PDA

View Full Version : Why MLB blackout restrictions still exist


Fenway
04-23-2011, 02:19 PM
Why Major League Baseball Can't Lift The Hated Blackout Restrictions

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-major-league-baseball-cant-lift-blackout-restrictions-2011-4?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider%2Fsportspage+ %28Sports+Page%29#ixzz1KN6DplbL


http://bizofbaseball.com/images/MLB_Blackout_Map1000x733.gif

Fenway
04-23-2011, 02:59 PM
Meanwhile WGN America is now getting attacked in the south where cable homes can get White Sox-Cubs but not Atlanta. :?:

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-sports/2011/04/atlanta_braves_fans_out_in_tv.html

This couple with the Yankees making a formal protest to MLB could mean WGN America's days are numbered. The Yankees to be very clear do not mind the Chicago games coming into New York but they are demanding WWOR must have the right to beam NYY games nationally.

The war escalated when Time-Warner cable in Manhattan added WGN at the start of the season.

Notice how WGN is promoting that
http://www.wgnamerica.com/

NESN National also wants the rights to beam some games outside of New England. As stupid as this sounds NESN is now adding a timezone clock to the feed - like anybody in New England cares what time it is in the Mountain Time Zone (see bottom right)
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/208450_1931156671321_1014362077_32229294_384500_n. jpg

ComiskeyBrewer
04-23-2011, 10:45 PM
The braves cover A LOT of populated areas.

gogosox675
04-23-2011, 10:52 PM
I miss the days when the Braves had most of their games on TBS. I used to watch a lot of their games since we only had basic cable and the Sox weren't on WGN that much. I don't really watch the Sunday games they do now; I only watch TBS because they carry some of the playoff games.

Lip Man 1
04-24-2011, 12:08 AM
Folks:

Everyone can relax, the Superstations aren't going anywhere. The Tribune Company beat the NBA in court over this and if they need to do it again to MLB they will.

For a very revealing look at how Tribune Company wields its power in these matters, read "The Lords of the Realm" by John Helyar.

The last time MLB tried to screw with anything regarding the Superstations, the Tribune Company got their lobbyists to "remind" U.S. Senators what could happen if angry fans found out they voted to stop or ban Superstations from showing baseball to outside regions.

This type of talk has been going on for years, it was brought up on these boards before with "dire" warnings that by 2011 fans would no longer be able to see the White Sox.

Last I looked it was 2011 and the Sox coincidentally are on WGN America Sunday. :D: (Not that anybody's going to want to watch them they way they are playing...) :D:

Lip

Fenway
04-24-2011, 12:35 AM
Lip - Tribune NO LONGERS OWNS A MLB TEAM!!!

(makes the book moot - yes Tribune helped fire Fay Vincent when he wanted to move the Cubs to the NL West)

NOW - The Yankees have a valid beef - why can't WWOR beam their games outside of market.

Lip - there is NO WAY you can justify that only the 2 Chicago teams are exempt. NYY is being 'diplomatic' - no objection to the Chicago teams coming into NY - but they want they want the same option to put NYY on local cable there (and everywhere)

Tribune no longer owns a team - they don't have clout with MLB anymore.


Folks:

Everyone can relax, the Superstations aren't going anywhere. The Tribune Company beat the NBA in court over this and if they need to do it again to MLB they will.

For a very revealing look at how Tribune Company wields its power in these matters, read "The Lords of the Realm" by John Helyar.

The last time MLB tried to screw with anything regarding the Superstations, the Tribune Company got their lobbyists to "remind" U.S. Senators what could happen if angry fans found out they voted to stop or ban Superstations from showing baseball to outside regions.

This type of talk has been going on for years, it was brought up on these boards before with "dire" warnings that by 2011 fans would no longer be able to see the White Sox.

Last I looked it was 2011 and the Sox coincidentally are on WGN America Sunday. :D: (Not that anybody's going to want to watch them they way they are playing...) :D:

Lip

Lamp81
04-24-2011, 09:03 PM
In the 80s, as a kid, I was a baseball nut. Our cable system, at the time, carried broadcast stations from both Chicago and Milwaukee (as well as Rockford). That coupled with the Superstations, meant I got to see a lot of Baseball.

White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Mets (WWOR), and Braves (WTBS) plus the game of the week on NBC.

Eventually, the cable company cut out the Brewers and the Mets, and the Braves were shown less and less on TBS.

Now, with ESPN, TBS, and MLB I can see plenty of games in addition to the White Sox. But, it's not the same and the Brewers remain my 2nd favorite team (much easier now that they play in the NL). Watching that Mets team from the Gooden era was pretty sweet as well.

Gavin
04-24-2011, 09:47 PM
The braves cover A LOT of populated areas.

Growing up in NC that was the default team. I don't know many people in NC who follow Baltimore or Washington.. way to go MLB.

pipdipchip
04-24-2011, 11:29 PM
So I realize that the problem is about money from the RSNs and cable providers. However, let's say that I pay $10 a month for in-market streaming, which I think is pretty fair. I have a very hard time seeing how me watching the game traditionally on TV makes them more than paying monthly. I realize that my pair of eyes is theoretically worth a little amount of money per game but in reality they aren't making any money if I'm watching or not versus paying $10 directly to view the games. The current setup is just so 20th century.

ewokpelts
04-25-2011, 09:50 AM
Lip - Tribune NO LONGERS OWNS A MLB TEAM!!!

(makes the book moot - yes Tribune helped fire Fay Vincent when he wanted to move the Cubs to the NL West)

NOW - The Yankees have a valid beef - why can't WWOR beam their games outside of market.

Lip - there is NO WAY you can justify that only the 2 Chicago teams are exempt. NYY is being 'diplomatic' - no objection to the Chicago teams coming into NY - but they want they want the same option to put NYY on local cable there (and everywhere)

Tribune no longer owns a team - they don't have clout with MLB anymore.the tribsters didnt own an nba team, and they still beat the nba in court.

sides, with backing from uncle jerry, the tribsters can beat mlb, in or out of the courtroom

asindc
04-25-2011, 10:25 AM
What I hate about the current blackout restrictions is that I can't watch Sox games on Saturday on MLB.tv if the game starts after 1p and before 7p. I assume this is to protect Fox's Saturday afternoon schedule, but I almost never get to see the Sox on Fox because of the NYY/Boston/Philly-heavy Fox Saturday schedule here in the East. Essentially, I am locked out of the game I want to see on MLB.tv while the only network available to show the game will not do so. How does that make any sense?:scratch::mad:

Huisj
04-25-2011, 10:59 AM
What I hate about the current blackout restrictions is that I can't watch Sox games on Saturday on MLB.tv if the game starts after 1p and before 7p. I assume this is to protect Fox's Saturday afternoon schedule, but I almost never get to see the Sox on Fox because of the NYY/Boston/Philly-heavy Fox Saturday schedule here in the East. Essentially, I am locked out of the game I want to see on MLB.tv while the only network available to show the game will not do so. How does that make any sense?:scratch::mad:

To me, this is the biggest bonehead issue with MLB's blackout rules. There are other problems, but this is the dumbest one that comes up over and over with no progress toward any sort of solution.

Lip Man 1
04-25-2011, 11:58 AM
Fenway:

Tribune Company owns 5% of the Cubs.

The issue isn't the fact of if they "own" a team or not, the issue is the money they'd lose if the Cubs / Sox were forced off their Superstation.

To take a phrase from Cub-dome with some modifications:

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

But feel free to continue to ring the alarm bell.

Lip

Fenway
04-25-2011, 01:19 PM
Fenway:

Tribune Company owns 5% of the Cubs.

The issue isn't the fact of if they "own" a team or not, the issue is the money they'd lose if the Cubs / Sox were forced off their Superstation.

To take a phrase from Cub-dome with some modifications:

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

But feel free to continue to ring the alarm bell.

Lip

You refuse to discuss the core issue - why can't the Yankees do the same with WWOR? They are the ones screaming to MLB about this...

Who owns WWOR? - Rupert Murdoch who has a LOT more clout with Selig than the Tribune does now.

FACTS

MLB told the Red Sox to get off WSBK and they did so 5 years ago.
MLB told WPIX and WWOR they could not put games on the bird outside of NYC.
MLB worked out a deal with TBS to carry MLB games and not the Braves.

I don't want to see WGN America lose the games but even you have to admit MLB has set a pattern here.

TDog
04-25-2011, 01:23 PM
Are that many cable systems even carrying WGN anymore?

Except for a few years I lived in Wisconsin, I haven't lived anywhere that had WGN on cable since the early 1980s, and I have moved around some.

Fenway
04-25-2011, 01:27 PM
Are that many cable systems even carrying WGN anymore?

Except for a few years I lived in Wisconsin, I haven't lived anywhere that had WGN on cable since the early 1980s, and I have moved around some.

It has been showing up in upper digital tiers - Comcast in New England will not touch them as they don't want to anger NESN - RCN in Boston has always had WGN but they are a very small player here.

Hitmen77
04-25-2011, 01:50 PM
Are that many cable systems even carrying WGN anymore?

Except for a few years I lived in Wisconsin, I haven't lived anywhere that had WGN on cable since the early 1980s, and I have moved around some.


It's on cable systems in Arizona, Southern California and other places I have visited.

According to their website, they're available in New York City.
http://www.wgnamerica.com/about/channelfinder/

It's available in any state if you have Directv or Dish Network.

PKalltheway
04-25-2011, 01:58 PM
Are that many cable systems even carrying WGN anymore?

Except for a few years I lived in Wisconsin, I haven't lived anywhere that had WGN on cable since the early 1980s, and I have moved around some.
Not sure if proximity plays a factor, but WGN has been on Time Warner here in Cincinnati for as long as I can remember (going back to the early '90s at least).

asindc
04-25-2011, 02:22 PM
Are that many cable systems even carrying WGN anymore?

Except for a few years I lived in Wisconsin, I haven't lived anywhere that had WGN on cable since the early 1980s, and I have moved around some.

In the DC Metro area, WGN America is on Verizon Fios (in standard def. and HD), on Comcast, and, of course, Directv and Dish. Not sure about Cox cable, but Comcast and Verizon dominate the cable market here anyway.

downstairs
04-25-2011, 04:01 PM
I'd have no problem with blacking out mlb.tv and extra innings *if* someone can get the local feed on their cable box or antenna. And only if.

I live in New Orleans. There is no way I can get Texas or Houston games, ever. Believe it or not, Dallas and Houston stations do not show up on my TV... because they're 8 hours away!

Yet, I'm still in their territory????

ComiskeyBrewer
04-25-2011, 04:09 PM
Are that many cable systems even carrying WGN anymore?

Except for a few years I lived in Wisconsin, I haven't lived anywhere that had WGN on cable since the early 1980s, and I have moved around some.


Obviously since i live in SE Wisconsin, i'm going to get WGN, but it's available in ATL too.

ShooterMcGavin
04-25-2011, 04:26 PM
Sorry, OT, but Fenway and Lip are already in this thread: When can we expect everything to be filmed in HD? I'm surprised it's not already.

downstairs
04-25-2011, 06:36 PM
Sorry, OT, but Fenway and Lip are already in this thread: When can we expect everything to be filmed in HD? I'm surprised it's not already.

I've only seen a tiny number of games not available in HD?

Fenway
04-25-2011, 06:41 PM
I've only seen a tiny number of games not available in HD?


Only a handful of games are now shot in SD - most production companies have upgraded their trucks.

ShooterMcGavin
04-26-2011, 03:46 AM
Only a handful of games are now shot in SD - most production companies have upgraded their trucks.


My original question was not clear, so I'll rephrase: When can we expect all television (sitcoms, dramas, commercials) to be in HD, not just sporting events?

cws05champ
04-26-2011, 08:24 AM
How do they determine if they black you out on the internet, by credit card on file or by IP? Also, on your TV, how is that determined....where the cable box physically is?

Bucky F. Dent
04-26-2011, 09:00 AM
what really frustrates me as and Indpls resident and a Sox fan, is that while I don't have access to the local stations that would allow me to see Sox games, I am blacked out from any Sox game broadcast on MLBTV of the MLB network.

doublem23
04-26-2011, 09:10 AM
How do they determine if they black you out on the internet, by credit card on file or by IP? Also, on your TV, how is that determined....where the cable box physically is?

If they can locate your IP they'll do it by that, however, if they have problems then yeah, they go off your credit card billing address. Actually happened to my brother and his old roomate, after college they moved to Chicago but his roomate was originally from Minneapolis so he's a big Twins fan. He ordered MLB.tv but I guess in their old apartment building, something was up with the internet so MLB couldn't locate their IP, so his buddy, even though he was in Chicago, got blacked out for Twins games and my brother could watch the Cubs (which worked out for him since they didn't have cable). But yeah, when his roomate called to complain the guy at MLB Customer Service said about 99% of people are blacked out by their IP Address.

cws05champ
04-26-2011, 10:40 AM
If they can locate your IP they'll do it by that, however, if they have problems then yeah, they go off your credit card billing address. Actually happened to my brother and his old roomate, after college they moved to Chicago but his roomate was originally from Minneapolis so he's a big Twins fan. He ordered MLB.tv but I guess in their old apartment building, something was up with the internet so MLB couldn't locate their IP, so his buddy, even though he was in Chicago, got blacked out for Twins games and my brother could watch the Cubs (which worked out for him since they didn't have cable). But yeah, when his roomate called to complain the guy at MLB Customer Service said about 99% of people are blacked out by their IP Address.
I wonder if you use a proxy server you can get around it...anyone have experience doing this with success?

Fenway
04-26-2011, 10:56 AM
I wonder if you use a proxy server you can get around it...anyone have experience doing this with success?

If I use MLB.tv on my Sprint wireless card I can watch NESN as the IP thinks I am in Baltimore :scratch:

Moses_Scurry
04-26-2011, 11:32 AM
what really frustrates me as and Indpls resident and a Sox fan, is that while I don't have access to the local stations that would allow me to see Sox games, I am blacked out from any Sox game broadcast on MLBTV of the MLB network.

Yep. I'm only able to see the rare WGN game or even rarer ESPN or Fox game of the week. Last night's game was the first that was actually on TV on a night that I had the free time to watch.

russ99
04-26-2011, 12:55 PM
To me, this is the biggest bonehead issue with MLB's blackout rules. There are other problems, but this is the dumbest one that comes up over and over with no progress toward any sort of solution.

Fox is paying them tons of cash for these rights.

Until people stop using middlemen (i.e. Fox and cable channels) for viewing MLB content, there's no financial justification for them to change this.

More and more people are cutting the cable, and as other models of receiving content will become more popular, then there may be a change.

asindc
04-26-2011, 01:00 PM
Fox is paying them tons of cash for these rights.

Until people stop using middlemen (i.e. Fox and cable channels) for viewing MLB content, there's no financial justification for them to change this.

More and more people are cutting the cable, and as other models of receiving content will become more popular, then there may be a change.

I understand your point, but how does FOX benefit from me not being able to watch the Sox on my MLB.tv subscription on Saturday afternoons when they are not broadcasting the Sox in my area? If they think I'm going to watch whatever they are showing, then they are sadly mistaken.

Fenway
04-26-2011, 01:32 PM
I understand your point, but how does FOX benefit from me not being able to watch the Sox on my MLB.tv subscription on Saturday afternoons when they are not broadcasting the Sox in my area? If they think I'm going to watch whatever they are showing, then they are sadly mistaken.

In some markets ( Boston for example ) the FOX station shows the other games on the sub-channels - WFLD isn't able to do that yet - I even talked to their chief engineer - he says he is waiting for funding

asindc
04-26-2011, 01:44 PM
In some markets ( Boston for example ) the FOX station shows the other games on the sub-channels - WFLD isn't able to do that yet - I even talked to their chief engineer - he says he is waiting for funding

I'll have to check to see if the Fox DC affilliate does the same.

Nellie_Fox
04-26-2011, 02:25 PM
I understand your point, but how does FOX benefit from me not being able to watch the Sox on my MLB.tv subscription on Saturday afternoons when they are not broadcasting the Sox in my area? If they think I'm going to watch whatever they are showing, then they are sadly mistaken.I'm certain they think they'll get at least some more viewers by being the only option than they would by directly competing with the home team, and I think they're probably right in that regard.

SephClone89
04-26-2011, 02:32 PM
I understand your point, but how does FOX benefit from me not being able to watch the Sox on my MLB.tv subscription on Saturday afternoons when they are not broadcasting the Sox in my area? If they think I'm going to watch whatever they are showing, then they are sadly mistaken.

I'm certain they think they'll get at least some more viewers by being the only option than they would by directly competing with the home team, and I think they're probably right in that regard.

Yeah, when the Sox are on FOX and we are getting the Cardinals or whatever down here, I'll at least have the FOX game in the background. I like baseball. :shrug:

Fenway
04-26-2011, 02:34 PM
I'll have to check to see if the Fox DC affilliate does the same.

FOX built a new HD studio from the ground up outside of Boston a few years ago when they decided to do local news. Older FOX stations like WFLD have been slow to go full HD.

asindc
04-26-2011, 02:35 PM
FOX built a new HD studio from the ground up outside of Boston a few years ago when they decided to do local news. Older FOX stations like WFLD have been slow to go full HD.

That explains a lot. Thanks.

FielderJones
04-26-2011, 03:20 PM
In some markets ( Boston for example ) the FOX station shows the other games on the sub-channels - WFLD isn't able to do that yet - I even talked to their chief engineer - he says he is waiting for funding

Fens, wouldn't the sub-channel games be in SD? WCIU has five sub-channels going, but only 26.1 (27.3) is in HD. All the rest are SD. Can you get two HD (720p) channels in 6 MHz?

Fenway
04-26-2011, 03:27 PM
That explains a lot. Thanks.

FOX spent a fortune on the new complex
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3010/2375747174_6ab64e13b4.jpg

Chicago there doesn't seem to be the big rush to go to full HD on the local level - just look at both WGN and WMAQ

cws05champ
04-26-2011, 04:26 PM
Yeah, when the Sox are on FOX and we are getting the Cardinals or whatever down here, I'll at least have the FOX game in the background. I like baseball. :shrug:
I like baseball too, but out of principle (and sometimes schedule) I will not give Fox my viewer ship on Saturday afternoon....especially when I have the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets crammed down my throat every weekend.

If they actually showed a diverse number of teams on the Saturday game I may tune in a bit more. But the whole issue is in today's technology driven world when people are given choices for everything, I just don't like a network choosing what we should watch.

downstairs
04-26-2011, 06:07 PM
Fens, wouldn't the sub-channel games be in SD? WCIU has five sub-channels going, but only 26.1 (27.3) is in HD. All the rest are SD. Can you get two HD (720p) channels in 6 MHz?

Yep. There's a chart in the middle of this page on all the options:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel

Fenway
04-26-2011, 06:27 PM
Yep. There's a chart in the middle of this page on all the options:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel

The only place that I have seen do it well is PBS station WGBH in Boston - but they spent a fortune to get it right

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 11:17 AM
Why Major League Baseball Can't Lift The Hated Blackout Restrictions

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-major-league-baseball-cant-lift-blackout-restrictions-2011-4?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider%2Fsportspage+ %28Sports+Page%29#ixzz1KN6DplbL




So, let me get this straight. If someone lives outside a team's TV market but in a team's "territory" (like Indianapolis for the Sox and Cubs), then those teams are blacked out on Extra Innings and MLB.TV and yet those viewers still can't watch that team's game on local TV or local cable (WGN being the exception)?

That's just ridiculous. I can see the argument for Fox network games blackout. I'm not pleased with the Fox arrangement, but at least I can see the argument for it.

But, am I understanding correctly that teams are blacked out in their "territories" because the RSNs paid dearly to own the rights to that territory? But what's the point of them just sitting on those rights if viewers can't access those RSNs anyway. I mean, I'm right to assume that people in Indianapolis can't access CSN Chicago Sox or Cubs games on their cable or satellite service?

If it's an area that actually carries the RSN, then that's one thing. But it sounds to me, if I'm reading this correctly, that many areas don't carry that out of town RSN but still black out the nearest MLB team from MLB packages. And MLB wonders why interest in the playoffs plummets every year if the Yankees and Red Sox aren't involved (teams that everyone gets to see everywhere all the time on ESPN and Fox and TBS).

That's typical Selig mentality right there. Just focus only on the immediate profits and forget about any attempts to grow interest in the game outside of the largest metro areas (and the big market teams).

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 11:30 AM
I'd have no problem with blacking out mlb.tv and extra innings *if* someone can get the local feed on their cable box or antenna. And only if.

I live in New Orleans. There is no way I can get Texas or Houston games, ever. Believe it or not, Dallas and Houston stations do not show up on my TV... because they're 8 hours away!

Yet, I'm still in their territory????

what really frustrates me as and Indpls resident and a Sox fan, is that while I don't have access to the local stations that would allow me to see Sox games, I am blacked out from any Sox game broadcast on MLBTV of the MLB network.

Exactly what I was thinking. That's pretty stupid on MLB's part. How is this protecting the RSN's rights if they don't broadcast to places like New Orleans or Indianapolis. It would be different if viewers could, for example, get CSN Chicago (with Cubs and Sox games) in Indianapolis. I'm assuming they can't.

Bucky F. Dent
04-27-2011, 11:33 AM
So, let me get this straight. If someone lives outside a team's TV market but in a team's "territory" (like Indianapolis for the Sox and Cubs), then those teams are blacked out on Extra Innings and MLB.TV and yet those viewers still can't watch that team's game on local TV or local cable (WGN being the exception)?

That's just ridiculous. I can see the argument for Fox network games blackout. I'm not pleased with the Fox arrangement, but at least I can see the argument for it.

But, am I understanding correctly that teams are blacked out in their "territories" because the RSNs paid dearly to own the rights to that territory? But what's the point of them just sitting on those rights if viewers can't access those RSNs anyway. I mean, I'm right to assume that people in Indianapolis can't access CSN Chicago Sox or Cubs games on their cable or satellite service?

If it's an area that actually carries the RSN, then that's one thing. But it sounds to me, if I'm reading this correctly, that many areas don't carry that out of town RSN but still black out the nearest MLB team from MLB packages. And MLB wonders why interest in the playoffs plummets every year if the Yankees and Red Sox aren't involved (teams that everyone gets to see everywhere all the time on ESPN and Fox and TBS).

That's typical Selig mentality right there. Just focus only on the immediate profits and forget about any attempts to grow interest in the game outside of the largest metro areas (and the big market teams).


I live in Indpls, and you are correct! It sucks!

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 11:43 AM
In some markets ( Boston for example ) the FOX station shows the other games on the sub-channels - WFLD isn't able to do that yet - I even talked to their chief engineer - he says he is waiting for funding

Interesting. It didn't occur to me that Fox could/would take advantage of the subchannels to show other regional games. I'd like that option. Right now, all Fox really offers is the Sox or Cubs (who I see all the time anyway) or a game involving the Yankees or Red Sox. I'd like more chances to see other matchups around the league.

As far as WFLD goes, that is interesting that they're behind on funding. You'd think the Chicago station would be one of that network's "flagships". As far as I can tell, the only major stations in Chicago that don't have subchannels are WFLD (Fox) and WBBM (CBS). WMAQ, WLS, WGN, WTTW, and even WCIU all have subchannels.

Fens, wouldn't the sub-channel games be in SD? WCIU has five sub-channels going, but only 26.1 (27.3) is in HD. All the rest are SD. Can you get two HD (720p) channels in 6 MHz?

Actually, there is an HD sub-channel right here in Chicago. WLS-TV has an HD sub channel called "Live Well":
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=resources/inside_station/station_info&id=6779492

I don't know how what the quality of their HD is since I never watch the channel.:redneck

Moses_Scurry
04-27-2011, 12:12 PM
So, let me get this straight. If someone lives outside a team's TV market but in a team's "territory" (like Indianapolis for the Sox and Cubs), then those teams are blacked out on Extra Innings and MLB.TV and yet those viewers still can't watch that team's game on local TV or local cable (WGN being the exception)?

That's just ridiculous. I can see the argument for Fox network games blackout. I'm not pleased with the Fox arrangement, but at least I can see the argument for it.

But, am I understanding correctly that teams are blacked out in their "territories" because the RSNs paid dearly to own the rights to that territory? But what's the point of them just sitting on those rights if viewers can't access those RSNs anyway. I mean, I'm right to assume that people in Indianapolis can't access CSN Chicago Sox or Cubs games on their cable or satellite service?

If it's an area that actually carries the RSN, then that's one thing. But it sounds to me, if I'm reading this correctly, that many areas don't carry that out of town RSN but still black out the nearest MLB team from MLB packages. And MLB wonders why interest in the playoffs plummets every year if the Yankees and Red Sox aren't involved (teams that everyone gets to see everywhere all the time on ESPN and Fox and TBS).

That's typical Selig mentality right there. Just focus only on the immediate profits and forget about any attempts to grow interest in the game outside of the largest metro areas (and the big market teams).

For about 90% of the regular season, if I want to see a local team instead of the ESPN or MLB network national games, the Cinci Reds are the only game in town on Fox Sports Midwest (Isn't Chicago in the midwest too???). I don't really understand why we can watch Cincinatti games and not cub or Sox games. The distance between the cities is pretty similar, at least from where I live. I'm also surprised because there are a lot of cub fans here.

Fenway
04-27-2011, 12:37 PM
WLS uses the sub-channel during college football. Say ABC is showing a Big East game in the east they will put that game on a sub-channel.

FOX does it where they can because it addresses the entire reason they have the blackout window - the local ads are seen. Today that is the only way the networks can make their money back - banking on heavy local ad sales - WFLD can charge more if it is a Cubs or Sox game than say it was St. Louis.

CBS in Boston puts up the CBS College Sports channel on 4.2.


Interesting. It didn't occur to me that Fox could/would take advantage of the subchannels to show other regional games. I'd like that option. Right now, all Fox really offers is the Sox or Cubs (who I see all the time anyway) or a game involving the Yankees or Red Sox. I'd like more chances to see other matchups around the league.

As far as WFLD goes, that is interesting that they're behind on funding. You'd think the Chicago station would be one of that network's "flagships". As far as I can tell, the only major stations in Chicago that don't have subchannels are WFLD (Fox) and WBBM (CBS). WMAQ, WLS, WGN, WTTW, and even WCIU all have subchannels.



Actually, there is an HD sub-channel right here in Chicago. WLS-TV has an HD sub channel called "Live Well":
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=resources/inside_station/station_info&id=6779492

I don't know how what the quality of their HD is since I never watch the channel.:redneck

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 03:26 PM
WLS uses the sub-channel during college football. Say ABC is showing a Big East game in the east they will put that game on a sub-channel.

FOX does it where they can because it addresses the entire reason they have the blackout window - the local ads are seen. Today that is the only way the networks can make their money back - banking on heavy local ad sales - WFLD can charge more if it is a Cubs or Sox game than say it was St. Louis.

CBS in Boston puts up the CBS College Sports channel on 4.2.

WMAQ has "Universal Sports" on a sub channel, but it's only SD.

Any explanation of why WBBM doesn't have any sub channels?

Fenway
04-27-2011, 03:28 PM
WMAQ has "Universal Sports" on a sub channel, but it's only SD.

Any explanation of why WBBM doesn't have any sub channels?

:scratch:

I would think they can do it easily since they built the new studios at Block 37

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 03:29 PM
I live in Indpls, and you are correct! It sucks!

Well, that's ridiculous. What good reason does MLB have to keep a blackout in place in a team's territory when the RSN isn't even available in that city?

It would be a different story if CSN Chicago broadcasts of Sox/Cubs was available as an option for cable/satellite subscribers. But it sounds like this is not the case.

Like I said, then MLB wonders why people don't care about post season games that don't include the Red Sox or Yankees. Those are the only teams that people outside major markets ever get to see for the most part.

downstairs
04-27-2011, 03:36 PM
WMAQ has "Universal Sports" on a sub channel, but it's only SD.

Any explanation of why WBBM doesn't have any sub channels?

I assume there's debate in the TV industry (Fenway can answer this better than I) as to whether the sub-channels are worth it. Very few people watch TV over antenna, and even less bother with the sub-channels.

But the station still has to spend money on running it, even if its just filler content (one of the sub-channels here in NOLA tends to just show Stooges re-runs and the like.)

Also CBS traditionally isn't as into the whole "multiple" channel thing- even on cable. Think about all the channels Fox and NBC have... news, business, sports, entertainment... CBS has none.

Fenway
04-27-2011, 03:38 PM
Well, that's ridiculous. What good reason does MLB have to keep a blackout in place in a team's territory when the RSN isn't even available in that city?

It would be a different story if CSN Chicago broadcasts of Sox/Cubs was available as an option for cable/satellite subscribers. But it sounds like this is not the case.

Like I said, then MLB wonders why people don't care about post season games that don't include the Red Sox or Yankees. Those are the only teams that people outside major markets ever get to see for the most part.


DirecTV waves

That is the dirty little secret - while a cable company may elect on passing in picking up a RSN - DirecTV can happily sell it to you if you are in an approved zipcode. Dish can do the same.

DSpivack
04-27-2011, 04:05 PM
DirecTV waves

That is the dirty little secret - while a cable company may elect on passing in picking up a RSN - DirecTV can happily sell it to you if you are in an approved zipcode. Dish can do the same.

I just got UVerse today. I noticed in the guide that it seems that many RSNs across the country are available [on their most expensive plan, obviously]. Are all those out-of-market [baseball/basketball/hockey/whatever] games blacked out?

jcw218
04-27-2011, 04:16 PM
I just got UVerse today. I noticed in the guide that it seems that many RSNs across the country are available [on their most expensive plan, obviously]. Are all those out-of-market [baseball/basketball/hockey/whatever] games blacked out?

The answer to that question is most likely yes. I know that Comcast has started carrying other regional sports networks such as SNY, SunSports, Prime Ticket, CSN Bay Area and CSN New England and any live game shown on that network is blacked out in Chicago due to the various subscription packages like MLB Extra Innings.

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 04:29 PM
I assume there's debate in the TV industry (Fenway can answer this better than I) as to whether the sub-channels are worth it. Very few people watch TV over antenna, and even less bother with the sub-channels.

But the station still has to spend money on running it, even if its just filler content (one of the sub-channels here in NOLA tends to just show Stooges re-runs and the like.)

Also CBS traditionally isn't as into the whole "multiple" channel thing- even on cable. Think about all the channels Fox and NBC have... news, business, sports, entertainment... CBS has none.

The sub-channels are available on cable too.

Fenway
04-27-2011, 04:32 PM
I just got UVerse today. I noticed in the guide that it seems that many RSNs across the country are available [on their most expensive plan, obviously]. Are all those out-of-market [baseball/basketball/hockey/whatever] games blacked out?

Yes if you are outside the zipcode chart for that station. That is what they use.

DSpivack
04-27-2011, 04:33 PM
The sub-channels are available on cable too.

Not necessarily. I've noticed that PBS' sub-channels aren't available on cable.

Yes if you are outside the zipcode chart for that station. That is what they use.

Then what's the point in having them? I guess I don't see the appeal.

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 04:38 PM
DirecTV waves

That is the dirty little secret - while a cable company may elect on passing in picking up a RSN - DirecTV can happily sell it to you if you are in an approved zipcode. Dish can do the same.

I just got UVerse today. I noticed in the guide that it seems that many RSNs across the country are available [on their most expensive plan, obviously]. Are all those out-of-market [baseball/basketball/hockey/whatever] games blacked out?

The answer to that question is most likely yes. I know that Comcast has started carrying other regional sports networks such as SNY, SunSports, Prime Ticket, CSN Bay Area and CSN New England and any live game shown on that network is blacked out in Chicago due to the various subscription packages like MLB Extra Innings.

Yes, Comcast in Chicagoland does have some of the other RSNs (as listed by jcw218) available on their sports tier. As he says, the live sports events on those channels are blacked out to avoid undermining the subscription packages.

My question then is, what counts as an "approved ZIP code"? Can, for example, someone in Indianapolis get CSN Chicago (including live Cubs and Sox games) through Directv? Indy is in the Chicago teams' MLB territory, but it has its own RSN (FS Indiana). Same thing goes where Comcast or other cable providers provide access to RSNs outside the TV market.

Hitmen77
04-27-2011, 04:41 PM
Not necessarily. I've noticed that PBS' sub-channels aren't available on cable.


They're available on Comcast.
http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=2,12

The sub channels from WCIU (Me TV, etc.), WLS, WGN, and WMAQ are available too.

Lamp81
04-27-2011, 10:26 PM
Directv has a sub-channel for ch. 56, but none from any of the other local stations. Both the main and sub-channel for ch. 56 are in SD.