OT - Streaming service (without sports) from Charter
Although this may be interpreted as heresy against our affinity for Michigan, there are (allegedly) people that are apathetic towards sports, who are cancelling TV service at a pretty good clip (ask ESPN about that).
Charter recently unveiled a 'sports free' streaming service, which is interesting - https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Impressions-of-Charters-New-Spectrum-Stream-Streaming-Service-139907
To my knowledge, this offering is limited to customers who live in Charter's service footprint and is the first of its kind. I expect to see more of this from other streaming services though. I can't help but feel that this is a sign of what's to come - a significant portion of video subscribers will be 'sports free'.
All sports leagues/tv networks have increased the carriage fees to the point where people are simply opting out - two years of declining ESPN subscribers (7M+ I believe?) confirms this. What the new equilibrium will be with respect to subscribers/tv league contracts is a question that will remain unanswered for some time, but I see this new 'sports free' streaming service as a significant development.
I'd be down for that. I torrent everything else (which doesn't depend on watching it live) + watch Bloomberg (streams free online) for news.
This seems to be YouTube TV's primary goal. I think the non-sports channels come along for the ride from the parent companies (Disney, Comcast, News Corp and CBS). The only glaring omission is Turner, so no NBA or March Madness. Not sure if I'm confident enough to bet a lemon, but I imagine they'll work out a deal with Turner before the next NBA season.
EDIT: Turner
Sports should be free...what's the problem?
I agree and that's why I don't get how badly Fox Sports has bungled trying to expand. With the cable structure imploding, they hold an asset by having a free over-the-air channel.
If you've ever turned on your local Fox channel on a Saturday morning, it's usually nothing but infomercials for hours that don't make any money. Everyone gets their news online now also, so there's no reason to have more than one airing of your local news.
They could broadcast college football all day Saturday and then the NFL on Sunday and make an absolute killing because they could set their own ad prices with little competition. I assumed that's what they were transitioning for by bring all the espn dudes over to FS1, but turns out they're just idiots.
Or just a Gameday-style show? I stopped watching Saturday morning TV after I realized California Dreams was a cheap knockoff of Saved by the Bell.
OR.... on Saturday and Sunday mornings, watch the Premier League. It's live sports, it's highly competitive. It's actually how I ended up getting into it; there was nothing else on early Sat and Sun mornings a few years ago when my puppies kept waking me up early (dogs don't understand you ARE allowed to sleep in, on weekends). And all but one game each day will be finished by the time college football or pro games kick off.
Oooh I meant a Gameday type show, but I like your breakfast football idea better. You could probably get some lower G5 teams to play at 9am if the price was right.
IIRC correctly, ESPN/2 costs roughly $9 a month starting this year per cable subscriber. For comparison, the next highest channel was TNT for around a $1.
The non-sports watching people have been subsidizing the sports fans for a long time now. ESPN would cost something like $30 a month if it was an a la carte option. It sucks as a huge sports fanatic myself, but I would be livid if a channel like Lifetime that I never watched was making up a huge portion of my bill.
And now my challenge is that I really only watch sports channels for a limited number of events - Michigan sports, sometimes Atlanta sports (Hawks, Braves, Falcons), and post-season tournaments. Most of the time, I'm passing right by ESPN, FSN, etc.
In other news, Playstation Vue emailed me last night saying their Slim pakage is going up from $30/month to $40/month...if you're currently a customer, you're grandfathered in for 3 months at the current price.
Crap.
I just noticed today their website has the price at $45 per month now. This is terrific since I literally just canceled my cable to get Vue.
I read this as "free sports streaming." It was my mistake, but it earned you a neg. Sorry.
"Non-sports" would be a better title for the OP and the service.
Should be a bit more clear now.
Good catch OP.
$20 isn't bad for a streaming service of a decent number of channels if you're not a sports nut. Taking the sports fees off the table will probably help these cable companies be more competitive.
And ESPN will lose yet even more customers who are cable subscribers but don't watch sports.
ESPN pain makes me happy for some odd reason...