Big Streaming News

[istater7]

From The Athletic:

"For the consumer, you won’t need this venture-to-be-named later and, my initial bet is most of you will go with that option. The service will be owned equally by the three sides, but each partner will receive the same fee as they earn from cable or YouTubeTV, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement. Just ESPN, the singular network, receives around $12 per month from cable subscribers.

So what does that mean for you? The estimated price for the new venture when you add ESPN, Fox and WBD Sports together likely will be around $50 per month. There probably are some sports fans who would like to save a little money with this arrangement, but it is hard to believe there are a lot.

You already can watch nearly everything that this trio offers through places like YouTube TV for around $70 and change per month. If you want this option, it is already available, with even more channels to boot."

If this is the case, I don't see why anyone wouldn't just opt for YouTube TV.

New ESPN, Fox, WBD streaming venture won’t solve much — at least not yet

Maybe this new sports streaming service is just a first step to something bigger. Until then, it won’t change that much for most fans.

theathletic.com

Won’t these companies also jack up the rate for YouTubeTV to carry them? Same as they did with cable?

 

[jctisu]

From The Athletic:

"For the consumer, you won’t need this venture-to-be-named later and, my initial bet is most of you will go with that option. The service will be owned equally by the three sides, but each partner will receive the same fee as they earn from cable or YouTubeTV, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement. Just ESPN, the singular network, receives around $12 per month from cable subscribers.

So what does that mean for you? The estimated price for the new venture when you add ESPN, Fox and WBD Sports together likely will be around $50 per month. There probably are some sports fans who would like to save a little money with this arrangement, but it is hard to believe there are a lot.

You already can watch nearly everything that this trio offers through places like YouTube TV for around $70 and change per month. If you want this option, it is already available, with even more channels to boot."

If this is the case, I don't see why anyone wouldn't just opt for YouTube TV.

New ESPN, Fox, WBD streaming venture won’t solve much — at least not yet

Maybe this new sports streaming service is just a first step to something bigger. Until then, it won’t change that much for most fans.

theathletic.com

Will be interesting for sure but to the author’s note, if you are only a sports fan, which has been proven to be really the only thing on live television most want, $50 a month is still much cheaper than YTTV to get exactly what you want. And if they can get the multi-view and easily switch from game to game down, it could be worthwhile.

 

[Bader]

I imagine the ABC and FOX networks are those weird national feeds, not your local affiliate. How the hell did the Turner networks get in there? TruTV having a dozen tournament games a year getting carrier fees from this is hilarious.

This is unlikely to be a significant savings over any of the OTT products (at least once they're out of their 'taking losses to show investors subscriber counts' phase), and having to have a solution for local affiliates makes this a non-starter

 

[houjix]

I imagine the ABC and FOX networks are those weird national feeds, not your local affiliate. How the hell did the Turner networks get in there? TruTV having a dozen tournament games a year getting carrier fees from this is hilarious.

This is unlikely to be a significant savings over any of the OTT products (at least once they're out of their 'taking losses to show investors subscriber counts' phase), and having to have a solution for local affiliates makes this a non-starter

TNT Sports is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery which is the third leg of this thing

 

[CoachHines3]

Won’t these companies also jack up the rate for YouTubeTV to carry them? Same as they did with cable?

That was my thought, too.

Why would they still offer those channels at the current price if they have their own streaming service?

 

[Bader]

TNT Sports is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery which is the third leg of this thing

Sure, but Discovery has a whole swath of **** channels they own that didn't make it. The NBA and NCAA tournament use the Turner networks, I'm just surprised Disney and Fox were willing to give them an equal share in this with what they have to offer.

 

[CyCoug]

From The Athletic:

"For the consumer, you won’t need this venture-to-be-named later and, my initial bet is most of you will go with that option. The service will be owned equally by the three sides, but each partner will receive the same fee as they earn from cable or YouTubeTV, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement. Just ESPN, the singular network, receives around $12 per month from cable subscribers.

So what does that mean for you? The estimated price for the new venture when you add ESPN, Fox and WBD Sports together likely will be around $50 per month. There probably are some sports fans who would like to save a little money with this arrangement, but it is hard to believe there are a lot.

You already can watch nearly everything that this trio offers through places like YouTube TV for around $70 and change per month. If you want this option, it is already available, with even more channels to boot."

If this is the case, I don't see why anyone wouldn't just opt for YouTube TV.

New ESPN, Fox, WBD streaming venture won’t solve much — at least not yet

Maybe this new sports streaming service is just a first step to something bigger. Until then, it won’t change that much for most fans.

theathletic.com

No kidding. With Youtube TV I am able to record every episode of Little House on the Prairie from the hallmark channel and watch it with my 10-year-old as we get ready in the morning.

No $50 streaming package can compete with that. Even nasty Mrs. Oleson from the 1800s would agree if she were alive today.

 

[FarminCy]

I might be freaking out for no reason but, ESPN and Fox own the SEC and Big Ten respectively right? If they are bundling I gotta think they have something larger planned in the future, a full on merger. What do we all think (or maybe just me idk) the Big Ten and SEC are planning? A "super league" of 34 teams with their own playoff and championship i.e. kick out the rest of us. If Fox and ESPN are on the same team what else do they need for that to happen?

NBC has a bunch of Big Ten content in the new contract.

 

[Gorm]

Feels like a SEC (ESPN) and Big ten (FOX) merger is inevitable?

Disney tried this already when they purchased Fox. The justice department said no.

 

[ruxCYtable]

Per ESPNs release:

Included Networks:

ESPN
ESPN2
ESPNU
ESPNews
SEC Network
ACC Network
ABC
FOX
FS1
FS2
B1G Network
TBS
TNT
TruTV
ESPN+

This thing is $50/month at the absolute minimum. Better off sticking with a YTTV.

At least until they start blocking off events as “an ESPN FoxMax Sports exclusive, not available on other streaming services” kind of things.

You know they’re working on it.

Won’t these companies also jack up the rate for YouTubeTV to carry them? Same as they did with cable?

You guys must have missed where ESPN said they want to pull themselves OFF other cable/streaming services and go it alone. We'll all end up having to pay for this.