# DISH Cries Foul Over DIRECTV/MLB Deal



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

DISH Cries Foul Over DIRECTV/MLB Deal

As of press time late Wednesday, the scuttlebutt was that DIRECTV and Major League Baseball were close to announcing a deal that would give the satellite TV giant exclusive access to the game's out-of-market games.

That's not sitting well with at least one competitor.

In response, EchoStar put out a statement saying "a line had been crossed" and promising to "take a stand" to fight the exclusive deal, which would give DIRECTV sole access to the league's Extra Innings out-of-market package.

"When our customers are suddenly cut off from watching their favorite sports teams on TV, it is time to ask whether the market is working. This is both anti-competitive and anti-consumer," EchoStar said in a statement.

The No. 2 satellite TV company also said it was concerned by news that "DIRECTV will be able to block over 85 percent of U.S. pay-TV subscribers from watching out-of-market Major League Baseball games. After all, baseball is the American pastime."

The company, which operates DISH Network, added, "This recent move by DIRECTV is particularly egregious given that these games until now have been carried by multiple cable and satellite TV providers. Thus, we will be forced to take away valuable programming from existing subscribers who depend on EchoStar to receive all their television channels.

"Consumers will be harmed - especially if they are forced to change providers, switch to a higher-priced service, or invest in new equipment." A DIRECTV/MLB agreement also may not sit well with lawmakers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has promised hearings on such a deal. Another senator, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, also has criticized the rumored exclusive for the DBS company.

As the rumor made its way around industry press, sources valued a DIRECTV/Major League Baseball deal for the Extra Innings package at $700 million. There's been no word from DIRECTV.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Exclusive rights will affect the 50% of the rest of the subs, who have in Fresno, California to Redding, Ca, who were getting the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's.. Thanks alot DirecTV. 50% of the people would be forced to get DirecTV. People in Bakersfield would have to get DirecTV to get the Los Angeles Dodgers and Angels.. DirecTV said to me the reason they have exclusive rights.

I hope exclusive rights give Senator John Kerry, to say no. I am afraid to call Dish Network over black outs of the L.A. Dodgers over DirecTV exclusive rights.. Why just DirecTV have exclusive rights?


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Exclusive rights will affect the 50% of the rest of the subs, who have in Fresno, California to Redding, Ca, who were getting the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's.. Thanks alot DirecTV. 50% of the people would be forced to get DirecTV. People in Bakersfield would have to get DirecTV to get the Los Angeles Dodgers and Angels.. DirecTV said to me the reason they have exclusive rights.
> 
> I hope exclusive rights give Senator John Kerry, to say no. I am afraid to call Dish Network over black outs of the L.A. Dodgers over DirecTV exclusive rights.. Why just DirecTV have exclusive rights?


This question has been asked over and over again about Sunday Ticket too. It is not illegal, anti-competitive or anything else. It is business.

Why should a local Fox affilliate be able to not grant a waiver for a DNS if they cannot provide a digital or HD signal. It is business. Exclusive franchise for an area.

That is what Directv has going with NFL and will soon have for MLB. We may not like it. But it would take some law changes that are not going to happen to change it.


----------



## Mr.Pinkeye (Nov 10, 2006)

MikeR7 said:


> This question has been asked over and over again about Sunday Ticket too. It is not illegal, anti-competitive or anything else. It is business.
> 
> Why should a local Fox affilliate be able to not grant a waiver for a DNS if they cannot provide a digital or HD signal. It is business. Exclusive franchise for an area.
> 
> That is what Directv has going with NFL and will soon have for MLB. We may not like it. But it would take some law changes that are not going to happen to change it.


It seems to me not that Directv or the affiliates are the ones doing anything wrong. But if MLB is going to disenfranchise their fanbase by giving this product exclusively to one vendor, maybe these should stop getting stadium subsidies and lose their anti-trust exemption. After all, they get these because they are America's sport. That won't be the case pretty soon, though. Instead, they will be Directv's sport.


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

The NFL has done it for years and still seems pretty popular.


----------



## jodavis (Jan 9, 2007)

I guess I dont see what all the fuss is about. Why not just let the market work. If you watch MLB and it moves to Directv switch to Directv and watch it. If enough people do this Dish will figure it out and offer MLB enough money to get the rights away from Directv. The market works.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Ah, the free market (aka corporate greed) at work again. What would have, or is, stopping Charlie from out bidding D* for the rights and he could have the exclusive rights?


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

Must be a cold day in hell. Kerry and I actually agree on something.


----------



## Mr.Pinkeye (Nov 10, 2006)

BaldEagle said:


> Must be a cold day in hell. Kerry and I actually agree on something.


Well, you know, he was actually for baseball before he was against it.


----------



## thegamer36 (Dec 15, 2006)

If Dish wants the package then they should out bid D*...it's that simple. Stop crying and pony up the cash...it's all about the money. Cable is crying as well, show MLB the money.

Now I am not saying it is right or wrong...but both cable and Dish can pony up cash for exclusive rights as well but they are to cheap to do so.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

It is not that simple. $700 million is not chump change. It will wind up costing all MLB Extra Innings subscribers significantly.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I read another article on this situation that brings up another big issue for fans in San Diego and Philadelphia. Both of these markets have cable-only in-market games. Those fans would be required to have two services if they want to watch their team and out of market games.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JohnH said:


> It is not that simple. $700 million is not chump change. It will wind up costing all MLB Extra Innings subscribers significantly.


E* doesn't seem to be as concerned about exclusives as DirecTV is and given the relative subscriber growth of the two, it seems to be working in E*'s favor. The average satellite TV subscriber would appear to prefer access to HD content over "exclusive" sports coverage.

When D* get's their additional HD content, we'll see if the problem was HD content or the state of the hardware at D* that is causing the disparity. I can't imagine that ST (and the claims of an EI exclusive) are hurting D*.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Are we really going to let the quality of our lives be dictated by whether we can pony up $180 so we can zone out night after night, watching overpaid terminal adolescents play a game? If so, we are sick puppies indeed.


----------



## Nashcat (Dec 17, 2003)

jodavis said:


> I guess I dont see what all the fuss is about. Why not just let the market work. If you watch MLB and it moves to Directv switch to Directv and watch it. If enough people do this Dish will figure it out and offer MLB enough money to get the rights away from Directv. The market works.


and when it _does_ move to E* we'll enjoy hearing YOU whine...

What kind of fools do you take us for? NO customer wins with these greedy exclusive deals. They pay through the nose, and D* and MLB/NFL reap the profits and rape the viewers. Yeah, the market's got its mojo workin', but it just won't work for YOU.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

So Echostar said:

""When our customers are suddenly cut off from watching their favorite sports teams on TV, it is time to ask whether the market is working. This is both anti-competitive and anti-consumer," EchoStar said in a statement."

Doesn't seem to apply to them when they take channels off the air suddenly to give themselves 'leverage' in negotiations with their own content providers. Then they don't give a rats A** about their own customers it seems.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I agree that it is anti-consumer and anti-competitive... but I see nothing illegal about it. If I were a baseball fan, I would be disappointed. Then again, I am an NFL fan and I think Sunday Ticket is WAY overpriced... so no temptations for me to switch just for that package!

I don't really see any illegality here either. If I have a product, and I talk to my regional Target manager and get an agreement for them to sell my product... there is nothing in the law that says I must also offer to sell my product to K-Mart or Wal-Mart or wherever. I can most certainly choose to only sell my product at Target if I want!

Of course limiting to one outlet limits the number of potential customers, and that's a business decision for me (or in this case MLB) to make... but if I'm happy with the deal I make, then there's nothing those other customers can do about it.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

MLB has had anti-trust waivers from the Federal Government for years. If they want to play the free market game they should lose those waivers. They are answerable to the government (read that "the people") for their actions.

Pat


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

MikeW said:


> I read another article on this situation that brings up another big issue for fans in San Diego and Philadelphia. Both of these markets have cable-only in-market games. Those fans would be required to have two services if they want to watch their team and out of market games.


Which means that about 250,000 to 300,000 cable subs in Philly and San Diego cannot switch off of their local cable provider to satellite because of an exclusive deal.

Yet that is lost here...


----------



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

Whatever. This is why I could care less about professional sports. All the leagues and players care about is $$$$. All this talk about pasttime and stuff... Maybe IN THE PAST. Now it's business. Big business. Profits.


----------



## dgordo (Aug 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Which means that about 250,000 to 300,000 cable subs in Philly and San Diego cannot switch off of their local cable provider to satellite because of an exclusive deal.
> 
> Yet that is lost here...


Exactly. It is ok for these teams to have exclusive deals with cable but another exclusive deal for a sat company is wrong.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

This is much more complex than at first thought.

First, the object of any investigation has to be with MLB, not Direct TV. If Direct is being offered an exclusive contract, and is willing to pay more than the competition I see nothing wrong with that. 
Now, does MLB have the right to make such a deal is another whole question. It is important to remember, no one who lives in their team's DMA is losing their team's TV games. It can be argued this is simply a premium offering and MLB could decide to offer no out of market games if it chose, while still providing in market games to the fans. MLB can also claim they do have viewing of out of market games for everyone, on the internet.

Making it all a little more complex however, and what Dish has often fought, is a program provider that has a tie to a cable company or to Direct TV and gives them a better deal or an exclusive. That is where I could see Congress stepping in. 

While I would not like it alot, if out of market games were that important, I would go the internet route. I certainly would not change from a provider I have been happy with for years.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

It just keeps amazing me that it is said that D* blocks games (Blacks out). If D* had it their way nothing would be blocked. There is no incentive for D* to block games. MLB dictates what will be blocked, pure and simple. For Dish to imply that D* controls black outs is just their way to try to make D* look bad. There will be no change in anyones ability to see in market games. The baseball owners have been powerful enough to derail attemps to take their anti trust exemption away, so how far do you think John Kerry will get with his little crusade.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

tampa8 said:


> Making it all a little more complex however, and what Dish has often fought, is a program provider that has a tie to a cable company or to Direct TV and gives them a better deal or an exclusive. That is where I could see Congress stepping in.


They are not "exclusively" negotiating with D*. If E* wants to pay $750mm for 7 years, do you think MLB would say no?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> The company, which operates DISH Network, added, "This recent move by DIRECTV is particularly egregious given that these games until now have been carried by multiple cable and satellite TV providers. Thus, we will be forced to take away valuable programming from existing subscribers who depend on EchoStar to receive all their television channels.


I like this part.

Does Dish have YES yet?

"all their television channels"

It is to laugh.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

I've had MLB Extra Innings. It sucks, IMHO as there could be 15 games being played and you'll get 1. Other days you'll get all 15.

But wouldn't you WANT the most exposure possible for your sport? The 700 million D* is shelling out certainly isn't chump change. But now you've pigenholed MLB's exposure to one type of customer. By making it available to E*& Cable, you open it up. 

It doesn't make good business sense to me.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I like this part.
> 
> Does Dish have YES yet?
> 
> ...


What a great catch/post. This is why when I switched to satellite I went to D*, and 5 years (that's right 5 years) later still no YES on DISH. The only channels they care about are the ones that they WANT to provide. What a joke their complaint is. The largest DMA in the USA, the most watched RSN in the USA, and they DON'T (and NEVER have) carried it. They really care so much abut baseball fans. lol


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> I've had MLB Extra Innings. It sucks, IMHO as there could be 15 games being played and you'll get 1. Other days you'll get all 15.
> 
> But wouldn't you WANT the most exposure possible for your sport? The 700 million D* is shelling out certainly isn't chump change. But now you've pigenholed MLB's exposure to one type of customer. By making it available to E*& Cable, you open it up.
> 
> It doesn't make good business sense to me.


Its all about money. They get the best deal, they take it. Don't you in your business?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> Doesn't seem to apply to them when they take channels off the air suddenly to give themselves 'leverage' in negotiations with their own content providers. Then they don't give a rats A** about their own customers it seems.


If your provider doesn't go to bat for you, you end up paying more and/or losing channels anyway. Pity the fools who sign up for D*'s Choice package: a shadow of the old Total Choice package. That's what happens when you don't push back. What has D* done to keep your rates down lately (aside from losing lots of "bad" customers)?


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Remember that D* had exclusive access to most of the Sports packages for many Years. They had gradually given them up except for NFL. Then for awhile them became available on Dish and some Cable networks. We are now going backward with the EI deal.

I wouldn't want dish to bid on Exclusive access, but they and some Cable networks bid on continuing coverage. Apparently not enought to match the D* 700 million offer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> Its all about money. They get the best deal, they take it. Don't you in your business?


If you can get up to $70 million from inDemand (according to a CBS Sportsline article) then tap Dish for $15 million* and DirecTV for $20-30 million*, wouldn't you make more money?

I know it is nice to take a 700 million dollar (over seven years) pledge to the bank, but how many millions nice is it?

*fictional straw man numbers


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

IIRC the D* deal also had something about carrying the new MLB channel starting in 2009. Maybe it was one of those deals where MLB wanted in included in a basic programming tier and E* and cable co's wanted in a higher tier and only D* would agree with the requirement?


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

harsh said:


> If your provider doesn't go to bat for you, you end up paying more and/or losing channels anyway. Pity the fools who sign up for D*'s Choice package: a shadow of the old Total Choice package. That's what happens when you don't push back. What has D* done to keep your rates down lately (aside from losing lots of "bad" customers)?


Being a old D* customer my increase is only $3. instead of $5. that's what D* has
done for me and I like it.


----------



## briang5000 (Aug 11, 2004)

thegamer36 said:


> If Dish wants the package then they should out bid D*...it's that simple. Stop crying and pony up the cash...it's all about the money. Cable is crying as well, show MLB the money.
> 
> Now I am not saying it is right or wrong...but both cable and Dish can pony up cash for exclusive rights as well but they are to cheap to do so.


I don't even subscribe to the MBL package, but realize... if Dish, DirecTV, or Cable pays more... they pass the extra money on to the customer.

This is what sucks with how TV is sold. The market doesn't really include the end user in the negotitation. You can argue if they raise the price enough you can simply not buy it. Not everybody has the luxury to change services at the drop of a hat and quickly you're paying a $125 a month for TV. This is why we need ala carte to give the consumer a say in what we pay. this is also why Sunday Ticket and these other packages shouldn't be exclusive to any provider.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

ScoBuck said:


> Its all about money. They get the best deal, they take it. Don't you in your business?


Yes, but I don't limit the scope of my business to ONE kind of customer. Exposure to MLB falls into many other categories outside of broadcasting. Let's not forget about clothing, game tickets and other countless items I can't think of right now. Make the games available to more than D* subscribers and you open EVERYTHING MLB up.

It's a moot point now, I know. I'm a D* subscriber too.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2775761

Let us hope that this deal will be squashed for the benefit of baseball and it's fans. Baseball will be badly hurt by this making millions of fans very angry.


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

Ira Lacher said:


> Are we really going to let the quality of our lives be dictated by whether we can pony up $180 so we can zone out night after night, watching overpaid terminal adolescents play a game? If so, we are sick puppies indeed.


AMEN!!


----------



## diospyros (Nov 14, 2005)

It's only baseball. I quit following those idiots when they struck the World Series in (what was it?) 1997. Haven't been back. Don't go to their games, don't watch 'em on TV, don't listen to 'em on radio, and I change the channel when the highlights are shown on the news. 

Oh, I got weak a couple of times and started peeking at the box scores, but then there would always be some scandal: steroids; cheating; Steinbrenner; the most overpaid and childish athletes on earth, etc. And I don't understand how MLB is even economically viable anymore.

Let them go away and become some obscure niche product. They already are in my book.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> So Echostar said:
> 
> ""When our customers are suddenly cut off from watching their favorite sports teams on TV, it is time to ask whether the market is working. This is both anti-competitive and anti-consumer," EchoStar said in a statement."
> 
> Doesn't seem to apply to them when they take channels off the air suddenly to give themselves 'leverage' in negotiations with their own content providers. Then they don't give a rats A** about their own customers it seems.


Umm... actually, Dish only took down channels like Lifetime or CourtTV when the channel owners wanted more money than Dish wanted to pay... so Dish let the contract expire and was forced to take the channel down... then in both public and private battles, Dish eventually won in the end because those channels came back to Dish and took less than they originally wanted.

So... seems like Dish negotiations have been working.

However, if MLB wants NFL Ticket kind of money... then even if I was a Baseball fan I would say good riddance to them because sports isn't *that* good.


----------



## Boneman (Jul 4, 2006)

If everybody would just not purchase the produt than what happens. Price would go down. But that wouldn't work because ther are some out there that will pay no matter what the price. If the Baseball players go on strike why can't the fans go on strike too. What does it cost for a family of four to go to the ball game. It's like for good seats about 25.00 to 50.00 dollars per ticket and thats not including parking and something to eat and drink. Not for the average fan. Now they want to make it where you pay more to watch it at home so they can pay the higher salaries so they can be able to buy better steroids that are harder to detect. It's just a millionaires game. Later


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Boneman said:


> If the Baseball players go on strike why can't the fans go on strike too.


Funny thing about that... that is sort of what has happened with the NHL! They went on strike and missed a whole season... and when they came back, the fans didn't care that much. Attendance problems across the league, and they were on OLN (now Vs) which is not on a lot of cable systems... so fans at home couldn't always watch either.

Word was that the NHL lost less money during the strike season than they did the previous year in business and paying salaries! I bet they lost more money last season as well after coming back. I have not heard how things are going this year... but the fans have kind of gone on strike for NHL... so it can happen!


----------



## bjibber (Feb 18, 2007)

Mr.Pinkeye said:


> Well, you know, he was actually for baseball before he was against it.


That's just plain funny. Apparently he wants Echostar to win the war he just does not want to shell out the $ to win.


----------



## bjibber (Feb 18, 2007)

Ira Lacher said:


> Are we really going to let the quality of our lives be dictated by whether we can pony up $180 so we can zone out night after night, watching overpaid terminal adolescents play a game? If so, we are sick puppies indeed.


If you have come to preach about how watching TV is a waste of time i think you might be confused about which forum you are posting on. To each their own, subscribers that love sports help pay for your highly lucrative history channel.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

MikeW said:


> I read another article on this situation that brings up another big issue for fans in San Diego and Philadelphia. Both of these markets have cable-only in-market games. Those fans would be required to have two services if they want to watch their team and out of market games.


I guess that if you are a sat sub in these markets you would be forced to have two services if you want to watch your home teams.

Shouldn't this work both ways? Cable, in effect, has a monopoly in these cities of in-market games and does not have to share their feed with Dish or Direct


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/tdameritrade-com/html-story.asp?guid={597be4e0-6230-4786-a2f7-10561ccfdace}
FCC Wants More Information On DirecTV's Deal With Baseball


> The Federal Communications Commission has asked DirecTV Group Inc. (DTV) and Major League Baseball to provide more information about a pending deal that would offer a package of out-of-market baseball games exclusively to the satellite-television operator's subscribers, FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin said in a letter released Thursday afternoon.


more,,,


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Ira Lacher said:


> Are we really going to let the quality of our lives be dictated by whether we can pony up $180 so we can zone out night after night, watching overpaid terminal adolescents play a game? If so, we are sick puppies indeed.


Ditto!!!

-JB


----------



## rnbmusicfan (Jul 19, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Umm... actually, Dish only took down channels like Lifetime or CourtTV when the channel owners wanted more money than Dish wanted to pay... so Dish let the contract expire and was forced to take the channel down... then in both public and private battles, Dish eventually won in the end because those channels came back to Dish and took less than they originally wanted.
> 
> So... seems like Dish negotiations have been working.


...And MLB is letting their contract expire with Dish and cable, to go exclusive with DirecTV.

Nonetheless, it doesn't invalidate the fact that Dish has taken channels off the air suddenly to give themselves 'leverage' in negotiations with their own content providers.

Dish is complaining about the sudden cut off of program access from a provider when a contract expires, when they cut off program access [upon contract expiration and renewal] to customers themselves

And this being labeled 'anti-competitive and anti-consumer' isn't legit. Dish has its own exclusive programming services, including dozens of international channels. Although there is no clear classification: out of market sports programming and international programming fall into niche/premium services, and such services have been exclusive and permitted.

Program access rules, which are in place to protect smaller providers, was meant for nonexclusive access of cable-owned satellite-delivered channels, channels like CNN (channels which usually want the most exposure anyways).


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

This whole thing is stupid. You have CHOICES people. Call DISH and tell them to put-up the money to outbid D* for the package. If they won't, you have a right as a consumer to leave DISH and sign-up for D*, thereby not losing the MLB package. These rights are owned by MLB and they can sell them to whomever they would like. Its called a free-market economy.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

harsh said:


> If your provider doesn't go to bat for you, you end up paying more and/or losing channels anyway. Pity the fools who sign up for D*'s Choice package: a shadow of the old Total Choice package. That's what happens when you don't push back. What has D* done to keep your rates down lately (aside from losing lots of "bad" customers)?


We don't know. We don't even know what Dish Network has done.

Take a look at the Anna Nicole Smith drama. If it happened during the first week of January, Dish Network customers wouldn't be able to watch it unfold on Court TV. Then again, the approximate 3 million or so subs on Dish Network's low-end package now have to pay over $10 more if they want access to that channel.

So don't trivialize before you type. Dish Network didn't do anyone but themselves any favors by placing Court TV in a higher package. It didn't keep the rates down for those people that want to watch Court TV. But it did help Dish Network's bottom line.


harsh said:


> If you can get up to $70 million from inDemand (according to a CBS Sportsline article) then tap Dish for $15 million* and DirecTV for $20-30 million*, wouldn't you make more money?


The $70 million from inDemand was for MLB EI exclusively. There wouldn't have been another $15 million from Dish Network and $20-30 million from DirecTV and Dish Network, as they were locked out of the package.

The non-exclusive piece was regarding the MLB channel that is supposed to launch in 2009.


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

hankmack said:


> Let us hope that this deal will be squashed for the benefit of baseball and it's fans. Baseball will be badly hurt by this making millions of fans very angry.


Millions? Try just over a quarter of one million. This seems to be a lot of noise over something that does not affect that many people.

Here is a quote from an article by R. Thomas Unstead published at Multichannel News.

"Kagan Associates estimates that Extra Innings generated 280,000 subscribers across both cable and satellite services in 2005. That pales by comparison to the 600,000 subscribers netted by the National Basketball Association's "NBA League Pass" package and the nearly 2 million scored by Sunday Ticket during the same time period, according to Kagan.

Further, the package is dwarfed by the 1.3 million subscribers that baseball generated in 2005 for its $79.95 MLB.TV subscription broadband service, according to New York Magazine. The package includes live games, as well as extensive highlights and classic contests. Sports-programming consultant Lee Berke believes that the emergence of the broadband package could allow MLB to take DirecTV's exclusive package without alienating cable subscribers."

I do not have enough posts to link to it.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> If your provider doesn't go to bat for you, you end up paying more and/or losing channels anyway. Pity the fools who sign up for D*'s Choice package: a shadow of the old Total Choice package. That's what happens when you don't push back. What has D* done to keep your rates down lately (aside from losing lots of "bad" customers)?


I for one, don't see an issue with a 2 or 3 dollar annual increase, I know I have raised prices also, and I know the cost of doing business goes up.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ravi said:


> ...And MLB is letting their contract expire with Dish and cable, to go exclusive with DirecTV.
> 
> Nonetheless, it doesn't invalidate the fact that Dish has taken channels off the air suddenly to give themselves 'leverage' in negotiations with their own content providers.
> 
> Dish is complaining about the sudden cut off of program access from a provider when a contract expires, when they cut off program access [upon contract expiration and renewal] to customers themselves


I think you're still missing something. Dish didn't turn off channels for leverage. When Dish did not agree to pay more money (or put the channel in a lower tier) like the channel provider wanted, the channel provider did not choose to renew the agreement... so Dish legally had to stop broadcasting those channels until a new contract was in place.

If Dish actually pulled a channel while a contract was in place, then Dish would be in violation of the contract and subject to legal recourse by the channel provider and certainly that would NOT be leverage in Dish's favor.

Bottom line... whether or not you agree with Dish in the negotiations... they did not pull a channel for leverage. Legally, and contractually, they could not pull a channel while a contract was in place.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

It may be effective to email both MLB and the team you like to watch objecting to this. My emails said this would be the dumbest thing MLB has done since the strike


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

Looks like E* might come up with another reason to sue someone They'll sue D*, MLB, all MLB team owners, all cable companies for not trying to outbid BIG D*.........and all local bars too, just for good measure:lol: Crybabies........


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

SDizzle said:


> Looks like E* might come up with another reason to sue someone They'll sue D*, MLB, all MLB team owners, all cable companies for not trying to outbid BIG D*.........and all local bars too, just for good measure:lol: Crybabies........


What's next? Suing their subsribers? Oops forgot, D* has already done that.


----------



## Codeman00 (Dec 13, 2003)

tedb3rd said:


> Whatever. This is why I could care less about professional sports. All the leagues and players care about is $$$$. All this talk about pasttime and stuff... Maybe IN THE PAST. Now it's business. Big business. Profits.


That's all good I guess...but DirecTV owns rights to the NCAA tourney package too. That's not professional sports and this monopoly stuff needs to end.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Codeman00 said:


> That's all good I guess...but DirecTV owns rights to the NCAA tourney package too. That's not professional sports and this monopoly stuff needs to end.


At least for NCAA basketball, my local CBS OTA covers all the games on their multicasting. They add a couple of subchannels during the first 2 weekends to carry the extra games all for free OTA!


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

HDMe said:


> At least for NCAA basketball, my local CBS OTA covers all the games on their multicasting. They add a couple of subchannels during the first 2 weekends to carry the extra games all for free OTA!


Why can't they do that in my DMA  Anyway, back to topic, I hope D* looses and does not get exclusivity.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I am not a baseball fan... but I do wish MLB and NFL wouldn't sign exclusive carrier agreements, and would let fans choose cable/satellite service based on Dish vs DirecTV vs Cable instead of the exclusive "superfan" type packages only being on one service or the other.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

If this deal doesn't go through I will be signing up for MLB Extra Innings, mainly for the HD games, if it does, oh well, I’ll just stick with Yes HD, ESPN and FOX. I’m not going back to DirecTV just for MLB EI. I’m not a huge baseball fan, I have no idea what an RBI is or what a short stop does but I’d like to learn, if the MLB shuts out InDemand, it’s their loss.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

I spoke to DirecTV and they told me, once DirecTV has exclusive right's, out of market, out of town providers may not carry the games, except DirecTV, or if you move to the city. Like for me. If, I want the Los Angeles Dodgers, I need to move to Los Angeles, other wise get a DirecTV service and pay up. BrightHouse is crying foul play. Brighthouse in Bakersfield will have to blackout Los Angeles Dodgers baseball, because of DirecTV. KCAL channel 9 would have to be blacked out and prime ticket fox would have to be black out. Brighthouse said, it is going to affect there Dodgers fans, and they will loose money, thanks to DirecTV. I hope Senator John Kerry has mercy.. Because local viewership will be a lose. 

The bottom line is who is right? DirecTV or Cable. DirecTV is getting sole rights, as exclusive rights. Los Angeles subs will not need to worry, since Los Angeles is enough.. So, I am assuming DirecTV is desperate, but why be forceful..
MLB STINKS..... Want to write to your senators or do you want to be upset.


----------



## wlambert38 (Jul 16, 2006)

I am also very distressed that Dish might not be able to offer Extra Innings this year. While the computer screen is certainly not equal to a larger TV viewing experience, MLB.com does seem to be offering a better player and faster video speed than in previous years. Information from MLB.com CSR indicates that the viewer will be able to increase picture on the player to half screen or full screen compared to the postage size screen in previous years. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/premium.jsp?c_id=mlb


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

wlambert38 said:


> ...........Information from MLB.com CSR indicates that the viewer will be able to increase picture on the player to half screen or full screen compared to the postage size screen in previous years. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/premium.jsp?c_id=mlb


Was able to do that last season with the right player.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I think that the Government has taken the stance that we all have plenty of options to get our programming. If one provider doesn't provide the service you want, switch to another. It's all part of the game of business.

Ain't like the old days, when your local station was all you had, and so (in the eyes of Big Brudda) it needed massive regulation.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

SDizzle said:


> Looks like E* might come up with another reason to sue someone They'll sue D*, MLB, all MLB team owners, all cable companies for not trying to outbid BIG D*.........and all local bars too, just for good measure:lol: Crybabies........


Why should they sue?.When they can file a complaint with the FCC and let the government do the job for them.

The question remains does E*'s complaint into something that is not illegal constitute a lawsuit against them?.


----------



## marty43 (Sep 30, 2005)

HDMe said:


> At least for NCAA basketball, my local CBS OTA covers all the games on their multicasting. They add a couple of subchannels during the first 2 weekends to carry the extra games all for free OTA!


two years ago my local CBS carried extra games on subchannel, but last year they did not. I blamed it on Directv probably claiming they had the exclusive rights to those games.


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

Sorry but the government should have no place in this discussion at all. These are two legitimate companies making a business deal. If the governments has say over this then what is next on the "fair" list

Software companies forced to make their applications for both apple and Windows
Game makers for ced to make all of their games on XBOX, Sony and Nintentdo Consoles?

This is simply a business deal and the government should stay out of it.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Sorry the government has stuck their nose into MLB. They should remove MLB's anti-trust protection - then let the market work. In the long run, pissing off their fans isn't going to help - no matter what the short term gain.

Pat


----------



## 7200lastsurvivor (Feb 15, 2007)

No matter all the bickering that going on in this thread the bottom line is the only people who this is going to hurt are the fans of the MLB. ( Note that I hate baseball) 

What do fan do who cant get direct tv becuase of location or the fact that they are in apt / condo wiht out south exp. 

It will hurt viewership and it will hurt the fan base of the game. 

Some might point out NFL sunday ticket. But other than cband it was never on any other network than DirectTV Heck I remeber it since many years ago when Direct tv had the guy from murphy brown doing the commericals and sellign the fact that they had NFLST. 

You cant miss what you never had. Problem with Extra innings is that cable and satellite companies have had it for many years now.


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

> You cant miss what you never had. Problem with Extra innings is that cable and satellite companies have had it for many years now.


I'll give you that much but this is still about a business deal and still about out of area covereage. No one is taking away the local games which is what baseball fans survived on completely before any of this extra bandwith existed.

I just think that if the government is able to say what two business can agree on in this case where will it end.

A lot of people were pissed when E* stopped carrying the YES network and a lot of people left and went to D* for it. Should the government have forced E* to contunue carrying YES?


----------



## 7200lastsurvivor (Feb 15, 2007)

Mixer said:


> I'll give you that much but this is still about a business deal and still about out of area covereage. No one is taking away the local games which is what baseball fans survived on completely before any of this extra bandwith existed.
> 
> I just think that if the government is able to say what two business can agree on in this case where will it end.
> 
> A lot of people were pissed when E* stopped carrying the YES network and a lot of people left and went to D* for it. Should the government have forced E* to contunue carrying YES?


A. people move. If I acutally like baseball how am I suppose to catch Tampa Bay Devil Ray games in Atlanta.

B. If YES made a exclusive deal to DTV and not be on cable or fiostv then yeah it would have the same effect. It would have a negative effect on baseball and the Yankees.

Your bringing government into this. I am not I dont really care if MLB does exclusive with DTV. My only comment and I sticking by it is that if they do it the only people who they are hurting are the fans.

I could care less about Government, Charlie Ergen Thoughts, the FCC, or the MLB.

Again you cant miss what you never had. But unfornatley others have had extra innings and apparently enjoyed having it. Where they will hurt the fan base are not the people who view this board as if they are getting Dish they can easily switch to DTV but all those people stuck on cable for one reason or another that will not be able to switch to DTV because of there situation. I feel that both mlb and the nfl need to nix exclusives with dtv.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> A lot of people were pissed when E* stopped carrying the YES network and a lot of people left and went to D* for it. Should the government have forced E* to contunue carrying YES?


FTR E* never stopped carrying YES because they never carried it period. You can't stop something you never started


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> You cant miss what you never had. Problem with Extra innings is that cable and satellite companies have had it for many years now.


Define 'many'?  Dish Network only started carrying MLB Extra Innings since the 2004 season. InDemand had MLB Extra Inning for a season or two before. DirecTV had exclusive rights, then they had exclusive mini dish rights, so it opened up to InDemand before Dish. NHL CI and NBA LP were opened up in 2002. Prior to 2002 DirecTV had exclusives on all sports packages except the NCAA packages and the MLS.


----------



## ChrisYoung (Feb 26, 2007)

thegamer36 said:


> If Dish wants the package then they should out bid D*...it's that simple. Stop crying and pony up the cash...it's all about the money. Cable is crying as well, show MLB the money.


I disagree with your statement that "it's that simple". The problem is complex. Consumers are forced to make a technology investment, and sign long-term contracts with their sat provider. Imagine the scenario where Company "A" (DTV) has the deal this year, so all MLB fans (that want the programming) must go buy DTV boxes, but Company "B" (Echostar) acquires the following year's rights (so that same public that just purchased DTV equipment now has to invest in Echostar stuff) and the next year, a 3rd company gets the package. Good grief.

What a mess that would be. And the consumers are left stuck with expensive equipment purchases (or long-term contracts) that they don't want or need, or not having access to the programming that they anted up to get in the first place.

Now, if all of this receiving equipment were interoperable from one company to the next, and you could pick-and-choose portions of your plan (regular networks from one provider, NFL from another, MLB from whoever, etc...) then I would back away from my point. But here's a place where I DO expect to get some protection from the FCC and/or the FTC. There is a responsibility to consumers that goes along with having been granted that spectrum.


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

A. Switch to D*

What did people do before they were able to get out of town ballgames.

This is a business deal plain and simple. If HBO decided tomorrow that they wanted to sign an exclusive deal with D* E* or F* why shouldn't they be allowed to do that. Aren't we still livng in a country with free enterprise?



7200lastsurvivor said:


> A. people move. If I acutally like baseball how am I suppose to catch Tampa Bay Devil Ray games in Atlanta.
> 
> B. If YES made a exclusive deal to DTV and not be on cable or fiostv then yeah it would have the same effect. It would have a negative effect on baseball and the Yankees.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

MikeW said:


> I read another article on this situation that brings up another big issue for fans in San Diego and Philadelphia. Both of these markets have cable-only in-market games. Those fans would be required to have two services if they want to watch their team and out of market games.


And that is D*'s point...

While "extra innings" only affects distant fans, cable TV has locks on in-market teams...so a San Diego fan in San Diego (where most San Diego fans live, I'd imagine) wants to watch San Diego, he is forced to have cable.

That is a bit worse than a San Diego fan in Georgia forced to have D* to get San Diego games.

What fans need to do is get mad not at the latest pain, but at the ENTIRE "exclusive rights" business.

It COULD be reasonably argued that sports is news, and that exclusive broadcast rights stifle freedom of the press.

But picking on ONLY the latest exclusive deal, while ignoring the earlier ones, like comcast's lock on philadelphia is not going to work.


----------



## JimFunk (Oct 12, 2005)

So Dish cites lack of interest in bringing out RSN HD for their local sports, and then cries about this MLB deal? Please. Try rolling out the RSN HD first. It makes you look really stupid for making those statements, and then pretending to be the defender of all sports fanatics. :nono:


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> What a great catch/post. This is why when I switched to satellite I went to D*, and 5 years (that's right 5 years) later still no YES on DISH. The only channels they care about are the ones that they WANT to provide. What a joke their complaint is. The largest DMA in the USA, the most watched RSN in the USA, and they DON'T (and NEVER have) carried it. They really care so much abut baseball fans. lol


Well....E* has always been about being the cheap guy. Always the lowest packages, and always quibbling with program providers over price...E* is more concerned with keeping costs down for you than with providing the programs you want.

If your primary concern is to save money, go with E*, They'll spend months without a channel, just to save a dime per sub/month.

If your primary concern is to have programming (especially sports) that doesn't fly the coop, and an overall (slightly) better experience, and don't mind tossing an extra $5 a month for that, go with D*
D* ponies up for exclusive deals with sports.
D* ponied up for lifetime's little tantrum
D* ponied up for sinclair locals.
D* spent the extra time, care, and expense of giving DNS only to the correct people, so is the ONLY provider.

E* chose paths that at least temproarily, faced losing all of the above. E* wants to make TV cheap, D* isn't so interested in lowballing prices.


----------



## 7200lastsurvivor (Feb 15, 2007)

Mixer said:


> A. Switch to D*
> 
> What did people do before they were able to get out of town ballgames.
> 
> This is a business deal plain and simple. If HBO decided tomorrow that they wanted to sign an exclusive deal with D* E* or F* why shouldn't they be allowed to do that. Aren't we still livng in a country with free enterprise?


And that would be a dumb move that would limit the subscriber.

You keep bringing up D E and F I dont care about D E or F.

I am not saying it is illegal, or dirty handed by direct tv .

Bottom line for the 3rd time and hopefully it will get through your thick skull

Only people who will be hurt by this is the fans.

If the MLB and dtv want to go at them let them it within the law but they will be hurting fans.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/26/commentary/sportsbiz/?postversion=2007022706

There is hope.


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

> Bottom line for the 3rd time and hopefully it will get through your thick skull
> 
> Only people who will be hurt by this is the fans.
> 
> If the MLB and dtv want to go at them let them it within the law but they will be hurting fans.


Honestly it isn't me that has the thick skull but I guess that is my opinion and you have yours. Baseball fans are hurt with they go on strike. Not when MLB signs an exclusive deal to carry out of market games on an exclusive carrier. If you want the out of town games bad enoough the choice is obvious. Switch to D*

If a channel or event I was interested in watching was going to be an exclusive on one carrier I would switch to that carrier. How am I hurt by switching.

How are E* subscribers hurt by having to switch to D* if they really really really want the baseball that bad? And again why should government play any role in this decision.

Instead of aggresive responses like "get this into your thick skull" you should consider having conversations with people.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

If I had to incur the additional expense to get MLB Extra Innings from DIRECTV in addition to my Comcast Cable which provides Phillies games on CSN Philadelphia and CN8 Philadeplhia, I would certainly feel a hurting in my back pocket. I do not but my point is valid for others.

Many cable subscribers have local content which cannot be had on DIRECTV.

Many DiSH Network subscribers have HD channels which cannot be had on DIRECTV, ironically one of those being NFL HD. As to DIRECTV's HD greatness, it is nothing more than a pie which is not even in the sky, yet.

I have all three providers, so a deal would not affect me much, unless there was a significant price increase as result of this deal. More possible pain for the consumer.

Government intervention perhaps not necessary as the threat may do the trick.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

hankmack said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/26/commentary/sportsbiz/?postversion=2007022706
> 
> There is hope.


Of course this confirms that Bud Selig has no balls. This exclusive deal should have been tied up weeks ago. Somehow the word leaked out, probably with his knowledge and its snowballed. Of course Im all for the exclusive deal. Congress and the FCC have no business getting involved. Im surprised Senator Comcast hasnt opened his trap yet.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

hankmack said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/26/commentary/sportsbiz/?postversion=2007022706
> 
> There is hope.


I like where the writer declares Dishnetwork would easily pay?.He don't know DISH too well.Do he?.:lol:

And as for BUD?.It's time the owner's say"This BUD ain't for us"!!.


----------



## toy4two (Aug 18, 2006)

MikeW said:


> I read another article on this situation that brings up another big issue for fans in San Diego and Philadelphia. Both of these markets have cable-only in-market games. Those fans would be required to have two services if they want to watch their team and out of market games.


Thats why I stopped supporting the Padres. Why should I support a team that can't show games to Directv customers locally? I helped finance the stadium with my tax money. You already need to pony up for cable in addition to our sat service. It actually more fun to root against the Padres cause they never fail to disappoint!


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

Email them at [email protected]


----------



## 7200lastsurvivor (Feb 15, 2007)

Mixer said:


> Honestly it isn't me that has the thick skull but I guess that is my opinion and you have yours. Baseball fans are hurt with they go on strike. Not when MLB signs an exclusive deal to carry out of market games on an exclusive carrier. If you want the out of town games bad enoough the choice is obvious. Switch to D*
> 
> If a channel or event I was interested in watching was going to be an exclusive on one carrier I would switch to that carrier. How am I hurt by switching.
> 
> ...


Again here it shows your thick skull is not getting the general idea in my 2nd post I said, no one on this board would really have a problem swtiching to D*
But what about the fans approx 200,000 fans who pay for Extra innings on cable. What are they to do. Not all of them will be able to switch over, some because of line of sight issues. some because of where there landlord will let them put a dish others simply because they are getting services they cant get with satellite. Those are the people . Again you live in a closed minded world what you are is a troll who rather pick a fight .


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Ext 721 said:


> D* ponies up for exclusive deals with sports.
> D* ponied up for lifetime's little tantrum
> D* ponied up for sinclair locals.
> D* spent the extra time, care, and expense of giving DNS only to the correct people, so is the ONLY provider.


How much time, care, and expense did D* "pony up" on developing that cracker jack box of an STB that they are currently charging $300 for along with a 24 month commitment?


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

heisman said:


> How much time, care, and expense did D* "pony up" on developing that cracker jack box of an STB that they are currently charging $300 for along with a 24 month commitment?


Don't know but would you believe when the 622 first came out they were asking the same question.:lol:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Jhon69 said:


> Don't know but would you believe when the 622 first came out they were asking the same question.:lol:


Or the 501 or the 811, or the 921. Any first generation box is going to stink.


----------



## wlambert38 (Jul 16, 2006)

I may be inaccurate, but last year the E* Extra Innings package seemed to be more limited than the Indemand Package offered by D* and MLB.com. Is this true? If so, what is the reason? With the improved, at least on paper, MLB.com video this year, I am thinking of hooking up my computer to the TV rather than going with E* or D*. Does this make sense? Be kind, I am just asking a question.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

wlambert38 said:


> I may be inaccurate, but last year the E* Extra Innings package seemed to be more limited than the Indemand Package offered by D* and MLB.com. Is this true? If so, what is the reason? With the improved, at least on paper, MLB.com video this year, I am thinking of hooking up my computer to the TV rather than going with E* or D*. Does this make sense? Be kind, I am just asking a question.


E* did not and still does not carry MASN or YES meaning there were some missing games last year on E*.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

First of all fans ARE hurt when the sports do this. Yes we can jump to the provider with the exclusive deal but what happens when that provider does not have some other sport or programming we want?

In the end it is a question of whether it matters enough to switch---or to complain and see if anything can be changed. I respect those who think that switching is the right answer. but some of us have decided to voice our opposition to MLB to see if it matters. maybe it will or maybe it won't. 

But those asking wehat MLB should be ALLOWED to do are missing the point. I don't see anyone saying that they have no legal right to do this. What I see is people saying that they are fans of baseball and that they want it available to a wider base of of fans than just D* subs-----anf they certainly have a right to voice that opinion to MLB and to encourage others to do the same.

As for the satellite version being limited you have to remember that the carrier has to have a deal with that RSN for the games to be on the package. So no Philly games on sat and some other restrictions due to lack of carriage deals.


----------



## pjmrt (Jul 17, 2003)

hankmack said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/26/commentary/sportsbiz/?postversion=2007022706
> 
> There is hope.


There is hope indeed. I have subscribed to the MLB/EI package before and would be really upset to see it go only to directTV. As others have pointed out, its anticompetitive and just bad for baseball in the long run. Baseball has gone a long way in recovering from the strike a few years ago. but this kind of exclusive deal coupled would undo a lot of that.


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 5, 2002)

DCSholtis said:


> Of course this confirms that Bud Selig has no balls. This exclusive deal should have been tied up weeks ago. Somehow the word leaked out, probably with his knowledge and its snowballed. Of course Im all for the exclusive deal. Congress and the FCC have no business getting involved. Im surprised Senator Comcast hasnt opened his trap yet.


I agree that this is up to the MLB to decide and the government should not be involved. But unless you own stock in News Corp. / Liberty Media, it's not clear why you would be "all for" an exclusive deal. In the end this will result in a higher price for the package and less choice for the consumer. If the cumulative effect of DirecTV exclusive sports packages is to marginalize Dish as a competitor, then DirecTV subs would likely see the reduced competition result in higher satellite bills. Healthy competiton in any industry is a good thing.


----------



## GadgetGal1 (Feb 6, 2007)

jrbdmb said:


> I agree that this is up to the MLB to decide and the government should not be involved. But unless you own stock in News Corp. / Liberty Media, it's not clear why you would be "all for" an exclusive deal. In the end this will result in a higher price for the package and less choice for the consumer. If the cumulative effect of DirecTV exclusive sports packages is to marginalize Dish as a competitor, then DirecTV subs would likely see the reduced competition result in higher satellite bills. Healthy competiton in any industry is a good thing.


Well said! My thoughts exactly.


----------



## brownclown (Feb 28, 2007)

Government should not get involved, but I agree that the deal will "damage" baseball yet again, if it ever goes thru. Selig can't turn to dynabol this time to bring back the fans. Baseball is not football, soon people will once again say the heck with it.


----------



## fredinva (May 10, 2006)

thegamer36 said:


> If Dish wants the package then they should out bid D*...it's that simple. Stop crying and pony up the cash...it's all about the money. Cable is crying as well, show MLB the money.
> 
> Now I am not saying it is right or wrong...but both cable and Dish can pony up cash for exclusive rights as well but they are to cheap to do so.


Well, IT SURELY wouldn't be EXCLUSIVE if MLB let all carriers broadcast games.
It's MLB that ought to wake up and leave things alone. They should offer the games to all customers, satellite or cable. There is certainly more potential money for MLB that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!. EXCLUSIVITY SUCKS, plain and simple.
Go Kerry Go.

fred


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

After I emailed MLB they suggested I get a Slingbox in order to watch MLB on my computer and have it shown on my TV. I called Slingbox and they told me I would need a new product not yet released called "Slingcatcher"which will transfer from your computer to your TV, either wireless or wired. I checked the web site and the early indications are for "2007 at about $200". 

Interesting.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Deal MAY close to being done:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6421283.html?title=Article&spacedesc=news



> In a signal that a deal may be finalized, DirecTV told the FCC Friday that the planned exclusive agreement with Major League Baseball for out-of-market games could result in "more baseball being available to more fans in a more compelling format."
> 
> Likening the deal to those DirecTV has with 'Sunday Ticket' and 'NASCAR Hotpass', the company told the FCC's media bureau that its 'Extra Innings' package would result in more content and features and that "no one would be denied access."





> DirecTV pointed out that it had competed with EchoStar and IN Demand for the package, and it was the only company to agree to terms acceptable to MLB. One of those terms was that DirecTV must carry MLB's Baseball Channel in the basic tier.
> DirecTV outlined some of its plans for the package. It will include channels that would deliver cut-ins to games around the country, real-time scores and stats, and it would offer the most games in high definition--a move very few cable operators would be able to do.In a letter, DirecTV said that "no baseball fans will be denied access to America's pastime" and said that all the baseball games would be available online at MLB.com. They also pointed out that any consumer can switch to DirecTV at no start-up cost, and that even the online watchers could use their TVs "if cable did not prohibit a direct connection between the Internet and the set-top box."


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

hankmack said:


> After I emailed MLB they suggested I get a Slingbox in order to watch MLB on my computer and have it shown on my TV. I called Slingbox and they told me I would need a new product not yet released called "Slingcatcher"which will transfer from your computer to your TV, either wireless or wired. I checked the web site and the early indications are for "2007 at about $200".
> 
> Interesting.


The great thing about that is you actually get "all" the games. I purchased EI a few years ago, and when I could actually watch a game on the weekends, there were like 5 out of 16 games available on EI. Never again, especially now, considering D* is going to charge an arm and a leg, not to mention a probable $100 add on for HD games like NFL ST. RIP-OFF! :nono2:


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

heisman said:


> The great thing about that is you actually get "all" the games.


Even the saturday fox games?


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

pdxsam said:


> Even the saturday fox games?


Absolutely! Also, it's only $90. Here's the link.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/mlbtv.jsp?c_id=mlb


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hankmack said:


> After I emailed MLB they suggested I get a Slingbox in order to watch MLB on my computer and have it shown on my TV. I called Slingbox and they told me I would need a new product not yet released called "Slingcatcher"which will transfer from your computer to your TV, either wireless or wired. I checked the web site and the early indications are for "2007 at about $200".
> 
> Interesting.


Are they suggesting that they will deliver the content to you via SlingBox instead of via DBS or another distribution?

SlingCatchers are not required to use your own SlingBox ... the normal set up is buying a slingbox, connecting it in your home to your receiver and internet connection, then remotely connecting to your SlingBox using software on a computer. The SlingCatcher is a new device that will take the receiving computer out of the equation to simply see your SlingBox content on a remote TV.

The MLB comment makes it sound like they will be hosting SlingBoxes for shared content? Interesting indeed! You should be able to view without a catcher ... MLB TV does it without a catcher. Perhaps they are looking for "the next step"?


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

This whole TV thing is becoming a complete pile of sh*t.
Just to watch TV is like having a damn car payment or a second house payment.

Choices,
1) Continue (as I do) to be a E* customer.
2) eBay the dishes and IRDs and switch to D*.
3) Stand in front of MLB HQ and flip the bird.
4) Sit in front of D*s HQ and deficate on their lawns.
5) Sell all my gear on eBay and read books.
6) Continue as a E* customer and hack the sh*t outa D*.

There is probably more options.
Pretty much don't matter what side of the fence you're on, D* or E*. You're going to screwed by the MLB somehow. As is always in big company bullsh*t. You get jacked.


----------



## talk000 (Jul 5, 2003)

Do you also get the pre-game and post-game shows on MLBTV.com?



heisman said:


> The great thing about that is you actually get "all" the games. :nono2:


----------



## greenie95125 (Feb 3, 2006)

James Long said:


> The MLB comment makes it sound like they will be hosting SlingBoxes for shared content? Interesting indeed! You should be able to view without a catcher ... MLB TV does it without a catcher. Perhaps they are looking for "the next step"?


I believe what he meant is that you sign up for MLB.TV and sent the content to your TV via the slingcatcher. The guy at MLB simply was mistaken when he said slingbox.

--Mike


----------



## greenie95125 (Feb 3, 2006)

talk000 said:


> Do you also get the pre-game and post-game shows on MLBTV.com?


Unfortunately, NO.

--Mike


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

talk000 said:


> Do you also get the pre-game and post-game shows on MLBTV.com?





greenie95125 said:


> Unfortunately, NO.
> 
> --Mike


I didn't get them on EI either. Not that I would have watched them anyway. That's for a baseballaholic.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

James Long said:


> Are they suggesting that they will deliver the content to you via SlingBox instead of via DBS or another distribution?
> 
> SlingCatchers are not required to use your own SlingBox ... the normal set up is buying a slingbox, connecting it in your home to your receiver and internet connection, then remotely connecting to your SlingBox using software on a computer. The SlingCatcher is a new device that will take the receiving computer out of the equation to simply see your SlingBox content on a remote TV.
> 
> The MLB comment makes it sound like they will be hosting SlingBoxes for shared content? Interesting indeed! You should be able to view without a catcher ... MLB TV does it without a catcher. Perhaps they are looking for "the next step"?


As I understand it---all the games except the local black out games will be available on MLB.TV on you computer. What I want is the ability to view those games on my TV. The Slingcatcher when will released will allow me to view the live stream from the internet on the TV wirelessly or wired. I believe I can now hook up my TV to my laptop wired but I have not figured that out yet.

Once this (if) it works it will be a much better deal the EI since it would be less expensive and carry all (except local) games after the initial cost of the slingcatcher.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It sounds like the service is available now on a computer but if you want to put the picture on a TV set you either need a computer that outputs to your TV or a SlingCatcher that is fed from your computer.

Perhaps the Catcher isn't exactly what I thought it is going to be? It is "a device from SlingBox" so I don't fault the folks at MLB from saying you would need a SlingBox.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

SMosher said:


> This whole TV thing is becoming a complete pile of sh*t.
> Just to watch TV is like having a damn car payment or a second house payment.
> 
> Choices,
> ...


I'd do #6 if I cared enough for baseball. ESPN, ESPN2 and FSN are enough for me. However Directv is becoming a monopoly!


----------



## dgordo (Aug 29, 2004)

Selig mocks foes of DirecTV deal

Commissioner says there's more than enough telecasts

By Paul Sullivan
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 3, 2007, 9:18 PM CST

PHOENIX -- Commissioner Bud Selig referred to the controversy over Major League Baseball's pending $700 million deal with DirecTV as "ridiculous" Saturday, saying most baseball fans have access to more than enough televised games.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...sbrite,1,6008896.story?coll=chi-sportstop-hed


----------



## Dish Cubfan (Dec 5, 2004)

dgordo said:


> Selig mocks foes of DirecTV deal
> 
> Commissioner says there's more than enough telecasts
> 
> ...


Selig really must think we are all brainless. He also wants to sell us some land in *******.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> I'd do #6 if I cared enough for baseball. ESPN, ESPN2 and FSN are enough for me. However Directv is becoming a monopoly!


Honestly how can D* become a monopoly?.The way I understand it MLB put EI up
for bid.Didn't D* just outbid the rest?.Who's fault is that?Not D*s.But on the bright
side look at all the profit E* made.


----------



## wlambert38 (Jul 16, 2006)

The problem with Commissioner Selig's comment is that relative few people are simply "baseball" fans who are satisfied to watch just any baseball telecast. Most subscribers to Extra Innings are Red Sox, Yankee, Dodger, Cub fans etc. who want to be able to see their specific teams on a daily basis. The issue is not the total number of televised games, but the number of times that "my" team is telecast. IMO If you don't mind seeing games on a computer screen, or have a computer with a video out port to TV, MLB.com offers the best package.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The full details of the negotiation are not available, nor do they seem to be written in stone (Mercer of D* claims that the exclusive deal isn't a deal yet but only a proposal).

The crux of the problem is the offer on the table of exclusive carriage. Bud Selig can blow it off as "only 5000 fans can't get DirecTV" but why should the rest HAVE to get DirecTV? They are forcing their fans of making a choice between adding or moving to DirecTV and not having the EI package. I'd bet that most fans will choose to tell MLB to take a flying leap.


----------



## Dish Cubfan (Dec 5, 2004)

James Long said:


> The full details of the negotiation are not available, nor do they seem to be written in stone (Mercer of D* claims that the exclusive deal isn't a deal yet but only a proposal).
> 
> The crux of the problem is the offer on the table of exclusive carriage. Bud Selig can blow it off as "only 5000 fans can't get DirecTV" but why should the rest HAVE to get DirecTV? They are forcing their fans of making a choice between adding or moving to DirecTV and not having the EI package. I'd bet that most fans will choose to tell MLB to take a flying leap.


I can survive for now without the package, but if comes down to not getting the RSNs in HD and no MLB Package - then I will probably switch. It just depends on what you like, but I didn't like the NFL deal and I certainly don't like this.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

This would be one of the first times in recorded history that customers which might be cut-off of some of their favorite programming are actually directing their ire to the programmer (in this case, MLB) instead of the distributor (DirecTV).

From even more valid numbers, we now see that there were only half a million subscribers to EI, and most of those were on DirecTV. So this deal would literally only impact some 230,000 subscribers. And we are to have some kind of Congressional hearings for a deal that might affect less that .3 percent of the entire US?

Priorities.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Congress has delt with issues affecting less Americans.

The issue here seems to be the principle of the deal - if MLB and D* are permitted to make this exclusive deal it could lead to more exclusives ... perhaps even RSNs refusing to provide signal to other carriers. Then again, if the private dealings between two companies are interfered with by government what is the next deal that Congress will meddle in?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

In the non-satellite world there are lots of exclusive deals... Some stores carry certain products exclusively, and you have to go there if you want that product. This is nothing new.

In the case of satellite, such exclusive deals seem different because most of us can equally pull down signals from the air from either company... but its still like Target having a product that Wal-Mart can't carry and both are next door. Granted, those stores don't charge a cover charge to get in the door, so you could still shop at both... but the concept is similar in other ways.

From the MLB standpoint is where this really doesn't make sense... why would they want to knowingly chunk off a bunch of current customers? Why force those customers to switch to DirecTV just for that reason? Why risk that those customers will not switch?

It would seem that MLB decided they got enough of a price-boost from DirecTVs offer that even with a loss of subscribers, MLB still makes as much or more money than they did with the current multi-provider scenario.

If that is the case, you can't blame them for going where the money is... but I think in the long run it will not be as good a deal for them as it appears on paper today.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

James Long said:


> The full details of the negotiation are not available, nor do they seem to be written in stone (Mercer of D* claims that the exclusive deal isn't a deal yet but only a proposal).
> 
> The crux of the problem is the offer on the table of exclusive carriage. Bud Selig can blow it off as "only 5000 fans can't get DirecTV" but why should the rest HAVE to get DirecTV? They are forcing their fans of making a choice between adding or moving to DirecTV and not having the EI package. I'd bet that most fans will choose to tell MLB to take a flying leap.


Well they've got less then a month before the Start of the season to make a deal or leave it alone. If Kerry gets involved he might give up!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Isn't the "exclusive" deal for 2008?


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

> DOW JONES REPRINTS
> 
> MLB Nears Controversial Deal With DirecTV
> By ADAM THOMPSON
> ...


More....

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117304882191126389.html


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

James Long said:


> Isn't the "exclusive" deal for 2008?


Nope this year.


----------



## DanoP (Sep 29, 2006)

James Long said:


> Isn't the "exclusive" deal for 2008?


I've been following this pretty closely now for about a month and the interesting thing is that this question is still the big unknown....at least in the public realm. When does this exclusivity start? This evening I looked at both the DirecTV and Dish websites and neither have any info on the Extra Innings package for this season. Which would lead one to believe the deal would be effective immediately. I signed up for Dish in October so I'm gonna be one of the ones locked out.....I have an 18 month commitment so the soonest I can opt out is April 2008. These idiots in MLB who are yapping the self-righteous indignation about how the product is still overexposed and the deal will effect very few people just ignore the fact that people sign up for EI in order to see *their team*. Not to see a ton of out of market games. MLB turned their backs on the steroid era for dollars and are now eschewing loyal hometown fans....for dollars. Public decorum prevents me from saying what I really think of Selig & Co. They are &*%$)$%)!


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> The full details of the negotiation are not available, nor do they seem to be written in stone (Mercer of D* claims that the exclusive deal isn't a deal yet but only a proposal).
> 
> The crux of the problem is the offer on the table of exclusive carriage. Bud Selig can blow it off as "only 5000 fans can't get DirecTV" but why should the rest HAVE to get DirecTV? They are forcing their fans of making a choice between adding or moving to DirecTV and not having the EI package. I'd bet that most fans will choose to tell MLB to take a flying leap.


Well said James, Thanks.


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 5, 2002)

HDMe said:


> In the case of satellite, such exclusive deals seem different because most of us can equally pull down signals from the air from either company... but its still like Target having a product that Wal-Mart can't carry and both are next door. Granted, those stores don't charge a cover charge to get in the door, so you could still shop at both... but the concept is similar in other ways.


I think a reasonable analogy is the current premium movie channels. Back in the old days HBO and Showtime pretty much carried the same movies. The each of these (and later Starz as well) signed exclusive deals with studios, so now to see all the big movies you have subscribe to three services when one was fine before. Everyone wins but the consumer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrbdmb said:


> I think a reasonable analogy is the current premium movie channels. Back in the old days HBO and Showtime pretty much carried the same movies. The each of these (and later Starz as well) signed exclusive deals with studios, so now to see all the big movies you have subscribe to three services when one was fine before. Everyone wins but the consumer.


There are very few things that are fully exclusive to the premium "movie" channels. Most of them are not movies ... they play sports and their own exclusive productions. Want to watch a movie that is only on one premium package that you don't subscribe to? Buy the DVD and watch as many times as you want (or rent it). It is hardly a 100% exclusive.

For sports the exclusive hits harder. Few want to watch the big game later on DVD (if one can even buy the game that way). The web option for MLBTV is there (and quite impressive) but it isn't the same as just turning on a TV and pressing play.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

James Long said:


> There are very few things that are fully exclusive to the premium "movie" channels. Most of them are not movies ... they play sports and their own exclusive productions. Want to watch a movie that is only on one premium package that you don't subscribe to? Buy the DVD and watch as many times as you want (or rent it). It is hardly a 100% exclusive.
> 
> For sports the exclusive hits harder. Few want to watch the big game later on DVD (if one can even buy the game that way). The web option for MLBTV is there (and quite impressive) but it isn't the same as just turning on a TV and pressing play.


I signed up for the web option on a monthly basis. There are no blackouts in
spring training and it provides radio broadcasts only available on the web. I
watched the Phillies/Yankees yesterday and the PQ is terrible. It is not the
same as MLB EI on a 60 inch TV. The normal viewing mode is not full screen or
even half screen. It is a small box. When you click on full screen, the PQ is
terrible. The small box PQ is terrible. It is a very poor alternative to MLB EI
and I am going to cancel my subscription after spring training is over.


----------



## gjh3260 (Mar 19, 2006)

Hound said:


> I signed up for the web option on a monthly basis. There are no blackouts in
> spring training and it provides radio broadcasts only available on the web. I
> watched the Phillies/Yankees yesterday and the PQ is terrible. It is not the
> same as MLB EI on a 60 inch TV. The normal viewing mode is not full screen or
> ...


Thanks for the info on the PQ....I was wondering what the clarity would be like


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

they're going to offer a 760K stream when the season starts and of course charge 30 bucks a season more for it. They claim the clarity will be outstanding.

Time will tell.


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

Hound said:


> I signed up for the web option on a monthly basis. There are no blackouts in
> spring training and it provides radio broadcasts only available on the web. I
> watched the Phillies/Yankees yesterday and the PQ is terrible. It is not the
> same as MLB EI on a 60 inch TV. The normal viewing mode is not full screen or
> ...


Hound, on MLB.com there is a 1/2 screen and full screen option on the media player I used last year. With Mozilla I was only able to get the small screen but on IE and Windows Media Player I could use the full screen option. I found that the PQ was not that bad on my laptop with a 15" screen although not as good as broadcast TV.


----------



## wlambert38 (Jul 16, 2006)

It all depends on what you want. If you watch "your team" several times a week, then EI will meet your needs. On the other hand, if you want to watch "your team" every time a game is scheduled, then MLB.com is the only option if you are out-of-market. The MLB.com does provide an option for full screen viewing, and the PQ should improve with faster video speeds this year (offered on April 2nd). The currrent spring training games do leave something to be desired with slower 350k video speed and limited offerings, but that should improve when the regular season starts.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wlambert38 said:


> ... but that should improve when the regular season starts.


Should or will? Should people subscribe month to month (and pay more) so they don't have to invest $120 until they KNOW the quality is good enough?

Even MLB is only calling the Mosaic "TV Quality" at 1.5MB ... if the "_up to_ 700K" (with appropriate emphasis on the _up to_) is half that it seems a stretch to expect TV quality feeds. It is better than no feed, but it certainly would be clearer to watch it on TV than streamed.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

pdxsam said:


> they're going to offer a 760K stream when the season starts and of course charge 30 bucks a season more for it. They claim the clarity will be outstanding.
> 
> Time will tell.


They show a demo link. It doesn't appear to be any different from last year. Maybe the demo wasn't at 700k...


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

BaldEagle said:


> Hound, on MLB.com there is a 1/2 screen and full screen option on the media player I used last year. With Mozilla I was only able to get the small screen but on IE and Windows Media Player I could use the full screen option. I found that the PQ was not that bad on my laptop with a 15" screen although not as good as broadcast TV.


Bald Eagle,

I used the half screen and full screen option on my 17 inch laptop yesterday and
my 24 inch 1920x1080 desktop for the Phillies/Yankees . PQ was pretty bad.
I signed up for the monthly MLB Premium (19.99). There were no 700 games
available. Everything was 350. On saturday, I could not access the Phillies/Red Sox or the Mets game due to an error message that said not available to my
area. Like I was in a blackout area. There are no blackouts for spring training.
I called tech support and they told me they knew of the problem and their
technicians were trying to get the games available. Never became available.
Today I listened to a Phillies/Reds game that was a web only radio broadcast.
I have been a subscriber off and on for five or six years. This is not a replacement
for MLB EI. It is better than nothing, but I would rather have MLB EI.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

James Long said:


> Should or will? Should people subscribe month to month (and pay more) so they don't have to invest $120 until they KNOW the quality is good enough?
> 
> Even MLB is only calling the Mosaic "TV Quality" at 1.5MB ... if the "_up to_ 700K" (with appropriate emphasis on the _up to_) is half that it seems a stretch to expect TV quality feeds. It is better than no feed, but it certainly would be clearer to watch it on TV than streamed.


Whether the quality is good or not, people should only invest if they
really want to hear or see the games, no matter what the quality is. It was cool
getting the Phillies/Yankees yesterday. It was cool listening to the Phillies/Reds
today. The programming was not available anyplace else to me. I am going to
cancel MLBTV in April when I can get the Phillies on Comcast Sportsnet HD after my
3/22 Verizon installation. No point in paying another 19.99. I should have just
paid 14.99 because only 350 broadcasts are available in March.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I would love to see the DIY mosaic come to a satellite system ... although I don't believe D* has the bandwidth or technology to do it.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

Hound said:


> Whether the quality is good or not, people should only invest if they
> really want to hear or see the games, no matter what the quality is. It was cool
> getting the Phillies/Yankees yesterday. It was cool listening to the Phillies/Reds
> today. The programming was not available anyplace else to me. I am going to
> ...


I agree Hound, the PQ is complete garbage. We started getting mlb.tv about 6 years ago so we can watch the games while at *ehem* work. Are problem was we had/have to keep it in the box cause any other screen resolutions its just complete garbage.

The bitrates are just not there. I did call a couple years ago about the quality in the streams and 4 years ago their TS said "750k bit rates will be availible after the season starts." However that was 3 years ago and the few 750k bitrate streams I have seen are just as bad.

IMO, rookies with new video phones filming their dog runing across the street looks better on youtube than the MLB feeds. Fire Bud Selig.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

DanoP said:


> I've been following this pretty closely now for about a month and the interesting thing is that this question is still the big unknown....at least in the public realm. When does this exclusivity start? This evening I looked at both the DirecTV and Dish websites and neither have any info on the Extra Innings package for this season. Which would lead one to believe the deal would be effective immediately. I signed up for Dish in October so I'm gonna be one of the ones locked out.....I have an 18 month commitment so the soonest I can opt out is April 2008. These idiots in MLB who are yapping the self-righteous indignation about how the product is still overexposed and the deal will effect very few people just ignore the fact that people sign up for EI in order to see *their team*. Not to see a ton of out of market games. MLB turned their backs on the steroid era for dollars and are now eschewing loyal hometown fans....for dollars. Public decorum prevents me from saying what I really think of Selig & Co. They are &*%$)$%)!


There is article on news.com stating this deal doesn't start until 2009. So start writting Congress!


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> There is article on news.com stating this deal doesn't start until 2009. So start writting Congress!


That is incorrect the previous deal is expired and hence the negotiation, the new deal takes effect with this season 2007


----------



## skizer (May 16, 2004)

cb7214 said:


> That is incorrect the previous deal is expired and hence the negotiation, the new deal takes effect with this season 2007


leave it to Bud "the dumbass" Selig to still not have anything set in stone and opening day is less then a month away.

Baseball really needs a commish that has a clue....

This deal is bad for most fans. I have Dish and love baseball, but will likley not switch over to DirectTv over this deal. Some people will switch, but many will likely find better things to do.....and as such, baseball will lose fans in the long run.


----------



## varkeast (Mar 7, 2007)

i just started looking into DBS stuff recently. 

would the dish multi-sport package provide any sort of work around if D* were to gain exclusivity of the extra innings package?

I'm a big red sox fan living in NC and i saw that multi-sport includes NESN. 

Would i be able to get the MLB games broadcast on NESN in NC via the multi-sport pack, or would they all be blacked out?

Or am i confused by what the multi-sport pack is and it is only available in the region of the RSN...?

Thanks


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

varkeast said:


> ...or would they all be blacked out?


They would.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

James Long said:


> I would love to see the DIY mosaic come to a satellite system ... although I don't believe D* has the bandwidth or technology to do it.


D* could do it on the HR20 using broadband and VOD.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

varkeast said:


> would the dish multi-sport package provide any sort of work around if D* were to gain exclusivity of the extra innings package?


Not really, not much. Almost all major professional sporting events are blacked out in the Dish Multi Sports Pack. Two relevant exceptions are _some_ spring training games and what I call lower-case extra innings during the season. That is, any part of a game that falls outside its scheduled time is in the clear on the sports pack. So with slugfests, rain delays, and true extra-innings games, you can watch the last part of the game.

One big caveat: This has been true in previous years, but there's never any guarantee about what the sports pack will black out in the future. As in next month.

More about what you do and don't get from the sports pack: http://www.carload.com/dishsports.htm


----------



## wlambert38 (Jul 16, 2006)

Comment on MLB.com PQ: I am an out-of- market Yankee fan, and MLB.com is really the only route to take if I want to watch as many Yankee games as possible. The E* Extra Innings package, last year, probably only offered about 50%-60% of the Yankee games, and D* Extra Innings package, a couple of years ago, probably offered about 80% of the games. Now, what is the PQ on MLB.com.? Today, I installed a video adapter on my Imac G5 and the audio cables to a Sony 30" XBR HD set and watched the Red Sox-Mets game. Using Full Screen on the Quick Time player, I was surprised. The PQ is not great, but it is probably not much worse than some of the RSN's (not all) telecasts last year on E* Extra Innings. As indicated on earlier posts, if you want to watch the games regardless of the PQ, MLB.com does offer an "acceptable" picture on a 30" screen.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

varkeast said:


> i just started looking into DBS stuff recently.
> 
> would the dish multi-sport package provide any sort of work around if D* were to gain exclusivity of the extra innings package?
> 
> ...


All the games on NESN would be blacked out on the multi-sport pack. If the
game runs over 3 hours, the blackout ends and you can watch the end of
the game. It is not a workaround and is too frustrating if you are an out
of market fan.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

wlambert38 said:


> Comment on MLB.com PQ: I am an out-of- market Yankee fan, and MLB.com is really the only route to take if I want to watch as many Yankee games as possible. The E* Extra Innings package, last year, probably only offered about 50%-60% of the Yankee games, and D* Extra Innings package, a couple of years ago, probably offered about 80% of the games. Now, what is the PQ on MLB.com.? Today, I installed a video adapter on my Imac G5 and the audio cables to a Sony 30" XBR HD set and watched the Red Sox-Mets game. Using Full Screen on the Quick Time player, I was surprised. The PQ is not great, but it is probably not much worse than some of the RSN's (not all) telecasts last year on E* Extra Innings. As indicated on earlier posts, if you want to watch the games regardless of the PQ, MLB.com does offer an "acceptable" picture on a 30" screen.


I agree if you really want to see the games, it is better than nothing. If I was
out of market for the Phillies and it was my only alternative, I would sign up
for MLB.com. However the PQ is not great. But if you are a die hard fan, PQ is not that important, if you have no other option. Fortunately, I will be getting Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia HD with my March 22 Verizon Fios installation.


----------

