Warner, Fox, Disney to Launch Streaming Sports Joint Venture

[Bruce]

You're not going to get live feeds of Fox and ABC from your list above.

The new service includes Live Feeds of ABC and Fox, along with TBS, TNT, BTN, etc.

It is just a mini bundle service.

 

[Yespage]

$35 seems kind of "cheap". Wouldn't pay it, but it seems kind of cheap. Again, trying to thread an impossible needle there.

I don't know for sure, but that is my guess. Having a DTC offering I would think would have to be tied into the contracts for the satellites and cable companies - the plans of what happens if they launch DTC. Whether that means a reduced fee, can move to a higher tier or a-la-carte, etc. And, my guess is that the Aug/Sept 2025 launch date lines up with the expiration of whatever last provider(s) don't have a clause in their contract about DTC.

That would seem to be a necessity, but I'm uncertain how another service with it being a part of wouldn't break the rules either. Unless they count this as a Philo for Sports sort of skinny deal. Which then could explain the teaming up. "We aren't doing it DTC... this is no different than Sling or YouTube TV."

 

[Bruce]

You're not going to get live feeds of Fox and ABC from your list above.

From the NY Times-

Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery have bundled 14 of their channels that show sports — the full list is ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network, ACC Network, ESPNews, Fox, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, Big Ten Network, TNT, TBS and truTV — and the ESPN+ streaming service, and will sell them as a single package.

Is this a streaming service or a cable-like bundle of channels?​

Both, sort of. It is definitely a streaming service that you will be able to subscribe to and watch on a variety of devices. But rather than a menu of different shows to watch on demand, there will be channels that you can watch live, much as cable customers do.

As a result, this means subscribers to the service will also be able to watch the non-sports shows these channels televise, like “The Simpsons” and “The Bachelor.”

What Sports Fans Need to Know About a New Streaming Service

The joint venture announced by Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery will offer a lot, but it may not be enough on its own for serious fans.

www.nytimes.com

 

[KAB]

From the NY Times-

Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery have bundled 14 of their channels that show sports — the full list is ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network, ACC Network, ESPNews, Fox, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, Big Ten Network, TNT, TBS and truTV — and the ESPN+ streaming service, and will sell them as a single package.

Is this a streaming service or a cable-like bundle of channels?​

Both, sort of. It is definitely a streaming service that you will be able to subscribe to and watch on a variety of devices. But rather than a menu of different shows to watch on demand, there will be channels that you can watch live, much as cable customers do.

As a result, this means subscribers to the service will also be able to watch the non-sports shows these channels televise, like “The Simpsons” and “The Bachelor.”

What Sports Fans Need to Know About a New Streaming Service

The joint venture announced by Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery will offer a lot, but it may not be enough on its own for serious fans.

www.nytimes.com

Would not be worth it to me without DVR-ish capability.

 

[Bruce]

$35 seems kind of "cheap". Wouldn't pay it, but it seems kind of cheap. Again, trying to thread an impossible needle there.

Just the rumors from the press, the word from those in the know is it will be $40.

Which still with Paramount+ w/Showtime at $12, Peacock at $11 gives you the majority on what is on paid Live TV along with every major sporting event at $63 a month, the the extra streaming shows.


Then for example-
You can add MAX at $20
NFL ST at $30 a month ($350 divide by 12)
AMC+ at $9
Netflix at $23

That is $82 more, so added to the $63, that is $155, which is about what a certain member who hates change and streaming pays for DirecTV alone.

That would seem to be a necessity, but I'm uncertain how another service with it being a part of wouldn't break the rules either. Unless they count this as a Philo for Sports sort of skinny deal. Which then could explain the teaming up. "We aren't doing it DTC... this is no different than Sling or YouTube TV."

I already posted this ESPN plan is incredibly idiotic and made that known at work, specially at the price ( cannot reveal) they are planning.

But I have since found out, there are more plans with it then just the Netflix version of ESPN, major plans.

 

[Bruce]

Would not be worth it to me without DVR-ish capability.

So, instead of saying you are incorrect, that is what you follow up with?

And a DVR is planned, how to implement it is what they are trying to figure out.

 

[KAB]

So, instead of saying you are incorrect, that is what you follow up with?

Well, if you require it, you were right.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Just the rumors from the press, the word from those in the know is it will be $40.

I can’t find the link ( I think it was Marchand ) where they guessed the price would be somewhere between the DTC RSN rates and the YT rate.

 

[ncted]

Just the rumors from the press, the word from those in the know is it will be $40.

As an introductory rate is what I'm hearing, kind of like what cable/satellite companies do. The the price will then increase to some higher amount once the introductory period is over. Just a rumor of course from someone who works at one of the non-Disney companies.

 

[Bruce]

As an introductory rate is what I'm hearing, kind of like what cable/satellite companies do. The the price will then increase to some higher amount once the introductory period is over. Just a rumor of course from someone who works at one of the non-Disney companies.

I can only comment on what has been in the press (everyone received a memo to shut up).

Pricing-the press is very close to what is being discussed.

Bundle Pricing-Yes, FOX is the only one where that is not a option.

What I can comment on, there are plans for a provider ( did not say who) to do the same type of skinny bundle but no sports, like Philo, but with Locals, News, more Channels, basically around that same $40 range.

As long as the rules do not change in regards to Locals, where the Networks make the deals for per sub fees with streaming services.

They do not want to deal with all the station owners/groups that Satellite/Cable have to do.

YTTV is still the better deal, if you do not care about streaming shows, since it basically is a combination of the sports service and this possible new Service, at $73 a month, still a lot less then Traditional Paid Live TV.

 

[Bruce]

so when this starts will some cables co's Drop ESPN? unless they can get it as standalone?

Contracts do not allow that, would also hurt them with retaining their own subscribers.

 

[satjay]

I agree ...
Much better when you could get all your channels on the same platform with out leaving each to go find another.

Yes nothing beats a fall afternoon then bouncing between college football games from streaming service to streaming service

 

[Bruce]

Yes nothing beats a fall afternoon then bouncing between college football games from streaming service to streaming service

Get used to it.

And it is not hard, if you are watching something, hit home to exit out, couple of arrow presses, ok on the app, arrow presses, ok on the programming.

Maybe 6 presses, vs 3-4 on the old fashioned way.

Properly takes a extra 1.4 seconds.

Every time there is great news for streaming, we get fans of Traditional Live TV in here to complain about the smallest things.

I would believe some of you would be happy that there are more options coming that helps save money ( a lot of money over certain Cable/Satellite services), after 30 years of basically taking it from Cable/Satellite.

But if I did the same thing in the DirecTV/Dish forums, I would be reported to the mods immediately.

Keep waiting for Mr Rabbit Hole and the Bundle Guy to show back up.

 

[Jimbo]

Get used to it.

And it is not hard, if you are watching something, hit home to exit out, couple of arrow presses, ok on the app, arrow presses, ok on the programming.

Maybe 6 presses, vs 3-4 on the old fashioned way.

Properly takes a extra 1.4 seconds.

Every time there is great news for streaming, we get fans of Traditional Live TV in here to complain about the smallest things.

I would believe some of you would be happy that there are more options coming that helps save money ( a lot of money over certain Cable/Satellite services), after 30 years of basically taking it from Cable/Satellite.

But if I did the same thing in the DirecTV/Dish forums, I would be reported to the mods immediately.

Keep waiting for Mr Rabbit Hole and the Bundle Guy to show back up.

Takes way longer than that just to Open Apps, then find the game your looking for ...
No longer any way to flip back and forth between games during commercials.


Fwiw, YTTV IS Paid Live TV

The reason you feel that way in other threads is because you are a Cheerleader for Streaming (all Streaming) and the Grim Reaper for All Other type of TV.

 

[ncted]

And it is not hard, if you are watching something, hit home to exit out, couple of arrow presses, ok on the app, arrow presses, ok on the programming.

Maybe 6 presses, vs 3-4 on the old fashioned way.

Properly takes a extra 1.4 seconds.

Not on most smart TVs. I recently had to help my parents add a Roku Ultra to their 2017 Roku TV because it was SOOOO SLOOOOW switching apps and YTTV channels. If you have a higher-end streaming device, it is like you describe, but many/most people seem to think the built-in apps on their TVs are as good when they aren't or soon won't be. I have a Sony 950H TV from 2020 which was reasonably fast running Android apps when new, but is pretty much unusable now. Meanwhile the 2017 AppleTV 4k I have is still quite quick. This is a real problem for a lot of people.

 

[Bruce]

Not on most smart TVs. I recently had to help my parents add a Roku Ultra to their 2017 Roku TV because it was SOOOO SLOOOOW switching apps and YTTV channels. If you have a higher-end streaming device, it is like you describe, but many/most people seem to think the built-in apps on their TVs are as good when they aren't or soon won't be. I have a Sony 950H TV from 2020 which was reasonably fast running Android apps when new, but is pretty much unusable now. Meanwhile the 2017 AppleTV 4k I have is still quite quick. This is a real problem for a lot of people.

I cannot speak for everyone else’s experiences, just as they cannot speak for mine.

But I use the newest Roku Ultra, damn fast.

But most that complain are obviously over exaggerating on how long it takes, we are talking a few extra seconds on a more current smart TV, maybe a few seconds longer on a older one.

But if it is that slow, time to get a new box, which is no different then when they have to upgrade their boxes with a Paid Live TV Service.

I have read in many DirecTV and Dish posts on how slow some of those are, especially the DirecTV boxes.

Or other issues, like HDR always being on, even for non HDR programming, which is a issue for current boxes, the Joey 4 and Hopper Plus for Dish, or the Gemini,I believe, for DirecTV.

 

[ncted]

But most that complain are obviously over exaggerating on how long it takes, we are talking a few extra seconds on a more current smart TV, maybe a few seconds longer on a older one.

Not exaggerating. We're talking 10+ of seconds to change channels on live TV apps like YTTV or Hulu, assuming the app doesn't crash, and more like 30+ seconds to quit an app and launch another one. You and I may have fast streaming boxes, but most people are using Black Friday special "smart" TVs. I can't count how many people have thanked me for telling them to get a Roku Ultra, Apple TV 4K, or NVIDIA Shield when they complain about how slow their recent TV purchases are. It is ridiculous.

And yeah, cable/satellite boxes can be slow too, but one of the promises of streaming is it is supposed to be "better" which most people would think would also mean faster.

 

[Ronnie-]

This is why I, and many others have long recommended NOT using the built in streaming on the tv.

 

[Yespage]

I cannot speak for everyone else’s experiences, just as they cannot speak for mine.

But I use the newest Roku Ultra, damn fast.

For a true HD stream (via Plex), thing can't Wi-Fi to save its life. *sigh*

That said, going between apps is not as easy as flipping channels (yet). I remember during the Olympics setting up a dedicated channel list. Going from Fox Sports streaming to Paramount+ is a hassle. Goodness help me if I'm switching inputs.

Yes, it is a First World Problem, but switching between games that means switching between apps isn't streamlined. No you don't have to go outside, turn the rotor on the antenna while beating away bears and rabid beavers all the while the other person in the room tells you when to stop... but it is a First World Hassle. Gawd help us all.

 

[Bruce]

Not exaggerating. We're talking 10+ of seconds to change channels on live TV apps like YTTV or Hulu, assuming the app doesn't crash, and more like 30+ seconds to quit an app and launch another one. You and I may have fast streaming boxes, but most people are using Black Friday special "smart" TVs. I can't count how many people have thanked me for telling them to get a Roku Ultra, Apple TV 4K, or NVIDIA Shield when they complain about how slow their recent TV purchases are. It is ridiculous.

Which is what I would recommend also.

My Sony Z9K and A90J , which I have only had for 2 years, are noticeably slower, compared to the Ultra, which is also a 2022 model.

Then, I will read that if someone recommends buying one, the common response is, streaming then costs more then cable because you have to buy that.

Which is untrue, since most are paying that $7-15 a month box/DVR fee with Cable/Satelite.

And yeah, cable/satellite boxes can be slow too, but one of the promises of streaming is it is supposed to be "better" which most people would think would also mean faster.

Faster or equal with the right device, better in other ways, picture/sound being the most obvious.

For example, CBS on Paramount+ looks so much better in real 1080P vs the up converted 1080P on YTTV.

Or ABC/FOX shows, which are in 720P on Cable/Sat./YTTV , but in 1080P ( some shows are in 4K) on Hulu.

So even if it takes a few seconds longer, I want the best quality.