It may seem that way, but it won't work out that way. I am making number up. I think they are realistic, but they are not based on accurate data. You would probably get the main ESPN channels for $25 per month. Then you would have to pay another $10 for the ACCN. Then if you want to watch GT play at Ole Miss, you would have to pay $10 per month for the SECN. Then if you want to watch GT play at Colorado, you would have to pay $10 for the Pac12 Network.
There was a movement to "unbundle" television subscriptions. That works well if you are only interested in content from one group. It doesn't work well if you are interested in content from multiple groups. People were upset about paying more than $100 per month for their TV subscription, but many are now paying more than $100 for various streaming services. The smart way to get around that has been to have a list of streaming services that you want to watch, subscribe to only one per month, and rotate the services every month. HBO has started removing content, which I believe is an attempt to stop people from subscribing one or two months a year and consuming all of the content in that month. I have heard some commentators talk about getting companies to work to "bundle" streaming content in order to lower the cost to the consumer.
Streaming appealed to people at first as a way to increase choice and reduce cost. It hasn't really worked out that way. The content providers will work to increase revenue instead of allowing it to decline. To the consumers, it appears as though there are opportunities to get better content at a lower cost, but it rarely works out that way in the end.
