Big Streaming News

KnappShack

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2008
20,368
26,290
113
Parts Unknown
Cable has been dying, but the content providers have a role in this death too.

As we all thought, in the end we'll be paying roughly the same as we did for the cable bundle. Just moved the chairs around.

This has to be a $60/mo service. Right?

 
  • Wow
Reactions: khardbored

KennyPratt42

The Legend
Jan 13, 2017
1,106
2,088
113
This is honestly what a lot of sports fans have always wanted, even going back to the days of cable/satellite. Just paying for sports content without having to pay for everything else that was bundled with it. It will probably be in the range of $60/month, which is less than something like YouTube TV currently. It will also have the benefit of not having to switch between apps when going from something like an FS1 game and a game on ESPN+.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: nrg4isu and CoKane

mj4cy

Asst. Regional Manager
Staff member
Mar 28, 2006
31,237
13,673
113
Iowa
What if all the channels just combine all their streaming services into one that costs like $120 a month or so???

And there was like some way you could press a button and on one page it shows what each channel is airing...
 

KennyPratt42

The Legend
Jan 13, 2017
1,106
2,088
113
But it should cost way less than youtube. All I want is ESPN/Fox/TBS. I would pay $20/mo for just that. It would still save me $60.
There is almost no way it is that cheap. Those three entities sound like they will put all of their sports content together including what is currently ESPN+. The consumer would love to choose within that sports content what they get, but that seems very unlikely. If forced to guess, I think this service will come in between $10 to $20 cheaper per month than YouTube TV.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron