A better word for "subsidize" is "mutually benefit". I pay a little for content I don't like, others pay a little for content they don't like. Everyone's content gets made. Everyone benefits. The consumer is protected.
It is not just paying for content I do not want, it is paying for all those channels that consists of nothing but reruns.
And those channels are still there, doing their best to bleed the Live TV Subscribers even more, even if Pluto and the likes have made them quite redundant.
Or paying for 3 Channels when there is barely enough content for one, I always use the FX Channels as the biggest example.
BTW, explain to me again how paying for sports content on "cable" is bad, but sports on Amazon, Peacock, Paramount, Max, and Apple is good.
Never said it was, I prefer for sports to stand on their own.
But we all know it cannot, if there is not enough people to pay for it, let it die (or shrink enough to get rights fees under control).
That is the free market at work.
But how it is going to go for the next 5 years as Cable/Satellite TV is dying, sports leagues are going from Channels to Streaming to get the money they want.
Big Ten could not get what they wanted from ESPN, move to a hybrid of Channels and Streaming, NFL got the raise it wanted with Sunday Ticket and Google, also exclusive games with Amazon, Peacock, ESPN+ ( along with ESPN, CBS, NBC games also on their Streaming services).
Then the NBA, wants double it’s rights fees, will not get that from ESPN and Warner, reportedly talking to Apple.
Negotiations for College Football Playoffs are coming up in 2 years, can ESPN afford it since by then, about 18-20 million more will have left Paid Live TV, so that many less per sub fees.
