There was already going to be more streaming only options as time passes; this deal will likely accelerate that.

There will surely be some kind of lawsuit to block something like that. Does trust law apply to partnerships that corner a market?

For me, cord-cutting was not primarily about saving money.

Instead, I went to YouTubeTV (from Spectrum) because I wanted the ability to watch my DVR'ed stuff from any room in the house.

TimeWarnerCable (pre-Spectrum) had that; it was called WholeHouseDVR. Spectrum grandfathered that for those who already had it under TWC, but Spectrum wouldn't provide/support it for those who didn't already have it.

So, I gave Spectrum the boot.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

There will surely be some kind of lawsuit to block something like that. Does trust law apply to partnerships that corner a market?

---

Which market are they cornering?

Quote:

---

There will surely be some kind of lawsuit to block something like that. Does trust law apply to partnerships that corner a market?

---

No, because they specifically left out NBC and CBS, who have significant sports rights.

They were also sure to say this was "non-exclusive", meaning their cable agreements will stick around.

This is Hulu (for sports), under the same agreement (which Disney now owns). But there was no antitrust there.

This is a move to slice out the YouTubeTVs etc. who are really providing nothing to the sports fan.

There's almost nothing I watch from fox sports. ESPN better keep their ESPN only stream options bc it will certainly piss me off if I have to pay more to watch the same ESPN streams just to also give me access to fox sports streams which I don't need.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

There will surely be some kind of lawsuit to block something like that. Does trust law apply to partnerships that corner a market?

---

ESPN will still be available to bundlers. This is why I don't think it will be something that gets much traction. They aren't gonna price it to compete w/ them. No way they are giving up carriage revenue.

angus55 said:

---

Cord cutting is eventually going to be more expensive than cable to watch everything you want.

---

It already is. And then they wonder why consumers pirate.

BMX Bandit said:

---

ESPN, Fox Sports, and Warner Bros. Discovery are combining into one sports streaming service of unprecedented scale.

Streaming has never looked more like cable, writes @AEricFisher ⬇️

— Front Office Sports (@FOS) February 7, 2024

Take off another $50 from the "savings" from cord cutting

---

If you cord-cut but still have access to the ESPN/Fox/Turner content, it means you're already paying $60-80 for it in the form of Sling/Hulu Live/YouTube TV. Ostensibly this could replace it at a slightly lower price point if that's basically the only thing you're using one of those services for.

Which leaves out CBS and NBC…

greg.w.h said:

---

Which leaves out CBS and NBC…

---

Drop $10 on a pair of rabbit ears and you should be good to go unless you just can't live without that handful of Army and Mountain West games on CBSSN.

njohn87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

Which leaves out CBS and NBC…

---

Drop $10 on a pair of rabbit ears and you should be good to go unless you just can't live without that handful of Army and Mountain West games on CBSSN.

---

If rabbit ears solved for a good, seamless DVR experience then could see the argument. Since they don't. I don't. There is legit sports programming on both.

greg.w.h said:

---

njohn87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

Which leaves out CBS and NBC…

---

Drop $10 on a pair of rabbit ears and you should be good to go unless you just can't live without that handful of Army and Mountain West games on CBSSN.

---

If rabbit ears solved for a good, seamless DVR experience then could see the argument. Since they don't. I don't. There is legit sports programming on both.

---

Yeah I'm personally happy enough with YouTubeTV in offerings, accessibility, and functionality that I'm pretty satisfied staying with it and paying the extra ~$25/mo over whatever rickety garbage ESPN & Friends roll out.

Quote:

---

Yeah I'm personally happy enough with YouTubeTV in offerings, accessibility, and functionality that I'm pretty satisfied staying with it and paying the extra ~$25/mo over whatever rickety garbage ESPN & Friends roll out.

---

And why would "ESPN &Friends" continue to let YouTubeTV have their most valuable content, when they can sell it to you themselves? (Hint- they won't for long.)

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah I'm personally happy enough with YouTubeTV in offerings, accessibility, and functionality that I'm pretty satisfied staying with it and paying the extra ~$25/mo over whatever rickety garbage ESPN & Friends roll out.

---

And why would "ESPN &Friends" continue to let YouTubeTV have their most valuable content, when they can sell it to you themselves? (Hint- they won't for long.)

---

And why would they pull it from YoutubeTV when they force it to be bundled with all packages, so people that don't watch sports still have to pay for it?

sornman said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah I'm personally happy enough with YouTubeTV in offerings, accessibility, and functionality that I'm pretty satisfied staying with it and paying the extra ~$25/mo over whatever rickety garbage ESPN & Friends roll out.

---

And why would "ESPN &Friends" continue to let YouTubeTV have their most valuable content, when they can sell it to you themselves? (Hint- they won't for long.)

---

And why would they pull it from YoutubeTV when they force it to be bundled with all packages, so people that don't watch sports still have to pay for it?

---

They won't pull it, but the cost for YouTubeTV/Hulu/Fubo etc will go up even more than they already have.

I think cable/sat companies have asked these media corporations for a long time to allow them to do a sports only tier, but the media companies resisted.

I think these media companies are shooting themselves in the foot by not staying in the bundle that cable/sat and now cable alternatives (Sling/YTTV, etc) provide.


People are quicker to churn on streaming services and apps than they are a cable or sat company.

sornman said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah I'm personally happy enough with YouTubeTV in offerings, accessibility, and functionality that I'm pretty satisfied staying with it and paying the extra ~$25/mo over whatever rickety garbage ESPN & Friends roll out.

---

And why would "ESPN &Friends" continue to let YouTubeTV have their most valuable content, when they can sell it to you themselves? (Hint- they won't for long.)

---

And why would they pull it from YoutubeTV when they force it to be bundled with all packages, so people that don't watch sports still have to pay for it?

---

Because the uptake of a limited over the top package will also be….limited. And it doesn't include the CBS Men's Tournament broadcasts, the CBS NFL broadcasts, the NBC sterling Sunday Night Football series or the *yawn* NBC Olympics.

And it's just an app. They can broadcast or stream for additional revenue elsewhere.

In fact: two of the three collaborated on Hulu content. Now Disney is having an awkward negotiation with NBC owner Comcast to buy out their interest in Hulu. So imagine having to overpay for Hulu and then doing business with Comcast again???

Note NBC's Peacock and CBS's Paramout+ (Paramount owns CBS) are still uncertain entrants as streaming platforms and both have limited content as well. And all three have live sports from their captive brands today.

I think of retail premium brands v. usually OEM'd store brands. The latter is more profitable for the chain but the former has broader name recognition and sales usually.

In addition: ESPN+ clearly is a failure or this move isn't necessary.

I just dropped Hulu Live, since I don't watch any sports after college football is done. I'll reup in the fall; I hope something doesn't happen to pull ESPN off of there.

greg.w.h said:

---

In addition: ESPN+ clearly is a failure or this move isn't necessary.

---

That was my biggest takeaway

espn will also have a direct-to-consumer option in 2025


https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/07/espn-will-launch-its-flagship-direct-to-consumer-service-in-fall-2025.html

"ESPN didn't announce a price for the flagship direct-to-consumer service. Disney already has a sports streaming service in ESPN+, which ended the quarter with 25.2 million subscribers, down from 26 million a quarter ago. ESPN+ only has some of ESPN's content and doesn't include the network's most popular live sports, including the full suite of Monday Night Football."

I knew they were going to announce a direct to consumer but they led with the joint venture so Iger keeps his word on sharing risk.

Effectively ESPN+ is donated to the JV and allows carriage of some or all ESPN content depending on working arrangement with partners receiving unequal revenue based on content they allow to be viewed. ESPN app likely contains the over the top direct to consumer content similar to Hulu Live as a separate subscription. TV Provider credentials still works.

No CBS. No NBC. Pass

I am satisfied with having just over-the-air TV. Also, I stream some NFL, NCAAF, NBA, and MLB games. In addition, I subscribe to sling Orange for just a month to watch bowl and CFP games. For these reasons, I don't think I will spend $50 a month to subscribe this new streaming service.

ABattJudd said:

---

I just dropped Hulu Live, since I don't watch any sports after college football is done. I'll reup in the fall; I hope something doesn't happen to pull ESPN off of there.

---

Doesn't Disney still own ESPN and Hulu. Doubt they'd separate them

Bluecat_Aggie94 said:

---

angus55 said:

---

Cord cutting is eventually going to be more expensive than cable to watch everything you want.

---

I think we passed that a while ago. But this is the one I've been waiting for. We have YouTube TV for live sports, but I don't think we watch anything else on it, so that will probably go in favor of this when it rolls out. Depending on the price, could be a cost savings for me.

---

Curious about what y'all think: I do not like the control functions on YouTube TV. Too hard to pause, rewind, slo mo, fast forward, etc., with my Apple TV remote.

Anybody found a way to make this more like DirecTV's setup? I tried a universal remote but could not make it work at all.

We have firesticks and haven't had any issues.

This app plus Tablo and hd antenna might be the way to go. I have a Tablo but have not used it in years.

I'm waiting for the Vietnamese guy who illegally streams on YouTube to make an announcement before making my decision on my streaming provider.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I am satisfied with having just over-the-air TV. Also, I stream some NFL, NCAAF, NBA, and MLB games. In addition, I subscribe to sling Orange for just a month to watch bowl and CFP games. For these reasons, I don't think I will spend $50 a month to subscribe this new streaming service.

---

To be clear…if you don't donate the money to help people you're just selfishly spending it on yourself…

Seriously, who did not see pricing on cord cutting becoming equal to cable from the very beginning?
With new sports package, you can just do Philo at $25 per month for locals and a lot of what you got on cable and satellite.