[soylentcola]

I'm sort of curious as to how well their infrastructure would handle something live as opposed to their current "asynchronous" stuff. It's not that you can't get live streaming sports now but I don't know enough about the actual content delivery system to tell whether they'd have to invest in the tech side as well as the content rights for something like live sports. I agree that it would be a great thing for them to try out with something people want to watch but maybe doesn't have the massive demand in the US (since that's their main base of ops).

Still, I wonder if it would really go over well because even for something less popular, they'd have to buy the broadcast rights and then people without Netflix (and potentially without the bandwidth to even get Netflix) suddenly can't watch their games. It would be like putting pro hockey or football/soccer (in the US) on HBO. Sure, those don't have the demand of NFL football or MLB baseball in the states but they have enough of a fan base who's used to watching on ESPN, etc that it may seem like an unwelcome paywall.

Honestly not really sure what sports would have both enough of a viewer base to be worth the effort and are underrepresented enough that fans would just be glad someone is giving them coverage.

I agree though. If Netflix has outdone cable by beating them to the trend of video-on-demand, they may eventually need to address those areas where cable and broadcast remain the norm. I suppose cable and broadcast could focus more on that live content and leave the rest to streaming companies but eventually the competition will come down to people only wanting to pay for one or the other.