# MLB, DIRECTV Extend, Expand Multi-Year Agreement



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

*MLB, DIRECTV Extend, Expand Multi-Year Agreement*



> Deal Includes Launch of The MLB Channel, Carriage Rights to MLB
> EXTRA INNINGS PackageNEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 8, 2007--Major League Baseball and DIRECTV, the nation's leading satellite provider, today announced a seven-year agreement that continues carriage rights to the MLB EXTRA INNINGS subscription package of out-of-market games and includes the launch of the MLB Channel as part of DIRECTV's basic package. Included within the agreement, DIRECTV will be a minority partner in the MLB Channel, and will work with MLB to develop the network, which will launch in 2009.
> 
> ...


Read the rest of the press release at *DirecTV Investor Relations*

Thanks to wmshultz for the original post...
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=862664&postcount=34


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

Smart.............ball's in cable and Dish's court now. Game, set, match.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

The other companies will not have much time to match the price. I hope soon we will know how much we will have to pay for the package and what would be the immediate change for us.


----------



## wmschultz (Jul 18, 2006)

I do like how the worded the announcement that it is open to all providers as long as they carry the MLB channel.

That was a big FU to John Kerry and friends.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

But again... it is no different then ESPN, comming along and saying You MUST carry ESPN-Classic if you want ESPN

The part that the other carriers have to agree to the same price and terms...

That is basically MLB wants "x" for the EI... they want a flat "known" income level from the MLB-EI package...
Which what they get out of an EXCLUSIVE contract...

So instead of it being a variable based on subscriber levels... it is a straight contract commitment..


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

wmschultz said:


> I do like how the worded the announcement that it is open to all providers as long as they carry the MLB channel.
> 
> That was a big FU to John Kerry and friends.


Yes, now that I read the announcement (I should have wait for it before becoming a defender of the consumers :lol: ) I like the fact that the door is open to everyone, so now if the subs of other companies want it too they should pressure their company.


----------



## john18 (Nov 21, 2006)

And that forces E* to basically either divert and use as much bandwidth or not have access to Extra Innings.


----------



## wmschultz (Jul 18, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But again... it is no different then ESPN, comming along and saying You MUST carry ESPN-Classic if you want ESPN


Oh, I agree. It is just that whole attitude he had. I will really be interested to see
what other providers decide to ante up.


----------



## rstokas (Oct 21, 2005)

So no OTA? The package is not really better. Whoopie, mosaic and a red zone type channel. That is not more games however. I want to see the Dodgers @ Padres when the Pads are on Cox and the Dodgers on KCAL. They should pick up KCAL, but it doesn't look like they are.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rstokas said:


> So no OTA? The package is not really better. Whoopie, mosaic and a red zone type channel. That is not more games however. I want to see the Dodgers @ Padres when the Pads are on Cox and the Dodgers on KCAL. They should pick up KCAL, but it doesn't look like they are.


You where expecting OTA carriage?


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

With E* having a Charlie Chat Monday. It will be interesting to find out what El Cheapo will have to say.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But again... it is no different then ESPN, comming along and saying You MUST carry ESPN-Classic if you want ESPN
> 
> The part that the other carriers have to agree to the same price and terms...
> 
> ...


So the way this is said means that before MLB was getting different fees from different providers for EI? Or am I missing something? Very surprising.


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

Ah, a poison pill of sorts. Viking fans are familiar with this tactic.


----------



## AdamL2388 (Feb 19, 2007)

Okay, DirecTV is saying that with this agreement for Extra Innings to be exclusive that it will go deeper into the game to provide fans an ultimate experience. My question tho, is with the recent launch of Nascar HotPass on DirecTV, will Extra Innings be the same to HotPass with there own announcewrs, own camera angels, etc... or will this just be the same package as it was before, just only on DirecTV. 

With the negative comments towards HotPass for the first two weeks into the season, I'm just a little concerned that DirecTV might do the same thing with Extra Innings, as there doing to HotPass. That might turn out to be an ugly situation if they do.


----------



## wmschultz (Jul 18, 2006)

How would you like to be the poor uninformed consumer that has cable or Dish and
go to watch your Extra Innings and find out it is GONE...Ouch.


----------



## wmschultz (Jul 18, 2006)

AdamL2388 said:


> Okay, DirecTV is saying that with this agreement for Extra Innings to be exclusive that it will go deeper into the game to provide fans an ultimate experience. My question tho, is with the recent launch of Nascar HotPass on DirecTV, will Extra Innings be the same to HotPass with there own announcewrs, own camera angels, etc... or will this just be the same package as it was before, just only on DirecTV.
> 
> With the negative comments towards HotPass for the first two weeks into the season, I'm just a little concerned that DirecTV might do the same thing with Extra Innings, as there doing to HotPass. That might turn out to be an ugly situation if they do.


I would say it is just going to be like NFL Sunday Ticket w/Superfan.

The interactive stuff but using the network announcers.

Hotpass is TOTALLY different because they are actually producing the 5 driver 
channels. Here they will just "produce" the batter's eye channel with cut ins
like they have done with the RZ Channel.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

It won't be exclusive because I have read that In Demand had already matched D's deal exactly. But at that time they were saying the offer came too late now all of a sudden it is back open to everyone again. Well D has said it will pay less money if it is not exclusive. Maybe they can save some money and get The Tennis Channel--yes I know :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Dolly said:


> It won't be exclusive because I have read that In Demand had already matched D's deal exactly. But at that time they were saying the offer came too late now all of a sudden it is back open to everyone again. Well D has said it will pay less money if it is not exclusive. Maybe they can save some money and get The Tennis Channel--yes I know :beatdeadhorse:


Where did you read that?
Considering the deal was just announced less then an hour ago...

InDemand has already announced they matched it?


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

There HAD been stories around where InDemand CLAIMED they had offered more but of course those stories came from them they're spokesman so........


----------



## AdamL2388 (Feb 19, 2007)

Here is what DirecTV will offer its customers with the new Extra Innings package:

"DIRECTV will expand the MLB EXTRA INNINGS options to include a game mosaic channel, a Strike Zone Channel that takes viewers to live cut-ins of MLB games in progress at key points; detailed player and team stats, real-time scores and live updates from other games; and other innovations that complement the sport of baseball, entertain viewers and provide fans with a great entertainment value. Beginning in 2008, DIRECTV will provide most, if not all, of the package in High Definition."

WoW!!! kinda along the lines of mlb.com package


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where did you read that?
> Considering the deal was just announced less then an hour ago...
> 
> InDemand has already announced they matched it?


InDemand matched D's deal before today's announcement.
But they were told their deal came too late, but since it is now open to everyone I assume InDemand will pick it up. I found the article in Google news. I would have to find it again. Found it  It was in the story from the L.A. Times dated today by Larry Stewart that had said the deal was "imminent". I'm sorry I don't know anyway to do a link to a newspaper story so that others can read it


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

They matched the deal price wise, the whole hang up from day 1 is MLB wants their channel in 2009 on the basic analog cable tier. The cable companies are against it. So if they now are going to change their tune, then you'll see MLBEI on Cable. Otherwise this is NFL Network all over again, which wanted basic carriage, but didn't get it from Cablevision and Time Warner, not sure what Comcast and Cox did. Fun times ahead!


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

In a nutshell, cforrest, you nailed it.


----------



## AdamL2388 (Feb 19, 2007)

Stay tuned DirecTV customers, DirecTV is updating there website as we speak on MLB Extra Innings...


----------



## teebeebee1 (Dec 11, 2006)

My favorite part of the articale on mlb.com is as follows:

_DIRECTV will expand the MLB EXTRA INNINGS options to include a game mosaic channel, a Strike Zone Channel that takes viewers to live cut-ins of MLB games in progress at key points; detailed player and team stats, real-time scores and live updates from other games; and other innovations that complement the sport of baseball, entertain viewers and provide fans with a great entertainment value. Beginning in 2008, DIRECTV will provide most, if not all, of the package in High Definition.

_


----------



## james2006 (Oct 11, 2004)

If indemand attempted to match the D* offer, I assume this means that they offered the same amount in cash, and agreed to provide the baseball channel to approximately 15 million customers which would put the channel on a specialized tier of some sort, not basic cable.

Now, I am willing to bet that the D* contract with MLB mandates that incumbents place the channel on their most basic tier, which in cable’s case would make the channel available to over 60 million people. I wonder what the rate per subscriber is for the baseball channel…5 cents a month, 10 cents, or maybe more? Regardless, this would mean a lot of money for cable companies, and I am not sure they will match the D* offer.

I could be off base with some of my assumptions, but time will tell.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

teebeebee1 said:


> My favorite part of the articale on mlb.com is as follows:
> 
> _DIRECTV will expand the MLB EXTRA INNINGS options to include a game mosaic channel, a Strike Zone Channel that takes viewers to live cut-ins of MLB games in progress at key points; detailed player and team stats, real-time scores and live updates from other games; and other innovations that complement the sport of baseball, entertain viewers and provide fans with a great entertainment value. Beginning in 2008, DIRECTV will provide most, if not all, of the package in High Definition.
> 
> _


Would be nice if all these features will be available for this season.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Alexandrepsf said:


> Would be nice if all these features will be available for this season.


Check the D* web site, It looks like it will all be here with the MLB-EI SuperFan option, except only up to 10 HD game per week this year.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Alexandrepsf said:


> Would be nice if all these features will be available for this season.


Bandwidth, bandwidth....insofar as the HD (which of course I want ASAP!)


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

Yep, there was at least one game on channel 95 each night, and sometimes two, so ten a week is about what we got after the RSNs HD feeds went live.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> Bandwidth, bandwidth....insofar as the HD (which of course I want ASAP!)


They are actually promising some of them for this season:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/secondaryIndex.jsp?assetId=1800016


----------



## jpeckinp (Nov 6, 2006)

I might even bite at the Superfan package. I have never bought any of the extra sports packages before but I like the idea of the 8 games at once and 10 HD games a week and possibly all next year.
I will wait till next year to make that decision though I want to be sure of the price and the amount of HD.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

That really bugs me, though: I'm paying the HD Access fee already. I shouldn't have to pay ADDITIONAL money for MLB HD.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

I wonder if they will offer a special SuperFan package and offer the NFL SF and NFL SF at a special price. If not its HD so count me in for MLB SF.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

DCSholtis said:


> I wonder if they will offer a special SuperFan package and offer the NFL SF and NFL SF at a special price. If not its HD so count me in for MLB SF.


Yeah, I know I'll be a sucker and pay it because I want the HD, but what a scam!


----------



## hitdog042 (Dec 7, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> *MLB, DIRECTV Extend, Expand Multi-Year Agreement*
> 
> Read the rest of the press release at *DirecTV Investor Relations*
> 
> ...


They showed like 2 games a night last year on 95/96. Sounds like smoke blowing up you know what.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

I find this thread very interesting to say the least. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like everyone who has D* is really excited about this deal. Doesn't it just mean that those who purchase the package will be paying more for the package than you ever have before, and those who don't want it will be paying D* more for their standard programming? I don't think I would get excited about that. Is my logic flawed?


----------



## webpatk (Aug 13, 2006)

I posted this in the sports programming forum, but I think it fits here to. I just spoke with someone at D* who let me know that the price of the MLB SF is going to be $39. In my opinion this is a good deal. especially compared to NFL ST SF.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

heisman said:


> I find this thread very interesting to say the least. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like everyone who has D* is really excited about this deal. Doesn't it just mean that those who purchase the package will be paying more for this package than you ever have before, and those who don't want it will be paying D* more for their standard programming. I don't think I would get excited about that. Is my logic flawed?


I think we were excited pre-deal because if they were working on an exclusive deal there was a better chance of more features (most of us hoping for more HD coverage and elimination of FOX blackouts). Indeed, we do now get more feature options (see the SuperFan description on the D* website). The additional options come at a premium but they weren't there before.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Before I pony up $39 additional dollars, I would like to know how many of those 10 HD games I will be blacked out of.


----------



## dvrblogger (Jan 11, 2005)

rstokas said:


> So no OTA? The package is not really better. Whoopie, mosaic and a red zone type channel. That is not more games however. I want to see the Dodgers @ Padres when the Pads are on Cox and the Dodgers on KCAL. They should pick up KCAL, but it doesn't look like they are.


D* will have kcal and other statiosn when new bird launches hopefully by September more channels should be on air including th enew 70 national HD channel.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

webpatk said:


> I posted this in the sports programming forum, but I think it fits here to. I just spoke with someone at D* who let me know that the price of the MLB SF is going to be $39. In my opinion this is a good deal. especially compared to NFL ST SF.


Really? I paid the Early Bird price of $49 for NFL-ST SF in 05 and got if free last Season.


----------



## webpatk (Aug 13, 2006)

Assuming that the $39 price is correct, I look at it this way. I may not have the exact number of weeks in the season correct, but I am close. The baseball season is approx 6 months long. Approx 4 weeks per month. 10 games per week equates to 240 HD games. At $39 for the season, each HD game costs a little over 16 cents. Granted most people won't watch every game, but it still seems like a good deal. Even if you only watch two games a week, you will only pay a little over 81 cents per game.


----------



## webpatk (Aug 13, 2006)

bidger said:


> Really? I paid the Early Bird price of $49 for NFL-ST SF in 05 and got if free last Season.


I got it free last season to. My point is that this seems like a small price to pay for what you get. Everyone has to decide what they are willing to pay. In my opinion, if the $39 price is correct, D* is not trying to rape their customers on this one. It is simply an add on. People who don't want it, don't have to get it.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Plus for those who get our RSNs in HD there are even more HD games for us outside of MLB SF.


----------



## hitdog042 (Dec 7, 2006)

DCSholtis said:


> Plus for those who get our RSNs in HD there are even more HD games for us outside of MLB SF.


Again, let's make sure we are not being dupped.

Last year, they showed plenty of games on 95/96, usually the yankees and mariners.

Whos to say this won't be the same thing? Show me that other teams will be on and I may buy it. If its going to be the Yankees, Dodgers, and Mariners again, then Id hardly call that super anything.

Ill reserve judgement until they post what the schedules will be once they know.

NESN HD was full time for Red Sox games last year, and not one ever appeared on 95 or 96. Not once.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

Over at espn .com they're saying that INDEMAND says it will be impossible for them to do this deal to carry this MLB package and MLB channel and that baseball disrespects 75 millon fans!!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

celticpride said:


> Over at espn .com they're saying that INDEMAND says it will be impossible for them to do this deal to carry this MLB package and MLB channel and that baseball disrespects 75 millon fans!!


Like to the article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2792214

MLB is a buisness... bottom line... They are in it to make money.
And these EI deal is a guaranteed source of income...

Then some of those individual teams are "corporations" of their own.
YES network? Stoping the streaming of the AUDIO from "home" radio stations, unless you pay MLB..
Blackouts... MLB has long since stopped giving a hoot about the fans.

Once it started costing more then a weeks pay check to go take the family to see 1 game... That should have been a sign.

It is a buisness where the "fans" flip the bills... sucks.. .but that is what it has become.
And as long as these players keep making more money in one game, then most of make in a year...

I love how they say it is "impossible" it is not impossible.
They just don't want to do it...

There is no technical limitation here...

They are just pissed, because DirecTV found a way around "roadblock" they put up in their way.


----------



## hitdog042 (Dec 7, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Like to the article:
> http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2792214
> 
> MLB is a buisness... bottom line... They are in it to make money.
> ...


Why does everyone say that about baseball?

What sport doesn't cost you a paycheck to bring your family?

MLB is still the LEAST EXPENSIVE out of the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB. By far, too. Not even close.

I hate that statement. (sorry earl, not bashing you). I just get sick of the logic.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hitdog042 said:


> Why does everyone say that about baseball?
> 
> What sport doesn't cost you a paycheck to bring your family?
> 
> ...


But it is the logic, that the HIGHEST level of these sports..
Is BIG TIME $$$$$

The game is not a buisness the entire aspect around the presentation of the game is.

I don't know about the "least expensive".....
I know at least here in Chicago... It cost about the same to go to baseball or football. But from a season ticket holder point of view... BIG $$$ difference.


----------



## hitdog042 (Dec 7, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But it is the logic, that the HIGHEST level of these sports..
> Is BIG TIME $$$$$
> 
> The game is not a buisness the entire aspect around the presentation of the game is.
> ...


you are talking 8 games v.s 81, for one. Actually 10 v.s 81, because the NFL teams make you buy the boring pre season games at full price.

I am a Bengals ST holder. But you can't compare that.

I know this. Decent seats at a Blue Jackets game will run you 60 plus each. You can go to a Reds game and sit on the infield for less than that.

You can't walk up to an NFL game and grab a 10 dollar game ticket like you can in 90 percent of baseball stadiums not named Fenway, Wrigley, or Yankee Stadium.

It's all relative. You cant expect the ST cost to be the same when you are talking a difference of 70 games you are attending.

The White Sox are another funny thing in its own right. When the tickets were dirt cheap, nobody went. Now they are more expensive, and people complain up there.

I managed to buy Red Sox v.s Yankee tickets at face value. 27 bucks a piece. Name me an NFL stadium where you can get a 27 dollar ticket. Or even an NBA venue. You can get that in hockey, but you will want to bring cotton for your nose when it starts bleeding.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But again... it is no different then ESPN, comming along and saying You MUST carry ESPN-Classic if you want ESPN
> 
> The part that the other carriers have to agree to the same price and terms...
> 
> ...


Except that the deal with one provider includes an ownership piece and this deal appears to have been constructed in such a way as to DISCOURAGE other carrier'sbut to allow MLB, DTV and thier adherents to claiim that it is equally avaialable to all.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hitdog042 said:


> you are talking 8 games v.s 81, for one. Actually 10 v.s 81, because the NFL teams make you buy the boring pre season games at full price.
> 
> I am a Bengals ST holder. But you can't compare that.
> 
> ...


You haven't been able to walk up to Wrigley field and by ANY ticket for several years now... let alone one for $10... And part of the problem in some towns... The only way to get GOOD seats, is to pay $$ to people who spent $$$ on the season tickets.

I wasn't stating MLB was the most expensive, and really isn't the point of what I posted...

The point is... regardless of the cost of a fan to go to a game...

There is a business aspect of the MLB, that can not be ignored...
There is the "game".. which is still the same game we play with our kids...
But surrounding that game... is one of the largest buisnesses in this country.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> Except that the deal with one provider includes an ownership piece and this deal appears to have been constructed in such a way as to DISCOURAGE other carrier'sbut to allow MLB, DTV and thier adherents to claiim that it is equally avaialable to all.


Well... that is the buisness aspects of it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

True enough it isa business. But what I am saying is let's be honest about what this is. The fact that it isa business does not mean we have to portray the deal asomething other than what it is.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> True enough it isa business. But what I am saying is let's be honest about what this is. The fact that it isa business does not mean we have to portray the deal asomething other than what it is.


Your right... and I wasn't trying to..

The "deal" was nothing more then a buisness transaction... the MLB selling their "product" (Extra Innings) to a carrier for a price.

A price DirecTV was willing to pay.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

I want to give credit where credit is due and going through the thread on this very topic, I found this very insightful thread by AVS Forum member fredfa:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9978991&&#post9978991

He brought out the idea that DirecTV took the approach that InHD used in their negotiations with D* in that every _digital_ subscriber would have to have InHD, meaning every subscriber since D* is all digital. D* twisted that approach with the base package inclusion in the "match this offer" proposal because they know full well the cable cos that InHD represents want the Baseball Network in their _digital_ packages. B*tch slap!

I don't care what anyone says, it was a brilliant move and I'd feel that way regardless of who pulled it off.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ding Ding... that is a great point.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Your right... and I wasn't trying to..
> 
> The "deal" was nothing more then a buisness transaction... the MLB selling their "product" (Extra Innings) to a carrier for a price.
> 
> A price DirecTV was willing to pay.


I cannot disagree with what you said in this post,. however in earlier posts you semed to present the deal as being available equally to all providers. That I disagree with. MLB has every right to negotiate a deal that is structured so that it is hard for more than one provider to carry their games. But the fact that they have the right to do it an that it si business does ot make the statements in the earlier posts true.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

bidger said:


> I don't care what anyone says, it was a brilliant move and I'd feel that way regardless of who pulled it off.


I just don't get it. What is so brilliant about offering someone more money than everyone else, then making your customers (whether they subscribe to it or not) pay more for your programming? What is so brilliant about that? It sounds like every other big money deal that goes down in the world.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

heisman said:


> It sounds like every other big money deal that goes down in the world.


I thought you said you didn't get it? Your last sentence shows you do.

It's not about, "Every thing I need to know I learned in kinnygarten", it bizz-ness, baby.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> I just don't get it. What is so brilliant about offering someone more money than everyone else, then making your customers (whether they subscribe to it or not) pay more for your programming? What is so brilliant about that? It sounds like every other big money deal that goes down in the world.


Because it is achieving their goal of exclusive... without being exclusive.

Pretty much identical to the Sunday Ticket model..
Which is HIGHLY successfull.

So while it make take a couple years to see the rewards... if they improve the product... then it starts to pay it self .


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

bidger said:


> I thought you said you didn't get it? Your last sentence shows you do.
> 
> It's not about, "Every thing I need to know I learned in kinnygarten", it bizz-ness, baby.


What I didn't get, was why you think it's "brilliant?"


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Because it is achieving their goal of exclusive... without being exclusive.
> 
> Pretty much identical to the Sunday Ticket model..
> Which is HIGHLY successfull.
> ...


I understand this, but the product isn't close to being exclusive like NFLST. You can get twice the amount of games for half the price on mlbtv when comparing to EI.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

heisman said:


> What I didn't get, was why you think it's "brilliant?"


Twisting the same approach a competitor used on you to shut you out to now shut them out is brilliant IMO.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

hitdog042 said:


> Again, let's make sure we are not being dupped.
> 
> Last year, they showed plenty of games on 95/96, usually the yankees and mariners.
> 
> ...


I was only referring to games on Channel 96/97 your local HD RSN. Those on combination with the 2 new MLB SuperFan channels should give us more MLB HD. Personally I dont care what HD games they throw up I just like the fact that apparently there will be more HD games available this year.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

bidger said:


> Twisting the same approach a competitor used on you to shut you out to now shut them out is brilliant IMO.


Who is being shut out? Seriously.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

So you've never heard of InHD?

OK, InHD is owned by and serves cable and has provided exclusive MLB games for HD cable subs. When satellite approached InHD for carriage on their systems, they were told since InHD served _digital_ cable subs, that same stipulation would apply to satellite subs, who by the very nature of the technology are _all_ digital subs.

Does that make it clearer?


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

AdamL2388 said:


> Stay tuned DirecTV customers, DirecTV is updating there website as we speak on MLB Extra Innings...


I tell you this is getting sillier by the minute :jump3: Now the head of In Demand is saying the deal is impossible for his company to match. After it was said that In Demand had already met it  I'm beginning to believe you really can't tell the players without a scorecard :lol:


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

Yeah, InDemand's backers just don't want to put the MLB Channel on analog cable, so instead the deal is now impossible. Oh well, they dug their own grave by screwing with D* over INHD carriage.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

cforrest said:


> Yeah, InDemand's backers just don't want to put the MLB Channel on analog cable, so instead the deal is now impossible. Oh well, they dug their own grave by screwing with D* over INHD carriage.


Well if they are going to let something like that stop them from getting the deal IMO they don't deserve it anyway :righton:


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

hitdog042 said:


> Again, let's make sure we are not being dupped.
> 
> Last year, they showed plenty of games on 95/96, usually the yankees and mariners.
> 
> ...


I'm with you completely. If this is just a new charge for the YES-centric games on 95 last year, I'm not paying. I'm a major baseball fan, but the "mosaic/stats" stuff isn't of any great interest to me.

You are correct that no NESN-HD game has ever appeared on D*. If there is more variety in the games shown, I'll buy. Otherwise, I will wait for a more complete package in 2008 w/ the increased bandwidth.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

cforrest said:


> Yeah, InDemand's backers just don't want to put the MLB Channel on analog cable, so instead the deal is now impossible. Oh well, they dug their own grave by screwing with D* over INHD carriage.


Not to mention cable-exclusive coverage of the Phillies and Padres...


----------



## jedster (Sep 20, 2006)

I am so excited! I was really hoping that MLB would be reasonable and they have proved that they are. I mean, giving the other major operators until the start of the baseball season to agree to their take it or leave it terms!!! I mean, that's three whole weeks! Yee ha!

And probably if we're REALLY lucky, none of them will match the offer. And then DirecTV wil have an exclusive! Yipeee!!!!! And then we can go shove it in the face of all those people who don't have DirecTV! YAYAYAYAY!

And then when we want to think about switching to FIOS or IPTV or Cable or a different DBS network then we can say oh no, we can't switch because we'll lose our NFLST and our MLBEI! Yes! This is the best news ever!!!!!

And then when DirecTV starts raising prices we won't even have to worry about considering any alternatives! Because there aren't any!!!! YES!!!!!

And when we want to complain about the MLB's idiotic blackout policies which mean that Las Vegas resident can't watch any Seattle Mariners games on MLBEI if they are playing the Padres, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Angles, Athletics, or Giants (seriously, that's true), then DirecTV won't even have to listen, they can turn a deaf ear...because they have a MONOPOLY!

Shrewd business, yes. But not good for consumers. You're a toady if you think otherwise.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

So I've always been annoyed about the FOX blackout, but then you get over things and it's like a roller coaster effect. Last night I was back to accepting it, but now I'm re-thinking AGAIN. So it was bad enough last year that you could only watch the 1:00 game that FOX wanted you to watch and couldn't even watch your team on the RSN at 1 because FOX wanted the ratings.

But this year it's even more illogical: the FOX games don't _start_ until 3:55, so I'll be blacked out of any 1:00 games that aren't even _competing_ with the FOX game!!! Uggghhh, I can't stand it!!!


----------



## brownclown (Feb 28, 2007)

akw4572 said:


> Smart.............ball's in cable and Dish's court now. Game, set, match.


What does that mean? Are you happy that Direct tv is shutting out others? Do you subscribe to the package? If so, don't ***** when they raise the rates because they are the only game in town and show the "hd" games in that bullsh#$ they call hd.


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

brownclown said:


> What does that mean? Are you happy that Direct tv is shutting out others? Do you subscribe to the package? If so, don't ***** when they raise the rates because they are the only game in town and show the "hd" games in that bullsh#$ they call hd.


:soapbox:

what is the problem E* and InHD congreess and John Carey whinned it wasn't fair because it was exlusive, they made not and have given E* and InHD a chance to step up to the plate and get it too and I do subscribe and i don't care if the price goes up, give me one example of a product or service that has NEVER changed over time!!


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

cb7214 said:


> :soapbox:
> 
> what is the problem E* and InHD congreess and John Carey whinned it wasn't fair because it was exlusive, they made not and have given E* and InHD a chance to step up to the plate and get it too and I do subscribe and i don't care if the price goes up, give me one example of a product or service that has NEVER changed over time!!


There is price hike with time and there is price hike because of exclusivity and believe me the latter happens much more often and more aggressive. Look at the difference of the price that is between NFL package and other sports, Baseball will now join the club if DTV has the exclusivity.

If you do not mind to pay for that, you can just write a check right now to them and give them your money if you do not mind. I want to pay a reasonable price for my hobbies.


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Because it is achieving their goal of exclusive... without being exclusive.
> 
> Pretty much identical to the Sunday Ticket model..
> Which is HIGHLY successfull.
> ...


As far as I'm cocerned, I will pay the price , for the first time ever, to watch the White Sox beat the crap out of Detroit, Cleveland, and the Twinkies. Been a Sox fan since the 50's and watch them play on little old B&C tv's, now I can watch them play on any of my HD sets. I only take grand-sugars( 10 of them)  to Sox park when church buys a block of tickets at a good discount. Only way I can afford it!! Again, I will gladly pay the price!


----------



## brownclown (Feb 28, 2007)

Well, that post was a hard read, but you are wrong. This deal means that Direct tv basically controls mlb ei, and can sub it out to other providers, and that is something that they do not want to do. The way it was structured makes it impossible to match, if they are truly asking for the same amount of money. The bs about carrying the mlb channel in 2009 is not the issue. 
The only reason I care is because I am a baseball fan, have subscribed for years, now I have to pony up the cash to switch providers if I want the package. You see, direct tv is the leader in sports, but they suck in every other category. I was a direct tv sub for 10 years. The sd pic quality was a thing of beauty when they launched, now it is the worst pic quality among digital providers. Period. The hi def quality is a joke. Time Warner blows them away in my area as they have switched to all digital. I have seen them side by side. And the hardware/software for direct tv is by far the worst as well. So now people will have to weigh the options: Have your out of market team on your big screen, but suffer through terrible sd quality, hd lite, and a flat out horrible dvr that gets worse by the day. How do I know? My brother is still a direct tv sub, I have had plenty of time playing with the direct tv hr20 joke. I just bought a new house, and there was a dish network set up here. So I tried it for 2 months, the pic quality is better than direct tv on most channels, but I switched to time warner because they went all digital, and for some stupid reason Dish will not allow you to lease more than 1 hd dvr,which by the way is far superior than the other dvr's. The quality is better with my cable setup. Plus I get rsn's in hd. And I get every stinking channel, 3 hd dvr's + roadrunner for 130/month. So I thought to myself, without the nfl sunday ticket, twc and dish are a wash, in fact I have much more programming for less.


----------



## wmschultz (Jul 18, 2006)

hitdog042 said:


> Why does everyone say that about baseball?
> 
> What sport doesn't cost you a paycheck to bring your family?
> 
> ...


Not in STL. NHL is cheaper.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

wmschultz said:


> Not in STL. NHL is cheaper.


I know I opened the door... but this really shouldn't be a debate about which "sport" is cheaper... as regardless of the sport... you are looking at a "fair" amount of $$$ to take the family to go see a game...


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE MLB SUPERFAN PAGE.

http://directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=3160003

LOOKS LIKE D* IS MAKING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE NFL RED ZONE CHANNEL. 


> MLB EXTRA INNINGS STRIKE ZONE CHANNEL™ - Channel 733
> Takes you to available live games to see the best plays as they happen.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

dtv757 said:


> HERE IS THE LINK TO THE MLB SUPERFAN PAGE.
> 
> http://directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=3160003
> 
> LOOKS LIKE D* IS MAKING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE NFL RED ZONE CHANNEL.


Whatever. The rhythm of baseball is different than football, it doesn't really fit IMHO.

But if others enjoy it, more power to them.


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

If they want to improve their product then do 2 things.

1. stop with the freaking blackouts
2. offer home team feeds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go Yanks!


----------



## tms (Feb 6, 2007)

Does anyone know what the cost for EI was in 06?


----------



## brewer4 (Aug 19, 2006)

All I know is Baseball is my least favorite sport and with NESN HD for free, thats enough baseball. I wont subscribe to MLB. In fact, I am on the fence about renewing my NFL ST. I love it, dont mind paying for it, but I just think professional sports costs are getting out of hand and the only way to curb it is stop giving them money. I know its hard when you enjoy the product but I think I can find other things to do if I dont like any of the local NFL games being broadcast. I usually get plenty of Eagles and Patriot games given my location.


----------



## wmschultz (Jul 18, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> If they want to improve their product then do 2 things.
> 
> 1. stop with the freaking blackouts
> 2. offer home team feeds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


What does number 2 mean? The home team gets precedence when showing MLBEI
games, the same as NHL and NBA.

If the home team isn't making their feed available to MLBEI, then you get the visiting team's feed.


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

brewer4 said:


> All I know is Baseball is my least favorite sport and with NESN HD for free, thats enough baseball. I wont subscribe to MLB. In fact, I am on the fence about renewing my NFL ST. I love it, dont mind paying for it, but I just think professional sports costs are getting out of hand and the only way to curb it is stop giving them money. I know its hard when you enjoy the product but I think I can find other things to do if I dont like any of the local NFL games being broadcast. I usually get plenty of Eagles and Patriot games given my location.


You get NESN HD in Hartford?


----------



## BruceS (Sep 23, 2006)

Does anyone know whether the extra HD games mentioned in the SuperFan package will require an mpeg4 receiver?

Or, until the new satellites are launched and tested, will I still be alright with an HR10-250?


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

brewer4 said:


> All I know is Baseball is my least favorite sport and with NESN HD for free, thats enough baseball. I wont subscribe to MLB.


If I lived in my favorite team's market, I wouldn't subscribe either. There is enough additional baseball for me on the other outlets.

For those of us who can't get our team locally, though, EI is "necessary."



brewer4 said:


> In fact, I am on the fence about renewing my NFL ST. I love it, dont mind paying for it, but I just think professional sports costs are getting out of hand and the only way to curb it is stop giving them money. I know its hard when you enjoy the product but I think I can find other things to do if I dont like any of the local NFL games being broadcast. I usually get plenty of Eagles and Patriot games given my location.


Eventually the price will outstrip demand...apparently we're not there yet.

D* needs to be careful, IMHO, with the pricing and extra charges for each package. I'm a big sports fan, and currently get MLB/NHL/NBA/NFL and both college packages. It's a good chunk of change, but I can afford it. However, with continued price increases, I will most likely cut back on which packages I choose to continue. Sunday Ticket will likely be the first to go in our household (yes, I know we're somewhat abnormal in that regard). I especially dislike requiring "Superfan" add-ons only to get HD -- I don't care about the other extras.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

BruceS said:


> Does anyone know whether the extra HD games mentioned in the SuperFan package will require an mpeg4 receiver?
> 
> Or, until the new satellites are launched and tested, will I still be alright with an HR10-250?


I would imagine you'll be OK this year, since current MPEG4 is only being spotbeamed. It's not impossible that the HD might be increased before the end of the season, if the launch of the first CONUS bird goes smoothly. That additional HD would be MPEG4 -- but it would be an unexpected bonus for this season.


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

tms said:


> Does anyone know what the cost for EI was in 06?


I believe the renewal price last year was $149.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

bwaldron said:


> If I lived in my favorite team's market, I wouldn't subscribe either. There is enough additional baseball for me on the other outlets.
> 
> For those of us who can't get our team locally, though, EI is "necessary."
> get HD -- I don't care about the other extras.


Exactly! I mean, it's easy for a Boston fan living in Reading or a Tampa fan in Orlando to say, "I'll just stop subscribing," but for those of us out of market fans, we don't have a choice.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> If I lived in my favorite team's market, I wouldn't subscribe either. There is enough additional baseball for me on the other outlets.
> 
> For those of us who can't get our team locally, though, EI is "necessary."


I am on the opposite side, I live in my favorite team's market, but I still get the package because I love Baseball and love to see the other teams play.

I can afford it too, but it is out of question that I give them free money just because they are the only one who carries the package.


----------



## dgordo (Aug 29, 2004)

Please explain to me why cable and E* cant match this deal.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

DonCorleone said:


> Exactly! I mean, it's easy for a Boston fan living in Reading or a Tampa fan in Orlando to say, "I'll just stop subscribing," but for those of us out of market fans, we don't have a choice.


Yep. I'm a Boston fan living in Tampa...I pay. In fact, I originally installed a 10-foot C-band dish back in the 80's just to get BoSox games.

Being able to tell the cableco goodbye was a nice side benefit.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

dgordo said:


> Please explain to me why cable and E* cant match this deal.


They can...but they don't want to. The big sticking point is putting the new "baseball network" channel on a basic tier (analog, in cable's case) similar to D*'s basic package.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Alexandrepsf said:


> I am on the opposite side, I live in my favorite team's market, but I still get the package because I love Baseball and love to see the other teams play.
> 
> I can afford it too, but it is out of question that I give them free money just because they are the only one who carries the package.


Totally understood.

I might subscribe to EI even if I were an "in-market" fan -- but I would be much more of a price-sensitive customer in that case.


----------



## dgordo (Aug 29, 2004)

bwaldron said:


> They can...but they don't want to. The big sticking point is putting it on a basic tier (analog, in cable's case) similar to D*'s basic package.


That's what I thought, they can, but they wont. That is very different than what they are saying.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> Totally understood.
> 
> I might subscribe to EI even if I were an "in-market" fan -- but I would be much more of a price-sensitive customer in that case.


You are right, maybe I would have reacted other way around if I was not my fav team's market.

Anyway, these are big business, I just hope that us the consumers will not suffer of that.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

dgordo said:


> That's what I thought, they can, but they wont. That is very different than what they are saying.


Yep. DirecTV and MLB handled this pretty cleverly, I must say. They painted the cable (and E*) folks into a corner...so they're spinning hard.

Whether or not I am a big fan of "exclusives," I'm so sick of all the whining from the cable folks about "fairness" ... especially when in San Diego and Philadelphia, people with dishes can't even get to see their local team play.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Alexandrepsf said:


> Anyway, these are big business, I just hope that us the consumers will not suffer of that.


Can't argue with that


----------



## dgordo (Aug 29, 2004)

bwaldron said:


> Yep. DirecTV and MLB handled this pretty cleverly, I must say. They painted the cable (and E*) folks into a corner...so they're spinning hard.
> 
> Whether or not I am a big fan of "exclusives," I'm so sick of all the whining from the cable folks about "fairness" ... especially when in San Diego and Philadelphia, people with dishes can't even get to see their local team play.


And INHD pulled the same thing with D*.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

dgordo said:


> And INHD pulled the same thing with D*.


Indeed they did...with their "digital tier" demands.

I don't begrudge businesses from playing hardball. It's all the "spin" that drives me nuts.


----------



## BruceS (Sep 23, 2006)

Another question.

Assuming you subscribed to EI last year, what tier will you get when it comes up for automatic renewal this year?


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

BruceS said:


> Another question.
> 
> Assuming you subscribed to EI last year, what tier will you get when it comes up for automatic renewal this year?


The tier's just referring to the baseball channel in 2009. If you're renewing EI this year, it's just the price that will likely go up with inflation.


----------



## tms (Feb 6, 2007)

gpg said:


> I believe the renewal price last year was $149.


Thanks....


----------



## STEVED21 (Feb 6, 2006)

Just added to D* site


How To OrderGet MLB EXTRA INNINGS now for just 4 payments of $39.99 — a savings of $40 off the regular season price! 
(Must order DIRECTV service by 4/7/07 and activate by 4/15/07) 

Add MLB EXTRA INNINGS SuperFan to your MLB EXTRA INNINGS subscription now for just 4 payments of $9.75!


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

bidger said:


> So you've never heard of InHD?
> 
> OK, InHD is owned by and serves cable and has provided exclusive MLB games for HD cable subs. When satellite approached InHD for carriage on their systems, they were told since InHD served _digital_ cable subs, that same stipulation would apply to satellite subs, who by the very nature of the technology are _all_ digital subs.
> 
> Does that make it clearer?


No, not really. How is INHD shutout? They show 1 game a week that isn't on EI. They'll probably continue to do so, so how are they shutout of EI? They didn't show games from EI in the first place. It's like saying ESPN is shutout of EI, when they don't show games from EI in the first place.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

STEVED21 said:


> Just added to D* site
> 
> How To OrderGet MLB EXTRA INNINGS now for just 4 payments of $39.99 - a savings of $40 off the regular season price!
> (Must order DIRECTV service by 4/7/07 and activate by 4/15/07)
> ...


Thank you for the info.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

heisman said:


> No, not really. How is INHD shutout? They show 1 game a week that isn't on EI. They'll probably continue to do so, so how are they shutout of EI? They didn't show games from EI in the first place. It's like saying ESPN is shutout of EI, when they don't show games from EI in the first place.


IF InHD doesnt agree to terms there goes not only their rights to EI but also their one game per week that wasnt a part of EI. Thats how they will be shut out.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Alexandrepsf said:


> You are right, maybe I would have reacted other way around if I was not my fav team's market.
> 
> Anyway, these are big business, I just hope that us the consumers will not suffer of that.


Well if the renewal price is $200 and it was $150 last year you tell me if the consumer won.


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

Geronimo said:


> Well if the renewal price is $200 and it was $150 last year you tell me if the consumer won.


Early bird is $159.96 ($39.99 x 4), so it's an extra $10.96 from last year. Not too bad IMHO.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

And MLB Super Fan is $39 (9.75 x 4) as rumored. Not bad I just called and re upped. CSR I had was not aware he was able to sell EI yet, I had to tell him to check D*s website. And your right that Early Bird price is not bad at all I admit I was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## satjay (Nov 20, 2006)

I just ordered it, I tried to deal on Superfan, like I have the past few years with NFL...No go on that, I orderd it anyways, and they are going to take 10.00 of my HBO for the next six months....Not bad...


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

JockoBronco said:


> Early bird is $159.96 ($39.99 x 4), so it's an extra $10.96 from last year. Not too bad IMHO.


What was last year's early bird price?


----------



## james2006 (Oct 11, 2004)

The base package is $10 more, but if you want the same amount of HD that we recieved last year it will be $50 more.

For me the mix channel and strike zone channel do not add much value, so I will be paying $50 more in order to get the same content I had last year. Now if they were showing 3 or 4 games in hd per night I would totally understand the price increase...


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

All in all I've gotta say as a current DTV sub the $159 for EI and $39 for SF is not bad at all. Being a fantasy player I am happy with these prices. Not sure where I'd draw the line price-wise, but this I can swallow.

The NFL on the other hand, I do believe it is getting out of hand, but you'd be surprised what people (fantasy dorks like myself, gamblers) would be willing to pay for it. It is unbelievably addicting and I'd probably be willing to pay double what they ask for now, but I'm sure I am in the minority.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

JockoBronco said:


> All in all I've gotta say as a current DTV sub the $159 for EI and $39 for SF is not bad at all. Being a fantasy player I am happy with these prices. Not sure where I'd draw the line price-wise, but this I can swallow.
> 
> The NFL on the other hand, I do believe it is getting out of hand, but you'd be surprised what people (fantasy dorks like myself, gamblers) would be willing to pay for it. It is unbelievably addicting and I'd probably be willing to pay double what they ask for now, but I'm sure I am in the minority.


Meet a fellow fantasy dork, bro.


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

DCSholtis said:


> Meet a fellow fantasy dork, bro.


Nice to meet ya. Sorry to hear you're a Raiders fan. What are they doing with the #1 pick. Everyone says Russell, but why not trade down? They need a lot more than a QB.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JockoBronco said:


> Early bird is $159.96 ($39.99 x 4), so it's an extra $10.96 from last year. Not too bad IMHO.


No, it's $50 more to get the same thing as I had last year - the HD games were at no charge last year. A 33% price increase is not exactly what I would call "not too bad".


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

JockoBronco said:


> Nice to meet ya. Sorry to hear you're a Raiders fan. What are they doing with the #1 pick. Everyone says Russell, but why not trade down? They need a lot more than a QB.


Mr Davis wont answer his phone. :lol:


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

raott said:


> No, it's $50 more to get the same thing as I had last year - the HD games were at no charge last year. A 33% price increase is not exactly what I would call "not too bad".


We need to know if we have access to those HD games that we had last year by having just the EI package or do we need to buy the fan package to get them.

There is none on channel 95/96 in their schedule.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2007)

heisman said:


> I find this thread very interesting to say the least. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like everyone who has D* is really excited about this deal. Doesn't it just mean that those who purchase the package will be paying more for the package than you ever have before, and those who don't want it will be paying D* more for their standard programming? I don't think I would get excited about that. Is my logic flawed?


You're logic isn't flawed. Those of us who subscribe to NFLST realize we are paying more as a result of the exclusive contract. DirecTV was going to lose their exclusivity on NFLST after the 2005 season (the old deal provided for two more years of non-exclusive rights), so they increased the rights fee from $400 million dollars per season to $700 million to keep it exclusive through 2010. That is far more than they could make in subscription fees and advertising. To pay for it, they have been increasing the price of the package by $10-$20 each season, in addition to offering the Superfan package for an extra charge. There isn't much doubt that subscribers are paying more for an exclusive package than they would be paying for a non-exclusive package.


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

raott said:


> No, it's $50 more to get the same thing as I had last year - the HD games were at no charge last year. A 33% price increase is not exactly what I would call "not too bad".


So do you expect DTV to offer you free HD games again this year? Look, nobody's holding a gun to your head making you buy this product, and at least DTV is looking to IMPROVE a product. People want everything for free or at a discount these days, yet they complain when they can't get HD. If you want HD you gotta pay. What was the going rate for EI before HD? I bet it was close to $149.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Alexandrepsf said:


> We need to know if we have access to those HD games that we had last year by having just the EI package or do we need to buy the fan package to get them.
> 
> There is none on channel 95/96 in their schedule.


I'm sure the answer is if you want HD you have to have superfan. Same with the NFL.

This deal was good for the consumer in what way?


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

raott said:


> I'm sure the answer is if you want HD you have to have superfan. Same with the NFL.
> 
> Is $39 really that much over 6 months?$6.50 per month according to my numbers. Again, "not too bad."


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JockoBronco said:


> So do you expect DTV to offer you free HD games again this year? Look, nobody's holding a gun to your head making you buy this product, and at least DTV is looking to IMPROVE a product. People want everything for free or at a discount these days, yet they complain when they can't get HD. If you want HD you gotta pay. What was the going rate for EI before HD? I bet it was close to $149.


What I don't expect is a 33% price increase for the same programming I had last year. I obviously realize that I don't have a gun to my head, but that doesn't mean I need to like a 33% price increase and am free to speak my mind on that issue.

The same thing happened with NFL Superfan and when D* received a ton of negative feedback, the price was cut almost in half.

You can try and justify it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I will be paying 33% more this year than last.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

JockoBronco said:


> I'm sure the answer is if you want HD you have to have superfan. Same with the NFL.
> 
> Is $39 really that much over 6 months?$6.50 per month according to my numbers. Again, "not too bad."


You miss the point.

Last year, If you had EI and HD service you were entitle to have some of the games in HD.
This year they dissociate it and call it suprfan and put a price on it.

Now you can tell it was free, but it was not, I paid for it last year by subscribing to EI package and HD service.

I assume you would tell that those who pay for HD service with Premium package they should also pay for HBO HD and Showtime HD.


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

raott said:


> What I don't expect is a 33% price increase for the same programming I had last year. I obviously realize that I don't have a gun to my head, but that doesn't mean I need to like a 33% price increase and am free to speak my mind on that issue.
> 
> The same thing happened with NFL Superfan and when D* received a ton of negative feedback, the price was cut almost in half.
> 
> You can try and justify it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I will be paying 33% more this year than last.


raott, I respect your feelings on the matter, but respectfully disagree.

I don't remember having 10 games a week in HD on channel 95 last year, maybe a Yankees game every other night (3-4 a week, and ALWAYS the Yankees). I guess I just don't have a problem paying $39 for 6-7 more games a week in HD, and the 2 additional channels. Everyone has a point financially where it just isn't worth it, but I have a very understanding wife and an extra $39 over 6 months won't break us. I'm not implying it'll break you, but I guess I have just come to realize that with all the new technology coming (HD, VOD, etc), we, the consumers are going to pay for it one way or another.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JockoBronco said:


> raott said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the answer is if you want HD you have to have superfan. Same with the NFL.
> ...


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

Alexandrepsf said:


> You miss the point.
> 
> Last year, If you had EI and HD service you were entitle to have some of the games in HD.
> This year they dissociate it and call it suprfan and put a price on it.
> ...




I have the premium package with HD access, but WOULD NOT tell somone they should also pay for HBO or SHO HD.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JockoBronco said:


> maybe a Yankees game every other night (3-4 a week, and ALWAYS the Yankees)


And that is the way it should be.:grin:


----------



## UTVLamented (Oct 18, 2006)

There are about 180 days in a baseball season and $200 for EI + Superfan. Just look at it as $1.11/day pay per view and you'll feel better about it. Just cut out that extra soda, watch baseball, and you'll be healthier, happier and no less poor.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

JockoBronco said:


> [/B]
> 
> I have the premium package with HD access, but WOULD NOT tell somone they should also pay for HBO or SHO HD.


Anyway, to be honest, I know myself with all this, I will go ahead and buy the whole package again.  (as soon as I made sure that the HR20 will allow me to schedule manual recordings on the sport packages.)

But it is free money that they get from us, they did nothing more than last year for the consumers other than screwing other providers with this deal.


----------



## JockoBronco (Mar 2, 2007)

raott said:


> And that is the way it should be.:grin:


Yankee fan? You guys are everywhere. Anyway, it's always nice to hear from someone with a differing opinion, you tend to learn more that way. In the age where everything is getting more expensive (food,gas,cable) I see where you're coming from. Plus, being a Yankees fan I'm sure you'd like to see them FINALLY when a championship after spending your hard-earned money.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JockoBronco said:


> Yankee fan? You guys are everywhere.


Displaced from upstate NY (not that I would move back, too cold!).


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

Remember last year, sometime in July or August, HD RSNs started appearing as Spaceway 1 and 2 became operational. We may have seen 9 or 10 games a week by the end of the season, but we certainly didn't at the beginning.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

UTVLamented said:


> There are about 180 days in a baseball season and $200 for EI + Superfan. Just look at it as $1.11/day pay per view and you'll feel better about it. Just cut out that extra soda, watch baseball, and you'll be healthier, happier and no less poor.


 And if you attended one MLB game with a family of 4 with hot dogs and beer you would be out about $200.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

raott said:


> JockoBronco said:
> 
> 
> > It is 33% any way you slice it. I'm not saying I won't pay it, because I will, I just don't have to like it.
> ...


----------



## toy4two (Aug 18, 2006)

worthless for us local San Diego Padres fans. So sick of having to "move" to get around this out dated black outs and COX.


----------



## DVRaholic (Nov 19, 2005)

$40 off with Early Bird special

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=864452#post864452


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

I just bought MLB Package minus the supefan... I would pay the 39.00 for SF if I had HD.... I hope to have it next year at this time..... My locals are not available on HD yet so I keep waiting on them..... 

I really thought the package would cost more... I was thinking it would be 199.00 and I guess it was but you get a 40.00 discount for the early sign up.... I usually catch a few Braves games and the 159.00 is very reasonable considering what it cost to attend a game.....


----------



## satjay (Nov 20, 2006)

I just ordered the package myself yesterday, I got superfan, I asked if they had any "promotions" going on with MLB superfan like they do with NFL superfan, they did not, but they did give me 10.00 bucks off my bill for the next six months. I thought that was a nice offer, 10 is not a whole lot but that ofsets the cost a bit. CSR I spoke to was very polite. She also mentioned my A list customer status, if that helps a bit, I guess the A list stuff does have some small benifits after all......

I wont be surprised though if next year if the prices jumps a bit


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Senators Ketchup and Comcast now getting in on the act.......again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309...tv_baseball;_ylt=ApjU7eXyU4RSRfWcVLFMXQc_z7QF



> The agreement also drew the attention of Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> "I will be analyzing the commitment to see ... if the conditions for other carriers are satisfactory," Specter said. "This arrangement should motivate the NFL to reconsider broader coverage on its Sunday ticket and Thursday/Saturday programming to make such games available to other carriers beyond DirecTV.


Hey Arlen Get with the friggen program NFL Thursday/Saturday programming is NOT exclusive to D* you a*****e.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

DCSholtis said:


> Senators Ketchup and Comcast now getting in on the act.......again:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309...tv_baseball;_ylt=ApjU7eXyU4RSRfWcVLFMXQc_z7QF
> 
> Hey Arlen Get with the friggen program NFL Thursday/Saturday programming is NOT exclusive to D* you a*****e.


He's a Senator what can you expect  I got EI and I hope it gives me more access to Yankee games :heart:
 This is the 1st Sports Ticket I have ever had :jumpingja


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Believe me, Dolly you'll be up to your neck in Yankee baseball....literally..


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

DCSholtis said:


> Believe me, Dolly you'll be up to your neck in Yankee baseball....literally..


:hurah: I will be in heaven :engel02: :joy:


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

Who would pay $39 to watch yankees fail again by the half-way point of the season. Might as well buy mega tickets, your chances are better at winning!!:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

shy007 said:


> I just bought MLB Package minus the supefan... I would pay the 39.00 for SF if I had HD.... I hope to have it next year at this time..... My locals are not available on HD yet so I keep waiting on them.....
> 
> I really thought the package would cost more... I was thinking it would be 199.00 and I guess it was but you get a 40.00 discount for the early sign up.... I usually catch a few Braves games and the 159.00 is very reasonable considering what it cost to attend a game.....


Ditto that. I did the same.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

finaldiet said:


> Who would pay $39 to watch yankees fail again by the half-way point of the season. Might as well buy mega tickets, your chances are better at winning!!:lol: :lol: :lol:




I'm not a Yankee fan, but the last time they didn't make the postseason was before the 94 strike. Six WS appearances and 4 titles since then, there's not one fan of another MLB team who wouldn't be thrilled with that performance. You got a warped view of what "fail again" means.

You got one WS title for Chitown since effen eternity. Takes more than that to talk smack.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

Most championships in _all_ of Sports...you can't argue with that.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

DonCorleone said:


> Most championships in _all_ of Sports...you can't argue with that.


GOOOOOOOO Yankees :heart:


----------



## Bobman (Jan 3, 2006)

Baseball is the most boring sport around if you ask me. I dont think I have ever been able to sit thru an entire 9 inning game, let alone those 4-5-6 hours long ones.


I would watch if they made the following changes:  

Make the games 5-6 innings

1 inning of OT if needed else its a draw/tie

Pitcher has a 20 second "pitch clock" like they did to make basketball / football a faster pace, else its a ball.

Batter can only leave batting box, fix gloves, spit, adjust crotch or other delays 1 time per at bat, second delay and its a strike.

From the time the batter gets a hit or is out when that play is finished, the next batter has a 25 second "batter clock" to get to the plate and be ready for the first pitch.


----------



## Brentorious (Dec 23, 2006)

Bobman said:


> Baseball is the most boring sport around if you ask me. I dont think I have ever been able to sit thru an entire 9 inning game, let alone those 4-5-6 hours long ones.
> 
> I would watch if they made the following changes:
> 
> ...


The subtleties of baseball do require more attention than many other sports, and not everyone has the attention span to appreciate everything that goes on during a baseball game.

I recommend viewing Saturday night tractor pulls and smash up derbies, at least until D* launches their long awaited "Things That Blowed Up Real Good" Channel. (TTBURG-HD)


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Brentorious said:


> I recommend viewing Saturday night tractor pulls and smash up derbies, at least until D* launches their long awaited "Things That Blowed Up Real Good" Channel. (TTBURG-HD)


I know someone who watched SCTV.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2007)

I used to watch a lot of baseball, but it has just gotten so slow I've lost interest. The biggest problem is the one mentioned above - the batter being allowed to jump out of the box and walk around after every pitch.


----------



## The_Geyser (Nov 21, 2005)

DonCorleone said:


> raott said:
> 
> 
> > I'm totally with you (and a Yankee fan to boot). I think the aggravating thing for me is not only the 33% price hike, but the fact that the HD Access Fee is supposed to cover all HD programming...oh, except NFL HD...oh, and now except MLB HD...I mean, it's a little ridiculous.
> ...


----------



## JRDEJAVUX (Jan 13, 2007)

UTVLamented said:


> There are about 180 days in a baseball season and $200 for EI + Superfan. Just look at it as $1.11/day pay per view and you'll feel better about it. Just cut out that extra soda, watch baseball, and you'll be healthier, happier and no less poor.


i love this    and very true !


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Bobman said:


> Baseball is the most boring sport around if you ask me. I dont think I have ever been able to sit thru an entire 9 inning game, let alone those 4-5-6 hours long ones.
> 
> I would watch if they made the following changes:
> 
> ...


I like baseball and I love the Yankees :heart: However, I have to admit one thing does bother me--when there is a runner on 1st Base and the pitcher keeps throwing over to 1st Base :raspberry Get the guy out at the plate and the guy on 1st Base doesn't matter :yesman: Also just making a change about that would speed up the game


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Dolly said:


> I like baseball and I love the Yankees :heart: However, I have to admit one thing does bother me--when there is a runner on 1st Base and the pitcher keeps throwing over to 1st Base :raspberry Get the guy out at the plate and the guy on 1st Base doesn't matter :yesman: Also just making a change about that would speed up the game


An out is a n out whether is the man on base or the one trying to get there. And the further along the base path you are the more dangerous you are as you are that much more likely to score. Keeping that runner on the bag instead of edging his way toward second is important.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Dolly said:


> I like baseball and I love the Yankees :heart: However, I have to admit one thing does bother me--when there is a runner on 1st Base and the pitcher keeps throwing over to 1st Base :raspberry Get the guy out at the plate and the guy on 1st Base doesn't matter :yesman: Also just making a change about that would speed up the game


As a former pitcher, I can tell you that if you don't see the importance of keeping a quick runner to 1st a few inches closer to the base, you should watch a little more baseball 

Amount of times a runner has gotten too big a lead and thus gotten to 3rd or even home on a double on me was quite a bit....

Also showing how bad I was :lol:


----------

