As far as I can tell (and a federal judge agrees), Venu, the sports streaming outlet co-owned by Disney Grooming Syndicate, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Fox, is nothing more than a monopoly attempting to replicate streaming godless cable and satellite television (CSTV) bundles to serve as an affirmative action measure against greedy left-wing multinational entertainment corporations.
This “bundling” fraud is the most serious part of this lawsuit. Yet in its reporting, many corporate media outlets failed to understand or downplayed this. But this is the real objective here: Disney, WBD and Fox want to use Venu to force providers, including streaming providers, to distribute and pay for their bundles (and force them to bundle). you We have to pay for CNN, Disney Channel, and other shitty networks that no one watches.
A little background…
Here, the three giants have combined their corrupted superpowers to offer Venu for $42.99 per month. With this integration, Venu offers the following services:
[G]Enjoy NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, WNBA, NASCAR and college sports, as well as golf, tennis, soccer and more. In addition to the games, you’ll also enjoy studio shows, pre- and post-game programming, and documentaries from ESPN’s 30 for 30 library, ESPN Films and Fox Sports Films.
Additionally, the network will carry live sports programming from 14 other networks, including ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network, ACC Network, ESPNEWS, ABC, FOX, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, Big Ten Network, TNT, TBS and truTV, as well as ESPN’s streaming service, ESPN+.
Who could resist that?
Imagine if all your local grocery stores merged with Walmart or Costco into one chain. Do you think grocery prices would go up or down? Of course they would. Without competition, you’d pay $9 for a gallon of milk.
Imagine if all but one of the oil companies in America merged to form a big chain of gas stations. Do you think gas prices would go up or down? Of course they would. Without competition, you’d pay $14 a gallon of gas.
That’s exactly what Disney, Fox and WBD are trying to do. They claim that once they have effectively monopolized the live sports market with their introductory price of $42.99, they won’t unfairly raise prices. We know that’s a lie. How do we know? Because these same fascist companies have been unfairly raising prices on CSTV for decades. Heck, their own streaming services keep raising prices. That $42.99 will last as long as tears in the rain, and will continue until FuboTV goes bankrupt. Then Venu will have even more of a monopoly on the live sports market.
And it was FuboTV that filed an antitrust lawsuit against Disney, WBD and Fox in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and won the injunction.
For those of you who don’t know, FuboTV is a streaming service that launched in 2015 and specializes in providing live sports programming. In my area, Fubo’s cheapest plan costs $79.99 per month and offers 191 channels, meaning that the $42.99 Venu plan blows Fubo away. Here’s the whole idea:
Judge Margaret Garnett Verdict from FuboTV Inc., et al. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al. [emphasis added throughout]:
For live sports programming,[oint] Five[enture] defendant [i.e., Disney, WBD, Fox] Rule. Together, They own more than 60% of the rights to nationally broadcast live sports and an even larger share of the rights to the most-watched sports, such as football and basketball, and the most-watched events, such as playoffs and championship games. Thus, like all other television distribution companies, Fubo must enter into agreements with one or more JV Defendants if it wishes to offer even the most basic live sports content to its customers. [Emphasis added]
So let’s think about what this is really about: Disney, WBD and Fox can salvage the cable TV bundling scam that keeps networks that no one watches perpetuating a near monopoly on live sports programming that many consumers want by moving to streaming.
However, Fubo alleges that its original goal of offering a streaming service focused on live sports was hindered or thwarted by restrictive terms in its contracts with television programming networks, including the joint defendants. The allegations are that the contracts force Fubo to broadcast (and pay for) unnecessary non-sports networks that customers rarely watch as a condition of securing the rights to broadcast essential sports channels.In the pay-TV industry, this practice is “bundle”. …These bundling practices have effectively transformed Fubo into the exact opposite of what it was originally conceived to be: a “bloated” channel bundle no different to any other multi-channel TV distributor, with little choice but to charge exorbitant fees to customers in order to survive and cover licensing costs. Fubo filed this antitrust lawsuit after it was announced that the joint venture would provide consumers with the first “unbundled” sports-centric, multi-channel streaming service, something Fubo (and others in the market) have long sought to do, seeking a temporary injunction to block its launch. [Emphasis added]
In other words, if a streaming service like Fubo (or any other provider) wanted to offer sports programming that Venu licenses (and Venu owns most of it), it would be forced to air “unwanted non-sports networks that customers rarely watch,” like CNN or the Disney Grooming Channel.
As we all know, since 2015, about 30 million households have canceled cable TV. This has cost these entertainment companies billions of dollars in lost service fees. About 6 million households are expected to cancel this year. With everyone moving to streaming, these entertainment companies want to rebuild their bundles with streaming. The best way to do that is by leveraging the power of live sports programming.
more:
For example, in a hypothetical contract between Fubo and Disney, a minimum penetration requirement for Nat Geo Wild (a Disney-owned entertainment channel) of 85% means that Fubo is contractually obligated to deliver the Nat Geo Wild channel to 85% of all Fubo subscribers. Pay Nat Geo Wild affiliate fees regardless of how many subscribers actually watch your channelProgrammers can also request to bundle their channels with those of their competitors. For example, Distributors must include a minimum number of other children’s entertainment channels in any package that includes Cartoon Network. Or provide that if a distributor offers a package that includes other children’s entertainment channels, that package must also include Cartoon Network. [Emphasis added]
…
And because of their market power and the apparent value of their products, the JV Defendants have significant leverage in transportation negotiations with distributors. Not only can they command high licensing fees for their sports content, Secure favorable distribution and contract terms for non-sports networks. [Emphasis added]
In other words, if Fubo or any other streamer wanted the rights to air live sports programming licensed to Disney, WBD, or Fox, they could be forced to provide, pay for, and force their streaming customers to pay for networks like NatGeo and Cartoon Network, even though Fubo would like to keep costs down as a sports-only streamer… No one is watching those networks – that’s the affirmative action I’m talking about… That’s why CSTV prices are so prohibitively expensive.
This federal judge understands that.
Venu is truly a monopoly, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, forcing streaming companies to recreate the horrors of CSTV bundles, where you and I have to pay for dozens of networks we’ll never watch.
John Nolte’s first and last novel Borrowed time, Winning 5-Star Rave Reviews Submissions from our everyday readers. You can read excerpts here here And a detailed review here. Also available in Hardcover and Kindle and Audiobooks.
