Wayne, the basic problem that all of the streamers---some more than others---face is that there isn't enough viewing to justify excessively costly "original" programming investments. It's important to remember that when cable was in its heyday as a profit making enterprise---say about 15 years ago---- the cable channels were competing with broadcast TV for an average viewers' daily consumption of roughly 5 hours of TV daily. Even then few cable channels could have shown a profit without carriage fees. Today, streaming generates roughly 2 hours of viewing per person per day and there are at least 15 services of any size vying for these two hours---with only some being ad-supported.

While many people  characterize FASTs as a new form of cable, in reality they are much more akin to a typical independent TV station's method of operartion and business plan. As with the old indies of yore, FASTs rely exclusiveley on ad revenues----they don't get carriage fees---- and as such they are competing not only with other FASTs for such incomes, but with linear TV. Under those circumstances investing big time in anything other than reruns and low budget reality fare, old movies,  game shows, etc. for the bulk of their program lineups just doesn't compute. A reasonably priced "original" once in a while ---fine---but  that's about it. The same point applies to "news". Is going in this direction the solution?The indies have certainly embraced TV news and used it to attract premium CPM paying advertisers---but news is costly---if you do it right--and there's lots of competition out there. What about sports? Again, that's a maybe---but a very costly one, hence high risk.