Altice USA’s pay television platform Optimum is pointing customers to a cable-like streaming service as a way to watch the MSG Networks multiplex of regional sports channels that were dropped at the start of the year.
As part of a special promotion, Fubo is offering Optimum customers a 30 percent discount off their base package called “Pro,” which retails for around $80 per month — a price that increases when customers factor in taxes and a $14 regional sports fee.
The 30 percent discount is offered on the base programming price, bringing it down to $56 per month for the first two months of service — though most customers will wind up paying $70 per month over the course of the promotional period because of the regional sports fee.
The regional sports fee is meant to offset the cost of carrying MSG Networks, and similar fees are widely present on bills from other pay TV providers.
The promotion is meant to point Optimum TV customers toward another solution to watch live sports programming from MSG Networks while the company’s dispute with the owner of the sports channels continues into a third day.
On Thursday, Optimum told subscribers it would be offering them a promotion that offsets the cost of acquiring MSG Networks programming through other means, and the Fubo promotion appears to be that perk.
But, even at a discount, Fubo costs considerably more than the price of MSG Plus, a standalone streaming service that offers the same live sports from MSG Networks at a cost of $30 per month. MSG Plus is available through the Gotham Sports app, which also offers access to YES Network.
The Fubo promotion offered by Optimum costs more than twice the amount of MSG Plus, even when the 30 percent discount to Fubo is factored in. It wasn’t clear why Optimum was pointing customers to Fubo on its customer support portal, while only offering a cursory mention of MSG Plus as an option to watch the channels. (Fubo currently lacks Univision-owned channels because of a carriage dispute with parent company Televisa-Univision.)
The dispute centers around fees Optimum must pay to MSG Networks for the privilege of carrying its live sports channels, along with certain distribution terms, including which pay TV packages the MSG Networks channels will be placed.
A spokesperson for Optimum said MSG Networks had demanded a fee increase and placement of MSG Networks in a base programming package of channels, which would have forced customers to pay for the channels, even if they don’t watch sports. It also would have caused the price of Optimum TV to climb.
Optimum’s position is that the fee increase and distribution terms were untenable at a time when MSG Networks offers it channels directly to sports fans, independent on a traditional cable bundle.
“Now more than ever, especially in this economy, it is unfair for MSG Networks to demand non-viewers to pay and demand high license fees, especially when there are ways for fans to get games directly from MSG through their direct-to-consumer Gotham Sports app,” a spokesperson for Optimum said in a statement.
Officials at MSG Networks said they were seeking a fair market agreement for their channels; on social media, a spokesperson wrote that MSG Networks offered Optimum a number of proposals that would have allowed the company to “pay us less money than last year,” but said the company refused that offer and others.
Separately, a spokesperson for MSG Networks told The Desk that the company offered Optimum a temporary extension of its prior carriage agreement, one that would have kept MSG Networks on Optimum TV while both sides continued to negotiate toward a new contract. The offer was rejected, the MSG Networks spokesperson said.
A spokesperson for Optimum strongly denied that claim, telling The Desk that “an extension was neither offered nor declined.”
“With that said, Optimum wants to partner with programmers who are putting customer choice and flexibility at the center of every decision,” the Optimum spokesperson continued. “We would be happy to agree to an extension if they approached these negotiations like partners and worked with us to find solutions that benefit our customers and their viewers. Unfortunately, that has not been their approach to date.”
