Seinfeld, and The Big Bang Theory.

Does cutting the cable cord still make sense? The verdict on that is a while in coming, but the provider market is getting very crowded.

On Thursday, SubscriptionInsider reported that NBCUniversal will join streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, CBS All Access, and Disney+ starting in 2020, but it will give the direct-to-consumer model its own spin.

Specifically, NBC’s ad-supported service will be free to consumers who pay for live TV. As far as what constitutes “live TV,” a regular cable TV subscription such as Spectrum or Comcast should do the trick. So will a satellite service like DirecTV (owned by AT&T).

However, for those who are all-out cord-cutters, NBC’s streaming service will run about $10 a month, but -- and there’s always a but, isn’t there? -- those subscribers will not have access to television shows that play at a pre-scheduled time (“live linear” channels) or same-season shows.

That $10 price tag could change at any time. According to CNBC, Comcast’s original plan was to price the NBCUniversal streaming service for about $12 a month. Then, Disney -- a new player in the streaming game -- priced its new service at $6.99 per month. So, it was either proceed or recede for Comcast, and it decided to lower the price.

To add more drama to this can of worms, Disney took control of Hulu from Comcast this week, which put NBCUniversal in a position of having to up its rate on Hulu, decide whether it wants to still have some of its content on Hulu, and what price it’ll charge if it chooses that option. NBC has three years to make that decision.

If Hulu seems to be at the heart of a lot of these deals, it is. Earlier this year, Spotify offered Hulu as a free add-on to new premium subscribers and students.

This dance is far from over

As you can see, this whole cut-the-cord dance is a) far from something the consumer knows what they’re getting from whom; and b) very complicated.

In addition to Hulu, NBCUniversal, Disney, and Comcast, there’s an entire army of other services wanting consumers’ love: Roku, Amazon’s Prime Video, Netflix, YouTube TV, PhiloTV, PlutoTV, FuboTV, PlayStation Vue, and Apple. The Apple TV app was rolled out to 100+ countries earlier this week via an app that works on Phone, iPad, Apple TV, and select Samsung smart TVs. An AppleTV+ app offering original shows and movies will debut this fall.

Puzzled?

The complication is deciding which streams/channels you really want. One can easily tap into upgrades like HBO, Starz, et al on many of the services, but things get knotty after that.

If you want to subscribe to, say, a service that has your primetime favorites as well as a specific sports channel, you might find yourself subscribing to multiple services. At that point, cobbling all your preferences together could cost you more than you’re paying from a single cable or satellite provider.

“In trying to simplify streaming video sign-ups, these … services have created new complications,” writes Jared Newman, TechHive’s Cord-Cutter Confidential blogger.

Not only do they all make blanket promises like “anywhere,” “anytime,” “unlimited access,” “exclusives,” and “something for everyone,” but Newman points out that there’s also an infinite parade of long-tail stuff like NickHits and Secret Golf that the consumer automatically gets as part of their subscription.

“Each service has a different set of features, along with different restrictions on which devices you can use. They can also be more expensive than individual apps that offer annual subscriptions. And because the biggest streaming services don’t support these Channels marketplaces at all, you still have to deal with multiple apps and billing systems in the end.”

Newman says that if the TV networks are going to befuddle the consumer, then the consumer might want to play the “free trial” game in return.

“With all these new subscription marketplaces comes the ability to burn up more free trials,” Newman said. “Just sign up for a trial to HBO via Amazon Channels, cancel immediately, and enjoy your free week of binge-watching ‘Barry.’ Rinse and repeat with Apple TV Channels and Roku Premium Subscriptions, and then move on down the line to other services like Showtime and Starz.”

Disney and Comcast announced Tuesday that Disney will assume full operational control of Hulu, effective immediately.

Under the deal, Disney -- which recently became a majority owner of Hulu -- has agreed to pay Comcast at least $5.8 billion for its Hulu stake within five years.

The agreement states that Comcast's ownership in Hulu will never be less than 21 percent. For its part, Disney has guaranteed that Hulu’s equity value at the time of any sale will be at least $27.5 billion.

NBCUniversal has the right to decide in three years to pull its shows from Hulu altogether and put them on its own service, which is set to debut in 2020. Comcast’s split with Hulu will be complete by 2024.

Supporting its streaming efforts

The pact is another indicator that Disney is serious about competing in the streaming market.

Last month, the company unveiled its new Disney+ streaming service, set to launch in November of this year. The $7 a month streaming platform will include all of Disney's family-friendly classics, 18 of Pixar’s 21 movies, and content from the “Star Wars” franchise and “Avengers” series.

Meanwhile, Disney will use Hulu to provide content that is geared towards adults. The company gained access to content from FX under its $71 billion acquisition of 21st Century Fox.

“We are now able to completely integrate Hulu into our direct-to-consumer business and leverage the full power of The Walt Disney Company’s brands and creative engines to make the service even more compelling and a greater value for consumers,” Disney chairman and CEO Bob Iger said in a statement announcing the agreement.

Earlier this year, ConsumerAffairs reported that the rate of cord-cutting has continued its meteoric rise. Recent reports show that AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon’s first-quarter loss ran precariously close to a million subscribers.

Now comes a new report forecasting a loss of 4.56 million American households by the end of 2019.

The Convergence Research Group -- consultants in the internet, content, telecom, and technology arena -- found that 34 percent of American cable and satellite TV subscribers will cut the cord by the end of 2019 and likely opt for a personal bundling of services like Hulu or Sling, where they subscribe to specialty channels they have a particular interest in, like the SEC Sports Network.

Taking the leap of faith

Cutting the cord and cobbling together the services that are most important is all personal preference. While it would be nice if a streaming provider like Hulu offered every single thing you want, it’s likely you’ll either have to find an additional provider that offers what you’re looking for or learn to live without it.

“Tried cord cutting once a number of years ago but just couldn’t live without all the channels and eventually went back to cable,” posted one user on CordCutters’ Facebook page. “But now that we’ve got all these live streaming and OTA (over-the-air) channels I’ve since cut the cord again and will never go back.”

Despite how much a consumer dislikes having to pay for cable or satellite TV, cutting that cord and creating the perfect bundle can be expensive -- maybe more than basic cable.

“There was hope within the TV industry that skinny bundles from ‘virtual MVPDs (multichannel video programming distributor)’ such as YouTube TV, Hulu and DirecTV Now would help fight cord-cutting,” is how Digiday views the current landscape.

“And to some extent, these services have done that — but at what is proving to be a steep cost. Now, these services are raising prices and looking for other bundling and distribution options in pursuit of profitability and sustainability. What that ultimately proves, yet again, is a very simple fact: No matter how you slice, dice or bundle it, live TV is expensive.”

Please don’t go

Unfortunately for consumers, there are streaming providers that seem to want to hold on to customers at all costs.

“Verizon FIOS is trying hard to lose customers,” writes one ConsumerAffairs reviewer. “I wanted a specific package that I had already been using, I signed a new 2-year contract with the understanding (including an agent sharing with me and assuring me that I will have the channels I watch in particular a golf channel) that I will get the channels I really wanted.”

“They shared the list of channels, etc. Then within two weeks, I found that they had migrated the golf channel to another package. To get it, I need to pay an additional $10 a month. So, the motto of Verizon seems to be, ‘Let's screw the customer. Provide him with a contract and then renege on it.’"

Just under 14.5 percent of Netflix subscribers say they might leave the streaming platform and get Disney+, according to a survey recently conducted by Streaming Observer. That figure would represent a loss of almost 9 million customers for Netflix, which would translate to about $117 million in lost revenue per month.

About 37 percent of Netflix subscribers (or about 22 million users) said they would try Disney’s $7-per-month streaming service, and one in five Netflix subscribers said they are planning to subscribe to both streaming services.

Parents of young kids were more than twice as likely as non-parents to say they would prefer Disney+ over Netflix.

Family-friendly content may compel parents

Of the 602 Netflix users who participated in the survey, 23 percent of users who were parents with children aged 15 and younger said they might cancel Netflix for Disney+. Just 10 percent of respondents without children said they may cancel.

“While Netflix has been steadily adding more kids content to its library, it’s hard to imagine it can match what Disney offers on this front, which could be a source of concern for the streaming giant,” the survey said.

During a first-quarter earnings discussion, Netflix founder and CEO Reed Hastings said that he doesn’t “anticipate that [Disney+ and other new streaming services] will materially affect [Netflix’] growth.”

However, Disney recently said it intends to grow its subscriber base quickly over the next few years by luring consumers with a more affordable monthly fee compared to rival streaming services. Disney said the service’s $7 a month (or $70 a year) price tag is intended to make the service “accessible to as many consumers as possible.”

The company forecasts that it will have amassed between 60 million and 90 million subscribers by the end of 2024. The service is set to launch on November 12.

At an “investor day” event on Thursday, Disney revealed additional details about its forthcoming streaming service called Disney Plus, which will compete with video streaming services such as Netflix.

Disney said its new ad-free service will cost $7 a month, or $70 a year. By comparison, Netflix charges a $13 monthly fee to consumers who subscribe to its most popular plan -- a recently announced increase of $2.

The company said Disney Plus, which will launch on November 12, will include all of Disney's kid-friendly classics, 18 of Pixar’s 21 movies, and new titles that will hit theaters this year.

The platform will also include some content that may be of interest to parents, including “Star Wars” movies and all 30 seasons of “The Simpsons” (the latter thanks to its acquisition of 21st Century Fox). Disney Plus will not, however, include any sports content.

“If consumers want sports, they can subscribe to ESPN+. If they want adult content, they can subscribe to Hulu, and if they want family, there’s Disney(+),” CEO Bob Iger said, according to CNBC.

Iger said the platform’s affordability compared to rival streaming services is intended to make the service “accessible to as many consumers as possible.” Disney forecasts that by the end of 2024, it will have amassed between 60 million and 90 million subscribers.

The company told investors that it expects to spend about $1 billion on original content for the service next year and $2 billion by 2024.

If you’re the type of parent who likes to block walkways with your child’s massive stroller while smoking a vape pen at Disneyland, get prepared to make some changes.

Disney announced yesterday that smoking, vaping, and oversized strollers will be banned from its parks in California and Florida starting May 1.

The parks will no longer have designated smoking areas, meaning that smokers will have to partake outside the gates. As for strollers, Disney says that the devices must be no wider than 31 inches and no longer than 52 inches. Stroller wagons are also prohibited. If a parent’s stroller does not comply, they can rent one from the park for $15.

Disney enthusiasts say that the new rules seem reasonable.

"Restricting stroller size and prohibiting wagon strollers will, hopefully, eliminate the traffic problems they can cause -- blocking walkways, bumping into guests (especially the little ones) and taking up space in queues and elsewhere," the editor of one Disney fan site told CNN.

At an event on Monday, March 25, Apple is expected to announce the launch of its TV and movie streaming service. However, as the market for streaming services continues to expand, a new survey finds consumers are beginning to suffer from “subscription fatigue.”  

For its 13th annual Digital Media Trends survey, Deloitte surveyed more than 2,000 digital consumers across the U.S. and found that nearly half (47 percent) said the rapidly growing market for streaming services is causing them to experience subscription fatigue.

Deloitte’s survey showed strong growth in streaming video subscription services, with 69 percent of households now subscribing to one or more.

But with more than 300 streaming services now available to choose from -- and in some cases, multiple subscriptions and payments to keep track of -- many consumers are “beginning to feel weighed down” by the number of options and subscriptions to manage.

Crowded market

The new findings come ahead of the launch of several new streaming services, including one from Disney (called Disney+) expected to launch later this year, a service from HBO and Time Warner, and a service from NBCUniversial that will launch next year.

Many upcoming services will focus on offering their own original content, which may translate to the need for many consumers to subscribe to multiple services to ensure they can watch the content they like.

Deloitte’s survey found that over half of consumers (57) surveyed said they feel frustrated when content they enjoy disappears or is no longer on a particular streaming service.

Deloitte predicts that these changing consumer attitudes could lead streaming providers to develop “the next generation of the home entertainment platform” by creating a service that would combine video streaming, music, and gaming all under a single umbrella.

Competition continues to heat up in entertainment media with Apple’s expected announcement next week that it is launching a video streaming service.

The company has an event scheduled for March 25 at the Steve Jobs Theater in Cupertino, Calif., and it has done nothing to temper expectations. The tagline on the event announcement was “It’s show time” and featured a film-inspired countdown.

While it’s not clear what programming will be available, it is known that Netflix content will be absent. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has confirmed that Netflix won’t participate in Apple’s venture, saying he prefers that people watch Netflix content on the Netflix platform.

Netflix entered the conversation because it is believed Apple will offer subscriptions to other video content channels through its app. Meanwhile, 9to5Mac reports Apple has signed a number of deals to produce original content, including with Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Anniston,  Reese Witherspoon, and Steve Carell, as well as with directors J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg.

Users reportedly will be able to subscribe to Apple’s content and use the app to watch other content they subscribe to, such as HBO.

A premium price

An analyst at Goldman Sachs told Bloomberg News that he expects the Apple Video subscription to cost about $15 a month. That’s slightly more than both Netflix and Amazon Prime.

While Apple is gathering content for the small screen, MoviePass is launching a limited-time promotion for big screen content. It’s offering an “uncapped” subscription plan for $9.95 a month for a limited time if the subscriber pays for a full 12 months. Those who prefer to pay monthly will pay $14.95, $5 off the regular price.

“We are – and have been – listening to our subscribers every day, and we understand that an uncapped subscription plan at the $9.95 price point is the most appealing option to our subscribers,” said Ted Farnsworth, Chairman and CEO of MoviePass’ parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc.  

Farnsworth says the company has had to modify its service a number of times in order to “continue delivering a movie-going experience to our subscribers.” The company changed its subscription plan at least twice in 2018.

Nearly 3 million pay TV subscribers cut the cord last year, with AT&T’sDIRECTV taking the biggest hit, according to an industry report.

Leichtman Research reports the largest pay TV providers in the U.S. lost 2.8 million subscribers in 2018 as more consumers increasingly turned to over the top (OTT) sources of video services. The numbers are worrisome for the industry since cord-cutting nearly doubled from 2017.

Much of the attrition occurred among satellite TV providers. DIRECTV lost more than 1.2 million subscribers last year, up from 554,000 the year before.

In all, satellite TV providers accounted for the lion’s share of cord-cutting, losing more than 2.3 million customers last year.

Cable losses were slightly less

Losses were slightly less among the top six cable TV providers. They shed 910,000 customers last year, an increase over the 680,000 they lost in 2017. Top cable providers together lost 1.9 percent of their customers last year, compared to a 1.4 percent loss in 2017.

There were losses across the board except in the telephone companies’ video services. While the overall category lost ground, AT&T’s U-verse actually added 47,000 subscribers. The category saw its total losses fall from 885,000 in 2017 to 245,000 last year.

While traditional sources of programming lost customers, internet-delivered sources continued to see gains. The top publicly reporting internet-delivered (vMVPD) services, Sling TV and DIRECTV NOW, added about 640,000 subscribers in 2018. That’s significantly fewer than the  1.6 million net adds in 2017.

Lost 3.1 percent of its customers

“The pay-TV market saw net losses increase in 2018.  Overall, the top pay-TV providers lost 3.1 percent of subscribers in 2018 compared to a loss of 1.6 percent in 2017,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group.

Leichtman says the pay TV industry peaked in the first quarter of 2012. Since then, he says about 6 million consumers have cut the cord.

“This reflects a decline of about 10,000,000 subscribers for traditional services, offset by the addition of about 4,000,000 subscribers for the publicly reporting vMVPD services,” he said.

The three largest cable companies lost 730,000 customers last year. Comcast lost 371,000; Charter lost 244,000; and Cox lost 115,000 subscribers.

AT&T has begun consolidating its media content assets, acquired in the Time Warner acquisition, in an effort to streamline its entertainment properties.

The move could lead to cost-cutting that would undoubtedly be applauded on Wall Street. Investors have worried in recent months about the level of AT&T debt and the consolidation appears aimed at making the company’s entertainment products more cost-effective.

WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey announced that Robert Greenblatt, most recently chairman for NBC Entertainment, will become chairman of WarnerMedia Entertainment and Direct-to-Consumer.

Other changes were also announced. Jeff Zucker becomes chairman of WarnerMedia News & Sports, and president of CNN. Kevin Tsujihara will continue as Chairman and CEO of Warner Bros. with additional responsibilities including a new global kids and young adults business.

Gerhard Zeiler has been elevated from the position of president, Turner International to WarnerMedia chief revenue officer.

Establishing brands

“We have done an amazing job establishing our brands as leaders in the hearts and minds of consumers,” said Stankey. “Adding Bob Greenblatt to the WarnerMedia family and expanding the leadership scope and responsibilities of Jeff, Kevin, and Gerhard – who collectively have more than 80 years of global media experience and success – gives us the right management team to strategically position our leading portfolio of brands, world-class talent and rich library of intellectual property for future growth.”

AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner gives its distribution system access to a huge amount of content. The announced changes are designed to give the combined companies the agility and flexibility needed to build WarnerMedia’s brands across a variety of evolving distribution models with an emphasis on the company’s original programming.

“I’m honored to be joining WarnerMedia during such an exciting time for the company and the industry as a whole, and I look forward to working alongside the many talented executives and team members across the company,” Greenblatt said. “WarnerMedia is home to some of the world’s most innovative, creative and successful brands and we’re in a unique position to foster even deeper connections with consumers.”

Opposition to the merger

The U.S. Justice Department went to the mat in an effort to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner.

The merger was announced in 2016 and drew strong opposition from then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, then engaged in a feud with CNN, a Time Warner property. While poles apart politically, Trump and Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist senator from Vermont who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, were both against the merger.

At the time, Sanders urged the U.S. Justice Department to challenge the deal, saying it "represents a gross concentration of power that runs counter to the public good."

In the end, the Trump Justice Department found no grounds to block the merger. Just last week a federal appeals court found there was no justification for blocking the merger, which took place months earlier.

Last year, the combined companies began piecing together the elements of new content distribution systems, including streaming, and indicated that HBO would play a greater role in its content mix.

MoviePass ended Wednesday with one foot in the grave.

Less than two weeks after MoviePass subscribers filed a class action lawsuit for pulling a “bait and switch” con, and less than a month since the company went back to its original subscription model in an attempt to win back subscribers, the grim reapers at the Nasdaq have delisted the company.

Once and for all?

The situation is looking bleak for the once-popular movie subscription service. MarketWatch reports that HMNY, the stock for Helio & Matheson Analytics (H&M), MoviePass’ parent company, was suspended from trading when the markets opened on Wednesday. However, the stock will still be available to traders via the over-the-counter market system, where trading can be done directly between two parties, without the supervision of an exchange.

Nasdaq sent H&M word in December that its stock would be delisted if it failed to maintain the minimum $1 bid price and the company appealed, but with no success. H&M has an extra 15 days to ask for one reprieve, but the company says it has no plans to make that move.

What about my movie subscription?

Consumers who are signed up for the movie subscription service can still take advantage of it, at least for the time being.

An H&M spokesperson told CNN that the delisting "has no effect on the day-to-day business operations" of Helios & Matheson and its subsidiaries, including MoviePass, adding that there’s a possibility that MoviePass may be in for a partial spin-off.

Average viewership for Super Bowl XLIII dipped below 100 million, marking the first time since 2009 that ratings were that low.

Nielsen said yesterday’s game scored a 44.9 household rating, a five percent decrease from last year and the lowest score since the 2009 game.

The New England Patriots’ 13-3 victory over the Los Angeles Rams also made for the lowest-scoring game in Super Bowl history, and it was widely described by football fans as one of the most boring games they had ever seen. But that may not have been the only factor.

Amid allegations of racism, unfair calls, and other problems plaguing the NFL, people across the country called for a Super Bowl boycott this year. In New Orleans, Saints fans and others even organized a massive street party to give boycotters alternate entertainment to the big game. Reporters on the scene said the festival was more fun than the actual game.

What would Super Bowl commercials be without a little controversy?

Anheuser Busch set off the Twitterverse with its commercial promoting the fact that Bud Light contains no corn syrup while the ingredient is part of beers made by the MillerCoors.

While that might not seem offensive to many consumers and viewers of last night’s game between the New England Patriots and Los Angeles Rams, the folks who grow corn didn’t like it one bit.

“America’s corn farmers are disappointed in you,” the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) said in a tweet directed at Bud Light. “Our office is right down the road! We would love to discuss with you the many benefits of corn!”

The tweet then went on to thank Miller and Coors for supporting the corn industry, thereby making the commercial’s point. In case you missed it, the commercial is below.

Implies that corn syrup isn’t good

In the commercial, Anheuser Busch never explains why its Bud Light product is better because it doesn’t use corn syrup, but it implies that’s the case.

Corn syrup is a sweetener used in place of sugar in a wide range of processed foods and beverages, but there is a difference between regular corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is also widely used in processed foods and beverages. The two are often confused.

Dr. Mike Roussell, who writes a nutritional blog, says HFCS is made up of approximately 45 percent glucose and 55 percent fructose. Plain corn syrup is simply glucose, “the most basic sugar molecule.”

Recent studies have suggested HFCS’s high caloric content may play a role in the obesity epidemic, something the beverage industry has pushed back against with research of its own.

A study published on a National Institutes of Health website says the consumption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) increased more than 1000 percent between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in consumption of any other food group.

“HFCS now represents greater than 40 percent of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States,” the authors wrote.

While MillerCoors took to Twitter last night to point out that none of its products contain HFCS, it  claimed “a number” of Anheuser Busch products do. It also claimed that Miller light has fewer calories and carbs than Bud Light.

Here we go again…

MoviePass is attempting to revitalize itself for the umpteenth time. Since ConsumerAffairs started writing about the subscription service’s woes, we’ve seen a myriad of changes ranging from subscription plans to a fraud investigation to taking out a $5 million emergency loan to keep the wolf away from its door.

On Thursday, the company decided to return to the core of its original model.

Here’s the deal

Through all its ups and downs, the company firmly believes that it’s found a way to, at minimum, break even. And breaking even is a lot better that throwing in the towel, so -- for now -- here’s MoviePass’ new 3-tiered subscription plans:

• Select: Choose from a selection of available 2D movies in the app. The available movies are published weekly. See up to three movies per month. Prices vary by zip code -- ConsumerAffairs saw a range from $9.95 to $14.95 per month.

• All-Access: Choose from ALL 2D movies in MoviePass’ theater network. See up to three movies a month. Prices vary by zip code -- ConsumerAffairs saw a range from $14.95 to $19.95 per month.

• Red Carpet: Choose from ALL movies in MoviePass’ theater network -- with IMAX and REAL D 3D movies included. See up to three movies per month. Prices vary by zip code -- ConsumerAffairs saw a range of $19.95 to $24.95 per month.

MoviePass claims that it’s beginning to win back subscribers and is feeling a much better vibe than it had in the last year.

“I feel like we’re turning a corner,” Khalid Itum, executive VP of MoviePass, told Variety. Itum also let the cat out of the bag that, coming next week, there’s “some sort of unlimited program” that will give subscribers the clearance to see all the movies they want.

Just one week after Netflix raised monthly subscription prices, Hulu has announced that it will be dropping the price of its basic plan to $5.99 per month starting February 26. Hulu’s most popular, ad-supported plan previously cost $7.99 per month.

In its announcement, Hulu also revealed that it will be raising the price of its Live TV plan to $45 per month -- an increase of $5. The streaming service’s on-demand plan without ads will remain unchanged at $12 per month.

Staying competitive in the streaming game

With new streaming services being launched all the time, Hulu is aiming to stay competitive in the video streaming sector.

Netflix announced last week that its most popular plan will now cost $9 per month, up from $8. Netflix said it occasionally raises prices to help offset content costs. At the start of last year, the company said it planned to spend around $8 billion on original TV shows and movies in an effort to boost its subscriber numbers.

While Hulu’s price drop won’t equate to an increase in its revenue, the move “could lock in customers ahead of key streaming launches from media giants,” CNBC noted.

AT&T is set to launch a three-tiered streaming service in late 2019. NBCUniversal also revealed recently that it will be launching its own streaming service for those who pay for traditional TV, and Disney is also gearing up to launch two of its own streaming services.

Hulu announced earlier this year that it added eight million new subscribers in 2018, bringing its total to 25 million. The streamer still has some catching up to do with Netflix, which had about 58 million subscribers as of last fall.

As of today, YouTube TV is available to consumers nationwide. On Wednesday, Google said that its TV streaming service will reach 98 percent of U.S. households; the remaining two percent will be reached “shortly thereafter.”

Prior to today’s announcement, YouTube TV was available in the “top 100” markets in the U.S. The service has now been launched in another 95 markets.

“Just in time for the Big Game, you can now bring together some tasty game day snacks with the full experience of YouTube TV,” the company said in a blog post. “That’s exciting news for living rooms, cord-cutters, and cord-nevers in neighborhoods far and wide, from Bozeman to Gainesville, Anchorage to Yuma, and Erie to Topeka.”

More than 60 live channels

The $40-a-month service, which launched in 2017, includes live-streaming from over 60 networks like CNN, ABC and FOX. It also includes local affiliate coverage, premium networks like STARZ for an additional monthly charge, and cloud DVR recording with no storage space limits. To see what channels are available in your area, simply enter your zip code on the company’s website.

YouTube TV saw its subscriber count grow between January 2018 and July 2018, from 300,000 at the start of the year to 800,000 by mid-summer. The company has not shared an update on how many YouTube TV subscribers there currently are.

The expansion puts the service in a position to compete with live-TV streaming rivals such as Sling TV and AT&T’s DirecTV Now, which now have 2.5 million and 1.8 million subscribers, respectively.

NBC has announced that it plans to launch a free, ad-supported streaming service for customers who pay for cable in early 2020.

The service will include 1,500 hours of NBC-TV shows, such as Saturday Night Live, Parks and Recreation, and “hundreds of hours” of Universal movies, the company announced Monday. For those who don’t subscribe to a pay-TV service, the service will cost $12 each month as an ad-free, standalone service.

The launch of NBC’s streaming service is “contingent on striking deals with the largest pay-TV providers, which it hasn’t yet done,” CNBC reported, citing a source with knowledge of the company’s plans.

“Still, the product will be free for customers of those providers, so NBC doesn’t plan on any challenges when it comes to inking those agreements,” the news outlet said.

Banking on ad revenue

The service will be free to Comcast Cable and Sky pay-TV subscribers. However, NBC will air between three and five minutes of ads per hour, said NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke.

“We think we can get around $5 a month from people who would use a free service,” Burke told the Hollywood Reporter.

“One of the interesting things about this that makes it different and innovative is that we’ll have a big emphasis on free-to-consumer,” Burke said. “We want to create a platform that has significant scale and can scale quickly. The best way to do that, is make it free to consumers and leverage the fact that NBCUniversal’s sister company is a cable company and now owns Sky.”

Prior to the announcement, Disney and AT&T’s Warner Media both said they will launch video-streaming services of their own at the end of 2019. CBS already offers ad-supported streaming for sports and news, as well as a subscription streaming service called CBS All Access. Fox News launched its Fox Nation subscription service toward the end of last year.

Amazon and IMDb, a site the online retailer has owned since 1998, have officially launched a free streaming video channel that will be available in the U.S. on the IMDb website and Amazon Fire TV devices.

IMDb Freedive currently offers a selection af around 130 movies and 29 TV titles, but Amazon plans to continually expand the selection and rotate out content. IMDb said the service will soon be “available more widely, including on IMDb’s leading mobile apps.”

"Customers already rely on IMDb to discover movies and TV shows and decide what to watch," IMDb CEO Col Needham said in a statement. "We will continue to enhance IMDb Freedive based on customer feedback and will soon make it available more widely, including on IMDb's leading mobile apps."

A few movies users can watch for free through the platform include "Awakenings," "Monster," "The Illusionist," "The Last Samurai" and "True Romance." Some of the TV shows currently available include "The Bachelor," "Fringe," "Heroes" and "Without a Trace."

Since the service is ad-supported, it doesn’t require a subscription. Freedive joins other ad-supported video on-demand services, including The Roku Channel, Tubi, Vudu, YouTube, and PopcornFlix.

The addition of IMDb Freedive to the growing lineup of streaming options comes on the heels of a recent IAB study showing that 73 percent of adults who typically watch streaming over-the-top (OTT) video say they watch ad-supported OTT video.

Here we go again.

MoviePass is rolling out its umpteenth pricing plan. This time, the movie subscription service swears it’s got it right. Not that the company hasn’t said that before, but it’s holding out hope that there’s still a few believers out there.

Mind you, there’s a 50-pound can of if’s, and’s, or but’s, but here’s the basics:

Select plan - $10 a month: Subscribers can see three movies per month, but they’ll have to pick from a menu of titles MoviePass will announce weekly. Subscribers can forget seeing a flick during opening weekends or anything other than standard-issue 2D movies.

All Access plan - $15+ a month: Same as the Select plan except moviegoers can see their choice of any three 2D movies they like.

Red Carpet plan - $20+ a month: Like the others, there’s a cap of three movies a month, but subscribers can also see specially-formatted films such as 3D or IMAX.

Will it work this time?

"What we announced is a solid business plan that will be profitable,” said Mitch Lowe, MoviePass’ CEO, in an interview with CNN. "It actually accelerates our point of time of being profitable versus the go-to-a-movie-everyday (model)."

What Lowe seems to be banking on is the 85 percent of consumers who go to the movies three times a month or less. In MoviePass’ way of thinking, the remaining 15 percent go to the movies so much that it jeopardizes the 85 percent that make the model profitable.

"We already know what the average usage will be in this model and, believe me, it’s closer to one than it is three," Lowe said.

Casual fan or aficionado?

If you live in New York City, where the price of going to a movie runs $16.81 a person, or Silver Springs, Maryland, where an average ticket runs $14.42, rolling the dice on a $15 subscription may make sense. But if you live anywhere else, you should weigh the cost of going to see what you want when you want versus having to kowtow to a restrictive plan like MoviePass’ basic tier.

If there are movie aficionados on your Christmas list, CNN reported that Lowe felt they might be "better served" by AMC’s subscription service, "Stubs A-List."

Nexstar Media Group has agreed to purchase Tribune Media for $6.4 billion, a deal making it the largest broadcast operation in the U.S.

The acquisition comes just four months after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rejected Sinclair Broadcasting’s bid to acquire Tribune. The agency rejected the merger on technical grounds, citing objections to the deal’s structure.

The Sinclair deal also drew opposition from a number of consumer groups that said it concentrated too much media power within one company. It remains to be seen if the Nexstar-Tribune deal draws the same objections.

Tribune Media owns 42 TV stations reaching approximately 50 million households. They would join Nexstar’s 174 stations, giving it an exceptionally large broadcast footprint. According to Nexstar, the combined companies would reach 39 percent of U.S. households.

Fifty percent audience boost

Nexstar CEO Perry Sook says the merger would increase his company’s audience reach by 50 percent.

“Furthermore, the addition of the Tribune Media broadcast assets further expands our geographic diversity, as pro forma for the completion of the transaction, we will serve 18 of the nation’s top 25 markets and 37 of the top 50 markets,” Sook said.

If the deal is approved it would give Nexstar the largest number of TV stations in the U.S., surpassing Sinclair’s 194. Tribune Media has been seeking a buyer since 2012, when it emerged from bankruptcy. It sold off its newspaper assets in 2014.

Based in Chicago, Tribune not only owns TV stations but also cable network WGN America, which reaches 77 million households. It also owns several web-based media operations.

Potential opposition

The deal could face the same kind of grassroots opposition that lined up against the Sinclair bid. The ACLU, American Cable Association, and Communications Workers of America opposed Sinclair’s attempt to buy Tribune, insisting that Sinclair’s conservative edge was not the reason. Rather, the group said it was too many stations for one company to own.

Under current regulations there is no numerical limit on the number of stations one company may own, although the FCC will consider potential overlap in individual markets when two broadcasters merge.

Under the Communications Act of 1934, broadcasters could not own more than seven stations and they could not own more than one station in a single market. That stipulation fell by the wayside as broadcasting began to be deregulated in 1982.

AT&T revealed during a presentation in New York to investors that it will use its acquisition of Time Warner to roll out a three-tiered streaming service in late 2019.

Each level of the upcoming streaming service will offer the following, according to The Hollywood Reporter:

• First tier. An entry-level option that will be “movie-focused” and include films from WarnerMedia’s catalogue.

• Second tier. A “premium” level that includes WarnerMedia TV series and “blockbuster movies”

• Third tier. The top level will be an option that “bundles content from the first two plus an extensive library of WarnerMedia and licensed content,” likely to include shows from HBO.

John Stankey, chief executive of WarnerMedia, told reporters on Thursday that the ultimate goal is to have subscribers want access to all three tiers.

"We really want the customer to want all three tiers," he said. "We want the customer to commit all the way."

The multi-tiered approach lets customers start at a price point that is financially comfortable for them but is intended to sow the desire to shell out more for original TV shows and access to WarnerMedia’s extensive collection of films and television series. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson didn’t say how much each tier would cost.

Competing with Netflix

Disney -- which is set to become Hulu’s majority shareholder once its acquisition of 21st Century Fox is finalized -- is also gearing up to launch new streaming video service in 2019. Disney is reportedly looking to offer a digital bundle option for consumers that will include Hulu and ESPN+.

Companies are rolling out streaming services in an effort to compete with Netflix, which currently has more than 137 million subscribers. AT&T’s DirecTV Now online streaming service is going to lose subscribers this quarter as well as next.

Stankey said competitors like Netflix "should expect their libraries to get a lot thinner" over the next 18-24 months.

“We want to broaden the relevant demographic base,” Stankey told investors. “Our goal now is to open the aperture. We want to pick up more content and get more engagement on digital content.”

"We are well positioned for success as the lines between entertainment and communications continue to blur," Stephenson said. "If you're a media company, you can no longer rely exclusively on wholesale distribution models. You must develop a direct relationship with your viewers. And if you're a communications company, you can no longer rely exclusively on oversized bundles of content."

AT&T was given the green light to merge with Time Warner in June. The acquisition cost $84.5 billion.

YouTube is now offering lower-cost YouTube Music and YouTube Music Premium subscription plans for full-time students at an accredited college or university in the U.S.

The new student plans for YouTube Music and YouTube Premium give eligible students “discounted access to a world of music, original series and movies —  all ad-free and at a wallet-friendly price,” YouTube said in a blog post.

YouTube Music Premium plans cost $5 per month for students instead of the usual $10 per month, while YouTube Premium costs $7 per month instead of $12 per month.

Students who sign up before January 31, 2019 can take advantage of a special promotion that offers YouTube Premium -- a platform on which consumers can watch ad-free videos and get access to YouTube Originals -- for $5.99 per month instead of $6.99. That rate that will remain in place for the length of their student membership (for up to four years, says YouTube).

With its new plans for students, YouTube is positioning itself to compete with rival Spotify, which is currently promoting a $4.99 per month student package that includes its music service, as well as Hulu with limited commercials and the TV channel Showtime.

For now, YouTube’s student plans are only available to full-time college students in the U.S., but YouTube says it will extend the offer to more countries in the future.

YouTube -- which launched its streaming services last year -- revealed in May that it had 1.8 billion logged-in monthly users. It hasn’t yet released an estimate of how many users are paying subscribers to YouTube Premium or YouTube Music Premium.

Disney will be investing around $24 billion to “supercharge its theme park division,” according to a report from the New York Times. The company will spend more money on parks than it did on Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Pixar combined (more than $15 billion).

Disney’s parks, resorts, and other vacation destinations -- a roster that includes six locations in America, France, China, and Japan, as well as the Disney Cruise Line -- will receive new attractions and immersive upgrades.

“It can’t just be special — it has to be spectacular,” Bob Chapek, Disney’s theme park chairman, told the Times.

‘Enhancement on steroids’

Chapek, who described the overall expansion plan as “enhancement on steroids,” said a major goal is to add capacity to Disney’s most popular parks (Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea). Other locations will get upgrades that will help spread visitors more evenly throughout the grounds.

“You can only let so many people in a park before you start to impede on satisfaction level,” Chapek said.

Several resorts will get “Frozen” and Marvel rides, and a “Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge” park is headed to Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida next year. The latter will feature provide guests with an interactive experience where they can board an Imperial Star Destroyer or “pilot” the Millennium Falcon.

Star Wars enhancements will also arrive at its hotel, where Disney is expected to unveil an experience of sleeping aboard a luxury Star Wars starship. In place of regular windows, the company will have screens projecting a view of space as the ship travels through the galaxy.

Disney’s investment in its Cruise Line will also be significant. The company has ordered three new ships costing roughly $1.25 billion each. Disney is also buying 746 acres on a Bahamian island to build a second Caribbean port.

Parks continue to do well

The company’s parks and resorts have continued to do well in recent years. They’ve seen a 100 percent increase in profits over the last five years. Disney reported an estimated $4.5 billion for the 2018 fiscal year, according to The Times.

“It’s the highest return on investment that Disney has,” said bank analyst at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Jessica Reif.

By contrast, the company’s TV networks, like ESPN and ABC, pulled in a profit of $6.6 billion, a 3 percent decline.

It’s not April Fools Day, right?

Then, why is MoviePass sending out an email to its customers saying that the company’s marketing department is now being run by a… dog?

MoviePass sent out a note on Thursday to its dwindling email list, saying "Woof! I’m Chloe, the Director of Barketing at MoviePass. I’d like to explain why from time to time you may have had a "ruff" experience with us but it turns out that I’m a dog and I can’t talk."

"What I do know is that I see these humans working like crazy to make MoviePass better and better for you as fast as possible. They are so grateful for your membership and support while they work it out. We’re listening. We’re learning. We’re changing."

Well, Chloe, your "humans" need to work a little harder and a lot faster.

Between jerking customers around with plan changes, trying to 'restore' users’ accounts without permission, an investigation for fraud, borrowing $5 million to keep the company afloat, and racking up hundreds of millions in losses quarter after quarter, 2018 is indeed "the year of the dog" at MoviePass.

Holding out hope?

Psychoanalysis aside, MoviePass’ perky "barketing" seems like just another deflection to keep subscribers, investors, and the legal world distracted.

But, the company may have too much invested in developing and releasing movies to pull down the shade, yet. It could be holding out hope that one of its new releases -- like the sports flick "In Search of Greatness," "The Irishman” with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, or any of the 12-15 movies it wants to produce and/or release every year -- hits big at the box office and reverses the company’s fortunes.

"We have envisioned owning and developing our own studio content and using the power of our several million subscribers to bolster the success of the box office for our films," MoviePass’ CEO Mitch Lowe told Forbes earlier this year.

"I believe MoviePass Films will accelerate those efforts and demonstrate the power of MoviePass to drive movie theater attendance and downstream sales, for the benefit of moviegoers, movie theaters, studios and the film entertainment ecosystem as a whole."

Lowe has the credentials -- as a Netflix co-founder and president at Redbox -- to run the company, but MoviePass’ parent, Helios and Matheson (HMNY), isn’t helping matters.

HMNY’s track record runs toward deplorable. Accusations of pump-and-dump schemes and claims that its technology division (HMIT) defrauded thousands in the company’s home country of India do little to keep a positive spin on the company’s perception, no matter how many box office smashes MoviePass churns out.

Comcast is developing a video-streaming set-top box for broadband-only customers that would be available sometime in 2019, CNBC reports.

The set-top box will have a voice-activated remote control, similar to devices from Apple and Amazon, according to a source familiar with the matter. The box will aggregate offerings from online streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, Prime and YouTube into a single place.

Executives haven’t decided on the final number of apps and services that will be made available through the product, nor have they decided on a monthly price for the service. Comcast’s new product won’t have cable TV, but it will give users option to rent movies and shows.

Comcast also wants the set-top box to serve as a smart home hub for its internet-only customers. The upcoming box would enable users to control things like thermostats, smart-locks, and anything else that is connected to the internet.

News of the company’s planned hardware follows a recent report showing that more than a million consumers ditched their traditional TV subscription in the third quarter.

Comcast announced last month that it added 334,000 residential broadband subscribers in third quarter. The company currently has about 25 million home broadband customers.

The nine largest traditional TV providers lost about 1.1 million subscribers between July and September 2018, according to research firm MoffetNathanson.

The latest figure represents another staggering quarterly subscriber loss for cable and satellite TV providers.

Satellite services DirecTV and Dish Network lost the most subscribers last quarter, accounting for two-thirds of the industry losses. Dish lost 367,000 customers -- its highest quarterly loss ever. DirecTV lost a net 297,000 subscribers during the quarter.

Cord cutting accelerates

In August, MoffettNathanson said the rate at which consumers were canceling their pay TV subscriptions appeared to be dropping. The firm found that pay TV subscriptions declined by 3.3 percent in Q2, a one-tenth of a percentage point improvement over the prior year.

However, the latest tally suggests the trend of cord cutting isn’t slowing down at all. Rich Greenfield, a media and technology analyst with financial services firm BTIG in New York, said the last quarter was TV’s “third-worst quarter in industry history and worst since Q2 2016."

The 1.1 million figure doesn’t account for live TV streaming services such as Dish’s Sling TV, AT&T’s DirecTV Now, Hulu with Live TV, and YouTube TV. But streaming alternatives haven’t reported growth high enough to offset subscriber losses to traditional TV, partially due to competition from other digital live TV alternatives such as Google's YouTube TV, Sony's PlayStation Vue and Fubo TV and non-live TV alternatives like Amazon and Netflix.

Analysts at MoffetNathanson said slowing growth for DirecTV Now and Sling TV could suggest "price sensitivity" of broadband-delivered TV services may be "turning out to be greater than expected" after several of the services raised their prices.

T-Mobile’s proposed merger with Sprint has come under scrutiny at New York’s Attorney General’s (AG) office. According to the New York Post, at issue are concerns that the two companies could jack up prices on less expensive prepaid services if their packages are combined.

This isn’t the first red flag that’s been waved. It was only last month that the FCC pressed the pause button on the merger after the two mobile giants determined that the engineering model was more complex than thought and the companies needed more time to review it as well as respond to the “various economic analyses” in the FCC’s Petitions to Deny.

The Post reports that New York AG Barbara Underwood began examining the arrangement soon after Sprint and T-Mobile announced their $26 billion merger. According to sources, Underwood’s staff already views T-Mobile’s MetroPCS service and Sprint’s Boost and Virgin Mobile services as aggressive and has asked executives at both companies for clarification on how pricing would be postured.

President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has just begun a review of the prepaid markets and has yet to make any conclusions, a source familiar with its thinking told the Post.

In discussions with federal regulators, T-Mobile’s brass tried to angle that the two services serve different types of customers and, because of that, T-Mobile told the FCC that it didn’t plan to dispose of or consolidate any of the lower-priced, prepaid services if its merger with Sprint gets approval.

“The business plan calls for aggressive pricing from day one,” said T-Mobile executives according to the Post’s report.

Would the merger “cut the cord” for people of color?

Naysayers aren’t biting, however, and say that the companies need to promise the customers who depend on prepaid wireless services that they won’t see their costs go up.

In reality, this merger would make life harder for everyone — especially low-income communities and people of color, who disproportionately rely on T-Mobile and Sprint for more affordable plans and prepaid services,” wrote Collette Watson of media watcher Free Press.

“If the merger goes through, the new gigantic T-Mobile will have no reason to compete for low-income customers and others on the margins of society. Three companies -- T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon -- will control the market and call the shots.”

“The new T-Mobile won’t be the ‘Un-Carrier’ we grew to love. It will be a corporate behemoth like Verizon, with the power to set prices as it sees fit and no pressure to make services affordable,” wrote Watson.

It’s this or nothing at all for Sprint

All of this is making Sprint, for one, nervous. The company says it can't promise it’ll make it as a solo act if the merger isn’t approved.

According to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filing, Sprint said it is losing customers at a meteoric rate and has had to cut $10 billion from its budget to make ends meet.

Sprint claims there’s no fat left to trim which, in turn, puts it in a losing position to try and be competitive as technology advances. Its only saving grace appears to be the T-Mobile merger.

On the business scale ranging from brilliant down to laughable, MoviePass is pushing its luck.

Again.

Tuesday, MoviePass’s parent company Helios and Matheson (HMNY) announced that its board of directors has preliminarily approved a plan to spin off the gasping movie subscription service into its own company.

To pull this off -- considering the company gets regulatory approval -- HMNY would create a new subsidiary named MoviePass Entertainment Holdings Inc. which would assume the shares of MoviePass Inc. as well as the company’s other movie-related assets. The proposition calls for a stock dividend of a minority of the holding company's stock which would permit Helios and Matheson to hang on to a controlling interest.

HMNY’s maneuver is a bit maze-like, but essentially the spun-off entity would include the production unit MoviePass Films, the movie listing and information service Moviefone, and the film acquisition division MoviePass Ventures which produced ‘The Row,’ ‘American Animals,’ and ‘Gotti’ featuring John Travolta.

“For many years, HMNY has been focused on data analytics, and in that capacity we own assets like Zone Technologies which provides a safety and navigation app for iOS and Android users and a global security concierge service,” said Ted Farnsworth, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of HMNY, in the company’s announcement.

“Since we acquired control of MoviePass in December 2017, HMNY largely has become synonymous with MoviePass in the public’s eye, leading us to believe that our shareholders and the market perception of HMNY might benefit from separating our movie-related assets from the rest of our company.”

On the news of MoviePass’ move, its stock held at 2 cents a share, but it fell below that mark after the market opened on Wednesday.

Try as it might...

The once golden child of subscription models has fallen on its sword time after time, and many are surprised that the company keeps rolling the dice when it should probably be working on its last will and testament. Only last week, the New York Attorney General launched an investigation of possible fraud by MoviePass’ parent company.

Over the last decade, the HMNY story has become a business version of Twister -- one so convoluted that a biopic of its twists and turns, questions of pump-and-dump, and an accusation of its technology sibling HMIT (Helios and Matheson Information Technology) defrauding thousands in the company’s home country of India -- may have been a box office smash.

“I do not expect HMNY to survive this year, although I hope it does, as I'll hate to see MoviePass die along with it,” wrote a blogger on crowd-sourced Financial commentary and analysis site SeekingAlpha.

“I believe the MoviePass business model, although faced with nearly insurmountable challenges, has a real chance at survival, especially under the leadership of Mitch Lowe. But given the kind of folks running HMNY, I think anyone that wants to touch it, should not throw any serious money at it.”

Another week, another MoviePass on-the-ropes story?

Yep.

CNBC reports that an investigation into MoviePass’ owners, Helios and Matheson, reportedly deceiving investors is underway.

The main focus of the New York Attorney General’s office is to ascertain “whether the company misled the investment community regarding the company’s financials.” The attorney general is leveraging New York’s Martin Act, a New York anti-fraud law, widely considered to be the most severe blue sky law in the country.

The Martin Act has proved to have some mighty teeth; it has served as the basis for a number of high-profile cases, including a 2002 investigation of Merrill-Lynch for alleged conflicts of interest, the 2012 suit against Bank of New York Mellon Corp. for allegedly defrauding customers through foreign currency transactions, and CitiBank’s use of an illegal account sweeping program.

“We are aware of the New York Attorney General’s inquiry and are fully cooperating,” a Helios and Matheson representative said in emailed statements to members of the press.

“We believe our public disclosures have been complete, timely and truthful and we have not misled investors. We look forward to the opportunity to demonstrate that to the New York Attorney General.”

MoviePass’ never-ending story

Waking up and seeing the Attorney General’s folks at your front door is just another day for MoviePass. The movie theater subscription service has been underwater for months, trying everything from modifying its ticketing plans to trying to 'restore' users’ accounts without permission.

The company seems desperate to find something -- anything -- that will stop the bleeding of quarterly losses that amount to hundreds of millions. It was only a month ago that the company’s proposed one-for-500 reverse stock split sent the shares tumbling out of control to little more than a penny in value.

MoviePass’ subscribers are jumping ship by the score, too. “UR service now officially sucks. For $9.95/mo U went from unlimited 2 3 movies per month.*NOW* I only have *1* movie that shows up N UR app each day that I can C?! #SinkingShip,” tweeted one unhappy subscriber.

Don’t forget: movie-loving consumers have other choices

MoviePass isn’t the only movie rodeo in town. While its subscription service continues to stumble, AMC Theatres’ subscription plan seems to be the king-in-waiting. AMC’s deal continues to pick up steam with more than 400,000 members according to Subscription Insider.

“While we do not plan to issue A-List enrollment statistics on a weekly basis, our hitting more than 400,000 enrolled members only three months and a week after launching the program is an enormous milestone,” said AMC Theatres’ CEO and president Adam Aron.

“Those who have been following our progress with A-List are aware that we had originally expected 500,000 enrollments at the one-year mark and 1,000,000 enrollments at the two-year mark. Above our wildest hopes, in just 14 weeks, we have achieved 80 percent of our one-year goal and 40 percent of our two-year goal. This all bodes well for the future of increased moviegoing in America.”

Consumers have other movie plans to choose from besides AMC’s. There’s Sinemia, which offers 3 Movie Tickets for only $9.99, and Cinemark which offers a single ticket for $8.99 a month. The main draw that Cinemark’s plan offers is a “rollover” trigger for those who don’t use their ticket in a month’s time.

On Tuesday, AT&T's WarnerMedia announced its intent to launch a new streaming service by late 2019.

The streaming field is crowded with Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney's imminent streaming service, but AT&T’s assets catapults the company to the top of the content food chain.

The stream will be built on the backbone of the company’s successful HBO Now, an app- and smart TV-driven service which streams live and on-demand HBO programming.

That HBO connection will certainly allow the company to connect a lot of content dots. Besides the flagship service, HBO brings niche channels like HBO Comedy and HBO Family, plus its massive movie library, sports shows like Inside the NFL, and sisterhood with Cinemax and others.

“This is another benefit of the AT&T/Time Warner merger,” said WarnerMedia CEO John Starkey in announcing the company’s plans. “We are committed to launching a compelling and competitive product that will serve as a complement to our existing businesses and help us to expand our reach by offering a new choice for entertainment with the WarnerMedia collection of films, television series, libraries, documentaries and animation loved by consumers around the world.”

Warner gears up for skirmish with competitors

WarnerMedia’s assets include Turner, Boomerang, FilmStruck, and of course, the treasure trove of Warner Brothers with its library of 100,000+ hours of programming.

According to CNN, WarnerMedia is still mulling over specifics like pricing and a moniker for the new service, as well as how far it will go in tapping its own CNN news programming.

One thing that’s for certain is that given the number of content barons that have gobbled the others up, WarnerMedia will have to traverse a thick underbrush of existing deals it already has in place with distributors like Comcast and Netflix. Warner appears ready for that possible skirmish.

"We expect to create such a compelling product that it will help distributors increase consumer penetration of their current packages and help us successfully reach more customers," the company said in its filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).

The cable-cutting continues

There’s barely a month that goes by without a streaming service trying out a new angle to move consumers from cable to a la carte channels. Netflix always has a new wrinkle it’s testing; Hulu is starting to find its own groove after four years in the game; and upstarts like Sling are doing their best to find a place in the app space of smart TVs.

Consumers keep cutting the cable cord and putting their satellite dish in the recycling bin. First quarter losses in 2018 amounted to 375,000 satellite subscribers and 285,000 for cable.

Will the last MoviePass subscriber leaving the theatre, please turn out the lights?

The neverending saga of MoviePass may have reached the end. Or, at least, one might hope so.

MoviePass has decided to add insult to injury by taking one last swing at keeping the lights on.  According to the Verge, the company’s latest last gasp effort comes in the form of pinging a “select test group” of customers who the company says didn't opt into its latest three-movies-a-month deal.

The ultimatum

In the emails to those customers, MoviePass was heavy-handed, saying that those subscribers' accounts will be reactivated unless they officially opt-out by jumping through the hoop of clicking on a specific link.

“To be clear, unless you opt out, your unlimited subscription will be restored and you will begin enjoying unlimited movies again (up to 1 new movie title per day based on existing inventory) at $9.95 a month, and your credit card on file will be charged on a monthly basis beginning Friday, October 5, 2018,” said the email.

Month after month, the movie subscription service has been thought to be on the brink of closing its doors for good, but it always seems to come up with some twist that keeps its financial hope, albeit faint, alive. Only a couple of weeks ago, the company made a last gasp play at staying afloat via a proposed one-for-500 reverse stock split. As of yet, the gimmick hasn’t worked and MoviePass’ stock still sits below 2 cents a share.

Be sure to check your email

ConsumerAffairs hasn’t heard from any customers who previously “officially” cancelled their MoviePass membership but still received the “auto-renewal” email.

Still, with the tone of this ploy and the ever-present technical wrinkles, consumers should double-check their inboxes to make 100 percent sure they’re not being re-enrolled and set up for automatic -- and recurring -- billing.

It was only last week that Comcast landed UK TV magnate Sky. Now, the Walt Disney Company has agreed to permit 21st Century Fox to sell its stake in Sky -- 39 percent -- to Comcast for roughly $15 billion.

As ConsumerAffairs readers know, this mega-media wedding dance has been long and fraught with partnership proposals.

In the end, the bidding war for Sky came down to a fight-to-the-finish between Comcast and Fox. In Fox’s corner, the company had been angling to acquire the remainder of Sky, while Comcast was maneuvering the purchase of Fox. Eventually, Comcast gave up hope on its bid for Fox and redirected all its energies on acquiring Sky.

"Along with the net proceeds from the divestiture of the RSNs (regional sports networks), the sale of Fox's Sky holdings will substantially reduce the cost of our overall acquisition and allow us to aggressively invest in building and creating high-quality content for our direct-to-consumer platforms to meet the growing demands of viewers," said Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company, in a statement.

Comcast says ‘bring it!’

Comcast comes into this deal loaded for bear. Over the last 10 years, the company’s stake in news and journalism has become significant.

It increased its investment in news production by 40 percent with more than $1 billion spent on news production in the last year alone. Its cable footprint covers 39 states and 29 million subscribers. And its content team has a very deep bench including NBC, Telemundo, NBC News, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC Sports, USA Network, E!, Bravo, and Syfy.

Having Sky on its squad makes Comcast a geographic double threat, allowing it to extend its reach into another 20 million homes in United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain, plus rights for 18 different professional sports from horse racing to soccer. It also lines the company’s pockets with nearly $17 billion in annual revenue.

Goodbye bundle?

The great cable channel bundle may have seen better days. It’s a new day, thanks in part to over-the-top media services (OTT) -- content providers that distribute streaming media as a standalone product directly to viewers over the Internet, bypassing traditional means like TV as a distributor of such content -- and broadcasters want their toes in as many content streams as possible.

Channel bundling was a cable TV darling for nearly 30 years, but cable providers are seeing subscribers drop like flies.

The reckoning is now officially here. Broadcasting companies know full well that they need to grow their content assortment and widen their global reach to compete with nouveau riche rivals like Netflix -- or sell.

“You’ve got high prices, big bundles, and broadband,” said Warren Schlichting, group president of Sling TV in comments to Bloomberg News. “At some stage, the consumer is going to revolt.”

Concert and sporting event tickets could become even more expensive if Ticketmaster gets its way.

The ticketing behemoth has been accused of using its near-monopoly on the market to form a profitable relationship with scalpers, according to a new report by The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Toronto Star.

Because Ticketmaster also operates a ticket reselling service, going into business with scalpers allows Ticketmaster to collect numerous, hefty fees on the same ticket.

Undercover journalists posing as scalpers attended a ticketing industry conference this summer in Las Vegas, where Ticketmaster employees approached them with an odd business opportunity: an invitation to game Ticketmaster’s site without worrying about getting caught.

Accused of encouraging scalpers

According to the journalists, Ticketmaster salespeople assured scalpers at the event that they wouldn’t get caught for using bots, false identifies or other tricks to hog ticket sales.  

"It's not something that we look at or report,” a Ticketmaster representative is quoted as saying.

It’s not a secret that Ticketmaster has been able to aggressively inflate the cost of concert tickets thanks to its 2010 merger with concert promoter Live Nation and a notorious fee-based model. Some government research suggests that Ticketmaster and Live Nation fees inflate the price of concert tickets by as much as 27 percent.

Music fans may love to hate Ticketmaster, but they often have no choice but to pay its fees if they want to see a show at one of the hundreds of venues across the country operated by Live Nation.

Artificially creating higher demand

Fees now only appear to be telling part of the story behind Ticketmaster’s success.

An analysis of a Bruno Mars concert in Canada by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also suggests that Ticketmaster arbitrarily keeps hundreds of seats unavailable and raises prices hours or days after they initially go on sale, part of an attempt to artificially create higher demand.

As for scalping, it’s not a secret that Ticketmaster has ties to the industry. Ticketmaster for years has operated a resale service of its own in an attempt to compete with firms like StubHub.

But consumers who buy resold tickets through Ticketmaster may not realize how much higher the fees will be.

On one ticket, ”Ticketmaster collected $25.75 on a $209.50 ticket on the initial sale,” the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation says. “When the owner posted it for resale for $400 on Ticketmaster, the company stood to collect an additional $76 on the same ticket.”

In a statement responding to the new reports, Ticketmaster distanced itself from the ticketing business altogether. Taking a page out of the sharing economy playbook, Ticketmaster instead characterized itself as a simple online service that connects people.

“Ticketmaster is a technology platform that helps artists and teams connect with their fans. We do not own the ticket sold on our platform nor do we have any control over ticket pricing,” the company said.

Like they say, desperate people do desperate things. With only $10 million left in MoviePass’ piggybank, the movie subscription service’s parent company -- Helios and Matheson -- is asking its shareholders to weigh in on a plan that could increase the stock by as much as 500 times.

The company’s proposed one-for-500 reverse stock split sent the shares tumbling out of control on Monday to little more than a penny in value -- a far cry from the stock’s 2018 high of $2,442 in February.

Helios and Matheson’s proposed plan was outlined in a new document filed Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a vote is set for an October 18 shareholder meeting. A blessing from the shareholders would enable stockholders to swap as many as 500 shares for a single share worth about 500 times as much.

If all goes according to plan, the stock price could theoretically move from about its current penny’s worth to as much as $10, which should be sufficient to keep the stock trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange. Nasdaq has given Helios and Matheson fair warning that its stock might be delisted because of its low value.

MoviePass has tried this trick before. In July, it attempted to juice its stock from 8 cents to $21 with a similar move, but stock buyers weren’t biting and the new price fell below $1 in a matter of days, forcing the company to borrow an emergency $5 million to keep things afloat.

The woebegone saga continues

It was only a year ago when MoviePass was a darling in the subscription model world. Its $10 a month all-you-can-watch deal may have been a homerun for movie lovers, but it couldn’t be sustained when it came to paying vendors and theatres.

After its original business model proved itself implausible, the company changed its subscription plans and the movies it made available.

For the moment, MoviePass offers customers the ability to watch three movies per month for $9.95 with restrictions on the number of titles a moviegoer can watch at any given time.

It remains to be seen if anyone can pull off a movie subscription model and make it attractive enough for movie lovers to give up being a couch potato with their Netflix or Amazon Prime Video subscriptions. Sinemia, another movie subscription service just announced a $30 a month deal for a movie-a-day at any theatre with no blackouts. The catch there is that to get that rate, a subscriber has to fork over $359.88, a single year’s subscription fee, in advance.

Amazon is currently in the running to buy Landmark Theaters -- a private movie theater chain with 56 locations across the country that specializes in independent and foreign films. Currently, the company is run by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner’s company 2929 Entertainment.

According to Bloomberg, which first broke the story last week, talks could still fall apart, as Amazon is one among several other interested parties at this point. Amazon, 2929 Entertainment, and Landmark have yet to comment on the proceedings.

“This is probably a move to get broader distribution of film content,” said Leo Kulp, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets LLC. “Netflix had been discussed as a potential buyer of Landmark for a similar reason.”

Why Amazon would move to the movies

While many are scratching their heads as to why Amazon’s next big thing would be movie theaters, several analysts see it as a smart next move for the company.

Though known primarily as an internet shopping service, the company has since branched out to include Whole Foods under its umbrella, and it has never shied away from expansion opportunities.

“For the first 25 years of the internet we’ve seen the world in two competing domains: digital and physical,” said Gene Munster, managing partner with venture capital firm Loup Ventures. “Amazon clearly believes the future of the internet lies in the convergence of digital and physical offerings to meet customer needs.”

Jonathan Kuntz, a film historian and lecturer at the UCLA School of Theater, Film, and Television believes acquiring Landmark could help bolster Amazon’s reputation in a new arena.

“Amazon is buying a little bit of prestige -- the quality end of the market,” Kuntz said.

The Landmark deal could also bring new users to Amazon’s Prime platform. According to Eric Wold, an analyst at B. Riley FBR, regular theatergoers may not currently be Prime members -- the subscription service needed to stream Amazon Prime Video content. The theaters could serve as a physical space to screen Amazon’s content, while also encouraging theatergoers to subscribe to Prime.

Bloomberg predicts the price for Landmark would be small, but Amazon is likely to get a huge buzz for entering the physical consumer world in a new realm.

“I don’t know the dollar values involved here, but they are not betting the whole company on the Landmark deal,” Kuntz said.

To borrow a line from ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail,’ it may be time to “bring out your dead.”

MoviePass, the subscription ticketing service, can retort with “I’m not dead” all it wants, but it may be soon.

Helios and Matheson, MoviePass’ parent company, posted a humiliating quarterly earnings report on Tuesday, disclosing that the company’s operating losses have mushroomed from less than $3 million in the second quarter of 2017 to $126.6 million in the second quarter of 2018.

MoviePass has tried every trick in the book to reframe its model, but time is running out. At the rate it’s going through the money in its bank account -- approximately $73 million a month -- the service could well be belly-up by October.

Investors cry foul

As if losing millions isn’t enough of a bad day at the box office, the folks at MoviePass are also facing a lawsuit. On Monday, Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. investors filed a class action suit alleging that the company pulled the wool over the public’s eyes regarding the profitability of MoviePass before the stock tanked, according to a filing submitted in New York federal court on Monday.

"Helios was touting MoviePass’ valuation and path to profitability even though there was no reasonable basis to even imply that the MoviePass business model could lead to profitability for Helios," reads the filing by shareholder Jeffrey Braxton.

"MoviePass’ business model was not sustainable because there was no reasonable basis to believe that MoviePass could monetize the model to a degree that could be maintained before being too buried in debt to survive."

The class action group might be getting some love from MoviePass’ competition. The group’s Twitter account, @MoviePassLaw, claims that “AMC has contacted us, before our Moviepass case is presented to the Supreme Court they are hoping to provide each victim a one-year subscription to AMC Stubs A-List. Fantastic! Moviepass has failed us and we will show them!”

Earlier this month, MoviePass announced that it would be dropping its all-you-can-watch for $9.95 per month plan and replacing it with a plan that allows three movies for $9.95 a month.

Now, the movie subscription service is forcing moviegoers to choose between just two movies a day, the New York Post reports.

On Friday, hours before the app crashed, consumers had to choose between “Slenderman” and “Mission Impossible: Fallout.” However, those not interested in seeing the horror film with less-than-stellar reviews didn’t have very good odds of securing the showtime they wanted.

At an AMC location in Times Square, Mission Impossible was only available at two showtimes for those using MoviePass: one in the mid-afternoon and the other at around 10:45 pm.

Maintaining financial stability

MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe confirmed the change in an interview with The Post and implied that the policy was only temporary and intended to stem its financial loss during the time before it moves to its three-movies-a-month plan in September.

“Unfortunately, in order to stay financially stable we’ve had to curtail the service,” Lowe said. “We had to right the ship as far as the amount of money we were burning.”

Lowe suggested that, over the next few weeks, subscribers may see the movie selection change throughout the day. He insisted that MoviePass wasn’t intentionally offering inconvenient showtimes.

“This has been a challenging time for us and our customers. We’re just trying to save our service to be able to be available long term,” he said.

The CEO said that investors were confident in the company’s new pricing plan but are waiting to see what percentage of customers were willing to continue to use the service under the new three-movies-per-month plan.

Consumers not interested in continuing to use MoviePass under the new policy have alternatives, including AMC’s $20-per-month service which lets users see three movies a week. Another option is Sinemia, which lets subscribers see three movies per month for $14.99 and requires a $19.95 initiation fee.

Tribune Media and Sinclair Broadcast Group have called off their planned merger. It wasn't an amicable break-up.

Tribune is suing its former suitor, claiming breach of contract. In a conference call with reporters, Tribune CEO Peter Kern laid the blame on Sinclair, saying the broadcaster only pursued its own interests, damaging the deal.

Regardless of who is responsible, the merger faced a rough regulatory road. Last month, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai expressed reservations, suggesting Sinclair's plan to sell some of its TV stations wouldn't go far enough to satisfy regulators.

"The evidence we've received suggests that certain station divestitures that have been proposed to the FCC would allow Sinclair to control those stations in practice, even if not in name, in violation of the law," Pai said.

In particular, regulators expressed concern that Sinclair's divestiture plan involved selling the stations to entities close to the Smith family, the principal shareholders. Days later, the FCC passed on the deal.

Would have been the largest broadcaster

In essence, all of Tribune's 42 TV stations would have moved to Sinclair, raising Sinclair’s total ownership to 215 stations. In their application to the FCC, the combined companies said the new arrangement would reach 72 percent of U.S. television households and would own and operate the largest number of broadcast television stations of any station group.

The proposed deal had also become a political lightning rod, since progressive groups have criticized Sinclair stations for displaying an alleged conservative bias in news coverage.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said its opposition to the deal had nothing to do with ideology. Rather, the group said it didn't like the idea of one company owning more than 200 TV stations, "virtually guaranteeing less viewpoint diversity in local news.”

Before broadcasting was deregulated in the early 1980s, no one corporation could own more than seven television stations.

On the eve of the first anniversary of its $9.95 price point, MoviePass has finally found a solution it likes and is sticking to it.

The subscription service announced on Tuesday that it’s moving from the all-you-can-watch for $9.95 per month plan to a plan that allows three movies for $9.95 a month.

MoviePass spent the last two weeks putting on its own horror show — one that included shutting subscribers out of seeing the latest chapter in the Tom Cruise ‘Mission: Impossible’ series and borrowing an emergency $5 million to pay its processing partner.

“We know that at times, the frequent changes to our service have been frustrating to you,” wrote MoviePass chief Mitch Lowe in an email to subscribers.

“Over the last year, we have tried different things and we’ve discovered what our members love about our service — the low price point and the ability to go to more than 91 percent of theaters nationwide. We’ve also learned what people don’t like about the service — features including Peak Pricing and Ticket Verification.”

Lowe claims his company’s changes cater to the majority of MoviePass’ movie-going customer base. Backing up that assertion, Lowe pointed to a research study which showed that 85 percent of MoviePass members go to three movies or less per month.

The deal going forward

Under MoviePass’ new plan:

• Members will be able to see up to three standard movies per month for $9.95 and be given up to a $5.00 discount to any additional movie tickets purchased.

• Many major studio first-run films will be included; however, there will be some exceptions.

• Peak Pricing and Ticket Verification requirements for all members will be suspended.

Lowe said that MoviePass members with a monthly subscription renewing on or after August 15th will be given the option in the MoviePass app to transition to the new plan. Quarterly and annual subscribers will not be impacted until their renewal date.

Deal or no deal?

MoviePass’ decision may have quieted the moviegoers yelling “Fire!,” but its relentlessness in yanking the customer’s chain left many in its subscriber base still complaining.

“This is why I canceled #MoviePass. The constant spin & utter lack of accountability for ANYTHING. You offered an impossible deal, people took advantage of it, now it’s ‘unfair’ that they did so. I’m happy over at AMC A-List, which MoviePass mocked, now offering 4x the movies,” tweeted film critic Dan Murrell.

Still, the service has its believers. In a StrawPoll about the change, the early results show that at least half of MoviePass subscribers plan to hang on to their membership.

Are there other options?

For those who: a) live in a large market where movie ticket prices are high; or b) those who will actually go to three movies a month, MoviePass’ three-for-$9.95 can still be considered a good deal.

But for those looking for alternatives to MoviePass, the AMC Theatre conglomerate’s “Stubs A-List” offers three movies a week for $19.95 a month. The AMC chain has produced none of the same consumer fright that MoviePass did, and may be in a better position to cut deals with movie producers because it can commit to system-wide deals for its 661 U.S. theatres and 8,200 screens.

Sinemia is another MoviePass competitor. Its current promotion is three movies per month for $14.99 and requires a $19.95 initiation fee.

The Justice Department (DOJ) has submitted its brief explaining why it thinks an appeals court should overturn a judge's decision to approve the merger of AT&T and Time Warner.

The government claims U.S. District Judge Richard Leon "ignored mainstream economics" and refused to see the "appreciable danger" to consumers when he rejected the government's attempt to block the $85 billion deal.

In its case against the union, the Justice Department had argued that AT&T and Time Warner would have enormous bargaining power in its dealings with pay-TV distributors if they were allowed to join forces.

Popular networks give it bargaining power

Because the combined entity would control popular cable networks like CNN, TBS, and TNT, the government argued it could raise the price and competitors like Comcast and Dish Network would have to pay it. Otherwise, AT&T could limit those networks to DIRECTV, an AT&T subsidiary.

The government argued that the judge "gave no consideration to the fact that these distributors had a direct and immediate stake as customers in the negotiations with Time Warner."

In a 172 page opinion, Leon dismissed those concerns and others, telling the Justice Department lawyers that they had failed to make their case. In a statement to the media after the DOJ filed its brief, AT&T General Counsel David McAtee agreed, saying the government should call it a day

"Appeals aren't 'do-overs," McAtee said. "After a long trial, Judge Leon weighed the evidence and rendered a comprehensive 172-page decision that systematically exposed each of the many holes in the government's case. There is nothing in DOJ's brief today that should disturb that decision."

Other critics of the deal

The government's argument is supported by some consumer groups and other critics of the deal, who worry AT&T can now favor content from Time Warner on its network, particularly now that it is legal to do so with the demise of net neutrality.

The Trump administration Justice Department sided with those critics, filing a suit to block the merger back in March and claiming the combination of the two companies would be harmful to competition.

The government said AT&T is not only a huge wireless provider, it now has a foot firmly planted in content production since Time Warner is one of the nation's largest content providers.

It's not clear what would happen if the appeals court sides with the government. AT&T and Time Warner completed their merger in late June, with Time Warner operating under a new division called Warner Media.

To spin a line from “The Godfather,” MoviePass’ mantra of “I’m going to make them an offer they can’t refuse” took a turn for the worse over the weekend.

First, the subscription-based movie ticketing service had to take out a $5 million emergency loan to pay fulfillment partners so customers could keep using the service.

It seems MoviePass’ parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics, had failed to pay the companies that are in charge of customers’ payments, so the contractors simply stopped processing the payments which, in turn, left MoviePass customers without a way to buy tickets.

Ironically, the title of the new Tom Cruise movie -- ‘Mission: Impossible - Fallout’ -- was next on MoviePass’ list of faux pas as customers were prevented from seeing the new flick.

MoviePass danced around the heart of the matter when it tweeted out its “issues” on Thursday. First it was, “To our subscribers - we are aware an investigating an issue that is preventing users from checking-in to movies this evening. We ask for your patience as we look into this and recommend waiting for further updates before heading to the theater.”

Then it was, “We are still experiencing technical issues with our card-based check-in process and we are diligently working to resolve the issue.”

That was later followed up with, “We've determined this issue is not with our card processor partners and will be continuing to work on a fix throughout this evening and night. If you have not headed to the theater yet, we recommend waiting for a resolution or utilizing e-ticketing which is not impacted.”

So, what’s it going to be, MoviePass?

The company’s CEO Mitch Lowe did his best to rally MoviePass’ 3 million users, but his comments veered more towards the new demand-based pricing model and away from the $9.95 a month all-you-can-see model.

“As we continue to evolve the service, certain movies may not always be available in every theater on our platform,” Lowe said in a statement on Friday. “The first of those features, Peak Pricing, has rolled out nationally. Bring-a-Guest and Premium Features will begin rolling out soon.”

Lowe’s hue and cry about MoviePass trying to “fundamentally change an industry that hasn’t evolved much in years” is a worthy crusade, but are moviegoers willing to work through the subscription’s provisos in order to get a good deal?

“Don't get me wrong. Between the $5m loans and mission impossible and the surges costing as much as a ticket, moviepass is doomed,” wrote a subscriber on Reddit.

“But i'm gonna ride it till the end because surge pricing and card outages and stub photos don't affect partner theaters with e-ticketing. And it just so happens that my local e-ticketing theaters have the specific releases I am most interested in. And amc a-list is the better service but amc does not get the movies I like. I will be milking this service until the day it dies.”

For the movie buff -- particularly those patient enough to work within MoviePass’ rules -- $9.95 a month for all-you-can-watch can still be a pretty good deal -- especially when you compare that to the cost of a single ticket. The National Association of Theater Owners reported that the average ticket price for a movie was $9.16 in the first quarter of 2018 versus the same quarter a year ago at $8.84.

The New York State Public Service Commission voted 3-0 on Friday to rescind its approval of Charter Communications' merger with Time Warner Cable.

The Commission alleges that Spectrum, the state’s largest TV and Internet service provider, repeatedly failed honor commitments when it came to properly serving customers.

The merger was approved in 2016 on the condition that the company extend its services to 145,000 homes within four years, with a focus on unserved or underserved areas of the state. Now, regulators say Spectrum has “made clear that it has no intention of providing the public benefits upon which the Commission's earlier approval was conditioned.”

“After more than a year of administrative enforcement efforts to bring Charter into compliance with the Commission’s merger order, the time has come for stronger actions to protect New Yorkers and the public interest,” Commission Chair John B. Rhodes said in the official announcement.

“Charter’s non-compliance and brazenly disrespectful behavior toward New York State and its customers necessitates the actions taken today seeking court-ordered penalties for its failures, and revoking the Charter merger approval.”

The company has been ordered to cease its operations in the state, as well as pay a fine of $3 million. Spectrum must also provide uninterrupted service during the transition period.

Charter intends to contest

Charter Communications, the owner of Spectrum, has been given 60 days to formulate an exit plan while the state seeks a new service provider. Charter has said it will contest the order and has claimed the commission’s actions were “politically motivated.”

“In the weeks leading up to an election, rhetoric often becomes politically charged,” the company said. “But the fact is that Spectrum has extended the reach of our advanced broadband network to more than 86,000 New York homes and businesses since our merger agreement with the PSC.”

“Our 11,000 diverse and locally based workers, who serve millions of customers in the state every day, remain focused on delivering faster and better broadband to more New Yorkers, as we promised,” the company said.

Aija Leiponen, a professor of applied economics and management at Cornell University says the dispute could result in a long court battle.

"I see legal ramifications, and they will take some time," Leiponen told Syracuse.com. "I expect thorough and tedious negotiations between them, but I wouldn't rule out a major lawsuit."

The Justice Department is investigating whether local TV station owners including Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tribune Company violated antitrust laws in the way their ad sales teams communicated with one another about their performance, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The coordinated efforts between the ad sales teams might have led to higher rates for TV commercials, the Journal said, citing sources familiar with the matter. The probe was launched following an examination of Sinclair’s proposed $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune by the Antitrust Division.

“It is our policy not to comment on a potential investigation. It is our understanding that this is not specific to Sinclair, but focuses on the larger broadcast industry,” a Sinclair spokesperson told the Journal.

FCC opposes

The proposed merger between Sinclair and Tribute would create a broadcast television station with more than 200 stations.

In their application to the FCC, the two media companies said they would reach 72 percent of American households under the deal. The combined companies would own and operate the largest number of broadcast television stations of any station group.

Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai expressed “serious concerns” about the plans, particularly the proposed “sidecar agreements” that would allow Sinclair to retain control of stations without owning them.

The FCC voted unanimously to send the merger to an administrative law judge for review -- a move that Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly called a “de facto merger death sentence.”

On Thursday, President Trump voiced his displeasure over the FCC’s opposition to the Sinclair-Tribune merger.

"So sad and unfair that the FCC wouldn't approve the Sinclair Broadcast merger with Tribune," the president said in his tweet. "This would have been a great and much needed Conservative voice for and of the People. Liberal Fake News NBC and Comcast gets approved, much bigger, but not Sinclair. Disgraceful!"

The news just keeps getting worse for your local cable company.

A new report from eMarketer shows consumers have stepped up their pace of “cord-cutting” by cancelling pay TV subscriptions and using streaming services instead.

The report projects the number of adults who have cancelled a cable or satellite TV service and will continue without it will rise 32.8 percent this year, to a total of 33 million.

A year ago, the number of cord-cutters was expected to grow by only 22 percent. The new forecast leaves pay TV services with about 186.7 million subscribers this year, down 3.8 percent from 2017.

Pay TV-OTT partnerships

To stop the hemorrhaging, Christopher Bendtsen, eMarketer's senior forecasting analyst, says most pay TV providers found ways to integrate the most popular over-the-top (OTT) streaming service, Netflix, into their systems.

“These partnerships are still in the early stages, so we don’t foresee them having a significant impact reducing churn this year,” Bendtsen said. “With more pay TV and OTT partnerships expected in the future, combined with other strategies, providers could eventually slow—but not stop—the losses.”

Meanwhile, the eMarketer analysis shows OTT streaming services are growing just as fast as pay TV is losing customers. It says viewership increases for YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are being fueled by increases in original video content.

Increasingly, OTT services have found ways to provide live TV channels, so that consumers can pair a couple of these streaming services together and have all the TV they want to watch, at much less cost than subscribing to cable.

For example, while the typical mid-tier pay TV package is normally around $100 a month or more, OTT subscriptions are typically between $10 and $15 a month. A consumer subscribing to two or three services can put together a customized viewing package at a huge savings – if they cut the cord.

Losing track of subscription costs

But consumers who continue to subscribe to pay TV, while adding OTT subscriptions to supplement their viewing choices, are adding to their monthly budget. A new report suggests many consumers are blissfully unaware of how much extra they are spending.

Researchers at Waterstone, a management consulting firm, asked consumers to estimate how much they spend each month on subscription services, including OTT video streaming services like Netflix.

They found the average consumer underestimates the total costs of monthly subscriptions by 197 percent.

“Clearly, most Americans are unaware of how much they spend on subscription services,” the authors write. “When pressed for a quick answer, they dramatically underestimate the amount.”

Since so many industries have moved to a subscription business model, the report concludes it makes it harder for consumers to keep track of their subscription costs, which tend to be small amounts but, added together, take a big bite out of the typical household budget

In an unanimous vote likely to quash the deal, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted against approval of Sinclair Broadcast Group’s purchase of Tribune Media Company.

In a nutshell, the FCC thought Sinclair’s plan was fraught with too many ifs, ands, or buts. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s disapproval of the merger is centered around the structure of the acquisition. Pai says Sinclair's plans for divested stations would violate the law and recommended a “hearing designation order” (HDO) which would require Sinclair to appear before an administrative law judge and explain its offenses, a move that could kill the deal completely.

"When the FCC confronts disputed issues like these, the Communications Act does not allow it to approve a transaction,” Pai said. “Instead, the law requires the FCC to designate the transaction for a hearing in order to get to the bottom of those disputed issues.”

The proposed merger between Sinclair and Tribune Media was quite a can of worms. In essence, all of Tribune's 42 TV stations would move to Sinclair, raising Sinclair’s total ownership to 215 stations. In their application to the FCC, the combined companies said the new arrangement would reach 72 percent of U.S. television households and would own and operate the largest number of broadcast television stations of any station group.

Too much influence?

Naysayers had been lining up in opposition to the merger. The ACLU, American Cable Association, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Free Press, Newsmax Media, and the Communications Workers of America all submitted thunderous objections.

“Our opposition to the Sinclair merger has nothing to do with where Sinclair sits on the ideological spectrum,” the ACLU wrote in a press release. “The problem is that Sinclair’s attempt to acquire Tribune Media would give it control over some 200 TV stations, virtually guaranteeing less viewpoint diversity in local news.”

The public wasn’t shy about its issues with the deal, either.

At a public protest outside Sinclair’s Hunt Valley MD headquarters where it was holding its annual meeting, Max Obuszewski of Baltimore held a sign that read “enough is enough.”

“I’m against the merger of bringing so many stations together, and I’d be opposed even if it was a more progressive diet of news,” Obuszewski told The Baltimore Sun. “Nobody should have so much concentration of the media. … And you have political messages disguised as news. I’m very offended by that.”

This morning, Comcast announced it will no longer be in the mix to acquire 21st Century Fox and its film and television assets. Instead, the company will focus on the acquisition of the European satellite provider Sky. The decision is likely to clear the way for Disney, who recently upped its bid to $71.3 billion -- split between cash and stock.

“Comcast does not intend to pursue further the acquisition of the Twenty-First Century Fox assets, and, instead, will focus on our recommended offer for Sky,” the company said in a statement.

Brian L. Roberts, Chairman and CEO of Comcast, said, “I’d like to congratulate Bob Iger and the team at Disney and commend the Murdoch family and Fox for creating such a desirable and respected company.”

Fox has currently set a shareholder meeting for July 27 to vote on the deal with Disney. If either Comcast or Fox’s acquisition of Sky has yet to be completed by that date, Disney would be forced to bid £14 a share for the 61 percent of Sky that Fox doesn’t own -- which is less than the £14.75 a share that Comcast offered last week.

History with Disney

Last December, Fox and Disney agreed to a $54.2 billion deal that would include control over many of Fox’s assets, including: the FX and Nat Geo cable channels, the 20th Century Fox film studio, and Fox’s stake in Hulu.

Then, just last month, Comcast came onto the scene with an “unsolicited” $65 billion offer.

That prompted Disney to raise its bid to $71.3 billion in late June. The new deal increases the value of Disney’s original offer from $28 a share at $52.4 billion to $38 a share at $71.3 billion -- plus a new cash component. At the time of the bid’s announcement, a Fox representative said the offer was “superior to the proposal” from Comcast.

Fox’s Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch said a Disney-Fox merger “will create one of the greatest, most innovative companies in the world.”

“We are extremely proud of the businesses we have built at 21st Century Fox, and firmly believe that this combination with Disney will unlock even more value for shareholders as the new Disney continues to set the pace at a dynamic time for our industry,” Murdoch said.

Comcast and Sky

Now out of the bidding war for Fox, Comcast is looking to focus its efforts on acquiring Sky Network.

Early last month, 21st Century Fox was given the green light to proceed in negotiations for Sky Network, in an entirely different bidding war involving both Disney and Comcast. Initially, U.K. Culture Minister Matt Hancock was skeptical of the United Kingdom’s media losing its independence based on the Murdoch family’s influence. However, both Sky and Fox were pleased with the decision.

Comcast made a $29 million offer for the British broadcasting network, and acquiring the company would be a huge win. Sky currently has 23 million subscribers across five countries, and owns broadcasting rights that are particularly valuable in today’s market, such as English Premier League games, Formula One races, and other sporting events.

If you subscribe to HBO, get ready for some changes. AT&T, the new owner, has served notice that the premium content provider, acquired in the Time Warner merger, is going to have to contribute more to the bottom line.

The New York Times, which obtained a recording of a town hall meeting with HBO employees, reports John Stankey, now heading AT&T's new Warner Media division, is setting an ambitious goal of producing more content and attracting more viewers.

“It’s going to be a tough year,” Stankey said. “It’s going to be a lot of work to alter and change direction a little bit.”

Lately, HBO has been known for producing a limited amount of quality programming, like Game of Thrones and Westworld. HBO is most often marketed to cable and satellite TV customers as a premium tier.

Fighting for smartphone viewers

Going forward, Stankey told employees the network will have to change, producing more content to compete with providers that distribute through smartphone apps.

The AT&T executive set out the twin goals of expanding HBO's subscriber base and increasing the number of hours consumers watch HBO content.

“We need hours a day,” Stankey said during the presentation. “It’s not hours a week, and it’s not hours a month. We need hours a day. You are competing with devices that sit in people’s hands that capture their attention every 15 minutes.”

HBO currently spends about $2 billion a year on content, much of it critically acclaimed. Since there has yet to be any discussion of increasing HBO's budget – AT&T went significantly into debt to purchase Time Warner – the assumption is the network must do more with its current budget.

Could lead to a dip in quality

Both Stankey and HBO CEO Richard Plepler, who hosted the session, admitted that increasing the amount of content the network produces could lead to a dip in quality. But Stankey said producing more content is a key strategy in attracting more subscribers and convincing them to watch longer.

Stankey said HBO needs to change from being a boutique network, with an emphasis on its Sunday night line up, to “something bigger, broader.” He didn't say “like Netflix,” but there is little doubt that's what he meant.

Netflix has become the dominant streaming service with a massive increase in original content, not all of it award-winning. However, it spends more to produce it than other content providers.

In the session, Stankey signaled AT&T's willingness to invest more in HBO to help it compete in the ever-shifting media landscape.

Remember the old adage “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is?” That’s what MoviePass’ three million users might be thinking after the company added a kicker called “summer surge pricing” to its existing subscription plan.

Couched as an “evolution of our product,” the company’s Peak Pricing addendum “goes into effect when there’s high demand for a movie or showtime,” according to an email to MoviePass’ subscribers.

“You may be asked to pay a small additional fee depending on the level of demand. You can avoid the surcharge by selecting a different showtime or movie. Over the coming weeks we’ll also be introducing Peak Pass, which will allow you to waive one peak fee per month,” the company wrote to its customers.

The long and winding road

The monthly subscription service’s path to success has been long and winding. Since launching in 2011, MoviePass has bounced through several pricing configurations ranging from plans based on market size and the number of movies a subscriber could view in a month to monthly fees ranging from $30 down to the current $9.95.

The $9.95 plan proved to be the pivot point the company was hoping for, and its membership skyrocketed from there.

“After years of studying and analysis, we found that people want to go to the movies more often, but the pricing keeps going up, and that prevents them from going more. We're making it more affordable for people," MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe said at the time of the $9.95/month relaunch.

The fine print

The company’s frequent changes to its terms of use and changes in subscription prices have created confusion and frustration with its subscriber base. However, MoviePass is putting the responsibility of staying clued in on the consumer.

“MoviePass reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms of Use, at any time, without prior notice,” reads its latest terms of use dated July 5, 2018.

“IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK THESE TERMS OF USE, AND THE MOVIEPASS APP PERIODICALLY FOR CHANGES. YOUR CONTINUED USE OF THE SERVICE AND THE SITE FOLLOWING THE POSTING OF CHANGES WILL MEAN THAT YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO THE CHANGES,” the company emphasized.

To long-term subscribers, this is more than a tempest in a teapot.  “MoviePass CEO trying to convince shareholders that surge pricing, company merchandise, changing the Terms of Service twice a month and manipulating audience scores for their own movies will somehow save the company,” posted one Twitter user.

On Facebook, another subscriber threw up her hands and simply quit: “We just cancelled!! So sick of the bait and switch!!! DONE!!!”

Is there an alternative?

Movie lovers are no longer stuck with MoviePass alone. Since the company’s rise, two new players have come in ready to give solace to MoviePass’ ex-pats.

The nation’s largest theatre chain -- AMC -- just rolled out “AMC Stubs A-List” and offers three tickets per week for the monthly price of $19.95. Members collect points from concession purchases and have access to premium formats like IMAX and 3D. The only real downside is that you are limited to AMC theatres, whereas MoviePass has deals with a variety of movie chains.

Another entry in the movie subscription game is Sinemia. Its price tier runs from $4.99 per month for 1 standard movie ticket up to $14.99 per month for 3 of any movie ticket (3D, 4D, IMAX included).

Both AMC and Sinemia offer subscribers the option to watch a movie more than one time versus MoviePass’ one-and-done restriction.

AT&T has unveiled a new video service called WatchTV, a skinny bundle of channels that will be available “on virtually any smartphone, as well as on certain streaming devices.”

AT&T said Thursday that its new service will feature 31 TV channels, including recently acquired CNN, TNT, and TBS, as well as channels from AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, and Viacom.

Coming "soon" after launch, AT&T says it will add BET, Comedy Central, MTV2, Nicktoons, Teen Nick and VH1 to its live channel lineup. In addition to live channels, there will be 15,000 movies and TV shows available for on-demand viewing.

For non-AT&T customers, the package will be available as a standalone service for as little as $15 per month. It will be offered free to AT&T customers with AT&T’s “Unlimited & More" or “Unlimited & More Premium" plans. The new unlimited data plans and WatchTV launch next week.

Competing with streaming services

The debut of the new service comes as a growing number of consumers are choosing to drop traditional pay-TV and instead get their entertainment through video-on-demand streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu.

The new offering also comes a week after the telecommunications giant closed its deal to acquire Time Warner and renamed the entity WarnerMedia. During testimony related to obtaining regulatory approval for its acquisition of Time Warner, CEO Randall Stephenson noted that traditional cable lost 3 million subscribers on a base of 90 million in 2017.

AT&T’s new service for cord-cutters will compete with Netflix, Sling TV, CBS All Access, and other streamers, as well as with big cable providers like Comcast and Charter Communications.

”We were the first wireless provider to bring entertainment and unlimited data together, and, once again, we’re redefining what that means,” said David Christopher, president of AT&T Mobility and Entertainment, on Thursday.

“This is no longer about including one channel or service with your wireless plan, but an incredible lineup of content that delivers more of what you care about," Christopher said.

The Walt Disney Company has raised its bid for 21st Century Fox's movie and television assets to $71.3 billion, the two companies announced on Wednesday.

The new deal increases the value of Disney’s original December 2017 offer from $28 a share at $52.4 billion to $38 a share at $71.3 billion, with a new cash component.

A representative for Fox said this agreement "is superior to the proposal" from Comcast made earlier this month. The new Fox-Disney deal would let Fox shareholders receive their consideration "in the form of cash or stock,” subject to 50/50 proration.

Bidding war has begun

Last week, Comcast put in a competing offer to buy the assets at $35 per share for a total of $65 billion in cash. The offer followed the U.S. Justice Department’s approval of AT&T’s merger with Time Warner.

Disney has now topped Comcast’s offer.

In a statement on Wednesday, Fox's Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch said a Fox-Disney combination "will create one of the greatest, most innovative companies in the world."

"We are extremely proud of the businesses we have built at 21st Century Fox, and firmly believe that this combination with Disney will unlock even more value for shareholders as the new Disney continues to set the pace at a dynamic time for our industry."

"We remain convinced that the combination of [Fox's] iconic assets, brands and franchises with Disney's will create one of the greatest, most innovative companies in the world,” Murdoch added.

Whichever company ends up winning the bidding war for 21st Century Fox will gain control of Twentieth Century Fox Television and Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox 2000 film production studios, and Fox’s 30 percent stake in Hulu.

Disney CEO Robert Iger Murdoch said in a statement Wednesday that the Fox-Disney combination would allow Disney to create more appealing content, expand its direct-to-consumer offerings, grow its international presence, and "deliver more personalized and compelling entertainment experiences to meet growing consumer demand around the world."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is trying to convince federal regulators to block a controversial proposed merger between Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Tribune Media company, the group said on Tuesday.

The influential organization could add some muscle to consumer advocates’ otherwise uphill battle in convincing a big business-friendly FCC to block the merger.

The ACLU and others say that the merger, if allowed to go through, would give one corporation an unprecedented amount of control over local media.

In a comment it submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Tuesday, the ACLU argued that neither Sinclair or the Tribune have proven that joining forces would serve the public interest.

“This proposed merger, which would create the largest television broadcasting company in history, is anticompetitive to its core, in direct contradiction of the Commission's public interest requirement,” the ACLU’s public comment says.

“Our opposition to the Sinclair merger has nothing to do with where Sinclair sits on the ideological spectrum,” the ACLU adds in a press release. “The problem is that Sinclair’s attempt to acquire Tribune Media would give it control over some 200 TV stations, virtually guaranteeing less viewpoint diversity in local news.”

Monopolizing local news

The Sinclair Broadcasting Group is already enormously powerful, owning an estimated 200 local news channels in 100 markets, or a reach that expands into nearly 40 percent of American households. This control was made abundantly clear to viewers in March, when local anchors across the company were required to film a commercial and read the same script warning viewers about “one-sided, irresponsible news sources plaguing our country.”

If it merges with Tribune Media, Sinclair would reach an estimated 72 percent of American households. Some analysts predict that the $6 billion deal would allow the company to build a conservative network to rival Fox News.

The FCC under Trump seems poised to allow the merger to happen. Though federal law says that a single broadcasting corporation cannot control more than 39 percent of the marketplace, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is planning a vote in July to lift that cap, Bloomberg News reported last week.

“This unprecedented concentration of control, which contradicts the FCC’s own policies about how wide a broadcasting company’s reach can be, would stifle the diversity of views in the press that’s essential for a healthy democracy,” the ACLU said.

While Americans watch less TV news than they used to, those who do tend to prefer local news, according to the Pew Research Center.

Now that a federal judge has cleared the way for AT&T to acquire Time Warner, Comcast is entering the battle to acquire the assets of New Fox.

Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, is offering $65 billion in cash, trumping the $52.4 billion bid from Disney, parent company of ABC. Both traditional media companies are eyeing Fox's assets as a rich source of content, both for over-the-air distribution and streaming.

“Our draft merger agreement differs from the Disney agreement only to reflect the superior terms described in this letter, to adapt the agreement to reflect an all-cash transaction, including no Comcast shareholder vote, and to provide greater certainty by eliminating the need for any 21CF charter amendments,” Comcast said in a letter to Fox principals.

Bidding war?

As in a high-stakes game of poker, it's now up to Disney to decide whether to raise the ante, turning the competition for Fox into a bidding war.

Like AT&T, Comcast is also an internet service provider (ISP), and is well-positioned to get into over-the-top (OTT) content distribution. The company says there are few regulatory hurdles to its proposed deal, especially since many of the Fox assets in question are located outside the U.S.

However, there are plenty of U.S.-based assets in play. They include Fox's television and motion picture studios, including the FX channel and Fox Searchlight. Both Comcast and Disney would like to get their hands on Fox's foreign satellite holdings, such as Europe's Sky TV, to broaden their international footprint.

Fox is also trying to sell its stake in the Netflix competitor Hulu, and the rights to some Marvel superhero characters.

Existing agreement

Fox and Disney have already reached a deal for the assets, so selling them to Comcast instead would be a complication. Fox has scheduled a shareholder meeting for next month to finalize the Disney deal, though that could be postponed now that a new deal is on the table.

The driving force behind this sudden wave of media deals is Netflix, the streaming service that now dominates video entertainment. Even though AT&T, Comcast, and Disney are much larger media companies, Netflix spends nearly four times their respective budgets on creating original content. Acquiring a company with vast entertainment production capability is seen as a way to catch up.

Tuesday's decision by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon to allow AT&T to acquire Time Warner is viewed as a very big green light for more of these kinds of mergers. The judge rejected the government's argument – and that of some consumer groups – that allowing an ISP to control major sources of content would harm consumers.

Fed up with the high price of cable, more consumers are switching to video-on-demand streaming services like Netflix and Hulu -- and cable TV providers are feeling the impact in the form of major subscriber losses.

A new study from entertainment research company Leichtman Research (LRG) finds that cable TV providers have lost 3.4 million subscribers since 2012.

The biggest pay-TV providers lost about 305,000 customers in the first quarter of 2018. That’s a decrease in cord-cutters compared to the same quarter last year, when the top providers lost about 515,000 subscribers.

However, LRG's principal analyst Bruce Leichtman says the numbers reflect a continuing trend and that the cord cutting phenomenon is likely to speed up during the summer when many college students are home.

Satellite TV providers hit hardest

"The number of pay-TV subscribers for the top providers peaked six years ago. Since 1Q 2012, top providers have lost about 3.4 million total pay-TV subscribers," Leichtman said. "Since the industry’s peak, traditional services have lost about 7.2 million subscribers, while the top publicly reporting Internet-delivered services gained about 3.8 million subscribers."

First quarter losses in 2018 were biggest for satellite TV providers, who lost 375,000 subscribers in Q1 2018, compared to 285,000 for cable. DirecTV and Dish lost 188,000 and 185,000 traditional satellite customers, respectively.

AT&T and Dish have each started offering their own streaming video services (DirecTV Now and Sling TV) to cater to consumers’ changing interests. Together, the two companies added 405,000 subscribers in Q1 2018 via their streaming alternatives.

However, subscriber growth isn’t translating to profit for the two companies, since DirecTV Now is cheap and AT&T offers numerous discounts to existing subscribers. Revenue in AT&T’s video entertainment segment dropped 7.3 percent, while operating income was down 16 percent.

The cord-cutting phenomenon has had a significant impact on the value of cable company stocks, with multiple companies (including Charter and Comcast) suffering double-digit declines, FierceCable notes.

“In a span of a few short months, cable has fallen badly out of favor,” Craig Moffett, media analyst with MoffettNathanson Research, wrote in a note to investors this week. “We don’t need to rehash the litany of horribles about video, broadband and M&A here. Suffice it to say that there is no cable company out there that hasn’t been painted with a black brush."

Lawyers representing the U.S. Justice Department and AT&T faced off in federal court in Washington on Thursday as the government attempts to block the company’s merger with Time Warner.

The outcome will likely shape the media landscape for years to come, affecting what entertainment is offered to consumers, how they access it, and what they pay for it. The government claims the union would create a media company that is just too big and powerful, which it says would limit competition.

The Justice Department says AT&T is not only a huge wireless provider, it also owns DirecTV. Time Warner is already a huge content provider. It owns Warner Brothers Studios, along with cable channels like HBO, CNN, and TNT.

But lawyers supporting the merger insist AT&T and Time Warner are not really competitors, arguing their services overlap. They also point out there is plenty of media competition from traditional broadcast networks, as well as over-the-top providers (OTP) like Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon.

Early opponent to the merger

Even as a candidate, Donald Trump was against the deal. When AT&T announced the merger deal in 2016, candidate Trump said his administration would block it, though some critics suggested his opposition had more to do with his intense feud with CNN than any antitrust concerns.

Even so, the Consumer Federation of America this month found itself in the odd position of agreeing with the Trump administration, co-publishing a paper that argues the government's case against the merger is both warranted and consistent with past enforcement practices.

The paper concluded that the proposed merger poses a “severe threat” to competition. It argues that when there are policies in place to prevent discrimination against independent service providers, consumers benefit in terms of the quality of content and consumer choice.

Calling the current media landscape a “tight oligopoly on steroids,” the paper argues that the Trump administration's decision to oppose the merger is not only right on the facts but also in line with past enforcement of antitrust law. Reducing competition, the paper argues, would slow innovation, stifle the growth of online video distribution, and raise consumer prices.

Best hope for consumers

“‘Over-the-Top’ competition is the best hope consumers have, but network operators will kill that competition if they are not stopped,” said Dr. Mark Cooper, CFA's director of research. “The most effective way for antitrust authorities to protect competition is to reject vertical mergers that threaten to dramatically increase the market power of network operators like AT&T.”

In opening statements, government lawyers argued that a combined AT&T and Time Warner would be “a weapon,” used to charge rivals more for access to consumers.

Lawyers for the companies, meanwhile, promised that as the case goes forward, they would prove that wouldn't happen.

Half of American households (55 percent) now subscribe to at least one video streaming service, according to consulting firm Deloitte’s 12th annual digital media trends survey.

That figure represents an increase from last year, when 49 percent of households subscribed to at least one streaming service. The number has surged dramatically since 2009, when just 10 percent of consumers subscribed to a video streaming service.

The average streaming customer subscribes to three streaming services, and U.S. consumers spend $2.1 billion a month on video streaming service subscriptions.

Exclusive content important to many

Of the 2,088 consumers surveyed, over half said they decided which video streaming service to subscribe to based on the amount and quality of exclusive content the service had. Others said factors such as commercial-free content and the ability to watch movies and shows at anytime guided their decision.

The survey found that the average American consumes 38 hours of video content each week -- 15 hours (or 39 percent) of which is streamed.

“Consumers now enjoy unparalleled freedom in selecting media and entertainment options and their expectations are at an all-time high,” said Kevin Westcott, vice chairman and U.S. media and entertainment leader for Deloitte.

“The rapid growth of streaming services and high-quality original content has created a significant opportunity to monetize the on-demand environment in 2018.”

Drop in pay-TV subscriptions

The number of households that subscribe to a traditional TV service delivered via cable, satellite, and fiber has dropped to 63 percent from 74 percent in 2016, according to the report.

Among millennials (ages 21-34), 22 percent said they have never subscribed to pay TV. Of those who said they no longer had pay TV, 27 percent said they had “cut the cord” within the past year.

Nearly half (46 percent) of pay TV subscribers said they are dissatisfied with their service and 70 percent of all consumers said pay TV wasn't a good value. Around half (56 percent) of consumers who currently subscribe to a pay TV service say they keep it because it’s bundled with broadband service.

Consumers are increasingly satisfied with their pay TV providers, according to a new study by J.D. Power and Associates. The findings run counter to the prevailing wisdom that consumers are abandoning pay TV in favor of so called "over the top" video streaming services like Netflix and Hulu.

J.D. Power researchers discovered that consumers are increasing their consumption of both types of video content. Satisfaction with the overall streaming video service experience improved slightly over last year.

At the same time, consumers are spending nearly an hour more per week watching regularly scheduled television programming than they did two years ago.

Peter Cunningham -- Technology, Media, and Telecommunications Practice Lead at J.D. Power -- says the typical household is watching an average of 17.4 hours of regularly scheduled programming in a typical week, up from 16.6 hours in 2015.

Economic issue?

Several years ago the economy was still struggling to recover. Cunningham says "cord cutting" -- the trend of people giving up pay TV for streaming services like Netflix -- was largely an economic issue. Now that the economy is recovering, consumers are less likely to cut the cord and more likely to obtain content from a variety of sources.

"Our study finds the vast majority of people paying for traditional TV services also subscribe to streaming services," Cunningham told ConsumerAffairs. "So when economic times are tougher, they sometimes are willing to give up the more expensive pay TV services."

When consumers can afford both pay TV and video streaming services, they are more likely to use both.

Technology drives satisfaction

AT&T/DIRECTV scored highest in customer satisfaction among pay TV providers. On a regional basis, Verizon was highest in the East; Dish Network leads the South and North Central Regions; and AT&T DIRECTV took top honors in the West.

Cunningham notes that increased satisfaction with pay TV might have as much to do with technology as content. As an example, he cites Comcast's X1 service, which has a voice activated remote and intuitive menu.

"What we see is customers are much less likely to cut the cord if they have a good experience engaging with a provider's technology and the set top box experience," Cunningham said. "What customers care about the most is just making sure the product works. They just want to make sure the network itself is solid."

Satisfaction with streaming services can also often be influenced by consumers' satisfaction with their internet service providers (ISP). In the East, J.D. Power found ISP satisfaction is highest for Verizon. In the North Central region, AT&T/DIRECTV has the most satisfied customers. Cox Communications ranks highest in the West.

The disruption that has occurred in the entertainment industry in the last weekend shows no signs of slowing down. Consumers stand to gain.

Last week, Disney announced it was setting up its own streaming services and would pull its content from Netflix. This week, Netflix responded by signing a huge content deal with producer Shonda Rhimes to produce shows for the streaming service.

Daily Variety reports Netflix may also reach an agreement with Disney for rights to Lucasfilm’s “Star Wars” and Marvel Entertainment titles after 2019. At the same time, it says the approximately $200 million it had been paying Disney for content will be plowed back into creating new movies and series for the streaming site.

CNN has added up all the Netflix commitments and estimates the streaming service will spend nearly $16 billion on new content in the coming years, as it fights off an increasing number of competitors.

Netflix model at the movies

Meanwhile, entertainment start-up MoviePass has more or less adopted the Netflix model as a way to help Hollywood's sagging box office numbers.

The company has announced on its website that for a reduced monthly membership fee of $9.95, members can go to as many movies they want, as long as the theater accepts debit cards. The theaters get reimbursed the full price of the ticket.

It works on the same principal as Netflix. Instead of charging a movie-goer for each ticket, the monthly subscription allows them to watch as many movies as they want, limited to one movie per day. Some screens, such as IMAX, are excluded.

Lifeline for theaters?

Still, it may be a hopeful sign for movie theaters, which have seen audiences decline over the summer. Last weekend, ComScore reported the top grossing movie in the U.S. was Annabelle: Creation, which brought in just $35 million, followed by Dunkirk at $11.4 million.

During the same weekend in 2014, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles raked in $65 million and Guardians of the Galaxy followed at $42 million.

Last December, MoviePass co-founder Stacey Spikes said the company's research showed a subscription model for theaters would help small, independent films find an audience faster since consumers were more likely to wait for these films to show up on streaming services if they had to pay for each movie theater ticket.

There is apparently a dire shortage of video in the world today, but don't worry -- big companies are rushing to fill the imagined void with, you guessed it, even more video.

The latest light and nimble entrepreneurial venture to wade into video is none other than Facebook. It's starting something called Facebook Watch -- clever, no? 

Watch will be just what you expect -- a video distribution platform that we're told will be chockfull of scintillating, original video. And, of course, like everything else these days, it will be "personalized," meaning you'll be shown videos that Facebook thinks you want to see. Or, to be a bit more precise, videos that Facebook's advertisers want you to see.

Like everything else on Facebook, it will also be driven at least partly by what your friends -- and your "Friends" -- are watching and raving about. We're told you will find it on the Facebook menu bar, replacing the tab that currently says "Video."

"Watch is personalized to help you discover new shows, organized around what your friends and communities are watching," said Daniel Danker, Facebook Director of Product. "For example, you’ll find sections like 'Most Talked About,' which highlights shows that spark conversation, 'What’s Making People Laugh,' which includes shows where many people have used the 'Haha' reaction, and 'What Friends Are Watching,' which helps you connect with friends about shows they too are following."

Professional content

It's important to note that, unlike videos of cute cats and bouncing babies posted by your supposed friends, Watch will be the real thing -- you know, professional content: movies, series, and even sports. Facebook says it will live-streaming one Major League Baseball game each week and has several other attractions up its sleeve.

Not everyone will have Watch right away. It's being rolled out, in usual Facebook fashion, on a staggered basis. So let's just say you'll be seeing it soon -- and, Facebook hopes, watching it ever after.

There’s nothing quite like a good Broadway show or tickets to a live concert, but consumers have found it difficult to secure online tickets recently because of ticket bots – software used by scalpers and resellers to grab large numbers of available tickets as quickly as possible.

The problem became so bad that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law last November that increased the penalty for knowingly reselling tickets obtained by a ticket bot to a class A misdemeanor. The change guaranteed harsher penalties than the previously mandated civil penalties, something that six companies now know full well.

Yesterday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that Renaissance Ventures LLC (d/b/a Prestige Entertainment), Ebrani Corp. (d/b/a Presidential Tickets), Concert Specials Inc., Fanfetch Inc., BMC Capital Partners, and JAL Enterprises (d/b/a Top Star Tickets) had been fined a total of $4.19 million for using ticket bots to procure and resell tickets in the state.

“Unscrupulous ticket resellers who break the rules and take advantage of ordinary consumers are one of the major reasons why ticketing remains a rigged system,” Schneiderman said.

Snatching up tickets

The Attorney General’s office found that one of the ticket brokers, Prestige Entertainment, had used two different bots and thousands of credit cards and Ticketmaster accounts to buy tickets for many New York shows. The investigators allege that the company used IP proxy services to hide its use of bots from retail ticket marketplaces. In one specific case, the company allegedly used its bots to purchase over 1,000 tickets to a 2014 U2 concert at Madison Square Garden in just one minute.

Because of its pervasive use of ticket bots, Prestige will be paying the highest fine at $3.35 million. Concert Specials will pay $480,000; Presidential Tickets will pay $125,000; BMC Capital will pay $95,000; Top Star Tickets will pay $85,000; and Fanfetch will pay $55,000.

In addition to paying the fines, each company is required under the settlement to maintain proper ticket reseller licenses and abstain from using ticket bots in the future.

“We will continue to fight to make ticketing a more fair and transparent marketplace, so fans have the opportunity to enjoy their favorite shows and events. Anybody who breaks the law will pay a steep price,” said Schneiderman.

During his life and career, rock musician Frank Zappa was not exactly a mainstream artist. And that's part of what made him cool.

He leaned heavily on rock, pop, and jazz, but also tossed in intriguing bits of jazz fusion, orchestral, and works that used various eclectic sounds. He and his band, The Mothers of Invention, had an extremely devoted following in the late 1960s.

Now, the Zappa Family Trust and Universal Music Enterprises (UMe) are teaming up to release 24 Zappa albums, some of them rare, later this month. The music will be available on CD, digital downloads, and streaming on March 24.

"For more than two decades, the only place to get exclusive Frank Zappa albums was through our mail order and website," said Ahmet Zappa, son of the late artist and the Trust's executor. "We are thrilled to be able to make these titles available to fans across the globe with the help of our friends at Universal."

According to UMe, nine of the albums in the collection, including Zappa's 100th release, "Dance Me This," and the cult favorite live disc, "Roxy By Proxy," have never been made available for download or for streaming.

The collection also includes a recording from a 1971 performance at Carnegie Hall and a 1974 recording made at KCET-TV studios in Los Angeles, which ended up being used in a number of different Zappa projects.

Zappa died in 1993 after a long battle with cancer. He was 53.

A lot is at stake Wednesday as AT&T executives go before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the company's proposed acquisition of content provider Time Warner.

President-elect Trump is already on record opposing the deal and a number of lawmakers have expressed skepticism as well.

The $108.7 billion acquisition would join America's largest pay TV provider with a media and entertainment company that has a massive catalog of movies and TV shows.

From the beginning, AT&T executives have maintained the merger is a “vertical” one that brings together two entities providing different products, and therefore will not decrease competition. But AT&T could face some pointed questions at Wednesday's hearing.

“This proposed massive consolidation of distribution and content raises potentially serious questions about competition, consumer choice, and privacy across the media, cable TV, wireless and broadband industries,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

'Zero-rate' could be the sticking point

Even though the proposed merger would be “vertical,” critics charge it could give the telecom giant a huge advantage in the marketplace. At issue is something called “zero-rate.” That means the ISP, in this case AT&T, won't count a customer's viewing of AT&T-owned content against his or her data allowance.

Currently, AT&T has such a promotion with DIRECTV. AT&T wireless customers who also subscribe to DIRECTV can watch that content on their mobile devices without it counting against their data allowance.

If you are both an AT&T and DIRECTV customer, that's a great deal. But if you are a small ISP trying to compete against AT&T, you may think the playing field has suddenly become a lot less even.

Small ISPs worried

Jimmy Carr of All Points Broadband in Ashburn, Virginia, who chairs the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) Legislative Committee, says it will hurt the mostly small companies that are bringing broadband to underserved rural areas.

“AT&T has recently begun to zero-rate its DIRECTV content, and it has stated its intention to expand zero-rating to the Time Warner content it would obtain through this proposed merger,” Carr said. “Allowing any ISP to favor certain content has a direct, harmful impact on thousands of small, competitive ISPs that do not own content and lack the ability to negotiate fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to content.”

Carr says AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner raises serious concerns and should be rejected by federal regulators.

So far, AT&T is batting one for two on proposed mega-mergers. Last year it's deal to acquire DIRECTV got a green light from regulators. Before that, its deal to acquire rival T-Mobile did not

The holiday shopping season officially kicked off this past weekend with Black Friday, and consumers are scrambling to pick up the goods they want. One popular kind of gift this year will be a gift of experience, like tickets to a concert, play, or sporting event.

Unfortunately, demand for tickets far outweighs supply most of the time, so it’s up to consumers to try and grab them as soon as they become available online. However, many buyers often walk away with nothing because the tickets seem to magically disappear within minutes or even seconds.

While slow internet speeds or bad luck can play a factor, one reason for the lack of available tickets has been the existence of ticket bots -- software used by scalpers that manipulates sales systems to buy up as many tickets as possible. Then, after all the available tickets are gone, they sell them at ridiculously inflated prices to desperate consumers.

However, the practice may become less common thanks to a new law signed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Previously, state laws had banned the use of ticket bots and imposed civil penalties on violators, but now the use or control of ticket bots, or reselling tickets knowingly obtained by ticket bots, is a class A misdemeanor.

The classification change means harsher penalties for those who break the law. Violators can now expect exorbitant fines or even jail time if they’re caught using or knowingly benefitting from the software. The definition of a “ticket bot” has also been expanded under the new law to mean any system, whether autonomous or human-controlled, used to quickly buy up tickets before the general public has access to them.

Predatory and wrong

Ticket bots have long-been abhorred by performers in New York. Back in June, Lin-Manuel Miranda – creator and original lead of the Broadway hit Hamilton – railed against users of ticket bots and how the profited from his show; The New York Times reported that scalpers made around $15.5 million from reselling tickets to Miranda’s last 100 shows before stepping down from his role as the titular character.

“My concern is that our show is about the founding of our country and if bots are buying up all the tickets and charging this insane secondary market price, most of the country can’t see it,” he said.

Gov. Cuomo agreed with the sentiment in a recent statement, saying that “these unscrupulous speculators and their underhanded tactics have manipulated the marketplace and often leave New Yorkers and visitors alike with little choice but to buy tickets on the secondary market at an exorbitant mark-up.”

“It’s predatory, it’s wrong and, with this legislation, we are taking an important step towards restoring fairness and equity back to this multi-billion dollar industry.”

AT&T is offering three video streaming services, making use of new and existing content tie-ins. On November 30 is will begin marketing DIRECTV NOW.

The telecom provider sees a lucrative market of consumers who have cut the cable TV cord, or who are thinking about it.

“We’re extending our entertainment portfolio for those who value premium content but also want more TV freedom suited for their lifestyle, whether watching at home or on their mobile devices. This is TV your way,” said John Stankey, CEO, AT&T Entertainment Group.

Stankey says the services are built around AT&T's mobile platform. He says once you sign up for either DIRECTV NOW or Fullscreen, you can stream video content using a variety of mobile devices without set-top-boxes, satellite dishes, or annual contracts.

Won't count against data allowance

The services are also designed to promote the company's main product. AT&T Mobility customers will not use their allotted data when watching DIRECTV NOW or FreeVIEW in the App. Neither will Fullscreen users if they stream in the Fullscreen App on the AT&T network.

DIRECTV NOW is a collection of four television packages of current DIRECTV content, including live sports, on demand, cable networks, and premium channels.

The company says the DIRECTV NOW service will be compatible with most mobile devices and platforms, as well as Amazon Fire TV and Fire TV Stick; Chromecast (Android at launch; iOS in 2017); Google Cast-enabled LeEco ecotvs and VIZIO SmartCast Displays; and Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Safari web browsers.

More devices next year

AT&T says it plans to add more devices next year, including Roku streaming players and Roku TV models, Amazon Fire tablets, and Smart TVs.

The Fullscreen video service launched earlier this year at $5.99 a month. It provides more than 1,500 hours of on-demand programming, including original productions.

FreeVIEW is a free, ad-supported video service. It offers programming from AUDIENCE Network, Otter Media properties, and other channels on DIRECTV NOW.

AT&T's new video services will compete with Dish Network's Sling TV and Sony's Playstation Vue, but Business Insider suggests it could raise a controversial Net Neutrality topic. It will have an advantage over its competitors, in that it is also an internet service provider (ISP) that can choose whether or not to make video streaming count against data allowances.

Consolidation continues in the media and communications industries, but the latest proposed deal is getting some strong push-back.

Over the weekend, AT&T confirmed that it wants to buy Time Warner for more than $85 billion. It comes on the heels of Verizon's deal to buy Yahoo and AT&T's own purchase of DirecTV in 2015.

But Yahoo Finance reports the deal may have a tough time getting a green light from government regulators. It quotes analysts as saying both the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice are likely to put the deal under a microscope to determine how it will affect consumers.

Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, says these kinds of deals are almost always better for the combined businesses than for their customers.

Time to grab your wallet

"Any time you hear media executives talking about synergies, throwing around the business-babble that always accompanies these rumors, you know it’s time to grab your wallet and hang on tight,” Wood said in an email to ConsumerAffairs. “Big mergers like this inevitably mean higher prices for real people, to pay down the money borrowed to finance these deals and compensate top executives.”

Wall Street, of course, was quick to celebrate the proposed deal, because reducing competition and combining resources is usually good for the bottom line. But Wood says the evidence is clear that it doesn't help consumers. He says AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV was followed by price hikes.

"It’s a good thing there’s a renewed interest among lawmakers and antitrust enforcers in addressing this merger-mania,” Wood said. “It’s also a good thing we have solid Net Neutrality rules on the books — even though companies like AT&T continue to test those rules in the market, threaten them in Congress, and challenge them in the courts.”

Bipartisan opposition

Opposition to the proposed deal also surfaced on the presidential campaign trail. Speaking in Pennsylvania, GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump denounced the deal in unusually harsh terms, saying “deals like this destroy democracy.” If elected, Trump said his Justice Department would move to quash the merger.

On the other side of the aisle, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) took to Facebook over the weekend to express his reservations.

“I'm skeptical of huge media mergers because they can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers,” Franken wrote in a post. “And regulators often agree, like when Comcast unsuccessfully tried to buy Time Warner Cable, a deal that I fiercely opposed.”

In the coming days, Franken said he will press for further details about the proposed deal and how consumers would be affected.

Maybe you occasionally find yourself wondering how old your favorite actor is. It's pretty easy to find out. A quick visit to IMDb.com will tell you, though maybe not for much longer.

A new California law that takes effect in January will require IMDb and other entertainment industry websites to remove birthdates when a subscriber requests it.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed the measure, AB 1687, Saturday. It was backed by the Screen Actors Guild and SAG-AFTRA as a way to combat age discrimination in Hollywood.

“Gov. Jerry Brown today stood with thousands of film and television professionals and concerned Californians who urged him to sign AB 1687, a California law that will help prevent age discrimination in film and television casting and hiring," said SAG-AFTRA President Gabrielle Carteris in a statement issued after the bill was signed. 

The measure was authored by Majority Leader Ian Calderon (D-Whittier), who said revealing actors' ages online could lock them out of roles before they even had a chance to audition.

“Even though it is against both federal and state law, age discrimination persists in the entertainment industry,” Calderon said. “AB 1687 provides the necessary tools to remove age information from online profiles on employment referral websites to help prevent this type of discrimination.”

Privacy groups unhappy

Privacy groups argued against the measure, saying it was unnecessary and unconstitutional. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which normally takes a pro-privacy stance, said the law infringes on companies' First Amendment right to publish truthful information.  

Among the sites most obviously affected is Amazon's IMDb, a vast database that contains just about everything anyone could want to know about movies, actors, and the producers, directors, and screenwriters who form the core of the entertainment industry.

The measure got its start several years ago when actress Junie Hoang sued Amazon for revealing her true age on IMDb.

Hoang alleged that Amazon violated her privacy by accessing credit card data to learn that she was 40 and then added that information to her professional profile. 

Hoang said she looked younger than 40 but couldn't get as much work after her true age became known.

A jury ruled against Hoang, however, and an appeals court declined to reinstate her suit.

It's been just about a year since the Federal Communications commission (FCC) took up the issue of set-top boxes, and now it looks like the issue may be settled by the end of the month.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler today began circulating his "Unlock the Box" plan, publishing an abridged version as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times and posting the full version on the FCC's website.

In a nutshell, Wheeler proposes eliminating set-top boxes except for consumers who want to keep them. Everyone else would use a free app to watch pay-TV and streaming video on the device of their choice, such as Roku, Apple TV, Xbox One, PS4, smart TVs, or Windows, iOS, and Android devices. 

Cable companies and the entertainment industry have been lobbying the issue heavily, claiming that eliminating the boxes will open up new avenues for thieves to steal content, depriving content creators of their just desserts.

But Wheeler has held that protecting consumers and encouraging competition take precedence over industry interests. He argues that 99 percent of pay-TV subscribers currently rent set-top boxes because there aren’t meaningful alternatives.

"Few choices and high prices"

"Lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers – $231 in rental fees annually for the average American household. Altogether, U.S. consumers spend $20 billion a year to lease these devices," when they could be using free apps, Wheeler says in his plan.

"Apps will liberate consumers from set-top boxes: The new rules will require pay-TV providers to offer to consumers a free app, controlled by the pay-TV provider, to access all the programming they pay for on a variety of devices, including tablets, smartphones, gaming systems, streaming devices or smart TVs," Wheeler writes.

Consumers will still have to pay for pay-TV programs, but they'll be freed of paying for the set-top box. Wheeler and others argue that the use of free apps will also create a bigger market for content and innovation in device development.

"Pay-TV providers must provide their apps to widely deployed platforms, such as Roku, Apple iOS, Windows and Android. Doing so will spur competition in the marketplace to develop new competitive products like next-generation streaming devices, smart TVs and tablets," Wheeler contends.

"A win for consumers"

The proposed rule is expected to be voted on by the full commission before the end of September, setting the stage for a final few weeks of fervent lobbying by both sides.

Competition advocate Chip Pickering, CEO of the advocacy group INCOMPAS, called Wheeler's plan "a win for competition, consumers and innovators."

"Competition is the law, and we commend Chairman Wheeler and the FCC for standing up for consumers who want lower prices, more choice, and the freedom to discover new and exciting content streaming online, said Pickering. “The FCC has made the critical key choice for an open, not closed future. By presenting a balanced approach, which takes input from all sides of the debate, the FCC has come down on the side of the consumer, and the innovators of the future.

Although Wheeler's plan is seen as firmly pro-consumer, it is still something of a compromise from his initial vision. The cable industry lobbied for the provision that would allow consumers to keep their set-top boxes if they wanted, but otherwise the plan falls pretty squarely on the consumer side of the issue.

Some commissioners wanted to go a bit further. Republican Ajit Pai wanted to eliinate set-top boxes altogether. But Wheeler said in his op-ed that his plan adequately protects the cable and entertainment industries.

"To ensure that all copyright and licensing agreements will remain intact, the delivery of pay-TV programming will continue to be overseen by pay-TV providers from end-to-end. The proposed rules also maintain important protections regarding emergency alerting, accessibility and privacy," he said.

"This is a golden era for watching television and video. By empowering consumers to access their content on their terms, it’s about to get cheaper—and even better," Wheeler concluded.

Comcast is objecting to proposed rules that would outlaw the growing practice of charging broadband subscribers who don't agree to watch behaviorally targeted ads.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a rule that would do just that, but rather than protecting consumers, Comcast says it "would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings."

In a filing with the FCC, Comcast argues that, "a bargained-for exchange of information for service is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model throughout the U.S. economy, including the Internet ecosystem" and says it is "consistent with decades of legal precedent and policy goals related to consumer protection and privacy."

But FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler notes some crucial distinctions in the case of broadband advertising. In a July 11 letter to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), Wheeler observed that: "A consumer, once connected to broadband service, cannot simply avoid the network in the same manner as a consumer can instantaneously (and without penalty) switch search engines, surf among competing websites, and select among diverse applications."

Wheeler said consumers wanting to switch services would face charges including: "(1) early termination fees; (2) installation fees; (3) activation fees; and (4) the cost of new or replacement equipment (if owned equipment is not compatible with the new service)."

Wheeler noted that even if the consumer could afford those costs, many cities lack a competing broadband provider. 

"Devastating impact"

Privacy groups beg to differ. The non-profit advocacy organization Free Press says widespread adoption of the practice would have a "devastating impact on our most vulnerable populations."

"It could mean that only people with the necessary financial means could protect their privacy and prevent their ISPs from sharing their personal information with predatory online marketers," said Sandra Fulton, Free Press' government relations manager, in a blog posting.  

"Under pay-for-privacy models, consumers who are unable to pay the higher broadband cost will likely see their ISPs share their data with shadowy online data brokers who use this information to tailor marketing messages," Fulton said. "While unregulated and unaccountable data brokers are a threat to everyone’s privacy, they’re notorious for targeting low-income communities, people of color and other vulnerable demographics."

Senators object

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are supporting the FCC's proposed rule. In a letter to the FCC, the senators said, "Every click a consumer makes online paints a detailed picture of their personal and professional lives, and this sensitive information should be protected by strong privacy standards." 

"Not only is a pay-for-privacy standard counter to our nation's core principle that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, but it also may disproportionately harm low-income customers, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations," the senators wrote.

The NFL plays a couple of games each season in London, so why wouldn't British fans want to get in on the daily fantasy sports (DFS) action?

No doubt that's part of the reason behind DraftKings' announcement that it is launching games in the UK, where soccer and cricket matches may prove to be more popular draws than American football.

“DraftKings will bring a totally new experience for sports fans, offering players the opportunity to test their skill at fantasy contests with the immediacy of daily play,” Jason Robins, co-founder and CEO of DraftKings, said in a statement emailed to ConsumerAffairs. “Alongside our new partners Arsenal, Liverpool and Watford, our ambition is to bring players as close to the action as possible, with all the information they need to assemble the best teams.”

DraftKings says it anticipates the move will open up what it called “healthy competition” between players in North America and the UK. The company says the DraftKings FC site will give players access to all the research, strategy and news they need to assemble their line-up.

The company no doubt hopes UK government authorities are less litigious than in the states. Several state governments – most notably New York – have made moves to limit, license or outright ban the games, declaring them to be illegal gambling.

New York state's suit seeking to bar New Yorkers from from the games is awaiting a hearing by a state appeals court. The games continues to operate under a court-granted stay, meaning New Yorkers will be able play pending the court's ruling.

Usually, when you play a daily fantasy sports (DFS) through DraftKings and FanDuel, you either win or you don't.

But players from New York stand to recover the money they paid to play -- if New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman gets his way, anyway.

Schneiderman has amended his lawsuits against the two enterprises, which he has accused of violating New York state gambling laws, to include a demand for restitution. The suit now asks that FanDuel and DraftKings be required to produce an accounting of monies collected from consumers in New York playing any of its games in violation of the law.

Not only is Schneiderman asking the court to order the two companies to repay all entry fees to New York players, his suit seeks a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation.

The Wall Street Journal reports the sites took in a combined $200 million from 600,000 New York players last year. A judgment could potentially be staggering.

Investigation began in October

Schneiderman opened an investigation into DFS in October following reports of an employee at one of the companies profiting through the use of insider information. Not long afterward, Scheiderman issued a cease and desist order before going to court to have the two companies declared illegal gambling operations.

“DFS is a new business model for online gambling,” the suits allege. “The DFS sites themselves collect wagers (styled as 'fees'), set jackpot amounts, and directly profit from the betting on their platforms. DFS’ rules enable near-instant gratification to players, require no time commitment, and simplify game play, including by eliminating all long-term strategy."

Schneiderman's suit claims New Yorkers have been harmed by the games, especially those who have a gambling addiction.

A day after a New York judge refused a bid by Fanduel and DraftKings to slap a temporary restraining order on New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Schneiderman has gone to court against the two daily fantasy sports (DFS) enterprises.

Schneiderman is seeking a preliminary injunction against the two companies, which already face a cease and desist order the attorney general issued last week.

In the court filing, Schneiderman lays out his case that the two companies constitute illegal gambling under state law.

“Under New York law, a wager constitutes gambling when it depends on either a (1) 'future contingent event not under [the bettor’s] control or influence' or (2) 'contest of chance.' So-called Daily Fantasy Sports (“DFS”) wagers fit squarely in both these definitions,” Schneiderman wrote. “DFS is nothing more than a rebranding of sports betting. It is plainly illegal.”

Disputing the game of skill argument

Schneiderman went on to reject the two companies' argument that their games involve skill, not chance. He says chance plays just as much of a role, if not more, than it does in games like poker and blackjack.

“A few good players in a poker tournament may rise to the top based on their skill; but the game is still gambling,” Schneiderman declared. “So is DFS.”

Schneiderman goes on to charge both FanDuel and DraftKings are winking at the law, maintaining in public that they run games of skill, but privately evoking the profits of gambling to investors.

He says DraftKings has also embedded gambling keywords into the programming code for its website. Some of these keywords include “‘fantasy golf betting,’’ “weekly fantasy basketball betting,” ‘‘weekly fantasy hockey betting,” “weekly fantasy football betting,” “weekly fantasy college football betting,” “weekly fantasy college basketball betting,” “Fantasy College Football Betting,” “daily fantasy basketball betting,” and “Fantasy College Basketball Betting.” This increases the likelihood that search engines, like Google, will send users looking for gambling straight to the DraftKings site.

Nevada was first

New York is the second state to find that DFS amounts to gambling. In October, Nevada gaming officials reached the same conclusion.

In a memorandum, Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman A.G. Burnett said he asked the state attorney general's office and others to examine enterprises like DraftKings and FanDuel to determine if they were gambling operations.

“Based on these analyses, I, along with staff, have concluded that DFS constitutes gambling under Nevada law,” Burnett wrote. “More specifically, DFS meets the definition of a game, or gambling game pursuant to Chapter 463 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.”

Under current law, Burnett says, if you are going to operate such games – as DraftKings and FanDuel do – then you must be licensed.

The Nevada decision isn't nearly the problem for the two companies, however, that New York's action is. That's because a large percentage of players in both companies' games live in New York.

In light of the state attorney general's action, both companies have barred New Yorkers from playing until the matter runs its course in court, resulting in a significant drop in revenue.

Bundles aren't exactly a new thing. Cable TV providers often bundle TV, Internet, and telephone services.

But AT&T;claims to have broken new ground by bundling DirecTV and wireless services starting August 10. It can make that offer by virtue of its purchase of DirecTV, a merger that got regulatory approval only last week.

Consumers who sign up will be able to watch cable TV on their smartphones and tablets, not just at home.

AT&T; says the savings will be substantial. Customers will get HD and DVR service for up to four TV receivers, unlimited talk and text for four wireless lines, and 10GB of shareable wireless data for $200 per month. By AT&T;'s calculations, that's an annual savings of $600 or more in the first 12 months, but as a practical matter, it works out to a $10 a month discount for getting all the services on a single bill.

“We’re going to deliver more TV and entertainment choices to more screens – when and where our customers want it,” said AT&T; VP Brad Bentley. “And we’ll offer incredible value with more flexibility and convenience through our integrated packages that deliver a great experience.”

Immediate wireless access

Hoping to spur new subscriptions, AT&T; is offering new customers immediate access to DirecTV on their wireless devices as soon as they walk out of the store; customers won't even have to wait for the satellite receiver to be installed. That feature will be delivered through the DirecTV app, which can be downloaded and installed during the sales and activation process.

AT&T; said it is now offering DirecTV service in more than 2,000 AT&T; retail stores nationwide, built around different bundling packages. They include:

• DirecTV Select or U-verse U-Family, $50 per month
• DirecTV Xtra or U-verse U-200, $70
• DirecTV Ultimate or U-verse U-300, $75
• DirecTV Premiere or U-verse U-450, $125

Customers will be able to include AT&T;’s wireless services, with 10GB of shareable data and unlimited talk and text for four phone lines, for $160 per month. Add that to the basic TV plan for $50, with service on up to four TVs, AT&T; says consumers will pay $200 per month for the All-in-One plan after a $10 a month combined bill discount.

Part of the promotion is designed to entice defections from rival companies. AT&T; says DirecTV and U-Verse TV customers who switch to AT&T; wireless service from another wireless provider will get a $300 credit when they buy a smartphone on AT&T; Next and trade in an eligible smartphone.

Adding Internet service

Customers can add AT&T; high-speed Internet services and get price incentives as part of the “All-Included” plans. Introductory 12-month promotional pricing includes the wi-fi gateway with no monthly fees for equipment. Different pricing is available for three speed tiers, including:

• AT&T; high-speed Internet with speeds up to 6Mbps, $30 per month
• AT&T; high-speed Internet with speeds up to 24Mbps, $40 per month
• AT&T; high-speed Internet with speeds up to 45Mbps and 75Mbps, $50

With the completion of the merger and the new bundle offer, AT&T; says it is now the largest pay TV provider in the world, providing service to more than 55 million customers in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

More importantly, industry analysts say it's another step toward the convergence of old and new media, with consumers expecting to be able to “watch TV” on their wireless devices, and providers taking steps to make that happen.

The selfie phenomenon, which involves taking a self portrait with your smartphone camera, has spawned a product – the selfie stick.

The monopole allows a camera user to grip the device and hold it a further distance from his or her body, allowing for a more natural photograph. As annoying as some people think selfies are, these people tend to view selfie sticks with even more contempt.

Disney made news recently when it imposed a ban on selfie sticks at all its theme parks, apparently because their use posed risks to users and other guests. Eric Olson, assistant professor of event management at Iowa State University and former Disney employee, said Disney at first planned to only prohibit selfie sticks on specific thrill rides and attractions, but it has since announced a park-wide ban.

Quite a few incidents

“I was recently talking with some of my colleagues at Disney and there have been quite a few incidents where guests were pulling the selfie sticks out on attractions and rides,” Olson said. “I think a lot of families, as well as the cast and employees will be thankful for the decision. I do know attractions were being stopped if a guest pulled one out on a ride or attraction to take a photo. So it really caused an inconvenience for all guests.”

Olson said he and many consumers will be pleased with the ban. Not only that, he predicts that other theme parks and public venues will follow Disney's lead and ban the selfie stick.

But the popularity of the selfie stick suggests that there will be plenty of people who are not happy with the theme park's new policy. Olson says Disney is taking steps to communicate the change through its website, at its hotels, and at park entrances.

It's not a big deal, he says. The ban on selfie sticks is no different than the list of other items, such as coolers and lawn chairs, you can't bring into the park. Olson expects the response to be similar to a decision Disney made during his time there, to only allow smoking in designated areas.

“Initially, there was a little uproar, but I think it was just a matter of communicating the policy change and now it’s not an issue,” Olson said. “Initially, some guests will be upset, but long-term, as with any policy change, guests will accept it.”

Idea catching on

Olson thinks keeping selfie sticks out of public venues is a good idea and one that is catching on. On his recent rip to China he noticed the Shanghai Museum does not allow visitors to use selfie sticks either.

As for why everyone seems to feel the need to visually document their every move, Olson defers to his Iowa State colleague, Zlatan Krizan, an associate professor of psychology.

“The modern culture of self-promotion certainly fuels such use of selfies, with social media sites providing a sort of a competitive race to whose life is more interesting,” Krizan said.

But isn't that just a wee bit nascissistic? Krizan says it might indicate some narcissism, but that the standards for how we self-present have shifted, so that most selfie behavior is now considered normal.

“Taking a selfie, while flexing or wearing underwear, is more debatable,” he said.

Use of selfie sticks may not be as dangerous as using a chain saw, but plenty of users have mishaps. Time magazine reports a family in Massachusetts got pulled into a rip tide and nearly drowned this week while recording a video with a selfie stick.

Time, by the way, listed the selfie stick on its list of “25 Best Inventions of 2014.”

Satellite and cable TV providers could give Congress a run for its money in the public disdain department. Just about everything they do annoys consumers, putting the TV subscription and Internet service business a slot or two below airlines in the public estimation.  

DISH Network is certainly no exception. Consumers complain about everything from reliability to fees to contract terms to program selection. The signal fails when it rains (and even when it's sunny), they say. Fees are higher than expected and contracts seem to run forever.

And as for the channel line-ups, there've been several near-uprisings over the last year or so, when DISH booted channels from Fox, CNN and others in contract disputes. Some of the channels returned, some didn't.

But while we can all live without news and old movies, baseball is another matter. Fans who signed up for DISH and other providers often think they'll get to see all of their favorite team's schedule but it doesn't always work out that way.

Take Jay of Cartersville, Ga., a Braves fan. He filed this video review:

It's not just the Braves. Joel of Bangor, Pa., thought he'd get all the Pirates games but it didn't turn out that way.

"I switched from DirecTv to DISH Network as part of a package deal from my phone company. I asked and was told that there would be no problem getting Pittsburgh Pirate baseball," Joel said. "I was not able to get the games and was told they were blacked out. However, a neighbor down the road was able to get those games on DirecTv so they were not blacked out."

Joel switched back to DirecTV and now faces a $440 contract termination charge from DISH.

DISH is not alone, of course. All the TV subscription services generate similar complaints. Take Comcast, for example. 

"I have 'basic cable.' I used to get the Red Sox baseball games and the local news on basic cable," said Richard of Groveland, Mass. "Xfinity changed that so all I get with 'basic cable' is a bunch of Spanish channels, two Boston channels, and a bunch of PBS stations. I can no longer get Red Sox baseball or the New England Patriots football."

The only way to avoid situations like this is to read the contract very carefully before signing it, while ignoring whatever the salesperson is telling you. In most cases, cable and satellite companies have the option to add and drop channels as they see fit. And sometimes, upstream changes in licensing leave them no choice. 

Mickey is acting Goofy since he got his raise. Disney theme parks have hit the $100 mark to be able to stay and play with all your Disney friends.

A one-day ticket to the Walt Disney World Resort's flagship theme park, the Magic Kingdom, now costs $105, up from $99. They just had a $4 increase last year. The price of admission applies to anyone 10 years and older entering the Orlando-area theme park. Younger children, aged 3 to 9, pay $99.

Prices also increased for the other Disney World theme parks -- EPCOT, the Animal Kingdom Park and Hollywood Studios -- to $97 for visitors aged 10 and older, compared to $94 last year.

An adult one-day ticket to Disneyland or Disney California Adventure will rise from $96 to $99. A one-day park hopper add-on will increase from $54 to $56.

Tickets for children ages 3 to 9 will climb from $90 to $93. A price for a Premium annual pass with parking and no blackout dates will go up 11 percent, from $699 to $779.

Cutting corners

It's not easy for a family to afford a vacation like this. There are some ways to cut corners though when visiting.

The best route is to avoid single park tickets altogether and buy a "Park Hopper" instead. A "Park Hopper" allows you to hop from one Disney park to another in a single day, and it's only an additional $50 per person

Decide where you are going to stay -- at one of the Disney hotels or off-site.

Disney hotels are crazy expensive and just because you can get a wakeup call from Mickey or Snow White you need to think if that is really worth it. On the other hand having to pay for parking at $15 a shot and lug a stroller around can also be enough to wear you out before you get there.

Food at a theme park is overpriced. Pack a lunch and agree with your kids that they can buy one treat. You can easily save $100 a day by bringing your own food and drinks. You can get lockers if you don’t want to carry around your items -- or swing a backpack over your shoulder and save the extra walking to go back to the locker.

Everyone wants a souvenir but if your kids are young enough that you can get by with it, buy them ahead at Walmart -- they are so much cheaper and what a surprise you can give them when you get back to the room and Donald Duck is in your suitcase.

Buy things on sale at the Disney Store ahead of time and have them sent directly to your hotel. Imagine the surprise when it comes right to your door. Yes this requires planning but you will save money and make your kids happy and what is the goal

There are several free apps that you can download to keep track of the wait times for rides. If you stay at a Disney Hotel you can get into the park an hour early. That hour goes crazy fast (and note there are big lines at the hotel too so don’t leave your room at the last second or you might miss part of your hour.)

Would you like to have this site at your fingertips while you’re at Disneyland? Accessing MouseSavers.com on a smartphone (iPhone, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry, etc.) makes it convenient to look up tips and tricks, check on dining discounts, see what events are happening during your stay, and lots more.

Although this costs nothing remember to have fun.

You may not win Park Place but you could be lucky and win about $23,000. If you live in France.

It's Monopoly's 80th anniversary and to commemorate, Hasbro is issuing a handful of special sets in France with real euros in place of the usual colorful paper money.

There will be 80 special sets; 69 will be complete with five 10-euro notes and five 20-euro notes, another 10 will come with five 20-euro, two 50-euro and one 100-euro bills, and one set will be all cash. That comes out to  20,580 euros -- or about $23,650 in American money.

I know the big question is whether we will see the same limited edition here in the States. Mum is the word on that and Hasbro hasn't pulled a Chance card yet for the U.S.

The 80th anniversary edition is out in the U.S. It has  a vintage-styled board, cards and money, wooden houses and hotels along with classic tokens from across the decades such as the lantern and money bag. No real money though.

Monopoly editions come in a variety of versions from a make-your-own game board, which allows you to customize all the game equipment and rules to your liking, to San Francisco jeweler Sidney Mobell who has the most expensive Monopoly set, a $2 million game with a golden board and diamond-studded dice.

Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.

Some stats on Monopoly from Hasbro:

• More than 275 million sets have been sold worldwide.
• Monopoly is available in 111 countries in 43 languages.
• The longest game on record lasted for 70 days. That was on terra firma; Monopoly has also been played underwater and in a treehouse.
• There are 32 houses and 12 hotels in a standard Monopoly set.
• A Monopoly board has 40 spaces, including 28 properties. Yes, that includes the railroads.
• The lowest rent in Monopoly? Mediterranean Avenue with no houses.  It'll cost you $2 to land on it. The most expensive? Boardwalk with a hotel, worth a cool $2,000. Wouldn't it be nice to be a hotel at that bargain price.
• In 2008, more than 3,000 people played the game at the same time, a record.

Dish Network has been taking lots of heat lately for its licensing battles with CNN and Fox News but what has left consumers steaming for years are annoying and seemingly endless calls from telemarketers.

The CNN and Fox tussles have been settled but the phone calls may be a bigger problem. A federal court in Illinois has found Dish liable for tens of millions of calls that violated the Federal Trade Commission’s telemarketing rules.

Cindy of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was one of the millions of consumers annoyed by Dish's calls.

"I received numerous phone calls from Dish Network from telemarketers from a 208 area code. The reps were rude and threatening and ran up excessive charges on my cell phone despite blocks that were added," she said in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs. "I incurred a $139 vs. $49 phone 1 month and $89 vs. $49 the 2nd month before they called."

"Today I was at my parents and the phone rang, I answered it and it was a telemarketer trying to sell Dish Network," Patrick of Beaverton, Mich., said in a similar complaint. "I explained I was not interested and hung up. The phone rang every time I had it hung up for over an hour."

The FTC’s complaint alleged that Dish and its agents made telephone calls to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. Other charges are still pending and will be resolved at trial later this year.

Millions and millions

In the current ruling, the court found Dish liable for 4,094,099 calls it or its vendors made to numbers on the Registry and for 2,730,842 calls its retailers made to numbers on the Registry.

The complaint also alleges that Dish made calls to people who had previously said that they did not wish to receive such calls. On this count, the court ruled that Dish is liable for 1,043,595 calls to consumers whose telephone numbers were on Dish’s internal do-not-call list or were marked “DNC” by Dish’s telemarketing vendor.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Dish and its agents abandoned calls, in violation of the “abandoned-call” provision of the FTC's telemarketing rules. On this count the court ruled that Dish is liable for 49,738,073 abandoned calls that Dish and three of its retailers made. The court found that Dish is liable for both its own calls, and for causing these retailers’ abandoned calls.

Dish Network may have saved a few dollars in its contract tussle with Fox but it has rebranded itself as Satan in the minds of many loyal Fox fans.

"I called and told them that if they lost Fox News I would leave...They did and I did!!!" said an angry Fox follower named Wayne in one of many angry reviews and emails submitted over the last few weeks. 

"Dish has violated my contract," said a viewer who signed herself Mary Mary. "When I joined Dish you offered Fox News. Since you no longer supply what I signed up for i no longer have to pay you. I will not pay until Fox News is back."

Not to be contrary, but Mary Mary should check her contract, as should anyone else who tried to dump out of their Dish agreement. There are numerous clauses that hold Dish harmless if any of its suppliers (i.e., program producers) can't or won't deliver the goods. 

What Wayne and many others missed was that the dispute was not political -- after all, Dish had a similar falling out with CNN just a few weeks earlier -- but just another in a seemingly endless series of disputes over licensing fees.

After all, while Fox, MSNBC, CNN, et al, may seem like political organizations to their viewers, the truth is that they and their distributors, like Dish, are in it for the bucks and both parties are trying to maximize their return. It's like the coffee bean farmers who sell their produce to Starbucks, although the networks are in a stronger position than your average coffee bean farmer.

News is a lot like coffee, actually. You have to keep brewing up a fresh batch or it gets stale and bitter. 

So despite the turmoil among a healthy number of its 14 million subscribers, Dish Network is now back on track, Fox is back on the satellite and all is right with the world for at least the next three years, which is how long the companies' new contract extends.

Besides Fox News, the new deal covers Fox Business as well.

“We thank the viewers of Fox News and Fox Business and Dish customers for their patience throughout this process,” the companies said in a joint statement.

Gee, thanks guys. Feel free to hold us hostage anytime. 

While Dish Network is locked in its latest licensing fight -- this time with Fox -- competitor DirecTV is launching Yaveo, a new streaming video service for Hispanic consumers.

It's an Internet-only subscription video service that promises access to thousands of hours of movies, TV shows and sports, all for $7.99 a month. No DirecTV subscription is needed and there is no contract; the service is month-to-month, with the first month free. It's available only in the U.S.

“Yaveo gets DIRECTV into the OTT (over-the-top) business and we’re excited to start with a compelling Spanish-language service targeted to the Hispanic community,” said Paul Guyardo, chief revenue and marketing officer. “We’ll learn a great deal, use the findings to grow and improve the Yaveo platform and expand our OTT offering over time.”

The Yaveo linep includes Univision telenovela “La Malquerida;” “All the Pretty Horses” with Matt Damon and Penélope Cruz; Roberto Rodriguez’s 1995 “Desperado,” starring Antonio Banderas; and “Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” starring Kevin James.

Program sources include:

beIN Sports en Español
Nick en Español
Canal 22
Pasiones
Canal Once
RCN
Caracol
TMN (The Movie Network)
Cine Sony Television
Tr3s
El Garage
Univision suite of networks
¡Hola!TV
Video Rola
MTV

Dish has been in the news lately for dropping, then reinstating, CNN and CBS stations in licensing disputes. Now it's adding something -- Netflix, the most popular and widely-watched streaming network.

Netflix will be available on Dish's second-generation Hopper box, rolling out today. That gives customers the ability to instantly stream Netflix movies and TV shows, including "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black," from the same platform used to access their linear television channels.

"This app integration eliminates the need to switch television inputs to access content on varying devices. It gives our customers easy access to their favorite shows and movies, on both DISH and Netflix, without ever having to leave their Hopper," said Vivek Khemka, Dish senior vice president of product management.

Hopper customers will find the same Netflix user interface found on most other platforms. The app is easily accessible from any channel by clicking the blue button on the Dish remote and selecting the Netflix icon, or from the Netflix icon on the Hopper main menu. 

The Netflix app is currently available on all broadband-connected second-generation Hopper set-top boxes. In the coming months, DISH expects the app to rollout to Joey, Super Joey and Wireless Joey clients.

Additionally, in the future, titles available on Netflix could be integrated into the search functionality across live, recorded and Video On Demand programs for both the Hopper as well as DISH's forthcoming OTT service.

Sony has agreed to cough up partial refunds for consumers who bought the PlayStation Vita handheld gaming console during its U.S. launch campaign in late 2011 and early 2012, after the Federal Trade Commission charged that it deceived consumers with false advertising claims about the “game changing” technological features of the handheld gaming console.

Sony will provide consumers who bought a PS Vita gaming console before June 1, 2012, either a $25 cash or credit refund, or a $50 merchandise voucher for select video games and services. Sony will provide notice via email to consumers who are eligible for redress after the settlement is finalized by the Commission.

“As we enter the year’s biggest shopping period, companies need to be reminded that if they make product promises to consumers -- as Sony did with the “game changing” features of its PS Vita -- they must deliver on those pledges,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not hesitate to act on behalf of consumers when companies or advertisers make false product claims.”

As part of its launch campaign for the PS Vita, Sony claimed that the pocket-sized console would revolutionize gaming mobility by enabling consumers to play their PlayStation 3 games via “remote play,” and that they could engage in “cross platform” play by starting a game on a PS3 and then continuing it on the go, right where they left off, on a PS Vita. The FTC alleges that each of these claims was misleading.

Misleading claims

In a related action, the Commission charged that Deutsch LA, Sony’s advertising agency for the PS Vita launch, knew or should have known that the advertisements it produced contained misleading claims about the console’s cross platform and 3G capabilities.

The FTC also alleges that Deutsch LA further misled consumers by urging its employees to create awareness and excitement about the PS Vita on Twitter, without instructing employees to disclose their connection to the advertising agency or its then-client Sony. Under a separate settlement order, Deutsch LA is barred from such conduct in the future.

The PS Vita is a handheld gaming console that Sony first sold in the United States in February 2012 for about $250. Unlike the PS3, which allows consumers to play video games on a television, the PS Vita is a portable device that enables gamers to play “on the go,” untethered to a television screen.

The FTC said Sony made false claims about the PS Vita’s “cross platform gaming” or “cross-save” feature. Sony claimed, for example, that PS Vita users could pause any PS3 game at any time and continue to play the game on their PS Vita from where they left off. This feature, however, was only available for a few PS3 games, and the pause-and-save capability described in the ads varied significantly from game to game.

The FTC’s complaint also alleges that Sony’s PS Vita ads falsely implied that consumers who owned the 3G version of the device (which cost an extra $50 plus monthly fees) could engage in live, multi-player gaming through a 3G network. In fact, consumers could not engage in live, multiplayer gaming.

Would you lather yourself up in pig's blood, hoping to persuade an anaconda to swallow you and regurgitate you? I can think of things I would rather do but there is always that one person who wants to be the first.

Of course it's happening on TV. The Discovery Channel's "Eaten Alive" show, which claims it will show a man being eaten alive by an anaconda, will not only torment the snake. It is also getting under PETA's skin.

"Anacondas go days without eating and expend the energy needed to do so selectively. Making this snake use up energy by swallowing this fool and then possibly regurgitating him would have left the poor animal exhausted and deprived of the energy that he or she needs," the animal rights group said in a statement.

Paul Rosolie who is an author, environmentalist and -- you guessed it -- wildlife filmmaker is the planned snake snack. Rosolie will be wearing a tether that can pull him back out should he go too deep, along with a custom-built snake suit. (Custom built because this is just not the type of outfit one can pick up at Target.)

He will lather himself up with pig's blood so he becomes enticing for this huge powerful snake. An adult anaconda can weigh up to 550 pounds and grow to be 29 feet long.

And although Rosolie sent a message on Twitter on Nov. 4 saying he would "never hurt a living thing," he's not very popular with animal lovers right at the moment.

Around 20,000 people have already signed a petition on Change.org saying they will boycott the show and calling on Discovery to cancel its scheduled Dec. 7 airing.

A few days ago, the news was Dish Network dumping CNN. Now it's DirecTV possibly putting a stake through the heart of "The Walking Dead," "Mad Men" and other popular AMC shows.

AMC says its contract with DirecTV has expired and it says the satellite channel “has not engaged in meaningful negotiations with us, which leaves us to doubt whether a timely renewal is possible."

But DirecTV says not to worry, promising that the risen dead series will live on for the rest of the season, saying that it intends to "renew our AMC partnership at a price that’s fair to our customers."

Translation: Both parties are playing hardball seeking the best deal they can get while preparing to shift the blame to the other party if negotiations fail.

"Great respect"

It's still fairly early in the process so both sides are trying to stay positive. AMC says it has "great respect" for DirecTV, which in turn is assuring its subscribers that it has their best interests in mind.

"You come first," says DirecTVPromise.com, a website where the network puts its spin on contract talks. "DirecTV is committed to bringing you the best TV experience at the most reasonable value."

For its part, AMC has been inserting adroit advisories in its popular shows and using its website to urge fans to contact DirecTV.

"You are at risk of losing AMC and your favorite series, including 'The Walking Dead,' 'Mad Men,' 'Better Call Saul' and much more," the AMC site claims.

But zombie enthusiasts should be able to rest in peace for the next few months. The current contract runs through the end of the calendar year and "Dead" is scheduled to take a mid-season break in Novembrr, resuming in February.

Industry watchers say that DirecTV is trying to avoid unnecessary controversy while the Federal Communications Commission and other regulators consider whether to give the go-ahead to its purchase by AT&T.

Of all the bad-customer-service stories Comcast customers might have, none is likely to top that of former customer Conal O'Rourke, also a former employee of the accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which, incidentally, does a lot of business with Comcast).

Last Thursday, O'Rourke filed suit against Comcast, alleging among other things that the cable giant violated federal privacy law when, presumably in retaliation for O'Rourke's complaints of bad customer service, someone at Comcast contacted O'Rourke's employer and had him fired.

The Consumerist first broke the story of O'Rourke's firing on Oct. 6, after he'd contacted them with his initial complaint: in early 2013, he said, he signed up with Comcast to take advantage of a nine-month promotional offer.

Problems from the start

But he had problems from the start: Comcast charged him for set-up boxes not yet activated, and misspelled his name on mailings so that some of his bills went undelivered. When the promotional period ended Comcast upped his monthly bill by $20, continued charging him for the still-unactivated set-up boxes, and also charged him for modems he never received.

When O'Rourke tried canceling his Comcast service in Oct. 2013, a Comcast rep talked him out of it by assuring him that his billing issues would be resolved shortly, and offered him free DVR service and a free three-month subscription to The Movie Channel as compensation for his troubles.

He accepted. Then things got worse. Comcast sent him a dozen pieces of equipment – DVRs, modems and things he didn't recognize – and billed him $1,800 for it all. O'Rourke disputed these charges, frequently contacting the company and sending them detailed spreadsheets he'd made showing all the errors in his bills.

It didn't help. Last February, Comcast sent O'Rourke's bill to collections even though it was not yet past due. So on Feb. 6, thoroughly fed up with Comcast's regular customer service, he went over their heads and contacted the office of the company Controller. And here's what happened next, according to the Consumerist:

He spoke to someone in that office who promised Conal would receive a call back to address the issues.

He describes that callback as “bizarre,” with the rep not identifying which company she was calling from, just starting out with “How can I help you?” Then she kept insisting that a technician had shown up for an appointment, but wouldn’t specify which appointment. The rep then began asking him for the color of his house.

So he tried the Controller’s office again, to let them know that the rep they’d sent his way had failed miserably at her job.

During this call, he says that he mentioned that Comcast’s billing and accounting issues should probably be investigated by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), a private-sector oversight operation. This ultimately led to two service calls where no one ever showed up and no explanations were given.

As a professional accountant who at the time worked for PriceWaterhouseCoopers, of course O'Rourke knew about the PCAOB, whereas your average non-accountant Comcast customer probably would not.

Ethics investigation

Some time after that call, somebody at Comcast contacted PriceWaterhouseCoopers to complain about O'Rourke, who was soon fired after an “ethics” investigation even though he'd previously received excellent reviews at his job.

In a prepared statement, PwC said: "Mr. O’Rourke was employed in one of our internal firm services offices. The firm terminated his employment after an internal investigation concluded that Mr. O’Rourke violated PwC’s ethical standards and practices, applicable to all of our people. The firm has explicit policies regarding employee conduct, we train our people in those policies, and we enforce them. Mr. O’Rourke’s violation of these policies was the sole reason for his termination." 

Comcast and O'Rourke tell slightly different versions of what happened when O'Rourke called the Controller's office; Comcast says he name-dropped his employer, whereas O'Rourke maintains he never said who he worked for, but figured that after the call, someone at Comcast looked him up online and figured out who he worked for.

Comcast has not yet released the recordings of the disputed phone call.

That was the story as of Oct. 6. Two days later, Comcast executive Charlie Herrin, whose full title is given as “Senior Vice President, Customer Experience, Comcast Cable in Customer Experience” on the Comcast corporate blog, posted “A Public Apology To Conal O'Rourke,” in which he apologized for the poor customer service and billing errors O'Rourke suffered, but denied any role in O'Rourke's loss of employment:

What happened with Mr. O’Rourke's service is completely unacceptable. Despite our attempts to address Mr. O’Rourke’s issues, we simply dropped the ball and did not make things right. Mr. O’Rourke deserves another apology from us and we’re making this one publicly. We also want to clarify that nobody at Comcast asked for him to be fired.

Then, last Thursday, O'Rourke's lawyers filed suit (available here in .pdf form) against Comcast the corporation, Lawrence Salva the individual (who also works as Comcast Controller), and unnamed “Does [as in John and Jane] 1-20,” certain Comcast employees whose names and identities O'Rourke and his attorneys do not yet know.

$30 million a year

Remember when O'Rourke called the Controller's office and suggested that the company deserved to be investigated by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board? The lawsuit says that this is what happened next:

Within an hour after this second call, Mr. Salva personally called Joe Atkinson, a principal at Mr. O'Rourke's employer, PWC. Because Comcast pays more than $30 million a year to PWC for consulting services, Mr. Atkinson took the call. Salva demanded that Mr. O'Rourke be fired from PWC, falsely claiming that Mr. O'Rourke had violated accounting ethics standards by using PWC's name as 'leverage' in his 'negotiations' with Comcast.

The lawsuit also describes what happened the day O'Rourke got fired:

"Less than an hour after Mr. O'Rourke's second call with Comcast's Controller's office, Mr. O'Rourke received a call from Mr. Atkinson. Mr. O'Rourke was shocked to receive the call -- he had never before had occasion to deal with Mr. Atkinson. An angry Atkinson informed Mr. O'Rourke that he had received a call from Comcast's Controller about Mr. O'Rourke. Mr. Atkinson told Mr. O'Rourke that the client was very angry, very valuable, was in fact the Philadelphia office's largest client with billings exceeding $30 million per year, and that Mr. O'Rourke was not to speak with anyone from Comcast."

The suit charges Comcast and the other defendants of defamation, breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practice, and violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act for disclosing information about him to his employer without his permission.

The Communications Act is very strict regarding ISPs and cable companies, who by the nature of their business know a lot about you (including your TV-viewing and web-surfing habits), and so the confidentiality of the information they have is protected by federal law. It would be illegal for Comcast even to reveal the seemingly harmless information that he was a Comcast customer with complaints about his service without O'Rourke's prior consent, let alone call his employer to either reveal specifics or make false claims about anything O'Rourke the Comcast customer might have said during a Comcast customer service call.

O'Rourke has, though his lawyers, repeatedly asked Comcast and PriceWaterhouseCoopers to release their recordings of the disputed phone calls and conversations. So far, neither company has done so.

Years ago, we fidgeted through a speech by a network news executive who was appalled by the "river of video" that had been loosed on the world. He was referring only to closed-circuit feeds of video from newly-independent news producers. 

Think how he must be feeling today as one network after another puts its precious programming out on the Internet, making it available to anyone -- even those without a cable subscription.

Just yesterday, it was HBO that announced it would go "over the top," as they say in the business. Loosely translated, that means going around (or over) cable and broadcast stations to distribute programming directly to consumers.

If HBO's decision was an unkind cut at cable systems, the CBS move announced today is a club on the head for both local television affiliates and cable systems. 

$5.99 a month

"CBS All Access," as it's been dubbed, is available for $5.99 per month beginning today at CBS.com and on mobile devices through the CBS App for iOS and Android. 

“CBS All Access is another key step in the Company’s long-standing strategy of monetizing our local and national content in the ways that viewers want it,” said Leslie Moonves, President and CEO, CBS Corporation.

All Access offers current seasons of 15 primetime shows with episodes available the day after they air, live streams of local CBS stations in 14 of the largest markets and past seasons of many popular series.

What it doesn't include, at least for now, is NFL Football, although Moonves said that may change.

CBS is also said to be developing a live streaming news feed that may begin to air as early as Oct. 28, according to industry sources -- potentially dealing a major blow to CNN and other cable news channels that are already struggling with moribund ratings and aging audiences. 

To sign up for CBS All Access, visit: http://www.cbs.com/allaccess

The Federal Communications Commission today voted unanimously to end its 40-year-old Sports Blackout Rule, a vestige of the days when many pro teams were struggling to fill stadiums and television signals were still a rare commodity.

Under the rule, whenever a sports league ordered a local broadcaster not to televise a game due to unsold tickets, the local cable, satellite, and other video distributors could not televise the game either. The National Football League, along with the National Association of Broadcasters and the NFL Players Association, strongly opposed efforts to end the rule,  arguing that to do so would jeopardize pro football on "free" TV, meaning over-the-air broadcasts.

“This is a historic day for sports fans,” said David Goodfriend, Chairman of Sports Fans Coalition. “Since 1975, the federal government has propped up the NFL’s obnoxious practice of blacking out a game from local TV if the stadium did not sell out. Today’s FCC action makes clear: if leagues want to mistreat fans, they will have to do so without Uncle Sam’s help.”

“Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much these days, but when it comes to getting government out of the business of mistreating sports fans, we are in total agreement,” said Brad Blakeman, Sports Fans Coalition Board Member. “The era of government writing a blank check to sports leagues is over.”

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler had made no secret of his stance. “Clearly, the NFL no longer needs the government’s help to remain viable,” he said earlier this month.

“To hear the NFL describe it, you would think that putting a game on CBS, NBC or Fox was a money-losing proposition instead of a highly profitable multibillion-dollar business,” he wrote in an op-ed in USA Today. “If the league truly has the best interest of millions of American fans at heart, they could simply commit to staying on network television in perpetuity.”

"With the NFL’s incredible popularity, it’s not surprising that last year the League made $10 billion in revenue and only two games were blacked-out," he added.

“The FCC did the right thing today by removing this antiquated rule, which is no longer justified by facts or simple logic," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a longtime critic of the rule. "Even as the NFL made millions upon millions of dollars off of broadcasting rights, they continued as recently as this season to threaten fans with unnecessary blackout restrictions. Today the FCC officially threw a flag on the NFL’s anti-fan blackout policy.”

Blumenthal, along with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) has introduced the Furthering Access and Networks for Sports (FANS) Act of 2013– complementary legislation that would remove the NFL’s antitrust exemptions, unless the league ends its practice of requiring broadcasters to blackout games that don’t sell out.

More to come 

The Sports Fans Coalition said it intends to keep the momentum going after today’s FCC action, specifically by pursuing the following initiatives:

1. Eliminating sports leagues’ anti-trust exemption for imposing local blackouts;

2. Enacting the FANS Act; 

3. Conditioning taxpayer funding of professional sports arenas on direct benefits for fans, including free tickets for certain categories of veterans and school children, or in the alternative eliminating such public funding altogether; and

4. Working with domestic violence prevention professionals to help make professional sports something parents can once again proudly share with their children.

“American sports fans love their home teams, love the games, and will fight to make sure that government policies uphold the best that sports have to offer,” said Goodfriend.

Who wouldn't want to be taken over by AT&T for $48.5 billion? Not the shareholders of DirecTV, 99% of whom have voted to approve the takeover, which would strengthen AT&T's hand by giving it a nationwide TV service to add to its bundle.

What it does for consumers isn't quite as clear but AT&T has been promoting it as particularly beneficial for rural dwellers. An AT&T executive said recently that it would use DirecTV's satellite to deliver broadband speeds of 15 megabits per second or better in rural areas. 

AT&T has technology “ready to go” by late 2015 to deliver high-speed wireless Internet service that’s faster than LTE, because it is delivered via a dedicated swath of spectrum, said Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T's mobility division, at a conference earlier this month.

Although AT&T's Uverse delivers cable and broadband service, it's only available in some markets. By combining its wireless, landline and satellite capacity post-merger, the telecom giant could offer a complete package of broadband, wireless and TV service nationwide. 

Hurdles remain

The deal still requires approval by the Federal Communications Commission, the Justice Department and possibly other agencies and, although opposition has not been as strident as in the proposed Comcast-Time Warner merger, it is far from a certainty.

A group of state attorneys general was formed recently to look into the deal as well. The top state legal officers said they were also investigating the Comcast/Time Warner deal. 

Consumer groups tend to hate both deals, saying they amount to nothing more than consolidation that will limit consumer choice and drive up prices. 

“For the amount of money and debt AT&T and Comcast are collectively shelling out for their respective mega-deals, they could deploy super-fast, gigabit-fiber broadband service to every single home in America,” Free Press president Craig Aaron said recently. 

“But these companies don’t care about providing better services or even connecting more Americans. It’s about eliminating the last shred of competition in a communications sector that’s already dominated by too few players,” Aaron said.

Consumers are probably cheering the news last week that Verizon, rather than trying to stop the revolution, is actually trying to lead it.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam revealed his company is preparing a 2015 roll-out of a customizable TV service delivered to digital devices. As McAdam pointed out, the channels would have to be offered a la carte because who, he asked rhetorically, wants 300 channels on their smartphone?

Who indeed? But what McAdam sees as logical – and many consumers would heartily agree – is in fact revolutionary, because that is definitely not how cable TV is packaged and sold. It would appear to open the door to changing the way television services are marketed.

If a consumer can customize their TV service on their phone, they are soon going to ask why can't they customize it in their living room.

Music industry lesson

The music industry has already been down this road. For decades artists released albums of perhaps 12 songs. Consumers might purchase the album because they liked 2 or 3 of them. To get those songs, however, they had to purchase the complete album.

Digital music services like iTunes changed all that. Individual songs can be downloaded for 99 cents. That's great for consumers but has not been so great for artists or music companies.

Just since the introduction of iTunes in 2003, music sales in the U.S. have dropped sharply. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, inflation-adjusted sales revenue fell more than $4.5 billion over a 10 year period.

At the same time, more people were buying music. They just weren't buying as much of it, for as much money. If the music industry had it to do over, it would probably try a different approach to digital.

Protecting the status quo

Content providers can be expected to be leery of any changes to the status quo, especially if these changes may systematically alter revenue models. Netflix learned this the hard way a few years ago.

In 2