We may earn a commission from purchases through links on our site. You can learn more here.

FOX Wants to Become More Cord Cutting Friendly

It looks like FOX is almost ready to make the jump a lot closer to à la carte TV. Yesterday 21st Century Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch opened up about his views on the future of TV.

“Make no mistake, everyone will go direct to consumer,” Murdoch said at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference Wednesday. “I don’t think there is a major media company on the planet that ultimately won’t have a direct-to-consumer product launched in the short to near term.”

Don’t expect this to happen overnight. Murdoch went on to say, “We need to make sure that we don’t damage the current ecosystem, which is very profitable to all of us, in the process of going direct to consumer.”

Now FOX is not new to this effort. There has been talk of a Discovery streaming service to offer Discovery channels and its new Scripps-owned channels. Discovery has also teamed up with AMC, A&E, and Viacom for a proposed $20 sports-free streaming service.

FOX already has a lot of the infrastructure in place to launch its own direct-to-consumer service. Its new FOX apps combine all FOX networks into a single app. Now all FOX needs to do is offer an option to purchase access to the app without cable TV.

Would you subscribe to a standalone FOX service? Leave us a comment and let us know.

Source: Multichannel 

Disclaimer: To address the growing use of ad blockers we now use affiliate links to sites like, streaming services, and others. Affiliate links help sites like Cord Cutters News, LLC stay open. Affiliate links cost you nothing but help me support my family. We do not allow paid reviews on this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

49 Responses to FOX Wants to Become More Cord Cutting Friendly

  1. Avatar
    Chris Kidwell September 15, 2017 at 7:23 am #

    If it includes fox sports I absolutely would be interested

    • Avatar
      Evan September 15, 2017 at 9:39 am #

      Let that be an add on sports package. I don’t want to subsidize sports for a more expensive bill.

  2. Avatar
    risingtide September 15, 2017 at 7:38 am #

    it might actually be bad for cord cutters if all the big media companies started their own streaming service. What would happen is that they would start pushing for their expensive services and use them as leverage to charge more.

    CBS All Access made CBS difficult and expensive to get because CBS wasnt willing to give up that revenue to streaming services. Once Disney starts their streaming service in 2019, getting Disney on other streaming services will be difficult and expensive. Same thing with Fox and any other company that follows that path.

    For example, Disney is already pulling its movies from Netflix in 2019, forcing cord-cutters to pay a lot more just to watch Disney movies in addition to paying for Netflix for other content. I’m sure Disney stand-alone service will cost at least $8. And ESPN will cost about the same as well. So, to get Disney and ESPN streaming services, plan for at least $15.00 total.

    At the end of the day, cord cutters would be forced to sign up for each media company’s expensive standalone service like CBS All Access. To get ABC, Fox, CBS and NBC (and their sister channels), would cost you about $40. And you would be dealing with different apps that probably don’t even have DVR.

    Cord-cutting would become fragmented. Anti-cord cutters would win.

    • Avatar
      Brandon September 15, 2017 at 8:49 am #

      This is exactly how they think they will combat cord cutting. Once it starts costing as much as those inflated cable bills cord cutters will simply give up and go completely cord free and use an ota antenna.

      • Avatar
        GersonT1000 September 15, 2017 at 9:07 am #

        That’s right. And if you live in an area with no OTA reception, then at least you can sign up for two services at a time and stagger them throughout the year to binge whatever you like on that network at the end of their season.

      • Avatar
        risingtide September 15, 2017 at 9:38 am #

        Yes, it’s a recipe for destroying cord cutting.

    • Avatar
      Evan September 15, 2017 at 9:36 am #

      I would gladly pay $15/mo for a livestreaming 20th Century Fox package. A $15 Viacom package. $30. Not bad.

    • Avatar
      Evan September 15, 2017 at 9:38 am #

      Most people only watch about 10 TV networks. This is true a la carte TV via HBO’s model. We will pay by network now.

      • Avatar
        risingtide September 15, 2017 at 9:46 am #

        For the few people who watch content from only 2 media companies like just Fox and Viacom, this would be good.

        The problem is that those networks tend to span across different media companies. IT’s not difficult to find someone who watches a show or two from all the 4 major broadcasters, top with nickelodeon or mtv or comedy central, plus AMC or BBCA. So, even though they only watch 6 channels, they’re forced to get all the packages.

        The worst part is that these media companies would charge for high fee or become exclusive in an attempt to push people to their services. Everyone loses at the end.

        • Avatar
          Evan September 15, 2017 at 9:54 am #

          Really? The only show I watch in AMC is BCS. Why would I subscribe to AMC for one ahow on one network? If I liked it enough I would get it on iTunes. That is the future. Why subscribe to a network when you only watch 1 or 2 shows?

          I am counting on these businesses not being able to outsmart my consumer tastes. I benefit from lower bills that way.

        • Avatar
          Evan September 15, 2017 at 9:57 am #

          Must watch or watch to stream on the background as entertainment? Not everything I watch now is must watch because there is a lack of choice. You watch shows because you are bored. That is different from appointment TV.

        • Avatar
          Evan September 15, 2017 at 10:00 am #

          Most people watch Fox shows across the various Fox networks. Do you need to pay multiple networks to stream reruns? Hardly. Discovery Network is like that. Nonstop reruns. I don’t want to pay for Discovery Network.

          • Avatar
            risingtide September 15, 2017 at 10:19 am #

            Youre thinking from a very narrow-minded perspective. You need to think of the impact on the majority of the population. You may only care about Fox and Viacom. But most people have diverse interest and need kids networks like nickelodeon, disney; news networks like cnn, fox news; entertainment networks like AMC, USA and of course sports and broadcast networks.

            And trust me, people who care about their shows, they usually watch them live, and want the network even if they watch just one show. Most people with AMC only watch The Walking Dead. And they do it live. That’s why it gets huge ratings.

            Your case is valid but for very few people. The best a la carte would be freedom to choose any network from any media company without being forced to add the entire bundle from that company or being denied access to networks from other companies

          • Avatar
            Evan September 15, 2017 at 10:35 am #

            Isn’t a la cart like the CBS All Access model? No providers. Just networks and the networks and shows they own for a monthly fee. On demand is part of it too. I understand your point. What I consider efficiency you consider to be too narrow.

          • Avatar
            risingtide September 15, 2017 at 8:49 pm #

            No, a la carte is the ability to select the individual channels from the same provider without being forced into a bundle. CBS All Access isn’t exactly a la carte because it offers just one option. If you go to a restaurant that only offers chicken, that’s not a la carte. it’s just a standalone service

          • Avatar
            Evan September 15, 2017 at 8:51 pm #

            I know but CBS All Access is just one model of digital distribution. Sales directly to the consumer which is what Fox said it wants to so. So I anticipate a similar model.

          • Avatar
            risingtide September 16, 2017 at 10:19 pm #

            The problem with CBS All Access and whatever we get from Disney and Fox is thst the media conglomerates would make their content hard to get elsewhere

          • Avatar
            Evan September 16, 2017 at 10:28 pm #

            We have Disney now.

            Disney movies are only Pirates or comic book movies and I already have Logan and Guardians 2 in the cloud. Besides comic book movies bery fee of which I want to buy I don’t see any value in Disney. Nickelodeon is much better entertainment value.

            Fox is inaccessible now.

          • Avatar
            Evan September 17, 2017 at 12:22 am #

            I have 36 channel favorites out of 60. Several channels are favorites for one program or for programs which I listen to on the background but certainly they are not must watch shows. C-Span for example. Remove C-Span and it becomes 34 channels.

          • Avatar
            risingtide September 17, 2017 at 8:52 am #

            When you watch those 36 channels that you may not need, they make ad money out of you. If they gave you a choice for the channels you wanted to pay for, you wouldbselect less than 10. And they lose all the revenue. By forcing you to have the channel, they increase the chances of you watching a channel you wouldn’t otherwise.

          • Avatar
            Evan September 17, 2017 at 8:55 am #

            36 some like C-Span are merely favorited for easy acess and so I can see what is on. Some of these channels may have changed their programming and rebranded from when I favorited them too. I hate that. Some stuff has atiff on when I am bored. It’s all very temporary.

          • Avatar
            Evan September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am #

            Who wouldn’t have less than 10 or 20 channels? I am sure I could whittle it down to either number. I don’t need some of the Directv Now specific channels. I don’t need AMC when BCS is not on. Money to be aaved for sure. ? It forces businesses to have to be more profitable which in turn means only the popular channels are offered. The unpopular channels are unprofitable and go away. That helps cut down on junk channels too. Networks must be tied to popularity. When the popularity declines the network is dropped.

          • Avatar
            Evan September 17, 2017 at 9:06 am #

            They could do what fast food joints do. The dollar menu? 20 networks for $20 kind of thing. Like Sling this means only offering the top 20 popular networks of the moment. Everything is very subject to change as far as networks go.

        • Avatar
          Evan September 15, 2017 at 10:02 am #

          Well we will be more efficient when choosing which networks to subscribe to. A little more organization is a good thing.

      • Avatar
        Daniel Richards September 15, 2017 at 2:32 pm #

        by the time you buy 10 al a carte networks priced in the 5+ dollar range because they all have there own separate backend costs, you might as well stick with cable, there would be no costs savings, al-a-carte will be the death of streaming tv, we need something that doesn’t exist yet, a single service where all the networks work together and have a single backend service and you can buy a bundle of 5 or 10 channels and you get to select what those channels are, this would remove the issue of switching between multiple apps to change channels and all the pointless backend costs that would just leave us paying far more then we do now for even less content.

        • Avatar
          Evan September 15, 2017 at 2:42 pm #

          Well if not forced most people would purchase service from under 10. Top 3 networks or top 5 networks. Remember media ownership and who owns what.

          • Avatar
            Daniel Richards September 15, 2017 at 2:57 pm #

            but still, look at CBS All Access, they don’t ive you access to all the other CBS properties, only the regular CBS content, so you would have a separate app for each channel, even Discovery separated out all the networks to there own apps last year, so you woulnd’t be getting all the channels from the one provider you would have to buy each channel individually and if CBS all access is a clue you are talking 6-10 bucks a channel, at the top end of that 10 bucks you only need 4 channels to have it make more sense to get something like Directv Now or Vue (as those services are likely to have those 4 channels) even at the low end 6 channels is in that same price point as those services, point is we the users would just be paying for a bunch of backend costs and less content for the same price as a result, we need something that lets us build are own bundle but is all supplied through 1 service so as to avoid all these extra backend costs.

          • Avatar
            Evan September 15, 2017 at 3:01 pm #

            So paying by channel. How many channels do you watch. I’m sure you have your favorites count them up. How many are there? How many can you do without? Can you drill it down to the 5 most watched networks?

          • Avatar
            Daniel Richards September 15, 2017 at 5:59 pm #

            6 channels MINIMUM for me (HGTV, DIY, Comedy Central, Discovery, Velocity and History) History and Comedy Central could probably be ones I only subscribe to at certain times a year, but it’s a real hassle to need to know when I need to add and drop channels, but I also split the DTVNow bill with the other person in the house, so we would have to get the channels he watches where I know for SURE there is atleast one other channel he watches that I don’t and even my channels at 6 bucks a piece comes to more then I currently pay DTVNow for ALL of my channels and a whole bunch more.

          • Avatar
            Evan September 15, 2017 at 8:43 pm #

            Some networks like AMC I only care about a few months out of the year when a popular show us on. My point is that most basic tiers have 60 channels but if we had to we could make do if they were sold network by network. This would truley be a la carte. It is interesting that other reveal they are happy with a 60 channel plan. I would like to get rid of Discovery Networks and any other networks that primarily air reruns all day of one show.

          • Avatar
            Daniel Richards September 15, 2017 at 9:38 pm #

            my main point is the “model” of buying individual services is just to inefficient, getting a 60 channel plan even if you only watch a half dozen will likely be cheaper then buying the half dozen individual networks, what we need is a service that allows building your own bundle, like say something that starts at 10 bucks and you get to choose the 10 channels you get for that, then if you want more pay another 5 bucks for 5 more kinda thing and if you need more then like 2 streams pay a few bucks more and get more streams (like what Hulu does where you can get unlimited in house streaming), this would be a good model for a sports free platform because they could still make a profit this way because of the lower cost of the non-sports channels, sports are simply to expensive to sell at that pricepoint, but based on what we’ve heard of the sports free 20 dollar service I think this might be a good viable balance between Al-A-Carte and a full on package, it gets the starting point price comparable to Netflix which I think is important given the number of complaints i’ve seen against even Slings 20 dollar package, the younger generation that never had cable themselves views these pricepoints as horribly overpriced (even when they are far better then cable) because they compare it to services like Netflix and Hulu (regular, not Live) so getting to that price point with enough channels and the ability to pick those channels, I think would really attract the younger crowd and the older crowd.

    • Avatar
      Daniel Richards September 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm #

      7-8 bucks is like the current cable price to carry ESPN, to get ESPN “Al-A-Carte” as it’s own service will be more like 40-50 a month.

      • Avatar
        risingtide September 15, 2017 at 8:43 pm #

        It can’t be $40 – $50. I think the most they can sell ESPN alone will be like $15

    • Avatar
      Eric Beagles September 15, 2017 at 5:04 pm #

      If people HAVE to have every channel, they deserve to overpay.
      For those of us who will only subscribe to the channels we actually watch, we will be saving hundreds, perhaps thousands, a year. I’ve been saving over a thousand a year for 3 years now.
      Cord cutting is winning and will win.

      • Avatar
        risingtide September 15, 2017 at 8:41 pm #

        Not having every channel. It’s simply having 4 to 6 channels but from different companies

        • Avatar
          Eric Beagles September 16, 2017 at 11:08 am #

          6 channels at $8 a month for commercial free is $48 a month. That’s way cheaper than any cable or satellite bill I can ever remember getting.

          • Avatar
            risingtide September 16, 2017 at 10:20 pm #

            i pay only $35 for directv now for over 100 channels which includes all the channels i need and others i might watch for reruns, movies or when im bored

          • Avatar
            Eric Beagles September 17, 2017 at 7:04 am #

            Better than over $100 for regular DirectTV…or DishNetwork…or any cable. Right?

          • Avatar
            risingtide September 17, 2017 at 8:55 am #

            DirecTV Now specifically isn’t a good experience because their UI is terrible and they don’t have DVR. They’re working onna new app and DVR. But, YouTube TV and PlayStation Vue all have better interface and experience than regular DirecTV and Dish,

  3. Avatar
    gotnodebt September 15, 2017 at 8:52 am #

    I’d be ecstatic over a “sports-free”, less expensive service and would sign up in a heart-beat. I sincerely believe that the high-cost of cable and any streaming service is due to the high ransom that has to be paid to sports channels for even the most basic sports coverage.

  4. Avatar
    Evan September 15, 2017 at 9:34 am #

    “Damage the current ecosystem which is very profitable to us.”
    Mr Murdoch do you know what isn’t going to profitable to your ecosystem? Dragging your feet into the 21st century. You are the last network to face the 21st century digital reality. Why are you concerned about profits to your ecosystem when you are not even offering an OTT service of your own so you can become like HBO? Isn’t obvious that it hurts the profits of the ecosystem to be very few places online? It hurts profits when consumers have no service to subscribe to.

  5. Avatar
    Rick Rude September 15, 2017 at 9:50 am #

    Isnt the goal of cord cutting to pay little or nothing for content? Paying for over the top apps is just exchanging one cord for another.

    • Avatar
      Jj September 15, 2017 at 9:52 am #

      Not for everyone. I like having no commercials & a better selection of shows.

    • Avatar
      Evan September 15, 2017 at 10:14 am #

      The reason I do not have cable is $ but also I do not want a box that I have to return. We own our boxes now. No box rental fees. No taxes, fees, and other surcharges. No commitment to a contract. Just a simple price which we millennials prefer.

  6. Avatar
    Jj September 15, 2017 at 9:51 am #

    Fox already has a direct to consumer product – Hulu

    • Avatar
      Evan September 15, 2017 at 10:11 am #

      Hulu is not CBS All Access. Hulu is not like HBO. I am expecting a service like CBS All Access for Fox.

  7. Avatar
    Frank Scammell September 15, 2017 at 10:59 am #

    i just with Direct and or Dish would just let me pick the 10-20 channels I want content from and charge me X dollars instead of 100 music channels, foreign language channels Home shopping and religion channels that I don’t want to subsidize and wont watch. True ala carte.

  8. Avatar
    Daniel Richards September 15, 2017 at 2:24 pm #

    “We need to make sure that we don’t damage the current ecosystem, which
    is very profitable to all of us, in the process of going direct to

    Translation we are going to make SO FREAKING EXPENSIVE that if you want to watch more then 5 channels you might as well just keep cable, like how CBS All Access is so crazy priced.

    I know everyone has this dream of Al-A-carte, but the reality is to operate individual streaming services for each channel means a bunch of backend equipment driving up the costs so ever network will be stupid expensive, the future is in a build your package through a single provider as that will significantly reduce the backend costs.

  9. Avatar
    iSRS September 16, 2017 at 6:21 am #

    Once all these networks start doing it, it will see a rise in two areas. Pirating and purchases of shoes by season.