Weekly Column: Free Television May Win the Streaming Wars

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines how free ad-supported television could challenge subscription streaming by offering audiences easier access, familiar programming, and lower costs.

The streaming wars may not be won by the streaming platform with the most subscribers. They will be won by the streaming platform that gives audiences the easiest ways and most compelling reasons to watch.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

Streaming fatigue is a concern for many consumers. People are paying too much money for too many platforms to watch the content they want. Finding that content and determining which platform carries it have also become exhausting.

However, an old friend, free television with traditional commercial breaks, has become more popular. It is similar to free, advertising-supported streaming music. Consumers seem to accept commercial breaks if that means paying less.

If we take a look back at the beginning of streaming as an offering, streaming originally offered lower prices, fewer advertisements, and greater consumer control. However, multiple subscriptions, price increases, advertising tiers, and fragmented content have gradually recreated many of cable television’s disadvantages. When streaming becomes as difficult as cable, consumers tend to lean back into paying less for a familiar product.

Free, advertising-supported streaming television, commonly called “FAST”, delivers scheduled channels and on-demand programming without another monthly subscription. Services including Samsung TV Plus, Pluto TV, Tubi, and The Roku Channel combine the familiarity of television with streaming distribution. Audiences receive content without paying a platform subscription fee, while platforms receive advertising revenue and valuable viewing data. The model succeeds when the advertising burden remains reasonable and privacy practices are transparent.

Sports news, highlights, secondary competitions, shoulder programming, and selected live events can attract habitual viewing to keep people coming back. The recent addition of Front Office Sports Tonight to Samsung TV Plus illustrates how sports-business programming can reach viewers nationally without requiring another subscription. To preserve the value of subscription based models, many premium films, series, and major live events remain behind subscription or transactional paywalls. Free television, however, may become the primary vehicle for discovery, mass reach, library programming, news, and everyday viewing.

Streaming remains less expensive than cable when consumers subscribe to only a few services, but the cost advantage begins to disappear as more platforms are added. According to Deloitte’s 2026 Digital Media Trends, the average subscribing household spends $69 per month on streaming video services, while live television services such as YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV cost approximately $83 to $90 per month before Netflix, Max, Peacock, and other subscriptions are added. A collection of the major ad-free streaming services can cost more than $137 per month, placing it near the price of many traditional cable packages after common fees.

Internet service must be considered separately because streaming requires a broadband connection, although assigning the entire internet bill to entertainment would be misleading when households also use that connection for work, education, communication, shopping, and other purposes. The same distinction applied when cable, internet, and landline telephone service were sold together because the bundled bill included three separate household services, not simply the cost of watching television. Consumers comparing the options should therefore examine television charges, equipment costs, promotional rates, and additional fees separately, while using the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband consumer labels to evaluate the price and terms of internet service.

The future of watching content on television or mobile phones is likely a hybrid model. People will go where the best content is located. From a legal perspective, agreements must address content licensing, advertising inventory, audience measurement, data collection, exclusivity, territorial restrictions, intellectual property, and distribution rights. The streaming wars may not be won by the streaming platform with the most subscribers. They will be won by the streaming platform that gives audiences the easiest ways and most compelling reasons to watch.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.