But every channel from FX to AMC having their own streaming service presents its own problem: namely one of fractured exclusivity. Or, a world where you have to subscribe to a litany of multiple, costly services just to get access to your favorite programs.

Remember how everybody wants a la carte cable? That’s exactly what you’re describing (except streaming is on-demand as opposed to network-scheduled). I’ve always wondered why people who think cable prices are too high already are deluded enough to believe that somehow you’re going to pay less with a la carte.

Let’s say ESPN charges Comcast $10 per month per subscriber. Comcast has about 22 million subscribers. That’s $220 million per month. In moving to a la carte, ESPN’s relatively-fixed costs (content production and acquisition, physical premises, etc) wouldn’t change, but the number of subscribers paying for the channel would. Let’s be generous and say 75% of Comcast’s subscribers would still be willing to pay for ESPN on an a la carte basis. But now you’re dividing $220 million by 16.5 million subscribers, so suddenly the monthly cost per subscriber is $13.33. Some channels will likely cost less, and someone who really only wants one or a couple of networks will pay less overall. But in a family you’re likely to have a diversity of networks that are demanded, and even if you "only want" 15 channels, and even if each network is only $5.99 instead of $13.33, that’s still ~$90 a month, and my estimates are probably low. How much is your cable bill right now?

And of course none of the above paragraph takes into account the more niche channels, which today are included in a package of "We’ll give you MTV if you take the fishing network" (made-up example). Yes, MTV might only cost $5.99 a la carte because it’s got a larger audience to spread costs across, but how much do you really think the fishing network is going to cost when it can’t be subsidized by being included in a larger package?

Separately from all of that, the original article this is based on is written very poorly, which in turn probably caused the article here to be pretty off-base. This new service is a "channel" only in the way that your electronic program guide is a "channel". You can use your TV remote to get to it, but it’s not a channel broadcasting a linear schedule of content. Because you go from the premise of it being a channel, you act as if this is simply like HBO the channel, which is linearly-broadcast but has no ads. Instead it is a service much like HBO GO – it’s an on-demand service, and Xfinity has apps where you can watch subscribed channels on other platforms like phones and tablets, just like HBO GO does. And as with HBO GO, the primary benefit is on-demand access to the shows (some of which are archival content) on the platform you want.

After finding the original press release, which does not use the word "channel" to describe the new service at all, you do need to be an Xfinity TV subscriber to subscribe to FX+. So it is paying extra for the service when you already pay for the base channel (you can’t just subscribe to Xfinity Internet and get FX+), but again it is paying for an on-demand service, not for a linear network devoid of ads.

You can make the argument all you want as to whether the public is willing to pay (extra) for VOD for a single network, but to write the article as if you’re paying FX again to get their exact existing network, simply sans ads, is just straight-up bad journalism. Again, probably based on the source article’s repeated use of the word "channel", since of course if it has to do with TV, it must be a channel, completely ignoring VOD which has been around for decades (and which this service is), streaming services, etc.