Watch ESPN online for $20/month with no contract. Yes, No, Maybe?

[bunnyfubbles]

the cost of the sports channels alone (ESPN/ESPN2/TNT/TBS) is worth $8.40 wholesale (http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/), on the whole the total package is probably worth just over $10 without the middleman, so $20 seems like a very fair price if you are interested in enough of the
content. Obviously this is going to appeal mostly to sports fans (football on ESPN, basketball on TNT/TBS)

So why comment if you don't watch sports?

Anyways, 20 bucks seems too high. You can get cable with ESPN included for not much more. Only reason I see it worth it is if you travel but even then most hotel rooms have ESPN

really? the average cost of basic cable in the USA is $65 a month, +$45 a month ($540 per year) doesn't seem like "not much more" to me

with this package you can also subscribe to all of the top 3 streaming services (Netflix/Hulu+/AmazonPrime), and still come out less than $65 a month, can use the savings to go towards a high quality OTA digital antenna so you can get all the major networks.

I wouldn't pay $5 a month for ESPN.

if you have cable or satellite TV, $5.75 of your bill is already going to ESPN, $5 for just ESPN would be a bargain for the average consumer

 

[RossMAN]

this may be the best post I've read so far this year.

/edit

dear mother of god O_O

I approve of this post, many many many times :awe:

 

[OutHouse]

I've gotten out of sports watching, and I don't follow sports teams anymore.

I would say no.

This

 

[MetalMat]

Sports is the only thing keeping me from cutting the cord. But I would need my local Fox Sports channel and the Big Ten Network as well.

Same here.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

Try $4/month and then it might be worth it.

 

[Ns1]

Try $4/month and then it might be worth it.

lololololol. $4 might get you QVC HD.

 

[Conscript]

SlingTV already falling into the trap that makes Cable already so unattractive for cord cutters. Forcing us into packages and subsidizing crap we don't want to watch to get to something we do want to watch (not withstanding Giada's ta-ta's, which I'd pay $5/mo for on their own)

 

[Childs]

(not withstanding Giada's ta-ta's, which I'd pay $5/mo for on their own)

If thats all you want you can watch them for free on Youtube.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

lololololol. $4 might get you QVC HD.

ESPN by itself isn't worth $20/month. They don't have enough content that I would watch. The rest of the channels that come with it I don't care about. I only care about ESPN for the few NFL games that they show that I can't get elsewhere. I might as well just get the NFL Game Rewind and then I can watch all of them whenever I want.

That + MLB.tv + Netflix = ~$25/month

A lot better than DirecTV.

I do wish the NFL was better about making content available and not limiting when you can watch it. The MLB really does it right.

 

[Ns1]

ESPN by itself isn't worth $20/month. They don't have enough content that I would watch. The rest of the channels that come with it I don't care about. I only care about ESPN for the few NFL games that they show that I can't get elsewhere. I might as well just get the NFL Game Rewind and then I can watch all of them whenever I want..

Whether it's worth it @$20 or not, it'll never be $4.

 

[1sikbITCH]

What say you, sports lovers?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/05/med...x.html?sr=fb010514dishvirtualcable7pStoryLink

To be fair, you have a few other channels = ESPN and ESPN2—as well as 10 other channels: TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network, ABC Family, Adult Swim, Travel Channel, Disney Channel, Food Network, and HGTV.

What do the Travel, Disney, TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network, ABC Family, Adult Swim, and HGTV have to do with sports?

Drop the ESPN and add some quality programming and you've got a deal.

Edit - I'll take it if you add Bravo for the wife and A&E. Otherwise shove off no deal.

 

[Balt]

You can almost guarantee that football won't be on it. The contracts the NCAA and NFL have with the TV providers already make it so you can't watch most games streaming so we can pretty much say that this won't have football or at least the big games ever if they are on that channel. That's why even though we pay for cable, you still can't steam lots of games on the ESPN App.

And here I was thinking "It would be worth it during college football season." Guess not.

 

[GrumpyMan]

$2.00 max for ESPN maybe an additional $1.00 for the other channels. If you keep buying little packages like that, all added together you might as well get cable or sat.

 

[Ns1]

$2.00 max for ESPN maybe an additional $1.00 for the other channels. If you keep buying little packages like that, all added together you might as well get cable or sat.

ahahahahahahhaha

 

[drez]

I just left cable to avoid the bundle. Why would I stream a bundle. I want to be able to pick what I want when I want it. $20 a month is what I pay now for all the content I want to watch. I'm not going to double it for ESPN and a bunch of networks with maybe 3 watchable shows (all of which are on Cartoon network).

 

[Childs]

In this area Comcast charges $10 extra for HD, and it requires a really bad cable box. To upgrade the box requires a separate tier of packaging. I had Blast + TV + HD, but the TV watching sucked going through their box. I was going to upgrade the box, but then it meant I'd have to upgrade everything else, and it just about doubled my bill. Part of it was I wanted to keep Blast (100Mbps), but cheaper options to get the TV I wanted meant downgrading internet speed. So I said FU and got rid of the TV stuff, and even bought my own modem. Right now I'm at $60 for 100Mbps only. I'll wait for a double play offer that includes Blast 100Mbps + HD + X1 box. I don't want to spend more than $100 just on principal. If this streaming package is in HD, that would solve my problem.

 

[Sonikku]

Watch ESPN

No, but I have to pay a $2.75 sports surcharge. Just because. D:

 

[FallenHero]

I'd love to DROP ESPN if it means I could save 20 bucks a month on my bill.

 

[SP33Demon]

ESPN knows the writing is on the wall. More and more entertainment is displacing sports, like social media and other internet driven entertainment mediums. More and more people are cutting the cord, and/or watching pirate streams to get their sporting fix (which will never be stopped).

RIP Cable and ESPN.

 

[Carson Dyle]

ESPN knows the writing is on the wall. More and more entertainment is displacing sports, like social media and other internet driven entertainment mediums. More and more people are cutting the cord, and/or watching pirate streams to get their sporting fix (which will never be stopped).

I heard a short news clip the other day on the radio and I think they nailed it.

It's not so much the cord-cutters, it's the "cord nevers" that ESPN is really trying to get. Many young people have never had cable TV service and have no interest in subscribing. But they do have Internet connections and ESPN (and you can be sure, other cable networks) desperately want some way to sell their services to this untapped market.

Gonna be interesting. There are going to be some major changes coming up in the cable TV and ISP business models. And like I said before, when the dust settles I seriously doubt that anything is going to be cheaper for the American consumer.

 

[TwiceOver]

I'll wait to see what the service actually has to offer. Everybody was all giddy about the CBS streaming service then it launched with basically no shows and is pretty much a joke.

I wish they could dump ESPN and do it at half the price.

 

[poofyhairguy]

ESPN knows the writing is on the wall. More and more entertainment is displacing sports, like social media and other internet driven entertainment mediums. .

So untrue. Sports, especially the NFL, dominate TV ratings. Like of the top 30 rated shows every year most are NFL games. In fact sports are the best television products to have if you want to sell advertising because people watch them live instead of DVRing it.

Sports are one of the few things propping up both the cable TV system and Mickey Mouse.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's not so much the cord-cutters, it's the "cord nevers" that ESPN is really trying to get. Many young people have never had cable TV service and have no interest in subscribing. But they do have Internet connections and ESPN (and you can be sure, other cable networks) desperately want some way to sell their services to this untapped market.

What those "cord nevers" are doing is using their parent's (who pay for cable and a home phone because that is what that generation does) ESPN login info. What I suspect this move is preparing for is some plan to lock down the sharing of those accounts.

They will take away daddy's login and replace it with a screen that says "Hey Mr. Millennial! You want to watch the game? Pay up. Daddy can't support you forever."

 

[Carson Dyle]

What those "cord nevers" are doing is using their parent's (who pay for cable and a home phone because that is what that generation does) ESPN login info.

Ummm... sounds like a reach. Is that what you do?

 

[Chaotic42]

At first glance, it seems too expensive. However, my understanding is that the $20 monthly fee includes: ESPN, ESPN2, CNN, TNT, Food Network, HGTV, which makes it better.

For ESPN alone? No. For these channels you listed? Absolutely.