The rise of streaming services like Netflix, Max and Disney+ was supposed to kill off cable. But something funny is happening: Streaming is starting to look a lot more like cable. Comcast said last week it would offer a "bundle" packaging Peacock, Netflix and Apple TV+ together at a discounted rate. Comcast's announcement came a week after Warner Bros Discovery and Disney said they would offer a similarly discounted bundle of Disney+, Hulu and Max.

The consolidation is a reminder to consumers "of the simplicity of what they left behind: the humble cable subscription," Slate said. Cable offered a wide array of choices in one place, for one fee — the original "bundle." The streaming era farmed out those choices to a variety of platforms. Now Hollywood CEOs are betting that customers miss the old ways. "If we still need to navigate to different streaming services to hunt down our favorite shows, at least we can pay for them all at once," said Slate.

What did the commentators say?
Early streaming had few competitors. Netflix once stood alone, but that has changed. "To watch entertainment now requires wading through a frustrating array of streaming services," said Jacob Stern at The Atlantic. And all that competition isn't all that profitable, which is why competitors are banding together. 

Joined together, the streaming services are "inching closer and closer to resembling the entertainment behemoths of yesteryear," Oliver Darcy said at CNN. But services like Netflix — which are increasingly offering live events like sports and comedy specials —  have "shown little-to-no interest in investing in either live-news or pre-taped programming." That's not good news for society. "Rebuilding the traditional cable package without news is akin to putting together a meal that includes steak, potatoes and ice cream, but not the broccoli," said Darcy.

What next?
The new Comcast bundle (StreamSaver) will cost $15 a month, CNET said. For subscribers to the three services in the bundle, that will represent a savings of $10 a month. The Disney-Warner Bros Discovery bundle is coming this summer, and the price is unknown but a "bundled offering is likely to cost less," The New York Times said.

The U.S. is continuing to see a rapid influx of new sports stadiums either being proposed, approved by city councils or already being built. But these stadiums do not come cheap, and they are often at the extreme expense of taxpayers. 

How do stadium subsidies work? 
Like any other subsidy, city and state governments will often grant expenditures from taxpayers to help fund the construction of new stadiums. From 2020 to January 2023, there were five new stadiums built in the U.S. that cost a total of $1.97 billion, of which taxpayers funded $750 million, according to a report from the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM). 

While this is still a large amount, it is actually significantly less than in prior decades, according to the report. In the 1990s, there were 18 stadiums built at a cost of $342 million — but taxpayers spent significantly more on the projects, with JPAM reporting that subsidies footed $281 million of this price tag. And in the 1970s, all $287 million worth of new stadiums built were paid with tax subsidies. 

What is the bigger picture? 
Like any taxpayer-related issue, subsidizing public funds for sports stadiums remains controversial. This is because these stadiums are largely a "boondoggle for taxpayers, who have spent nearly $30 billion on stadiums over the past 34 years, not counting property-tax exemptions or federal revenues lost to tax-exempt municipal bonds," said The Atlantic. 

To an extent people may not realize, stadiums are not automatic cash grabs. Sporting venues "do not come close to generating enough economic activity to pay back the public investment involved in building them," said The Atlantic. This is where the crux of the controversy lies, as the "biggest debates around tax policies for pro sports teams often reflect that — unlike with many municipal efforts, such as sports fields, parks and bike paths — a private party owns these sports teams," said Sportico. "Should we be supporting billionaires with public money?" Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist asked.