[maxlybbert]

> I would imagine more people would go and buy just that instead of getting a cable package. They can also start charging a reasonable amount based on what it costs to produce the content.

ESPN probably expected that as well. In the US, you would expect almost any sports channel to have enough fans to make a profit. If people are going to drop channels they don't want, you would expect sports channels to be immune.

Apparently it hasn't turned out that way.

I can say that the last three times I went shopping for cable TV, the sports bundle was extra. Personally, I like hockey, but not much else. I would be happy to pay $7 a month for hockey games, but I wasn't given that option. I needed to pay much more, for a much larger bundle, and I chose to live without it.

[voltagex_]

It's that way in Australia - and worse. You've got our pay TV provider doing silly things like [1] and something strange with the broadcast rights meaning I can't really stream all the games until 2020.

Cable/satellite isn't really as big in Australia as it is in the States and Canada, but the last time I looked it was still $30+ a month if you wanted sport in HD (you know, so you can actually see where the ball is)

1: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-06/foxtel-decides-against...

1a: https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/wiki/streams

[robryan]

AFL streaming right now is broken due to the rights deal. Telstra paid such a small amount compared to 7 and Foxtel for the online rights that they had to accept a lot of restrictions, such as only steaming on mobile devices and no tablet full screen.

I suspect Foxtel will be in a similar position to ESPN come the next rights deal, where they can't afford to pay as highly due to people cancelling cable. Hopefully though that just results in a better streaming deal.