Extra Innings Announcement

by 08 Cubs on Mar 8, 2007 5:03 PM CST Comment 88 comments

MLB has finally announced their agreement with DirectTV. Click here

The deal is for 7 years. The good news is that it is not an exclusive deal, yet.

Additionally, in keeping with MLB's desire to provide as much MLB programming to as many baseball fans as possible, MLB and DIRECTV have agreed to include a provision that allows MLB EXTRA INNINGS to be offered to other incumbents - In Demand and DISH Network - at consistent rates and carriage requirements with a deal to be concluded before the baseball season begins. The provision also requires the incumbents to agree to carriage rights to the MLB Channel proportionally equivalent to DIRECTV's commitment. Should the incumbents decide not to match DIRECTV's commitment, the MLB EXTRA INNINGS package will be exclusive to DIRECTV. All out of market games continue to be available on MLB.com.

Those of us who don't want/can't get DirectTV will have to keep waiting to see if we can get Extra Innings.

I wonder how difficult it will be for InDemand and Dish Network to match DirectTv's agreement. I sure hope they do!

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 88 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well...

.... this is actually good news. I believe Dish Network and InDemand (which is carried by digital cable carriers like Comcast) would LIKE to have the MLB Channel (which is supposed to start up in 2009).

I hope they do decide to match DirecTV's commitment to that channel so that the rest of us can get EI if we don't choose to switch to DirecTV.

This is a pretty good compromise, actually. Now it's up to the other carriers.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 5:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Also..

... I imagine there will be a lot of pressure put on InDemand and Dish Network to match the terms (note, the link says "The provision also requires the incumbents to agree to carriage rights to the MLB Channel proportionally equivalent to DIRECTV's commitment." -- not necessarily a one-for-one match).

We await developments.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 5:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no way Dish network and In demand

Will match Directv's "committment".

by lemon17pie on Mar 8, 2007 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't they?

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Because...

they didn't do it with the NFL and won't set precedent so they have to in the future...as well as forcing themselves to have to carry NBA and NHL networks in the future on their basic tier.

This agreement was set up so that they can't match it. Hell, the NFL did the same EXACT thing and it generates a lot more money than baseball and InDemand wouldn't budge. They'll NEVER put the MLB network on their basic tier. This is an exclusive deal. It was written in a way knowing that InDemand would NOT agree to it.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Besides all that...

didn't the president of InDemand, point blank, state that they couldn't/wouldn't accept those terms?

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think you are right

no way dish is matching mlb if they won't match the nfl. which is the real moneymaker. i just don't know for sure whetther dish even had the chance to match on nfl stuff.

by TerryS on Mar 10, 2007 8:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't Dish

put it on the basic package? They have many they could dump to put it on and they are a direct competitor of Direct.

by cubswin on Mar 8, 2007 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm assuming

That part of matching DirecTV's commitment would be matching the 7 year deal? I don't see it happening. MLB and DirecTV knows that as well. If you were DirecTV, why would you agree to this deal if you didn't think you would have a monopoly on it? Why would you "commit" to this type of deal if you didn't think you'd add subscribers with this deal?

by lemon17pie on Mar 8, 2007 7:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily.

It says "proportionally equivalent". Now, you can read that in a number of different ways -- but I'll bet one way might be for the other carriers to agree to the same dollar amount (or a proportionate dollar amount based on subscribers), but for fewer years.

DirecTV has made the offer -- so I would imagine the other carriers, who HAVE made money on EI, will do whatever they can to make it happen. Remember, THEY don't want to LOSE customers to DirecTV.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 7:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

devil in the unreported details but it is movement

it is transition and negotiating point

Best Harry moment: 'Hey there's Marla without her shorts on!'

by Ivy Walls on Mar 8, 2007 8:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

was that

english?

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Mar 9, 2007 8:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is good news

but actually, what I'm hearing is that the other providers had the most problems not with the money, but with the MLB network and the demand to be on a basic tier. They've been having fits with the NFL Network and they don't want to go through that again with MLB. Plus, with the NFL network, ESPN, ESPN2, Versus, Fox Sports regional channels and whatever other regional sports channel (like CSC) they have, they sort of feel that they have enough sports channels on the regular tiers.

However, Extra Innings is a big moneymaker, and the fact that they wouldn't have to carry MLB until 2009 indicates to me that they'll probably accept.

by Josh77 on Mar 9, 2007 3:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Man, I hope you're right.

What has been their problem with the NFL Network?

Given the fact that the NFL Network actually carried regular-season games, I would think the new MLB channel might also do so sometime in the future and the other carriers wouldn't want to be left behind.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 8:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The biggest problem

has been what the NFL wants them to pay per subscriber to carry the channel.

by LT on Mar 9, 2007 8:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think...

... this is an issue for the baseball channel as well?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 9:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Uneducated guess, but

yes. I think that the sports leagues have seen the success of the ESPN models and they want a cut of the same action. The only problem is that the cable companies have a lot of pressure on them not to raise rates. If a new channel wants them to pay a dollar or two per subcriber, plus put them on the standard programming tier it causes them to have to either raise the rates or lose some profit margin.

by LT on Mar 9, 2007 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense.

But, carrying the baseball channel might also get them some new subscribers, wouldn't you think?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably so

but would the gains outweigh the losses if they had to raise their rates?

by LT on Mar 9, 2007 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good question.

I'd think they would, since they could promote additional product.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

All out of market games continue to be available

on MLB.com

...Unless you live within a 750 mile square radius of the team you're trying to watch.

Go Nebraska Football!

by sanantonecub on Mar 8, 2007 5:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not unexpected but still pisses me off

While not on the scale of the NHL-television rights debacle that reduced the popularity of their sport in this country significantly over the past 20 years or so, I have no doubt in my mind that in the end MLB will rue the day they gave the satellite providers exclusivity to their content as they witness the popularity of their product diminish over the life of this monopoly simply because less fans are watching.

Being a Time-Warner cable subscriber I have absolutely no intention to either change providers or watch inferior MLB.com video through my computer. In short, I will limit my television viewing strictly to WGN and the few times FOX or ESPN covers a weekend Cubs game.

I hate this deal because it makes me feel that Selig, his cronies, and assorted MLB corporate lawyers are more concerned with their bank account than their customers, ie, us, the average baseball fan.

by JFCubFan on Mar 8, 2007 6:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Loud, sustained applause!

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What he said....

I have realized I could switch to Direct TV, BUT I DON'T WANT TO. Everything (I also have TW Cable) is bundled. Why should I have to bow to MLB? I want to see Cubs games, and techincally -- I CAN WRITE TE EI OFF ON MY TAXES.

But I don't want to be forced to change something that works for me. (Maybe I'll feel different if the Cubs are in first by 7-games in August.)

(Yes, it is old fashioned to use a Underwood typewriter to access the Internet. It's a bit slower..)

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 8, 2007 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

They don't gain or lose fans with extra innings. Show me one person that has EI and doesn't like baseball

by roach on Mar 8, 2007 8:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can't do that

but I can show you fans whose decision to watch less baseball will determine whether their children are fans

by TC Cubby on Mar 9, 2007 8:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How

is there going to be diminished interest in the sport? Only 500,000 people got EI on cable. That's it. Of those, half will make the switch. The people who get EI are hardcore baseball fans and will simply switch leaving 250,000 angry about it. Those 250,000 fans will have absolutely no impact on the interest level in this game.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I work with

a crew of hardcore NFL fans. Of the 40, 50 fans here in my office only TWO switched from cable to DirecTV so they could get the NFL network and the NFL Sunday Ticket package last year when the cable providers got into that pissing contest with the NFL and subsequently dropped the NFL network. And this is football I am talking about, which is certainly more popular than baseball.

To think that 50% of current cable-based EI baseball fans will switch to Directv is truly delusional; it simply will not happen.

by JFCubFan on Mar 9, 2007 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

I suspect DirecTV is expecting half the people to switch.

It won't happen. They'll be lucky to get 10% to switch.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i won't switch to

directv expressly because of what i think of as a pretty shady business deal. but i'm stubborn that way.

al, i'm surprised you care much about this, unless its just a principle thing. you should still be able to get all the cubs games since you're in their market, right? if you can watch all 162 cubs games AND a lot of out of market games then you are pretty hard core.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Mar 9, 2007 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's partly the principle...

... and partly the fact that I like the package, which allows me to watch games OTHER than Cubs games (yes, I can watch all of them, plus all the White Sox games, too, if I want to watch AL teams).

It's ridiculous of them to think that I'd switch my entire TV service just for this, no matter how much I like it, OR that I'd be willing to watch an inferior-quality picture on my computer, which is NOT the same as watching television.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like the deal...

either, but I switched. And I'm not getting Extra Innings. I got the Sports Pack instead. Pretty much the same thing. And I was plenty happy with digital cable, but I want to watch baseball on my television and this is what I had to do to make that happen. Oh well.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sports Pack won't get you the mlb games

They will be blacked out when baseball is on.

by LT on Mar 9, 2007 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously?

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

imagine my horror a couple years back when i tuned into fox sports chicago to watch a cubs game, and it was blacked out (i live in wisconsin). i had a nice sandwich made, a lemonade, and i was ready for a nice afternoon of baseball. i feel sorry for whoever the poor customer service rep was that felt my wrath that day.

the games are definitely blacked out if you're out of market. i guess you'll have to invest a small portion of your website's fortune to get the EI plan.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Mar 9, 2007 7:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I did the same thing years ago

when I first had satellite and you could get all the sports nets on the sports tiers. To make matters worse, I sat there and watched the pre game show getting all fired up to see the Cubs. Then at 7:00 at game time the channel went dark. Of course I called Dish network and ended up signing up for EI at that point.

by LT on Mar 9, 2007 9:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

my website's fortune...the one that has no advertising whatsoever. I will get EI now that I know that. I'm glad you let me know this.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 10:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wanna bet?

Baseball has taken baseball away from the most hardcore fans. It's a brilliant decision on their part because these are the fans who will do whatever they have to do to watch the games...whether it's MLB.tv or switching...they'll do it. No matter what, baseball wins. In fact, my guess is that baseball doesn't want people to switch and would prefer they order mlb.tv.

So, any anger about this deal being taken out on DirecTV that results in people not getting it and subscribing to mlb.tv have done EXACTLY what MLB was hoping they'd do.

Isn't that funny?

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm one of those hardcore fans.

And I'm not switching, nor am I subscribing to MLB.TV.

And I don't think I'm alone.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

You're not alone. But many will switch.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

See your problem, as noted above?

You can't get what you thought you could by getting the Sports Pack. It'll cost you a lot more to get EI, and perhaps you were misled by one of the DirecTV sales people.

I'm still hoping for a last-minute reprieve which will get EI back on digital cable (and Dish, for those who have Dish Network).

They've got three weeks to work it out.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 7:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem

was all my fault. I saw Sports Pack and didn't bother to ask or look at the blackout restrictions.

No big deal though. I'll just cancel that and get EI. I'll wait to cancel it though at the end of spring training. The ST games still come in, which was awfully nice today, tomorrow, Monday and about 7 other times on CSN this spring.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 10:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you sure...

... they'll let you cancel it at that point?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 10, 2007 4:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

I canceled it earlier today and ordered EI. I'll get Sports Pack for one month and then it's gone, which is fine. I will have seen the spring games and I'll order it for one month next year.

by Maddog on Mar 10, 2007 7:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Then you got yourself a good deal.

As I've said, I'm happy with my digital cable and don't want to change just for this.

Somewhere else in one of these threads, someone mentioned the fact that many people with cable service also have their internet and phone service bundled with it. Why would those people want to switch to DirecTV?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 11, 2007 4:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Big BIG difference

between Sunday Ticket subscribers and EI subscribers. EI subscribers aren't your garden variety baseball fans. That's why so few subscribe to it. You have to be a hardcore baseball fan to order that much baseball for your television.

NFL is played once a week. Even the biggest fans of that sport can't be motivated to make a decision to switch based on what happens once a week. EI is daily and has numerous games. There is a huge difference between the average Sunday ticket subscriber and the average EI subscriber and it's that reason why roughly half will switch.

And even if they don't, the same thing applies. WE're talking about a half million people. Who cares? Baseball could survive if every single one of those fans stopped watching baseball today and it wouldn't bother them one bit. We're talking about a fraction of the fans of baseball here.

And let's face it...all this anger is going to be over and done with by the time Opening Day rolls around. You subscribed to EI. You aren't suddenly going to give up baseball. And baseball knows this and it's why they don't give a rat's ass about you. They're far more concerned with the average fan than the hardcore baseball fan like you or I. We make up a tiny percentage of the baseball fans around. The average fan roots for his/her home team and watches it on their local broadcasts. 99% of baseball fans are this way.

They're going to piss off the 1% of the fans who can't live without baseball. It's like taking snacks away a snack for fat people. They'll do whatever they have to do to get their hands on that snack. The thin people don't give a rat's ass.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right.

But they're not going to get the "average" fan to buy this package, either.

I suspect DirecTV, IF they do wind up with the exclusive package, is going to lose a ton of money on this deal.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That would surprise me very much, Al.

They're going to make EI as marketable as Sunday Ticket.

by Maddog on Mar 9, 2007 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How so?

I doubt they'll charge any less for it than they (or anyone else) was charging last year, and as I have said elsewhere, I cannot believe that all 250,000 (if that's the correct number) EI subscribers from last year who did not have DirecTV will switch. In fact, I'd say they'd be lucky to get 10% of that number to switch, and more likely the number will be far less than that.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 7:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't look good for InDemand

According to this article, it doesn't look like InDemand will match what DirectTV is offering.

The president of one of those providers, iN Demand's Robert Jacobson, immediately said those terms were impossible for his company to agree to and called it a "de facto exclusive deal."

It looks like the MLB/DirectTV deal raised the bar so high that there wasn't any way the others could match. So MLB can say "We tried to get the others involved, but they wouldn't. It's their fault DirectTV becomes exclusive, not MLB's."

by 08 Cubs on Mar 8, 2007 7:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like it.

Also sounds like MLB wants US to be the ones to bitch to the providers (quotes from the above link):

"In response to those concerns of our fans, baseball has negotiated with DirecTV to offer the package to the incumbents," DuPuy said. "I hope that those fans who have been directing their concerns to us over the last several weeks will now encourage their cable carriers to in fact enlist for this package."

But what really frosts me is this:

That appears to mean Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Comcast iN Demand Holdings Corp and Cox Communications Holdings Inc. -- iN Demand's owners -- would have to agree to carry The Baseball Channel on the same tier as DirecTV and not a narrower one.

What's the big problem here? They've got 500 freaking channels on digital cable. They can't find room for ONE more channel on the same tier as DirecTV?

That's just damn stupid. Piss off your customers for what? Principle? A couple more dollars per subscriber?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 7:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is

they want the Baseball Channel on analog TV. So it will be included in the standard cable lineup.

by dahcar on Mar 9, 2007 1:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've just written to inDemand.

Here's what I wrote:

I have just read of inDemand president Robert Jacobson's statement about the MLB Extra Innings package that it contains "conditions for carriage that MLB and DirecTV designed to be impossible for cable and DISH to meet."

Now, why is this? Just what are those conditions? And why are they so onerous that inDemand can't meet them?

Don't assume that baseball fans aren't smart enough to understand the reasons you won't agree to carry the Baseball Channel, especially since DirecTV's Chase Carey says that the terms that you would have to meet are "significantly less money for the non-exclusive arrangement."

So explain it to me. Explain it to all the baseball fans who don't want to switch to DirecTV, people like me who are satisfied with their digital cable service and don't want to change.

I have subscribed to Extra Innings for four years through Comcast and have been very happy with it. I don't want to switch. Please help me and thousands of others who want to give you money for this package.

If you want to write to them too, here's the link to do so.

I'll let you all know if I hear anything back from them.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 7:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

This deal

is the same as Halliburton's in Iraq. Specs are drawn up which only DirectTV can meet. Then the administration "chooses" what is in the country's best interest.

We all know how well that turned out.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Mar 8, 2007 8:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Loud, sustained applause!

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

by phatass on Mar 8, 2007 10:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Comcast

When does this deal go into effect? Will I be able to get Extra Innings via Comcast for the 07 season?

by dkateeb on Mar 8, 2007 8:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

We do not know this yet.

It's up to inDemand.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 8, 2007 8:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

NHL signs with Food Network

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nhl_signs_broadcast_deal_with_food

How did Selig miss this opportunity?

by JFCubFan on Mar 9, 2007 12:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

No wonder I can't get my Red Wings games anymore

Now I'll just get wings! hehehaaa bad, bad...

I'm on Dish Network. I called them the other day hoping to sign up for EI and was told they were working on a deal trying to get it. Don't know if I was being fed a line or if they really are trying to do something. I hope they are, though.

HOF!? Jerks... I support Al 110%!

by Jettero2112 on Mar 9, 2007 6:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Quick question about XM radio...

Does anyone here ever use XM radio? I was looking into it a few years back and they provided MLB audio, do they still? Just got word that perhaps by opening day, my job may let me work from my home office. I may or may not have access to an additional non-work PC that I could listen on the internet and was considering an XM radio, for the games not televised up here (which means anything not on WGN). Anyone's experiences or opinions are appreciated.

Snow sucks.

by eamuscatuli1881 on Mar 9, 2007 8:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Xm over the net

You do get most of the XM stations as a subacriber when you log into their website on the internet, but not baseball. As a subscriber, you get free internet access to their site. The internet has nost of the music stations, but not any talk, news, sports, etc. Hope that helps. I usually just listen to #74 - Bluesville.

by Ihatethecards on Mar 9, 2007 8:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But what about the actual radio, not on the web.

Is baseball still on there?

Snow sucks.

by eamuscatuli1881 on Mar 9, 2007 8:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know.

But I do know that if you get an XM radio for your car, you can also get a device which allows you to take the car thing out and plug it in in your home or office.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 8:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, and yes

XM broadcast every MLB game, the WBC, some minor league games, and all of the playoffs.

You can get a MyFi that is portable for pretty cheap (I think $50-ish).

Again, the only down-side is that you have to have a shot at the southern sky.

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Mar 9, 2007 8:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, shoot.

Forgot about that, my office windows points north. That sucks.

Snow sucks.

by eamuscatuli1881 on Mar 9, 2007 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

Your best bet, if you're going to listen to games via the internet, is sign up for the MLB.com package. It's only $15 for the entire year.

If you have a south facing window in your office, you'll be able to use XM in your office. I did last year, but sadly, I am in cubicle hell this year, so I'll be streaming audio on-line till IT tells me to stop. (twice)

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Mar 9, 2007 8:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent commentary on this issue...

... by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 12:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

And also...

... here's something we could unite with Cardinals fans about. They're just as pissed off as we are.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 1:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

here's a response I just got from Dish

"Thank you for your email. At this point we are unsure of the MLB's intentions. We understand and share your concerns that any type of exclusive deal reduces consumer choice. As a result, we welcome you to voice your concerns directly to the Commissioner of Major League Baseball:

The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10167
Phone: (212) 931-7800

Please keep in mind that DISH Network subscribers will continue to receive a great baseball lineup from ESPN, FOX, RSNs, Superstatins, and Local Network channels.

Your business is greatly appreciated and we thank you for allowing us to be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions or concerns, please refer to www.dishnetwork.com or reply to this email.

Sincerely,

TID:PB- ECHO

DISH Network eCare"

by cubswin on Mar 9, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for posting this.

I have yet to hear back from inDemand (Comcast's provider of this service). If I do, I'll post it.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 1:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I also wrote In Demand

But I did so through the comment page on their website, so who knows if a reply is forthcoming.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 9, 2007 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have any sympathy for Dish or In Demand

Sure MLB is holding a gun to their heads why do they give you
the F(*&^^^ing HOME SHOPPING NETWORK ( in usuallly at least
3 varieties) when if given a choice most people want something else. THe "basic" tier is NOT determined solely by ratings. The
irony is IF enough people did in fact switch to Direct or In
Demand's clients believed they would, then they WOULD do the
deal. If they faced an actual serious threat to their subscriber base the MLB station would suddenly become viable for Comcast
Time Warner etc.
The deal sucks but this was a clever move by MLB to difuse the
blame

I love the ballpark. I love the city. I love the fans. Aside from how we've played this year, there's nothing not to like about Chicago." Greg Maddux 7/29/06

by jessica on Mar 9, 2007 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

it would seem to me

that a sure way to make a new channel a failure is to limit the amount of households that can receive it. I'm not switching carriers for baseball and many others won't either. So the MLB channel will be on a basic tier for a very limited number of people. Seems to me you would want the most possible households to get it, not the reverse.
Stupid decision by baseball, but I've come to expect dumb decisions from them over the years.

by cubswin on Mar 9, 2007 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But In Demand and Dish

Flat out refuse to carry MLB network on basic tier
so on THAT score they had noting to lose
I think it sucks but I get their point and did manage to
put some of blame back on cable

I love the ballpark. I love the city. I love the fans. Aside from how we've played this year, there's nothing not to like about Chicago." Greg Maddux 7/29/06

by jessica on Mar 9, 2007 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm still not sure...

... I understand WHY they won't carry it on a basic tier. There are dozens of empty channels on my Comcast basic tier. What's the big deal?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, thing is....

It's the Cable companies who are used to charging the network/channel to appear on their cable system. Now, the tables are turned. Now, another provider (Direct TV) wants cash/whatever to 'share,' what seemingly is now THEIR exclusive programming, courtesy of MLB.

This was certainly tolerable to the InDemand consortion to pay MLB a rights fee for the games. However, it may be INtolerable to have to pay another provider - but also, a business competitor for the games.

Corporate egos are bumping up against other corporate egos. Nobody will 'blink.' Usually, it's the consumer that loses when the goliaths clash.

I doubt if InDemand will give in. It might be one of those 'let's see what happens this year' and then see if MLB or Direct TV comes back to the table in 2008 to see if perhaps, it's in their best interest to offer the games to cable in a kinder, gentler manner.

Personally, I think The Baseball Channel should be on a pay tier. For example, I pay about 4.95 a month for a "sports package' through Time Warner. NBA TV is the highlight. What I had wanted the package for (3 years ago) was access to FSN Sports News, from various markets. Strangely enough, it was a hodge-podge of shows from a few FSN markets, with many unrepresented, including Chicago. However, if you wanted to see FSN Pittsburgh or FSN Arizona news repeated 3x a day, you had access to it. Personally, I think the channel was misrepresented in its' marketing, because TW claimed "Get sports news from local markets!!" (uh, but not MOST OF THEM! Especially the market you wanted!!)

Now, the service has evolved into a 'college sports' delivery system. The local roundups have all but vanished. I'm not sure why I'm still paying for this. (However, TW did add THE GAME SHOW NETWORK to this tier of channels. (?????)
Ummm, just a guess -- you could put the Baseball Net on this tier and drop the damn GSN and I bet nobody would complain....

...unless you want a trip down memory lane to enjoy the best of Gene Rayburn.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 9, 2007 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dish did not refuse to carry it.

by cubswin on Mar 9, 2007 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The difference here is

that the shopping networks either pay the cable companies to carry their programming or they provide it for free. The MLB channel will charge cable operators to show it.

by LT on Mar 9, 2007 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Which...

... is stupid.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kinda, but..

all networks/channel/cable operator/radio stations
(perhaps with the exception of Blackhawks radio*) PAY for the rights to broadcast the games of sports teams, so this isn't a stretch.

*I may be wrong -- but I believe the Hawks are now paying The Score to carry their games, and are selling the ad time for the 'casts themselves.
If anybody can confirm this, please do so.

The reason they would be paying The Score illustrates the relative value(It's awful) of Hawks radio. The Score knows that the audience is minimal, and ratings would be poor. So, they can charge Bill Wirtz for air time, (who needs to have the game on radio) who then hopes to make the money back by selling commercials for the broadcast.

It's light-years from the glory days, as I have posted way too many times in the past.....somewhat similar to the White Sox in the early 1970s, who couldn't find a Chicago radio station to carry their games, (They were awful) so, they settled on a trilogy of suburban stations in Arlington Heights, La Grange, and (if memory serves me correctly) Lansing to carry games with that new announcer in from St. Louis (via Oakland) -- Harry Caray.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 9, 2007 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Senators still looking this over

Senators Kerry and Spector are still interested in looking over the MLB/DirectTV deal.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/03/09/bc.bbo.directv.baseball.ap/index.html

by 08 Cubs on Mar 9, 2007 4:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Good.

At least they're still paying attention. If they want to do something about this via legislation, they had better hurry -- Opening Day is three weeks from Sunday.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 9, 2007 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

See?

The Dems and the GOP can get together for something that can help Americans!!

But that would be about the extent of it, unfortunately.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 9, 2007 4:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

the dish on what Dish is saying ..

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/whats_on_dish/pay_per_view/sports/baseball/index.shtml

We are currently working very hard to bring the MLB Extra Innings out of market baseball package to Dish Network subscribers. We will post updated information as soon as it is available. As a reminder, this will not affect regularly scheduled baseball on ESPN, FOX, RSNs, Superstations, and Local Network channels.

I read that to mean one of 3 things:

Fat chance, suckers - no way we're gonna match the bucks that the suits in MLB have decreed should be paid as an "equivalent" since our suits don't want to fool with it. CYA.
Maintain, dude - our suits are still doing lunch with MLB's suits and we're still nursing the first round of martinis ..
Done deal, baby - MLB's suits just stuffed themselves, we're picking up the tab .. and so will you. Get ready to pay through your anal orifice, dear customer .. we just don't know how much of us you can take ..

As I am a Dish subscriber who does his dangdest to use the mix of local FSN, ESPN, Turner South and WGN available here to watch the games and who doesn't sub to MLB and was GOING to consider EI this year, I am watching this carefully. As you've all said, it's the money .. not the fans .. they care about. Always has been, always will.

Well, Next Year is here .. and Jack's century's gotta end some time .. GO CUBBIES!

by cubnational on Mar 10, 2007 12:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Has anbody gone to mlb.com

And checked out the video 'press release' on this? What a piece of crap. The house shill for MLB 'interviews' Bob Du Puy, CEO of MLB.com.

Hey, I may have been born yesterday, but I wasn't born last night, you frickin' idiot Du Puy.

He arrogantly says to the MLB.com 'toady' who's 'interviewing' him the "incumbent cable companies" should "step up to the table" to make sure their subscribers can access Extra Innings.

(I've seen more realistic interviews with that nerd who seems to pop up on Infomercials every hour selling his 2 vitamin books.)

"Step up to the table?" Couldn't he have been just a little less antagonistic in his verbiage?

If I was an executive at In Demand, I'd tell Du Puy to stick EI up his ass, to be completely, and utterly honest. As others have posted, when In Demand does walk away from this, he can blame the cable companies for 'not serving their subscribers.' Of course, he goes on to tout the 'new and improved' delivery service from MLB.com, so you can watch the game 'from your computer.' Screw you, you airbag.

I just don't see In Demand sucking up to mlb.com, and competitor Direct TV.

The baseball fans lose again.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 10, 2007 6:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That's obviously...

... as you say, a puff piece. It's trying to get us "behind" them and their wonderful new computer delivery system. Forget it.

Hear this, MLB:

I DON'T WANT TO WATCH BASEBALL ON MY COMPUTER, I WANT TO WATCH IT ON MY PLASMA SCREEN!!!111!!! AND I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE MY TV SERVICE, WHICH I'M HAPPY WITH, JUST FOR THIS!!!!!11111!!

What part of that do you think DuPuy can't understand? All of it, probably.

Plenty of times, people posture like this publicly when negotiations are going on quietly behind the scenes. We may get an announcement in a week or two that EI will be available everywhere, and DuPuy will be right there patting himself on the back for "making it happen".

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 10, 2007 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re

I can understand how someone with a large-screen plasma 1080 HDTV wants to see the game on it.

OTOH, I like watching games on my 19" CRT (although I do wish I could enlarge the picture without having to go to full screen) because I'm just one of those people who is wired to his computer. I like watching with GameDay running, and sometimes the game thread updating. And checking on other things between innings. And more often than not, I don't watch it live, so I'd need a DVR along with my TV. Delaying the archive until the next morning is really going to suck. That's my main beef this season.

In a perfect world, I'd be able to get a high-def stream over the net to a plasma monitor that would let me have the picture quality of HDTV and the interactivity/connectivity of the Internet.

It won't be long until all baseball is pay-per-view regardless of the distribution channel. And then, to increase revenue, the all-you-can-eat fixed-price buffet will be replaced by a la carte purchasing. MLB knows its revenue expansions lie outside of its stadiums and in the homes of those with tvs and/or Internet connections. The ultimate goal is to be able to charge those people on a per game basis just as if they were actually at a game.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on Mar 11, 2007 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs