PDA

View Full Version : MLB Extra Innings exclusively on DirecTV?


Pages : [1] 2

NDSox12
01-20-2007, 01:30 PM
I didn't see this posted anywhere else, but here's a link to a NY Times article that indicates MLB is close to reaching a deal with DirecTV that will make the Extra Innings package only available through DirecTV. This is awful news for me as DirecTV is not an option. I guess I'll have to get MLB.tv instead, but I'm not too excited about watching all the Sox games on my computer vs. my plasma TV!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/sports/baseball/20base.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

itsnotrequired
01-20-2007, 01:34 PM
But the new agreement will take it off cable and Dish because DirecTV has agreed to pay $700 million over seven years, according to three executives briefed on the details of the contract but not authorized to speak about them publicly.

InDemand, which has distributed Extra Innings to the cable television industry since 2002, made an estimated $70 million bid to renew its rights, more than TRIPLE what it has been paying.Baseball is so cash-rich that it boggles the mind...

Lip Man 1
01-20-2007, 06:13 PM
As a Dish Network owner to say I'm pissed would be an understatement.

Lip

beckett21
01-20-2007, 06:24 PM
As a Dish Network owner to say I'm pissed would be an understatement.

Lip

I caved in and switched to DirecTV from DISH about 3 years ago, before Extra Innings was available on DISH. I was a little upset that I could have just kept my DISH service since shortly after I switched the package became available for that format. I did enjoy my Dish service.

I've been pleased with DirecTV since the switch. I couldn't live without the sports packages now that I have gotten used to them. Since I also get the football package, which is exclusive to DirecTV also, I'm glad I made the switch.

Fenway
01-20-2007, 09:02 PM
as someone who can't have a dish because of a limited view to the south I am sick

Jjav829
01-20-2007, 10:32 PM
I didn't see this posted anywhere else, but here's a link to a NY Times article that indicates MLB is close to reaching a deal with DirecTV that will make the Extra Innings package only available through DirecTV. This is awful news for me as DirecTV is not an option. I guess I'll have to get MLB.tv instead, but I'm not too excited about watching all the Sox games on my computer vs. my plasma TV!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/sports/baseball/20base.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


This is complete bull****. As a Concast subscriber, I'm going to be extremely pissed off if the only way I can watch baseball games in the future is on my computer. It's bad enough I already get ****ed out of the opportunity to watch every NFL game on my TV, now they're going to take away MLB too?

itsnotrequired
01-20-2007, 11:22 PM
This is complete bull****. As a Concast subscriber, I'm going to be extremely pissed off if the only way I can watch baseball games in the future is on my computer. It's bad enough I already get ****ed out of the opportunity to watch every NFL game on my TV, now they're going to take away MLB too?

Money talks. inDemand is willing to pony up $70 million a year, DirecTV is gunning for $100 million a year. I surely can't fault MLB for signing the deal.

I'm curious to see how much the price will change for 2007. The old deal appeared to be about $20 million a year last season. The $100 million figure represents a five-fold increase. Unless inDemand was making an absolute killing, I can't imagine the price for 2007 not jumping significantly. I'm thinking $225+ for a season package.

ode to veeck
01-20-2007, 11:29 PM
I switched to DirectTV years ago and haven't looked back since. One of my neighbors switched back to Comcast and had several nightmares with their poor technical service and atrocious home installers. He's ready to switch back after only 2 months.

Jjav829
01-20-2007, 11:43 PM
Money talks. inDemand is willing to pony up $70 million a year, DirecTV is gunning for $100 million a year. I surely can't fault MLB for signing the deal.

Of course, as always, this comes down to the pursuit of the almighty dollar. MLB gets their money, so why should they care if they alienate a significant portion of their fan base by making this switch?

Extra Innings was reportedly available to 75 million cable subscribers in addition to all Dish Network and DirecTV subscribers. If Extra Innings does indeed become exclusive to DirecTV, it will be available to a whopping 15 million people instead, or 1/5 of the cable subscribers alone who had access last year.

So can I blame them? Yeah, I can. They're chasing after the money and saying to their fans, "Hey, **** you. If you want to see our product, switch to DirecTV. And if you don't, well, you can either watch the small, grainy picture on your computer or go **** yourself. Either way, we don't really care. We're getting our money."

I'm curious to see how much the price will change for 2007. The old deal appeared to be about $20 million a year last season. The $100 million figure represents a five-fold increase. Unless inDemand was making an absolute killing, I can't imagine the price for 2007 not jumping significantly. I'm thinking $225+ for a season package.Considering the large number of people they will be alienating, they're going to have to increase the price to make up for less sales. Frankly, I hope they increase the price so high that DirecTV subscribers will refuse to pay.

itsnotrequired
01-21-2007, 12:18 AM
Of course, as always, this comes down to the pursuit of the almighty dollar. MLB gets their money, so why should they care if they alienate a significant portion of their fan base by making this switch?

Extra Innings was reportedly available to 75 million cable subscribers in addition to all Dish Network and DirecTV subscribers. If Extra Innings does indeed become exclusive to DirecTV, it will be available to a whopping 15 million people instead, or 1/5 of the cable subscribers alone who had access last year.

So can I blame them? Yeah, I can. They're chasing after the money and saying to their fans, "Hey, **** you. If you want to see our product, switch to DirecTV. And if you don't, well, you can either watch the small, grainy picture on your computer or go **** yourself. Either way, we don't really care. We're getting our money."

Considering the large number of people they will be alienating, they're going to have to increase the price to make up for less sales. Frankly, I hope they increase the price so high that DirecTV subscribers will refuse to pay.

DirecTV is banking that they will attract new subscribers and MLB is banking that those that refuse to get DirecTV will opt for the mlb.tv service. Both parties view it as a win-win. But the market will dictate everything and if MLB starts losing big bucks due to people not subscribing to mlb.tv, they will change their tune pretty quick. I feel that MLB has looked at all the angles and find the risks acceptable.

The price that DirecTV charges will be a telling sign...

HotelWhiteSox
01-21-2007, 01:30 AM
Speaking of DirecTV, Not that all carriers don't do it, but DirecTV's pricing is going up a little in a few weeks. Also how some of their packages are structured will change a little. I don't have it now, but if anyone wants to know more specifics, I can look it up, it was on AVSforum

102605
01-21-2007, 03:18 AM
This works for me :smile: !


They better broadcast the damn games in HD!

SouthSide_HitMen
01-21-2007, 03:49 AM
DirecTV is banking that they will attract new subscribers and MLB is banking that those that refuse to get DirecTV will opt for the mlb.tv service. Both parties view it as a win-win. But the market will dictate everything and if MLB starts losing big bucks due to people not subscribing to mlb.tv, they will change their tune pretty quick. I feel that MLB has looked at all the angles and find the risks acceptable.

The price that DirecTV charges will be a telling sign...

I dropped the MLB.tv package because of the stupid blackout rule. They should charge more to receive local broadcasts (splitting it with the local stations who will also add to their advertising revenue) if that is what it takes to allow it (have an add on fee for people who want local broadcasts).

Whether you are away from home (at work or elsewhere) and not near a TV or if you are like me without cable (I wouldn't watch anything except for sports and movies and the occasional History channel program), the blackout rules suck ass. They really suck ass if you live in say Nevada (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/astrodirt/discussion/419/) and are blacked out for over 20% of all games (Every San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles (Dodgers & Angels), Arizona and Oakland games are blacked out + Fox Saturdays - ***).

What also sucks about the blackouts are people live in blacked out areas but do not receive local broadcasts (i.e. Rockford) and problems with people and games on The U. The final thing that sucks about the blackout rules are the God Damn Fox Saturday blackouts of the entire Universe, especially if you are stuck watching the Yankees for the 15th time because that is what the local station is going with.

Can you tell I am pissed about the blackout policy? :angry:

Fix the packages, charge more if you have to, and let fans everywhere watch every game anywhere they happen to be. The NFL does not have these silly provisions and their package is enormously popular.

SoxFan78
01-21-2007, 08:00 AM
I will be so pissed if MLB Extra innings moves exclusively to DirectTV. Why shut out most of your audience and just be on one service provider?

NDSox12
01-21-2007, 09:41 AM
So can I blame them? Yeah, I can. They're chasing after the money and saying to their fans, "Hey, **** you. If you want to see our product, switch to DirecTV. And if you don't, well, you can either watch the small, grainy picture on your computer or go **** yourself. Either way, we don't really care. We're getting our money."



Well put. That is my big complaint too. While it may seem to make sense to take the highest bid, why ask for bids for exclusivity to begin with? As usual, its the fans that wind up losing. This is very similar to the video game exclusivity deal... might make dollar and cents sense, but it winds up hurting the consumer.

Brian26
01-21-2007, 10:02 AM
I'm curious to see how much the price will change for 2007. The old deal appeared to be about $20 million a year last season. The $100 million figure represents a five-fold increase. Unless inDemand was making an absolute killing, I can't imagine the price for 2007 not jumping significantly. I'm thinking $225+ for a season package.

Do you remember what the pre-season introductory offer was last year? That was the best deal to get. We should be able to do a direct comparison when the new package is announced in about a month or so.

itsnotrequired
01-21-2007, 10:15 AM
Do you remember what the pre-season introductory offer was last year? That was the best deal to get. We should be able to do a direct comparison when the new package is announced in about a month or so.

I believe it was around $160. If you bought it after the introductory offer, it was something like $180.

Fenway
01-22-2007, 09:43 AM
HOLY ****

Since there is no way the public can e-mail Bud Selig's office directly I just called his office in Milwaukee to complain about this. Woman answers the phone and says just a minute

and I hear "this is Bud Selig"

Well I said what I wanted to say......and he said Thank You we haven't made a final decision yet and I'm beginning to see problems we were not aware of.

click here for the contact info from google
Baseball Commissioner Office (http://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&q=baseball+commissioner+office&near=Milwaukee,+WI&radius=0.0&latlng=43038889,-87906389,14833681552245740752&sa=X&oi=local&ct=authority)

itsnotrequired
01-22-2007, 09:52 AM
HOLY ****

Since there is no way the public can e-mail Bud Selig's office directly I just called his office in Milwaukee to complain about this. Woman answers the phone and says just a minute

and I hear "this is Bud Selig"

Well I said what I wanted to say......and he said Thank You we haven't made a final decision yet and I'm beginning to see problems we were not aware of.

click here for the contact info from google
Baseball Commissioner Office (http://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&q=baseball+commissioner+office&near=Milwaukee,+WI&radius=0.0&latlng=43038889,-87906389,14833681552245740752&sa=X&oi=local&ct=authority)

So if this plan gets deep-sixed, we have you to personally thank?:cool:

Fenway
01-22-2007, 09:54 AM
So if this plan gets deep-sixed, we have you to personally thank?:cool:

No thank the NY Times that leaked the story :tongue:

lumpyspun
01-22-2007, 11:41 AM
Thank You for the link to his contact info. While Extra Innings has it's own problems (Sox games aren't always on there, especially the WCIU/WGN games, while they are on mlb.tv) I enjoyed having it the last two years with my Comcast subscription out here in Seattle. I am dreading having to order mlb.tv and trying to figure out how to get the games to work on my Intel based Macbook Pro (mlb.com help desk is terrible).
MLB is really starting to wear me down with their awful Fox Saturday broadcasts that affect the Sox on Extra Innings and now this...

ondafarm
01-22-2007, 11:54 AM
Money talks. inDemand is willing to pony up $70 million a year, DirecTV is gunning for $100 million a year. I surely can't fault MLB for signing the deal...

Well, I can. Offerring broadcasts of all their games should be seen as a service my MLB not another way to soak the fans. Ten Turner with his WTBS broadcasts of the Braves and the Flubs on WGN should have taught every owner in baseball that the more people who can see your games for FREE the more people will come out and watch your games in person and the more merchandise they will buy. In other words, the easier it is to see your games, the more money you will make. Of course, penny-wise, pound-foolish is the way MLB owners seem to be.

skottyj242
01-22-2007, 01:23 PM
Direct TV rules.

Rocky Soprano
01-22-2007, 01:24 PM
I have DirecTV and love it, so I don't see a problem. :D:

Kogs35
01-22-2007, 01:38 PM
I have DirecTV and love it, so I don't see a problem. :D:
same here :D:

spiffie
01-22-2007, 01:59 PM
Money talks. inDemand is willing to pony up $70 million a year, DirecTV is gunning for $100 million a year. I surely can't fault MLB for signing the deal.

I'm curious to see how much the price will change for 2007. The old deal appeared to be about $20 million a year last season. The $100 million figure represents a five-fold increase. Unless inDemand was making an absolute killing, I can't imagine the price for 2007 not jumping significantly. I'm thinking $225+ for a season package.
I am not sure that $1 million per team per year is worth angering your fanbase. The NFL gets off easier in perception on this due to always being on Directv exclusively from the beginning, but even there you have Congress looking into trying to force them to offer it more extensively.

This seems to me to be a short term gain but a long-term detriment for MLB. Look at the teams with the biggest fanbases, they generally are ones who have been easy to follow. Would the Cubs have the fanbase they have if not for the reach of WGN in the 80's? This just seems short-sighted to me.

itsnotrequired
01-22-2007, 02:15 PM
I am not sure that $1 million per team per year is worth angering your fanbase. The NFL gets off easier in perception on this due to always being on Directv exclusively from the beginning, but even there you have Congress looking into trying to force them to offer it more extensively.

This seems to me to be a short term gain but a long-term detriment for MLB. Look at the teams with the biggest fanbases, they generally are ones who have been easy to follow. Would the Cubs have the fanbase they have if not for the reach of WGN in the 80's? This just seems short-sighted to me.

The MLB owners aren't dummies, they know their history and I'm sure they have looked at all the angles. If they feel that the potential loss in some fans can be made up in other areas, they will go for it. Fenway's chat with Bud makes it sounds as if they may have missed some angles and are reconsidering.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are doing the right thing either but I can certainly see where they are coming from.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-22-2007, 02:47 PM
The MLB owners aren't dummies, they know their history and I'm sure they have looked at all the angles. If they feel that the potential loss in some fans can be made up in other areas, they will go for it. Fenway's chat with Bud makes it sounds as if they may have missed some angles and are reconsidering.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are doing the right thing either but I can certainly see where they are coming from.

Yeah like Reinsdorf and Sportsvision.

The history of baseball proves you should never overestimate the intelligence of the average baseball owner, especially when it comes to running MLB.

EastCoastSoxFan
01-22-2007, 03:25 PM
This sounds like something right out of the Bill Wirtz "How Not To Build A Fan Base" playbook...

KRS1
01-22-2007, 03:26 PM
Direct TV rules.

Indeed it does.

I felt like I was forced into it when they got the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket a few years back, but I absolutely love the service now. However, if I was not down here in sunny Arizona, I would probably be less satisfied because of weather conditions knocking out the signal. I've only had it go out twice since I got it, and both were in monsoon conditions, and both times the signal came back up immediately after the storm passed over.

Now I get to use my favorite all time phrase.... Having said that, I completely hate the exclusive rights crap, and completely understand the contempt shown by most here.

Chicken Dinner
01-22-2007, 03:38 PM
Competition keeps prices down. This is a bad thing for us fans and baseball in general. FOX Saturday is bad enough, this really blows.

ewokpelts
01-22-2007, 04:04 PM
This sounds like something right out of the Bill Wirtz "How Not To Build A Fan Base" playbook...
i wouldnt go that far just yet...for all we know, directv may be willing to open up the blackout areas(even selig is frustrated with the blackout rules.
Gene

Steelrod
01-22-2007, 05:37 PM
Its kinda like whats going on on radio. I have XM Radio and have all the MLB games. I do not have the NFL or Stern as they are on Sirius Satellite Radio.
It's just a sign of the times. At least MLB.TV is an option.

russ99
01-22-2007, 05:45 PM
I am dreading having to order mlb.tv and trying to figure out how to get the games to work on my Intel based Macbook Pro (mlb.com help desk is terrible).
MLB is really starting to wear me down with their awful Fox Saturday broadcasts that affect the Sox on Extra Innings and now this...


Actually, that isn't a problem. The MLB.TV streaming works on Mac RealPlayer and if you have to use Windows Media, there is a handy free plug-in on mactopia.com that allows QuickTime to handle streaming .WMV files.

The thing that doesn't work (and probably won't ever for Macs) is MLB downloaded games (video files) protected by Microsoft's video codec/DRM.

It appalls me how many content providers use that Microsoft service, especially when there are other video DRM options that protect files and can work on Macs - and which doesn't give Microsoft a monopoly on the market. It also seems that Microsoft is not making that software available (WinMedia Player) for Mac users solely as revenge for iPod/iTunes/iTunes Store...

Fenway
01-22-2007, 06:03 PM
Believe me I would have had DirecTV a long time ago if I could get it. (just for Sunday Ticket alone )

But my city happens to be very fond of this big tree that blocks the signal.

Kogs35
01-22-2007, 07:00 PM
Believe me I would have had DirecTV a long time ago if I could get it. (just for Sunday Ticket alone )

But my city happens to be very fond of this big tree that blocks the signal.

verizon fios tv is directv if you can get fios, you can get directv programming

Fenway
01-22-2007, 07:01 PM
verizon fios tv is directv if you can get fios, you can get directv programming

not an option yet as they fighting with my city :angry:

Kogs35
01-22-2007, 07:56 PM
not an option yet as they fighting with my city :angry:

i use fios as my internet after upgrading from dsl when they called and offerd it and its wonderful, we couldnt move our directv to it because we have some of the locals in the 380's from la lol, and it would mess up our sports subscriptions also.

lumpyspun
01-22-2007, 08:19 PM
Actually, that isn't a problem. The MLB.TV streaming works on Mac RealPlayer and if you have to use Windows Media, there is a handy free plug-in on mactopia.com that allows QuickTime to handle streaming .WMV files.

The thing that doesn't work (and probably won't ever for Macs) is MLB downloaded games (video files) protected by Microsoft's video codec/DRM.

It appalls me how many content providers use that Microsoft service, especially when there are other video DRM options that protect files and can work on Macs - and which doesn't give Microsoft a monopoly on the market. It also seems that Microsoft is not making that software available (WinMedia Player) for Mac users solely as revenge for iPod/iTunes/iTunes Store...

Thanks for the run down...You'll probably be hearing from me with some questions come about March 26th or so!

WhiteSox5187
01-22-2007, 08:23 PM
Indeed it does.

I felt like I was forced into it when they got the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket a few years back, but I absolutely love the service now. However, if I was not down here in sunny Arizona, I would probably be less satisfied because of weather conditions knocking out the signal. I've only had it go out twice since I got it, and both were in monsoon conditions, and both times the signal came back up immediately after the storm passed over.

Now I get to use my favorite all time phrase.... Having said that, I completely hate the exclusive rights crap, and completely understand the contempt shown by most here.
I live in Chicago, and the signal rarely goes out here. Only in really really bad thunderstorms in the summer - the kind that knock over trees - and I dont' think it's ever gone out in a snowstorm.

ondafarm
01-22-2007, 10:27 PM
Yeah like Reinsdorf and Sportsvision.

The history of baseball proves you should never overestimate the intelligence of the average baseball owner, especially when it comes to running MLB.

Even though Jerry Reinsdorf denies ever saying it, I heard him say "Baseball fans are as dumb as pro-wrestling fans."

Given that viewpoint, I doubt he's considered every option.

Lip Man 1
01-23-2007, 09:58 AM
The comments comparing MLB with other sports such as the NFL and the NBA to me are correct.

MLB owners are always looking for the short-term, quick fix payoff. They rarely look down the road.

Here's another example with this possibility.

OK the games might be exclusively on DirecTV but why put the Baseball Network on exclusive footing as well?

The NFL has an exclusive agreement with DirecTV for Sunday Ticket but guess what's on The Dish Network....yep, the NFL Network. You can find the NBA network on The Dish Network as well.

That's called trying to expand your viewership... not limit it. Especially now that eight regular season games are on the NFL Network, they apparently want to get to as many possible viewers as they can.

Of course baseball does the opposite....why am I not surprised?

By the way, for those of you who get the NFL Network have you noticed they have started running some classic Super Bowls the past few weeks?

I'm not talking about NFL Films...I'm talking about the actual commercial broadcast in its entirety!!

Last night for example, they had Super Bowl XIII, Steelers and Cowboys. The announcers were Curt Gowdy, John Brodie and Merlin Olsen.

What a pleasure to see this again after all the years of sitting in a vault gathering dust and doing no one any good.

They have also shown:

Steelers-Seahawks
Broncos-Redskins
Patriots-Rams

Looking forward to what they may show in the future.

Lip

Fenway
01-23-2007, 10:05 AM
By the way, for those of you who get the NFL Network have you noticed they have started running some classic Super Bowls the past few weeks?

I'm not talking about NFL Films...I'm talking about the actual commercial broadcast in its entirety!!

Last night for example, they had Super Bowl XIII, Steelers and Cowboys. The announcers were Curt Gowdy, John Brodie and Merlin Olsen.

What a pleasure to see this again after all the years of sitting in a vault gathering dust and doing no one any good.

They have also shown:

Steelers-Seahawks
Broncos-Redskins
Patriots-Rams

Looking forward to what they may show in the future.

Lip

It is about time.

I wonder if any tapes of AFL games exist in their entirety. Would love to hear Gowdy and Paul Chrisman again.

Hitmen77
01-23-2007, 10:08 AM
The NFL has an exclusive agreement with DirecTV for Sunday Ticket but guess what's on The Dish Network....yep, the NFL Network. You can find the NBA network on The Dish Network as well....



Lip

The NFL and NBA Network are on Comcast too.

Chicken Dinner
01-23-2007, 12:56 PM
Congress is the only one that's going to stop this. Write yours today.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

skottyj242
01-23-2007, 01:40 PM
Indeed it does.

I felt like I was forced into it when they got the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket a few years back, but I absolutely love the service now. However, if I was not down here in sunny Arizona, I would probably be less satisfied because of weather conditions knocking out the signal. I've only had it go out twice since I got it, and both were in monsoon conditions, and both times the signal came back up immediately after the storm passed over.

Now I get to use my favorite all time phrase.... Having said that, I completely hate the exclusive rights crap, and completely understand the contempt shown by most here.


I've had it at my place for two years and I've only had the signal go out once and that was because some animal chewed through the line and knocked it loose. It was fixed five minutes after the guy got there and they credited my account seventy bucks for it.

EastCoastSoxFan
01-23-2007, 01:43 PM
MLB owners are always looking for the short-term, quick fix payoff.A quick-fix for what? What do they think is broken? Supposedly attendance and revenue are at all-time highs.

I did not purchase Extra Innings through Comcast this past season, but I am (or perhaps was) strongly considering it for this coming season because, as many have noted, the picture is a hell of a lot better than my laptop monitor.

But I have no intention of switching to DirecTV, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this sentiment, so I wonder how the fine folks at DirecTV think they can possibly recoup the money they'll be spending for these exclusive rights.

I guess it goes back to the idea that no matter how often or how many times MLB screws over its fans, we always seem to keep coming back...

SouthSide_HitMen
01-23-2007, 03:12 PM
The comments comparing MLB with other sports such as the NFL and the NBA to me are correct.What a pleasure to see this again after all the years of sitting in a vault gathering dust and doing no one any good.

They have also shown:

Steelers-Seahawks
Broncos-Redskins
Patriots-Rams

Looking forward to what they may show in the future.

Lip

I agree with your entire post Lip. I can't get the dish because of trees and with the Chicago granted monopoly for cable, the rates, programing and cost are ridiculous.

MLB - Penny wise, pound foolish since 1900.

Lip Man 1
01-24-2007, 10:51 AM
For what it's worth Buster Olney has a column on this at ESPN.com (insider one). From what little I'm allowed to see it looks like issues are coming up that baseball hasn't thought of.

Lip

ewokpelts
01-24-2007, 11:01 AM
For what it's worth Buster Olney has a column on this at ESPN.com (insider one). From what little I'm allowed to see it looks like issues are coming up that baseball hasn't thought of.

Lipthis concurs with fenway's fireside chat with bud.....maybe mlb DOES want the basebal channel on cable....

Lip Man 1
01-24-2007, 11:44 AM
ewok:

Can you summerize the story if you have 'insider'.

Lip

Chicken Dinner
01-24-2007, 12:49 PM
Dan sums it up pretty good here.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=dw-directv012307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Fenway
01-24-2007, 01:42 PM
here is another one from si.com

John Donovan: MLB gives its fans a brushback pitch (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/john_donovan/01/23/directv.extrainnings/index.html)
(01.23.2007)
The last place that any baseball fan ever wants to be is between team owners and a dollar bill. It's like stepping between Pete Rose and Ray Fosse, circa 1970. Or between Jose Canseco and his syringe sometime in the '90s. If it takes bowling over fan... (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/john_donovan/01/23/directv.extrainnings/index.html)

When I had my brief chat with Bud on Monday I told him of a friend of mine who is in his 60's retired and pretty much confined to his senior citizen housing provided by the city. He was overjoyed when digital cable came and allowed him to buy the MLB package and he watches every game he can. If it moves to DirecTV he will be shut out completly. All Selig said to me was "Thank you for telling me about your friend."

Will it do any good? Who knows but I knew that calling Milwaukee instead of New York might get my concerns heard. I just didn't expect Bud to pick up the phone.

PKalltheway
01-24-2007, 04:57 PM
This sucks. We've had extra innings for the last two years, and it would be on almost everyday during the summer in our house, whether it be the Sox or somebody else. We were planning on getting it for a third straight year, but now that this bull**** may happen, I guess we won't get it. The Sox have been coming on ESPN and Fox more lately, so I guess I'll have to turn to that. I think the TBS Sunday Afternoon baseball thing starts this year too.

Thank goodness for WGN! Even though the Sox don't come on there nearly as much as the Cubs do, it's still a good thing that they still show plenty of their games on there.

Kogs35
01-24-2007, 05:07 PM
This sucks. We've had extra innings for the last two years, and it would be on almost everyday during the summer in our house, whether it be the Sox or somebody else. We were planning on getting it for a third straight year, but now that this bull**** may happen, I guess we won't get it. The Sox have been coming on ESPN and Fox more lately, so I guess I'll have to turn to that. I think the TBS Sunday Afternoon baseball thing starts this year too.

Thank goodness for WGN! Even though the Sox don't come on there nearly as much as the Cubs do, it's still a good thing that they still show plenty of their games on there.

tbs starts next season, only the playoff coverage starts this year. espn is down to monday,wed, and sun night baseball while fox is doing 3 games starting at 3:55 eastern time and someweeks only have 2 games.

Kogs35
01-24-2007, 05:35 PM
incase your wondering here is some national tv scheduled dates by espn and fox for the month of april. only sunday night,monday night, and fox games show for now.
espn is in red
espn2 in purple
fox in blue

April1
ESPN2 8:05est NY Mets at St. Louis
April2
ESPN 1:05est Tampa Bay at Ny Yankees
ESPN2 2:10est Chicago Cubs at Cincinnati
ESPN 4:05est Boston at Kansas City
ESPN2 7:10est Baltimore at Minnesota
ESPN2 10:05est Texas at LA Angels
April7
FOX 3:55est Minnesota at Chicago White Sox
FOX 3:55est NY Mets at Atlanta
FOX 3:55est LA Dodgers at San Francisco
April8
ESPN 8:05est Boston at Texas
April9
ESPN 8:10est NY Yankees at Minnesota
April14
FOX 3:55est LA Angels at Boston
FOX 3:55est Texas at Seattle
FOX 3:55est Houston at Philadelphia
April15
ESPN 8:05est San Diego at LA Dodgers
April16
ESPN 7:05est NY Mets at Philadelphia
April21
FOX 3:55est NY Yankees at Boston
FOX 3:55est St. Louis at Chicago Cubs
April22
ESPN 8:05est NY Yankees at Boston
April23
ESPN 7:10est NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
April28
FOX 3:55est Boston at NY Yankees
FOX 3:55est Chicago Cubs at St. Louis
April29
ESPN 8:05est Chicago Cubs at St. Louis
April30
ESPN 8:05est St. Louis at Milwaukee

HotelWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 02:10 AM
I was browsing AVSForum and there is a guy on there saying he talked with the guy in charge of this decision. The run down was that they are definately going to do this, the reasoning is that more people subscribe to mlb.tv than extra innings on cable, and they will be making upgrades to mlb.tv to make it handle more traffic and look better. Take it for what it's worth.

harwar
01-25-2007, 07:55 AM
I've had the extra innings package for 4 years now i think and i may be one of the few people who watches almost every game,every day on tv because of my poor health.
I don't know what i'm going to do if they switch mlb extra innings to direct tv.
I have a pretty good sized hill and a small forest of large old trees to my south and with my failing eyesight i need a large screen tv to follow the action.
I guess all that cable that i had put inside my walls will be a waste,as it was all done so that i can follow baseball.
Baseball is all i have left in life.
Its the only sport that i still care about and i truely love everything about the game.
Its going to be one long summer out here in my cabin without my beloved baseball.

Fenway
01-29-2007, 11:45 PM
I posted Selig's office number on boards in Chicago, Boston and New York....I don't know if it is doing any good but with the incredible backlash that MLB is getting from this just in the east they got to be looking for a way out.

Now the New York Daily News says the deal will cost MLB money as well

MLB's screwball (http://www.nydailynews.com/01-28-2007/sports/col/story/492503p-414844c.html)
Lose-lose deal with DirecTV
means fewer fans, fewer dollars (http://www.nydailynews.com/01-28-2007/sports/col/story/492503p-414844c.html)

Selig told the Boston Globe's Nick Carfardo (http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2007/01/28/a_trade_with_possibilities/?page=full)

Commissioner Bud Selig said he still hadn't formulated his response to the backlash over Major League Baseball switching its Extra Innings package to DirecTV starting this year. Selig said the deal isn't quite done, which is why he's not commenting, but he is sympathetic to some of the fans' concerns.

On another matter, Selig was asked about the posting process for Japanese players, and he said, "We're going to address that soon. I don't know exactly when, but we need to discuss it to see how we can make the system better for everyone." Asked about the back-to-back All-Star Games in NL cities (Pittsburgh last year and San Francisco this year) for an event that now decides home-field advantage in the postseason, Selig said, "That's the way it ended up. I've tried to award the game to cities with new ballparks. From here on out, you'll see it back and forth."

Jurr
01-30-2007, 07:00 AM
as someone who can't have a dish because of a limited view to the south I am sick
Amen. We moved to Memphis and found a great apartment. You've gotta be very selective, because in Memphis, you could easily find yourself the victim of B&E (or MUCH worse) if you pick a bad neighborhood.

We get moved in. We then find out that there's NO CHANCE of Direct Tv because of our lack of a south view. My girlfriend, a terribly devout Steelers fan, cried her poor little eyes out.

If they take away my Comcast Extra Innings service, I will surely join her.

MeteorsSox4367
01-30-2007, 09:19 AM
Like some of the prior posters, I just got digital cable (which is awesome for college hoops) and was looking forward to getting the MLB package. As I heard Keith Olbermann saying on Dan Patrick's radio show, the MLB package is for people who are diehard baseball fans like me.

I obviously love the Sox and watch almost every game, but I'd also like to see how the Pirates or Nationals or Royals are doing when their games are being played. I'm not going to get DirectTV just for the MLB package. If they keep it on digital cable, they'll have my business. If not, oh well.

lumpyspun
01-30-2007, 10:09 AM
Here is the NYC contact info and an email address to the executive vice president. I will be spamming this guy with email all day....

Tim Brosnan email: tbrosnan@mlb.com (tbrosnan@mlb.com) (Executive Vice President)


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

I found this on another site (searching through google):
http://www.cardsclubhouse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=338103#338103

Here is the email I sent the guy, not like he will read it:
Mr. Brosnan,
After 1994 I gave up baseball for 7 years. I am prepared to do the same if Mr. Selig accepts this deal with DirecTV. Today more than ever, people find themselves picking up and moving all across the country. In the last 5 years I have lived in 3 different states. In the last 20 years I have lived in 6 states. However, I have always maintained a love for my original team, the Chicago White Sox. Until 2002 it was hard for me to watch their games b/c I haven't lived in the Chicago area since 1990. When I discovered Extra Innings with my cable company it was like I had rediscovered my passion for watching baseball. Now, just a few years later Mr. Selig is trying to rip the game away from me again. DirecTV is a service that is not available to every baseball fan for a variety of reasons. I also realize I can order mlb.tv (http://mlb.tv/) for my computer, but the prospect of sitting in front of my 14'' computer screen 100 times this summer and watching 3 hour long baseball games is not at all appealing. I have alot of time on my hands this summer and I operate a fairly successful blog. Instead of spending my time watching baseball games, I would rather write articles exposing MLB and press the FCC to act in favor of millions of fans who are being held hostage by the commissioner and his staff.

I will sit back in the next few weeks and hope that Mr. Selig makes the right decision.
Thank You for your time,

I don't have a fairly successful blog at all, but I just thought it would be funny to say that b/c I think alot of CEO's and what not are scared of blogs these days...

Lip Man 1
01-30-2007, 12:46 PM
Lumpy:

Thank you. I have e-mailed Tim with my views.

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
02-01-2007, 10:53 AM
Lumpy:

Thank you. I have e-mailed Tim with my views.

Lip

I just did the same.

Chicken Dinner
02-01-2007, 12:09 PM
Looks like John Kerry's getting involved in this.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/baseball/sns-ap-bbo-kerry-baseball-tv,0,2859863.story?coll=sns-ap-baseball-headlines

lumpyspun
02-01-2007, 12:32 PM
Looks like John Kerry's getting involved in this.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/baseball/sns-ap-bbo-kerry-baseball-tv,0,2859863.story?coll=sns-ap-baseball-headlines

Senator Kerry just received a 'Thank You' email from me.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.cfm

AZChiSoxFan
02-01-2007, 04:17 PM
Senator Kerry just received a 'Thank You' email from me.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.cfm

I just sent E-mails to both of my Senators and my Congressman.

With McCain running for President, I'm sure this will be a very important issue to him.

AZChiSoxFan
02-02-2007, 09:38 AM
Senator Kerry just received a 'Thank You' email from me.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.cfm

I just sent him a thank you note too.

Lip Man 1
02-02-2007, 09:51 AM
How do you contact the two Illinois senators to let them know about this and to get their rear ends involved?

Lip

itsnotrequired
02-02-2007, 09:57 AM
How do you contact the two Illinois senators to let them know about this and to get their rear ends involved?

Lip

http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

AZChiSoxFan
02-02-2007, 10:11 AM
For anyone who wants to contact your US senator(s) use the link below:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Scroll down the list to find yours and send them a note.

Use this link for your congressman/congresswoman:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/


Don't forget to also write to the guy at MLB (see the info in post #62 by "Lumpyspun" in this thread).

Lastly, you may want to send a Thank you E-mail to Senator Kerry since he has already raised this issue with the FCC.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-02-2007, 07:54 PM
Don't you think you guys are overreacting just a little bit? It's not like MLB is denying you the opportunity to buy their Extra Innings package. You have to subscribe to DirecTV to get it. So do it, and stop whining already!
:o:

I can't get Comcast's Sox games in high-definition because my only option for getting it is buying a subscription to Comcast and their HD package. I can live without the Sox in HD because I routinely hear horror stories about what a NIGHTMARE it is to have cable service with Comcast. I made my choice (the right one for me) and I have no regrets whatsoever.

I find it amusing that nobody reading this ever thinks twice about paying gobs of money for cable/satellite channels that they NEVER watch but are forced to pay for because it's part of a "package" they had no choice but accept if they were going to get the channels they do watch. You made your choice and never look back. But you'll spin on a dime and write your congressmen because the entertainment provider you picked doesn't offer Extra Innings?

Very strange...
:?:

Brian26
02-02-2007, 08:13 PM
Some people, for various reasons, aren't able to use Directv. Lip mentioned that he has a problem with trees in his yard that block the southern sky.

I guess he could always cut the trees down though :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-02-2007, 08:29 PM
Some people, for various reasons, aren't able to use Directv. Lip mentioned that he has a problem with trees in his yard that block the southern sky.

I guess he could always cut the trees down though

Trees in Idaho? Who wudda thunk it?

:smile:

lumpyspun
02-02-2007, 09:05 PM
I find it amusing that nobody reading this ever thinks twice about paying gobs of money for cable/satellite channels that they NEVER watch but are forced to pay for because it's part of a "package" they had no choice but accept if they were going to get the channels they do watch. You made your choice and never look back. But you'll spin on a dime and write your congressmen because the entertainment provider you picked doesn't offer Extra Innings?

Very strange...
:?:

Fear not....my congressman and Senators have heard from me about this issue too. It is absolutley ridiculous the way cable companies make you buy 900 channels just to watch 6 of them.

There are alot of people out there that cannot get DirecTV. It's an issue that has the government looking into, so it's not just a few of us nutjobs on WSI.

It must be nice to only have to worry about not getting the Sox in HD. :(:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-02-2007, 09:13 PM
Fear not....my congressman and Senators have heard from me about this issue too. It is absolutley ridiculous the way cable companies make you buy 900 channels just to watch 6 of them.

There are alot of people out there that cannot get DirecTV. It's an issue that has the government looking into, so it's not just a few of us nutjobs on WSI.

Make sure you get them to look into NFL Season Ticket exclusively on DirecTV.

And Howard Stern exclusively on Sirius.

And Sopranos exclusively on HBO. (Okay, A&E too, but all the naughty bits are censored.)
:wink:

We have a right to keep and bear arms and UNLIMITED entertainment choices!

:cool:

TheOldRoman
02-02-2007, 09:51 PM
Make sure you get them to look into NFL Season Ticket exclusively on DirecTV.

And Howard Stern exclusively on Sirius.

And Sopranos exclusively on HBO. (Okay, A&E too, but all the naughty bits are censored.)
:wink:

We have a right to keep and bear arms and UNLIMITED entertainment choices!

:cool:
Once the Sopranos or Howard Stern get the taxpayers to build them a studio costing several hundred million dollars, it will be an issue.

What MLB is doing sucks, but there is nothing anyone can do about it. MLB has shown repeatedly that they will always make the wrong decision. They just decided month ago to take the postseason out of the homes of millions of Americans by jumping to cable. The NFL, on the other hand, will run into some problems. Now that all their teams (but 2 or 3) have managed to get the taxpayers to build or renovate their stadiums, they will start to pull more and more games from network TV. This year they had several games on NFL network, which I believe is not provided by some providers (or, if provided, is included in a very expensive package). That will continue. They realized that even if they cut the number of viewers in half, they can make more money by charging people to watch games. This is only the beginning. If nothing changes, the NFL will eventually be a pay-per-view league. It all depends on how irate people get, and how much they bitch to their congressmen.

lumpyspun
02-02-2007, 10:22 PM
They realized that even if they cut the number of viewers in half, they can make more money by charging people to watch games. This is only the beginning. If nothing changes, the NFL will eventually be a pay-per-view league. It all depends on how irate people get, and how much they bitch to their congressmen.

The one positive that may come of all this is that bar owners might stop moaning about losing customers from smoking bans b/c the only place most of us will be able to go to watch games anymore will be bars that charge admission to watch games on their satellite subscriptions!

(that is a long run on sentence)

MincHiaPettito
02-02-2007, 10:37 PM
Don\'t you think you guys are overreacting just a little bit? It\'s not like MLB is denying you the opportunity to buy their Extra Innings package. You have to subscribe to DirecTV to get it. So do it, and stop whining already!
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/

I can\'t get Comcast\'s Sox games in high-definition because my only option for getting it is buying a subscription to Comcast and their HD package. I can live without the Sox in HD because I routinely hear horror stories about what a NIGHTMARE it is to have cable service with Comcast. I made my choice (the right one for me) and I have no regrets whatsoever.

I find it amusing that nobody reading this ever thinks twice about paying gobs of money for cable/satellite channels that they NEVER watch but are forced to pay for because it\'s part of a "package" they had no choice but accept if they were going to get the channels they do watch. You made your choice and never look back. But you\'ll spin on a dime and write your congressmen because the entertainment provider you picked doesn\'t offer Extra Innings?

Very strange...
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/

Do you have Dish Net, I thought I heard that Directv started showing Comcast games in HD

ewokpelts
02-03-2007, 02:49 AM
Don't you think you guys are overreacting just a little bit? It's not like MLB is denying you the opportunity to buy their Extra Innings package. You have to subscribe to DirecTV to get it. So do it, and stop whining already!
:o:

I can't get Comcast's Sox games in high-definition because my only option for getting it is buying a subscription to Comcast and their HD package. I can live without the Sox in HD because I routinely hear horror stories about what a NIGHTMARE it is to have cable service with Comcast. I made my choice (the right one for me) and I have no regrets whatsoever.

I find it amusing that nobody reading this ever thinks twice about paying gobs of money for cable/satellite channels that they NEVER watch but are forced to pay for because it's part of a "package" they had no choice but accept if they were going to get the channels they do watch. You made your choice and never look back. But you'll spin on a dime and write your congressmen because the entertainment provider you picked doesn't offer Extra Innings?

Very strange...
:?:

You forget those that CANT get DirecTv.

And who do you suppose will foot the REAL BILL for Extra Innings on teh dish? The fans, who not only have to change providers, but also will pay MORE than what is being charged now(rupert murdoch has to get back the 100 million SOMEHOW)

I just find it odd, that MLB goes out of their way to find the right mix of partners in merchandise, apparel, and baseball cards to maximise the money they get in, but would rather slap an exclusive on thier cable package, when indemand is willing to pony up money in a non-exclusive deal(which woud allow dish users to still get in on it)...
dosent make sense

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 08:03 AM
Sheesh... the blood is starting to show in the corners of your eyes!

You know why the Sopranos don't have a $500 million studio paid for by taxpayers? Because the politicians weren't worried what would happen to them if the Sopranos started threatening to leave town if they didn't get one built!
:o:

I'm not exaggerating to note that far, far more sports fans want the NFL Season Ticket, too, but they can only get it through DirecTV. Some of you act like you have a RIGHT to DirecTV programming. I would suggest writing your congressman about your inalienable right to get DirecTV -- even if you live behind a tree or where the sadistic landlord won't allow it -- but I'm guessing even you would find the notion completely ridiculous.

:cool:

itsnotrequired
02-03-2007, 08:32 AM
Sheesh... the blood is starting to show in the corners of your eyes!

You know why the Sopranos don't have a $500 million studio paid for by taxpayers? Because the politicians weren't worried what would happen to them if the Sopranos started threatening to leave town if they didn't get one built!
:o:

I'm not exaggerating to note that far, far more sports fans want the NFL Season Ticket, too, but they can only get it through DirecTV. Some of you act like you have a RIGHT to DirecTV programming. I would suggest writing your congressman about your inalienable right to get DirecTV -- even if you live behind a tree or where the sadistic landlord won't allow it -- but I'm guessing even you would find the notion completely ridiculous.

:cool:

Unlike previous television deals that took games off of free TV and put them on pay channels, this plan is limiting those to one type of pay service. Either way, a customer still has to pay.

That being said, I still think it is a dumb idea to limit to only one outlet. As others have said, some people simply can't get DirecTV or may already have cable service and are unwilling to switch (i.e. they have a bundled deal for TV and internet). It seems like MLB will lose money on this deal but it isn't the dumbest thing they ever did.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 09:27 AM
....
That being said, I still think it is a dumb idea to limit to only one outlet. As others have said, some people simply can't get DirecTV or may already have cable service and are unwilling to switch (i.e. they have a bundled deal for TV and internet). It seems like MLB will lose money on this deal but it isn't the dumbest thing they ever did.

The exclusive deal is worth more to MLB and DirecTV than a non-exclusive deal. It's the same reason Coke and Pepsi tie up every retailer, school, and mom and pop operation up and down the street with exclusive deals. It's business... and they make MORE money doing it, not less. It's no different than Stern doing an exclusive deal with Sirius... or the Sopranos' producers doing an exclusive deal with HBO...

Exclusive deals are based on solid business principles. Of course if your model for "good business" is akin to feeding candy to a spoiled child (i.e. give them what they want just so they'll shut up), then you write your congressman about the injustice of it all... and the best (lowest?) politicians might just pander to you which is why most of us wouldn't trust any of them around our children.

:cool:

ewokpelts
02-03-2007, 09:47 AM
The exclusive deal is worth more to MLB and DirecTV than a non-exclusive deal. It's the same reason Coke and Pepsi tie up every retailer, school, and mom and pop operation up and down the street with exclusive deals. It's business... and they make MORE money doing it, not less. It's no different than Stern doing an exclusive deal with Sirius... or the Sopranos' producers doing an exclusive deal with HBO...

Exclusive deals are based on solid business principles. Of course if your model for "good business" is akin to feeding candy to a spoiled child (i.e. give them what they want just so they'll shut up), then you write your congressman about the injustice of it all... and the best (lowest?) politicians might just pander to you which is why most of us wouldn't trust any of them around our children.

:cool:but HBO being on cable AND the dish makes it owrth is, as hbo is after subscription fees.

extra innings on directv LIMITS the number of potential subscribers.
INDEMAND sells to cable AND the dish, with a potential audience of 82 million...that's over 5 times the total audience of directv.

is 30 million dollars worth cutting out 67 million potential customers?

itsnotrequired
02-03-2007, 09:48 AM
The exclusive deal is worth more to MLB and DirecTV than a non-exclusive deal. It's the same reason Coke and Pepsi tie up every retailer, school, and mom and pop operation up and down the street with exclusive deals. It's business... and they make MORE money doing it, not less. It's no different than Stern doing an exclusive deal with Sirius... or the Sopranos' producers doing an exclusive deal with HBO...

Exclusive deals are based on solid business principles. Of course if your model for "good business" is akin to feeding candy to a spoiled child (i.e. give them what they want just so they'll shut up), then you write your congressman about the injustice of it all... and the best (lowest?) politicians might just pander to you which is why most of us wouldn't trust any of them around our children.

:cool:

No doubt MLB believes they will make money on the deal but based on the amounts bid by cable and DirecTV, the deal nets only an extra $1 million per team. From a bottom line point of view, it makes sense but what about the long term impacts? Competition for entertainment dollars against football, basketball, NASCAR, etc. makes me think the MLB shouldn't be limiting their outlets at this point in time.

Even if they choose to go exclusive, baseball will survive. It isn't as if this deal will sink the ship but I've come around on my original position and feel this move is shortsighted. Certainly not the most shortsighted move they have made, not by a long shot but shortsighted none the less.

Fenway
02-03-2007, 09:57 AM
Make sure you get them to look into NFL Season Ticket exclusively on DirecTV.

And Howard Stern exclusively on Sirius.

And Sopranos exclusively on HBO. (Okay, A&E too, but all the naughty bits are censored.)
:wink:

We have a right to keep and bear arms and UNLIMITED entertainment choices!

:cool:

Except most consumers can obtain Sirius, HBO etc is they are willing to pay for it. Last year 750,000 people signed up for Extra Innings on cable and satellite. How many of those (like myself) will be shut out by the move because we CAN'T get DirecTV in our homes????? I can't cut down the tree the city would throw me in jail.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 11:17 AM
Except most consumers can obtain Sirius, HBO etc is they are willing to pay for it. Last year 750,000 people signed up for Extra Innings on cable and satellite. How many of those (like myself) will be shut out by the move because we CAN'T get DirecTV in our homes????? I can't cut down the tree the city would throw me in jail.

Gee how can I put this politely for you, Fenway?

MOVE.

Or write your congressman so that landlords (and those tree huggers inside City Hall) are required by law to permit tenants (and all taxpaying citizens!) to have satellite access. Your inalienable right to DirecTV has been encroached upon by these sadistic bastards!

Or chop down the freaking tree. (I also recommend planting another one someplace else. Be kind to the Earth.)

:cool:

Pierzynski 12
02-03-2007, 02:14 PM
Well, this just sucks.:angry:

TheOldRoman
02-03-2007, 02:33 PM
The exclusive deal is worth more to MLB and DirecTV than a non-exclusive deal. It's the same reason Coke and Pepsi tie up every retailer, school, and mom and pop operation up and down the street with exclusive deals. It's business... and they make MORE money doing it, not less. It's no different than Stern doing an exclusive deal with Sirius... or the Sopranos' producers doing an exclusive deal with HBO...

Exclusive deals are based on solid business principles. Of course if your model for "good business" is akin to feeding candy to a spoiled child (i.e. give them what they want just so they'll shut up), then you write your congressman about the injustice of it all... and the best (lowest?) politicians might just pander to you which is why most of us wouldn't trust any of them around our children.

:cool:
I think you are off on the Coke/Pepsi comparison. I know why they make exclusive deals with resteraunts (and why beer companies do, also), but you can still get any brand of Soda at any store. I might not be able to go into a bar and get Budweiser, but I can go to Jewel and bring home a case. Your example would be like if Coke decided to only sell their product at Walmart. Not only can you go to almost any store and buy Coke, you can also price stores against one another to get a better deal. Apples and oranges.
And it is obviously different when talking about three providers versus thousands of stores. If Coke only sold their product at Walmart, they would probably go out of business soon. Baseball is less has interchangeable with other forms of entertainment.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 03:17 PM
I think you are off on the Coke/Pepsi comparison. ....
If Coke only sold their product at Walmart, they would probably go out of business soon. Baseball is less has interchangeable with other forms of entertainment.

Believe me, MLB is NOT going out of business for doing an Extra Innings deal exclusively with DirecTV.

Only a small fraction of baseball's fans are ever going to sign up for Extra Innings and no amount of "availability" through non-DirecTV providers would ever lift this tiny minority much higher. That's why the exclusive deal makes sense: MLB collects the maximum for the rights and DirecTV can offer MLB the maximum because they're capturing 100 percent of the incremental sales their competition has been locked out of getting.

DirecTV wants you to subscribe to DirecTV... and they're willing to pay MLB to help move you over to their service. What is so hard to figure out about any of this? Sirius used the same logic signing Howard Stern.
:?:

Sure, you can make a bunch of derogatory remarks about Bud Selig's stupidity but if you do please make sure to explain why the NFL is so stupid for years now doing the EXACT SAME THING with their Season Ticket package. Then the rest of us can all laugh together about who is being stupid.

:cool:

lumpyspun
02-03-2007, 03:46 PM
Believe me, MLB is NOT going out of business for doing an Extra Innings deal exclusively with DirecTV.

Only a small fraction of baseball's fans are ever going to sign up for Extra Innings and no amount of "availability" through non-DirecTV providers would ever lift this tiny minority much higher.

Not to sound like a jerk, but I will never be able to see your side in this argument based off that comment and the fact that this does not apply to you b/c you don't live out of the Chicago tv market.

I'm sticking with Lip, Fenway, and John Kerry on this one.

I hope, for your sake, you never have to move.

TheOldRoman
02-03-2007, 04:16 PM
Believe me, MLB is NOT going out of business for doing an Extra Innings deal exclusively with DirecTV.

Only a small fraction of baseball's fans are ever going to sign up for Extra Innings and no amount of "availability" through non-DirecTV providers would ever lift this tiny minority much higher. That's why the exclusive deal makes sense: MLB collects the maximum for the rights and DirecTV can offer MLB the maximum because they're capturing 100 percent of the incremental sales their competition has been locked out of getting.

DirecTV wants you to subscribe to DirecTV... and they're willing to pay MLB to help move you over to their service. What is so hard to figure out about any of this? Sirius used the same logic signing Howard Stern.
:?:

Sure, you can make a bunch of derogatory remarks about Bud Selig's stupidity but if you do please make sure to explain why the NFL is so stupid for years now doing the EXACT SAME THING with their Season Ticket package. Then the rest of us can all laugh together about who is being stupid.

:cool:
That's exactly what I said. Since the huge majority of soda is purchased outside of Walmart, and there are thousands of other places to buy soda, it would hurt Coke to sign an exclusive deal. They would go under, because very few people are so attached to Coke over other brands that they would go out of their way to go to Walmart, and inevitably pay much more for it than for other brands.
Baseball, on the other hand, has inelastic demand. People wont say "I have cable, I can't get extra innings, so I will switch to watching tennis". As for the availabilty making more people get Extra Innings, it absolutely would. Close to 2/3 of Extra Innings suscribers had cable or Dish Network. How many of them will switch? Maybe a couple thousand, so baseball is cutting this particular audience into a third. However, as I said before, it is smart for them from a $$ standpoint because they are getting more from DirecTV to put the game into 300,000 homes than they would to put them into 750,000 with all the providers. I never said I didn't understand the logic, so I don't know where :?: came from.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 04:38 PM
....However, as I said before, it is smart for them from a $$ standpoint because they are getting more from DirecTV to put the game into 300,000 homes than they would to put them into 750,000 with all the providers.

EXACTLY. I would only add that whether 300,000 homes buy Extra Innings or 750,000 buy the package, MLB doesn't care for the same two reasons the NFL doesn't care either:
1.) The number of potential EI subscribers is a drop in the bucket compared to their overall reach of fans the league already has, and

2.) The exclusive provider (for both the NFL and MLB, DirecTV) has already more than made up the difference in lost subscription revenue by paying MLB (and the NFL) a huge bonus for the rights to exclusively offer the packages.
Anyone claiming MLB is making a stupid business decision with this exclusivity deal needs to square their opinion with what the NFL is already doing. That's when we cue up the laugh track.

NDSox12
02-03-2007, 05:04 PM
Anyone claiming MLB is making a stupid business decision with this exclusivity deal needs to square their opinion with what the NFL is already doing. That's when we cue up the laugh track.


I'm not going to argue that this is a stupid business decision for MLB. In dollars and cents, it is perfectly understandable. Its just unfortunate that those hurt by this deal are some of the biggest fans.

Yes, we (I say "we" because DirecTV is also not an option for me) may be a small drop in the bucket compared to the entire sea of baseball fans, but I would argue that MLB Extra Innings subscribers aren't exactly your casual fans. Also, this deal probably won't be enough to sour us away from spending money on the league in other ways. So I agree with you that this is a good business decision, but it really is a raw deal for some of us.

As for the NFL, I'm not nearly as bitter about that because it doesn't personally affect me as much. I don't mind going to the sports bar across the street to watch Bears games on Sundays. Doing that every night for the six months of the baseball season is completely unrealistic though.

ewokpelts
02-03-2007, 05:17 PM
Gee how can I put this politely for you, Fenway?

MOVE.

Or write your congressman so that landlords (and those tree huggers inside City Hall) are required by law to permit tenants (and all taxpaying citizens!) to have satellite access. Your inalienable right to DirecTV has been encroached upon by these sadistic bastards!

Or chop down the freaking tree. (I also recommend planting another one someplace else. Be kind to the Earth.)

:cool:pick a side george...one minute you hate money grubbing owners like loria...now you're on thier side to make a measly extra million a year

SouthSide_HitMen
02-03-2007, 05:30 PM
A point I did not consider initially is the fact that this should increase revenue for the product MLB already owns - Major League Baseball Advanced Media - which sells the MLB.TV package online.

I would say the MLB.com website has been one of if not the biggest success of Bud Selig (worth billions of dollars and is good for the fans). This website is far superior to websites operated by the other professional sports leagues. MLB has the ability to generate far greater revenue with the sales of this service through their own website (and keeping all of the proceeds) vs. having a cable / satellite company provide it and splitting the proceeds with them. If Bud Selig is able to resolve the blackout issue (which apparently he (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-blackouts071106&prov=yhoo&type=lgns) has a problem with), I will most likely be a permanent subscriber to the online version and will be a happy camper.

In the future, all content will most likely be delivered over the internet directly to your TV. I watch a few shows each week and most (My Name is Earl, Charlie Rose & Poker After Dark) already have broadcasts online (The Office has highlights but not full episodes).

I agree with PHG about the fact that if government should be involved in cable / satellite issues at all, it should be related to the fact you are obligated to buy a package of various stations (McCain challenged this but to no avail) instead of having the option to purchase stations ala carte. Coupled with the City of Chicago granting a monopoly to one provider in each area, citizens are left with the fewest options at the highest possible cost. I'll pass on further government involvement.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 05:54 PM
pick a side george...one minute you hate money grubbing owners like loria...now you're on thier side to make a measly extra million a year

Pfft... my position is 100-times more principled than yours. I'm judging individual cases on specific merit. I look at yours and lumpysum's position on the matter and all I see is the human face to what Thomas Jefferson called the tyranny of the majority.

None of us have rights if enough of us simply agree to grab whatever we want.

Daver
02-03-2007, 05:59 PM
pick a side george...one minute you hate money grubbing owners like loria...now you're on thier side to make a measly extra million a year


That is not actually true, revenue from this goes to MLB, and is revenue that is shared 100% between the teams, and is dispersed at the Commisioners sole discretion.

ewokpelts
02-03-2007, 06:30 PM
Pfft... my position is 100-times more principled than yours. I'm judging individual cases on specific merit. I look at yours and lumpysum's position on the matter and all I see is the human face to what Thomas Jefferson called the tyranny of the majority.

None of us have rights if enough of us simply agree to grab whatever we want.loria - rips off fans while pocketing revenue sharing money

extra innings on directv - rips off fans by forcing an already pricey product to an exclusive, which will most likely get even more expensive, just so mlb can pocket 30 million a year more than thet would get from a competitor that hads a larger base of potential customers

ewokpelts
02-03-2007, 06:35 PM
Another Point:
For two weeks, opeing week and the week after the ASG, INDEMAND offers the baseball package FREE to all potential customers. That's 82 million potential impressions PER DAY to a product that, aside from the blackout issue, has been exceptional in adding not only to mlb's coffers, but also to fans of out of market teams.

DirecTv dosent have that reach.

MLB may get more guranteed money per year, but they cant grow thier business as well when you lose 82 million impression per day.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 07:11 PM
Another Point:...
DirecTv dosent have that reach.

You're beating a dead horse (big surprise). Whether MLB (or the NFL) sells packages through an exclusive provider or every provider under the sun, the potential market for selling these packages is a DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared to the universe of fans these leagues already reach.

MLB may get more guranteed money per year, but they cant grow thier business as well when you lose 82 million impression per day.

I trust the NFL and MLB to know how to grow their business 1000-times better than I would trust your ability to do the same.
:cool:

ewokpelts
02-03-2007, 07:16 PM
You're beating a dead horse (big surprise). Whether MLB (or the NFL) sells packages through an exclusive provider or every provider under the sun, the potential market for selling these packages is a DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared to the universe of fans these leagues already reach.



I trust the NFL and MLB to know how to grow their business 1000-times better than I would trust your ability to do the same.
:cool:

ok....just dont go crying how bad loria is to me

PaleHoseGeorge
02-03-2007, 07:55 PM
ok....just dont go crying how bad loria is to me

As usual, clear as mud.

lumpyspun
02-04-2007, 12:12 AM
I'm judging individual cases on specific merit. I look at yours and lumpysum's position on the matter and all I see is the human face to what Thomas Jefferson called the tyranny of the majority.


Jefferson died in 1826.
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" was used not long after his death by philosophers and writers from other European countries when they were describing what they saw as problems with the system that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had set up. One could argue that Jefferson had failed to actually see the "tyranny of the majority." In summary, I'm not sure Jefferson ever said anything about the "tyranny of the majority." (If that is not the case and you can prove me wrong I would actually like to see it, b/c I'm not at all a history major/teacher)

I never once went on any kind of rant or posted anything about how Bud Selig has no right to do this. I never tried quoting the constitution and I never said I was going to try and get a lawyer and sue them b/c it is against the law. I am not a constitutional lawyer or an expert in FCC rules and regulations and I don't try and play one here at WSI.

All I did was write an email (that I posted on here) to MLB and told them that I think they are treating alot of good fans like crap and that I would write my elected officals to see what they could do about it. Which is exactly what an elected official is supposed to do. They are supposed to take the opinions of morons like me (the tyranny of the majority) and weed through them to see which opinions are legitimate and worth taking action on.

ondafarm
02-04-2007, 01:20 AM
Jefferson died in 1826.
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" was used not long after his death by philosophers and writers from other European countries when they were describing what they saw as problems with the system that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had set up. One could argue that Jefferson had failed to actually see the "tyranny of the majority." In summary, I'm not sure Jefferson ever said anything about the "tyranny of the majority." (If that is not the case and you can prove me wrong I would actually like to see it, b/c I'm not at all a history major/teacher)

I never once went on any kind of rant or posted anything about how Bud Selig has no right to do this. I never tried quoting the constitution and I never said I was going to try and get a lawyer and sue them b/c it is against the law. I am not a constitutional lawyer or an expert in FCC rules and regulations and I don't try and play one here at WSI.

All I did was write an email (that I posted on here) to MLB and told them that I think they are treating alot of good fans like crap and that I would write my elected officals to see what they could do about it. Which is exactly what an elected official is supposed to do. They are supposed to take the opinions of morons like me (the tyranny of the majority) and weed through them to see which opinions are legitimate and worth taking action on.

Honestly, I don't think the guys who run MLB really care about the fans much at all. They seem to be penny wise and pound foolish again and again. They seem to be able to get a few dollars more this year from fans by pulling a deal like this. Unfortunately, they never seem to realize what Ted Turner taught with the Braves. Make your team (or league) highly accessible on free (or nearly free) TV and you'll build more and more fans. Sure their approach gets a few more bucks now, but the better approach makes far more money in the long run.

MincHiaPettito
02-04-2007, 02:48 AM
I wonder how good a deal this is for DirecTV. It[\']s pretty much a given they jack up the price, so I think some people won\'t renew. I guess they\'re hoping to steal some Dish Net customers (just think that a lot of cable customers would rather have satellite if they could get it and be guaranteed of a good reception, and if this isn\'t the case, what they\'re staying for is probably more worth it). I think the MLB package is more valuable for me, obviously more games and more frequent, but [esp with the gambling effect] it seems NFL is more popular. Plus the MLBTV alternative that is out there that some have already picked with the option of having Extra Innings

Jurr
02-04-2007, 09:01 AM
I wonder how good a deal this is for DirecTV. It[\']s pretty much a given they jack up the price, so I think some people won\'t renew. I guess they\'re hoping to steal some Dish Net customers (just think that a lot of cable customers would rather have satellite if they could get it and be guaranteed of a good reception, and if this isn\'t the case, what they\'re staying for is probably more worth it). I think the MLB package is more valuable for me, obviously more games and more frequent, but [esp with the gambling effect] it seems NFL is more popular. Plus the MLBTV alternative that is out there that some have already picked with the option of having Extra Innings
Hell, any time a company can establish a monopoly on a service, it becomes a good deal for them.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-04-2007, 09:03 AM
....

All I did was write an email (that I posted on here) to MLB and told them that I think they are treating alot of good fans like crap and that I would write my elected officals to see what they could do about it. Which is exactly what an elected official is supposed to do. They are supposed to take the opinions of morons like me (the tyranny of the majority) and weed through them to see which opinions are legitimate and worth taking action on.

And precisely what was the elected official suppose to do with the letter you sent them complaining about MLB? They are elected by the majority, are they not? Does MLB or DirecTV have any rights in the world you live in?

However I agree elected officials are supposed to weed through such letters and figure out which opinions are legitimate... and I'm guessing any but the biggest panderers would know precisely what to do with yours.

You ARE NOT being denied access to DirecTV programming by either DirecTV or MLB. Either somebody else (your landlord, City Hall) or something else (a tree, or your own obstinance) is causing your problem buying Extra Innings.

lumpyspun
02-07-2007, 09:09 AM
One more guy that "gets" it:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9978978/1

He brings up something else I didn't think of:
Hard-core fans in two of the game's 30 markets, Philadelphia and San Diego, simply are screwed. Because the Phillies' and Padres' television deals are with local cable companies, their home games are not included in the Extra Innings package. So baseball fans in Philadelphia and San Diego face a choice: If they stick with cable so they can get the broadcasts of their local teams, they cannot get the Extra Innings package. If they ditch cable and order DirecTV, they can get the Extra Innings package -- but, without cable, they'll miss most of their home team's games.

He also tackles the whole "the NFL does it" argument. He has a decent point but it surely won't be enough to change MLB's mindframe.
What you'll hear from baseball is that the NFL is doing the same thing, making a premier package of games available on DirecTV. But the difference here is as large as a steroid-addled offensive lineman: Football fans don't have to choose between watching their home team's games and an out-of-town television package, as fans in Philadelphia and San Diego will. And, most of the NFL's biggest games wind up on national television anyway. The baseball schedule is so different that you can't even compare the two. What alternative is there for those across the country who don't want to watch the Yankees-Red Sox for the 140th time on national television? And now that ESPN is no longer televising midweek doubleheaders, teams that play in the west rarely make national television appearances. The only way to see them, for many passionate and/or displaced fans, is by subscribing to Extra Innings.

Basically the guy is a regular Extra Innings subscriber and big baseball fan like the rest of us that are getting screwed by this. I can tell he feels helpless, just like I do. I'm glad he has the ability to at least reach out to people.

CLR01
02-07-2007, 10:11 AM
One more guy that "gets" it:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9978978/1

He brings up something else I didn't think of:




Where was the outrage and letter writing when the Padres and Phillies signed exclusive contracts to have their games broadcast on cable only?

downstairs
02-07-2007, 10:16 AM
One more guy that "gets" it:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9978978/1


I thought the whole thing was stupid too, until I really started thinking about it. Its an interesting debate, and this thread has gotten a bit immature. In reality both sides do have valid points. (And, please, leave the government out of this.)

In the end, if I were MLB... here's what I'm weighing:

Who is the audience for MLB Extra Innings?

1. People who live way out of the market for their favorite team. Ok, these people are very rare. (I'm saying this being one of these people, too!) From a business perspective, you can't coddle every single type of user and their special needs.

2. The hard-core fan that *needs* to see every game. Bingo! This is the only reason this service really exists. I'd bet 90% of the people that buy this thing fall into this category. Guess what, most (not all) of these people WILL absolutely switch their provider from Dish to DirecTV to keep the service. (Oh, and by the way, only 1/2 of them are subject to this pain anyway because 1/2 of them will already be on DirecTV).

End result is maybe what... 10% of the Extra Innings subscribers are actually going to be mad at this? Oh, they'll be LOUD about it... but lets face it... in reality its going to be minority.

So MLB just needs to make sure the money they make from the deal exceeds the lost revenue of that 10%. Oh, and, with that extra money some of it goes back into advertising to make up a new 10%, etc. etc.

Look, it is a business. Exclusive deals just make sense *in this arena*. I've bolded that because no one has tried to force paid exclusivity on home-market games like the White Sox owners did in the 80's. Now THAT was a failed, crazy, and probably wildly unfair idea.

What we're talking about here is a service targeted at mostly hard-core baseball viewers who need to see out-of-market games beyond the 162 they already get!

ewokpelts
02-07-2007, 10:27 AM
Where was the outrage and letter writing when the Padres and Phillies signed exclusive contracts to have their games broadcast on cable only?i'm sure the phillies, who's cable partner is COMCAST, did the same thing when the sox and cubs joine dup with comcast, make sure they were available on almost every tv set

Fenway
02-07-2007, 10:39 AM
Where was the outrage and letter writing when the Padres and Phillies signed exclusive contracts to have their games broadcast on cable only?

add the Red Sox to that list only the FOX games are on "free tv"

CLR01
02-07-2007, 11:07 AM
i'm sure the phillies, who's cable partner is COMCAST, did the same thing when the sox and cubs joine dup with comcast, make sure they were available on almost every tv set


Satellite customers do not have access to CSN Philadelphia. Availability falls well short of "almost every tv set".

Chicken Dinner
02-07-2007, 11:21 AM
I guess the real question is "what's next"? Is MLB going to have exclusive rights that the only T-shirts that you can buy are "fruit of the loom" because they paid for it. Are the only hot dogs at every park going to be "bar s" because they paid for the rights? The anti trust exemption that baseball has needs to be addressed. What's next, pay toilets?

lumpyspun
02-07-2007, 11:30 AM
Satellite customers do not have access to CSN Philadelphia. Availability falls well short of "almost every tv set".

How come CSN-chicago is on satellite but other regions like CSN-philly aren't?

itsnotrequired
02-07-2007, 11:34 AM
How come CSN-chicago is on satellite but other regions like CSN-philly aren't?

They deliver by land line only. As such, they are not required to offer satellite signals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet#CSN_Philadelphia

Fenway
02-07-2007, 11:36 AM
How come CSN-chicago is on satellite but other regions like CSN-philly aren't?

Since Philly is something like 98% Comcast they elected never to offer it to a dish

In Chicago their market share is not as high and they promised the teams their coverage would be the same as the former Fox Sports Chicago

lumpyspun
02-07-2007, 11:49 AM
In anticipation of this deal going down I have been looking into possibly getting DirecTV (although I might not be able to look myself in the mirror).

As an out of towner, not only do I have to switch to DirectTV, but I also have to order the Extra Innings package, eventhough DirecTV offers CSN-chicago on their premier package. However, they black out Sox games for people outside the local market. So, I can watch Dan Jiggets all I want if I order that package but just can't watch the games unless I order EI.

On the positive side, I would get all the WGN games, and they are not blacked out? Am I following this correctly?

CLR01
02-07-2007, 12:01 PM
In anticipation of this deal going down I have been looking into possibly getting DirecTV (although I might not be able to look myself in the mirror).

As an out of towner, not only do I have to switch to DirectTV, but I also have to order the Extra Innings package, eventhough DirecTV offers CSN-chicago on their premier package. However, they black out Sox games for people outside the local market. So, I can watch Dan Jiggets all I want if I order that package but just can't watch the games unless I order EI.

On the positive side, I would get all the WGN games, and they are not blacked out? Am I following this correctly?

Correct. WGN games are not blacked out. Just like TBS Braves games air all over the country.

Also, I believe, if you get CSN Chicago on the premier package and order EI you should be able to watch all of the Sox games on CSN and get Hawk and DJ every night as opposed to the rotating announcers on EI.

lumpyspun
02-07-2007, 12:10 PM
Correct. WGN games are not blacked out. Just like TBS Braves games air all over the country.

Also, I believe, if you get CSN Chicago on the premier package and order EI you should be able to watch all of the Sox games on CSN and get Hawk and DJ every night as opposed to the rotating announcers on EI.

Thanks for the help! Things like this make WSI the best b/c I know if I called some customer service rep at DirecTV asking these questions they would think I was speaking aramaic.

downstairs
02-07-2007, 03:33 PM
Correct. WGN games are not blacked out. Just like TBS Braves games air all over the country.

Can someone explain how WGN gets away with this and CSN cannot?

Wouldn't this be a Goldmine for CSN *and* the White Sox (and Cubs)?

SouthSide_HitMen
02-07-2007, 04:03 PM
Can someone explain how WGN gets away with this and CSN cannot?

Wouldn't this be a Goldmine for CSN *and* the White Sox (and Cubs)?

CSN has several seperate stations throughout the nation (same as FSN) and they own the rights to the individual team / teams in each market.

IIRC, WGN and TBS will not be able to broadcast their games nationwide (or will have to cut back their national broadcast schedule) within the next few years (Fenway posted this earlier).

Lip Man 1
02-07-2007, 05:18 PM
Southside:

I believe that his statements were never confirmed. At the point of discussion it was speculation. MLB has been trying to get rid of 'superstations' since the 1980's and as documented in the book The Lords Of The Realm, congress didn't look favorably upon that idea in the past and it won't in the future.

Can it happen? sure...is it likely that Tribune Company will voluntarily give up their baseball gold mine in terms of national advertising revenue? I don't think so. To say nothing of their lobbiest working congress.



Lip

SouthSide_HitMen
02-07-2007, 08:21 PM
Southside:

I believe that his statements were never confirmed. At the point of discussion it was speculation. MLB has been trying to get rid of 'superstations' since the 1980's and as documented in the book The Lords Of The Realm, congress didn't look favorably upon that idea in the past and it won't in the future.

Can it happen? sure...is it likely that Tribune Company will voluntarily give up their baseball gold mine in terms of national advertising revenue? I don't think so. To say nothing of their lobbiest working congress.

Lip

WTBS (http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060711&content_id=1552889&vkey=news_atl&fext=.jsp&c_id=atl) is voluntarily moving their Atlanta Braves broadcasts to a local station beginning in 2008.

Cubs and White Sox broadcasts on the WGN Superstation have remained stable since 2000. The Cubs will broadcast about 70 games over the Superstation and the White Sox will have 25 - 30 games on the Superstation. An additional 25 - 30 White Sox games and 7 Cubs games will air on WCIU (which guarantees 25 - 30 threads bashing WCIU this season)

MLB wants every team to create and own a regional sports network, which allows them to keep as much TV revenue off the books as possible. Twelve teams already own their RSNs: Toronto, NY Mets, NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Atlanta, Philadelphia, White Sox, Cubs, Cleveland and last but not least Kansas City. Most of the remaining teams already broadcast over a RSN though they do not own a portion of the station.

The courts have ruled the NBA can limit superstation broadcasts. I don't know how MLB's antitrust exemption would weigh in a similar case involving baseball. I would think MLB (Selig and the 29 other owners) would be able to limit WGN broadcasts to the Cubs / White Sox territorial television rights (Illinois, Iowa, a portion of SE Wisconsin and most of Indiana).

ewokpelts
02-08-2007, 06:52 AM
WTBS (http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060711&content_id=1552889&vkey=news_atl&fext=.jsp&c_id=atl) is voluntarily moving their Atlanta Braves broadcasts to a local station beginning in 2008.

Cubs and White Sox broadcasts on the WGN Superstation have remained stable since 2000. The Cubs will broadcast about 70 games over the Superstation and the White Sox will have 25 - 30 games on the Superstation. An additional 25 - 30 White Sox games and 7 Cubs games will air on WCIU (which guarantees 25 - 30 threads bashing WCIU this season)

MLB wants every team to create and own a regional sports network, which allows them to keep as much TV revenue off the books as possible. Twelve teams already own their RSNs: Toronto, NY Mets, NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Atlanta, Philadelphia, White Sox, Cubs, Cleveland and last but not least Kansas City. Most of the remaining teams already broadcast over a RSN though they do not own a portion of the station.

The courts have ruled the NBA can limit superstation broadcasts. I don't know how MLB's antitrust exemption would weigh in a similar case involving baseball. I would think MLB (Selig and the 29 other owners) would be able to limit WGN broadcasts to the Cubs / White Sox territorial television rights (Illinois, Iowa, a portion of SE Wisconsin and most of Indiana).but tbs is getting a national baseball package that includes playoff games

Lip Man 1
02-08-2007, 12:25 PM
I think it naive that some folks think the Tribune Company is going to VOLUNTARILY give up millions and millions of national ad revenue dollars to make Bud Selig happy.

:smile:

This is the same company remember that torpedoed MLB's plan to realign the divisions back in 1991 because of what more games from the West Coast would do to their ratings (and thus ability to charge higher advertising rates.)

Plus you have the 'small' notion of a pissed off Congress at MLB... this is the same Congress that brought up the steroid hearings and that now finds two of their members, Specter and Kerry, about to potentially launch investigations over MLB and the Extra Innings / DictecTV connection.

Does anyone honestly think MLB wants to get hauled before them AGAIN? Can they be that dumb?? (hmmmmm.....)

From "The Lords Of The Realm", page 522-523:

"In Washington (Fay) Vincent was trying to get Congress to repeal something called the compulsory license, a federal regulation allowing TV stations to take their signal nationwide without permission or appropriate payment from the holders of their programs copyrights. (Superstations) He also had a back up position. Baseball would seek to require that cable systems 'black-out' superstation games when there was simultaneous TV coverage of a local game."

"It all came to a head in a cable regulation bill, to be voted on in the summer of 1992. Tribune Company lobbyists worked Capitol Hill..."

"The Tribune Company also reminded certain parties of their constituent's rooting interest. "You know", the company's lead lobbyist Shaun Sheehan, told Arizona senator Dennis DeConcini, "if Vincent gets his way Cub games could no longer be brought into Arizona."

The senator looked at his aides: "Is this true?"

It was. Sort of. Arizona was shared TV territory among the (at that time) Dodgers, Giants and Padres. Among the three there would almost always be a televised game triggering the WGN blackout. Arizona was the home to many Chicago expatriates who retired there. DeConcini, a key member of the Senate subcommittee reviewing the license matter, suddenly knew where he stood on the issue."

The book then goes on to talk about how WTBS had announcer Skip Caray talk about this during a Braves games and give a toll free number fans could call letting Congress know what they think. The first time he did this 6,000 calls triggered an automatic telegram to a congressman.

The names may have changed but the results will be the same in my opinion.

Tribune Company and the 'superstations' like WGN, WPIX, WWOR, WSBK, KWGN and KTLA are not automatically going to give up their right to show MLB games and the resulting advertising money without something major back in return. At this point in time I don't see what MLB could offer to compensate.

Lip

jdm2662
02-08-2007, 12:35 PM
Let's not forget David Stern tried to eliminate WGN Superstation games during the second Bulls run. Of course, I was in Central IL at times and had to deal with the games not being on TV. In the end, the TribCo and the NBA settled to have 15 games on the Superstation a year. If the TribCo can beat David Stern in court, they sure as hell will beat Bud.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2007, 01:36 PM
Let's not forget David Stern tried to eliminate WGN Superstation games during the second Bulls run. Of course, I was in Central IL at times and had to deal with the games not being on TV. In the end, the TribCo and the NBA settled to have 15 games on the Superstation a year. If the TribCo can beat David Stern in court, they sure as hell will beat Bud.

A couple points:

1. The case (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDD143FF935A25757C0A9649582 60) actually took place at the start of the Bulls run (1991-92).
2. The ruling in favor of WGN was based on the Sherman Anti Trust Act. I don't think MLB would be held to that ruling based on their exemption.
3. The lawyer that lost the case for the NBA - none other than Gary Bettman in one of his last tasks in the NBA before being recommended by Reinsdorf and Wirtz to destroy the NHL.

Lip, nobody is being naive here or suggesting the Tribune will cease broadcasting games across the nation without a fight or compensation. With Andy MacPhail likely to take over in a few years (MLB has been grooming him for several years now), as long as the Cubs are owned by the Tribune Co., this will not be an easy process.

Several scenarios may bring about a change to WGN's broadcasts of out of town games. A few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. As MLB teams create more RSNs, they may get enough owners to vote to limit their "competition". Also, MLB may turn to more national contracts which would block additional days of the week WGN can broadcast nationwide.

2. Perhaps baseball owners will want the same deal they had with TBS - a national contract (which all 30 teams split) for the "CW" (the Tribune owns a portion) or WGN.

3. Bud Selig said he wanted to address the TV territorial rules and eliminating WGN's exemption (an exemption the Yankees, Red Sox or other teams with their own networks and larger national fan bases are not allowed to exploit) may be a part of the solution.

4. The Tribune (or the entity / person which purchases the company) may sell WGN or the Cubs, which would limit their say and influence on what MLB allows them to broadcast.

Peter Angelos received compensation after the Washington Nationals invaded "his territory". Everything is negotiable.

Ewok, I should have been more clear with my post. Perhaps the CW will one day have a national baseball contract as well. Get ready, cause here I come.

ewokpelts
02-08-2007, 02:31 PM
Ewok, I should have been more clear with my post. Perhaps the CW will one day have a national baseball contract as well. Get ready, cause here I come.

CW is owned by CBS/WB...tribune broadcasting merely has a broadcast contract. Tribune sold thier stake in the wb last year.

caulfield12
02-09-2007, 07:43 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070208sherman,1,5117825.column?coll=cs-home-utility

If they force everyone to DirecTV, Bud Selig deserves to be fired on the spot. This is what's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. No wonder the NFL is more popular than MLB.

itsnotrequired
02-09-2007, 07:47 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070208sherman,1,5117825.column?coll=cs-home-utility

In 2009 MLB plans to launch the Baseball Network. According to sources, as part of the Extra Innings negotiations, MLB had hoped to leverage its new channel onto the basic-cable tier. The cable operators wanted it on the sports tier, where they placed the NFL Network.

DirecTV reportedly will put the Baseball Network on its basic service, and that apparently sealed the deal.


Interesting...

lumpyspun
02-09-2007, 10:25 AM
For those of you that are upset about this, there is an online petition to sign:

http://www.petitiononline.com/MLBCABLE/petition.html

It has 1,300 signatures right now and growing since it got published in the New York Times today.

Cuck_The_Fubs
02-09-2007, 10:29 AM
Woh much is Mlb. tv cost per month? is it like $14.99?

Fenway
02-09-2007, 11:21 AM
I think the fact that NOTHING has been announced since the NY Times leaked the story indicates this DirecTV deal may not happen.

Boston Globe did another story today

SPORTS MEDIA: DirecTV hit is out of some parks (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/02/09/directv_hit_is_out_of_some_parks)
(By Susan Bickelhaupt, Globe Staff)
Blogs are popping up all over, and e-mails are being written fast, furiously, and passionately.


Maybe Selig told me the truth when I talked to him, he was not happy to hear the story about my friend Irving.

Over By There
02-09-2007, 11:27 AM
I think the fact that NOTHING has been announced since the NY Times leaked the story indicates this DirecTV deal may not happen.

Man, I hope so. This will be my first season out of market, and I can't get my credit card out fast enough to sign up for Extra Innings... on cable, though.

caulfield12
02-09-2007, 11:30 AM
I wonder if Bud or any of his cronies have ever been subjugated to watching a game on MLB.com with dial-up or DSL, let alone Road Runner?

And, as the article pointed out, most "working people" (meaning "real" fans) tend to want to do everything possible to escape from a computer, not watch a game on it with poor acoustics and inconsistent images. It's just not the same...and it never will be as watching on a tv or big screen.

Can you imagine NFL fans trying to watch games in this fashion? I can't.

Hitmen77
02-09-2007, 04:19 PM
Woh much is Mlb. tv cost per month? is it like $14.99?

I believe it's $79.99.

$14.99 might be for MLB audio (radio broadcasts) only.

downstairs
02-09-2007, 04:26 PM
I wonder if Bud or any of his cronies have ever been subjugated to watching a game on MLB.com with dial-up or DSL, let alone Road Runner?

And, as the article pointed out, most "working people" (meaning "real" fans) tend to want to do everything possible to escape from a computer, not watch a game on it with poor acoustics and inconsistent images. It's just not the same...and it never will be as watching on a tv or big screen.

Can you imagine NFL fans trying to watch games in this fashion? I can't.


subjugated?!?

How many "real fans" don't have access to a local television station carrying their teams games? one percent? one-half of one-half of one percent?

Really, now. This argument only holds weight for people who live out of market. (People like me, but come on- we're a complete minority, and I don't expect a billion dollar business to make decisions based on our needs).

caulfield12
02-09-2007, 05:19 PM
Okay, I live in Kansas City. I get half of the 19 White Sox games (they're wiped out when they play at home, but I go to most of those at the K) through RoyalsSportsTelevisionNetwork, WGN, and an occasional ESPN/2 game. At best, that's 40-45 games per season. Not enough.

Believe me, there are huge numbers of Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, Cubs, White Sox, etc., fans who don't happen to live in those markets.

If you don't believe it, just start reading through that petition.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-09-2007, 05:35 PM
subjugated?!?

How many "real fans" don't have access to a local television station carrying their teams games? one percent? one-half of one-half of one percent?

Really, now. This argument only holds weight for people who live out of market. (People like me, but come on- we're a complete minority, and I don't expect a billion dollar business to make decisions based on our needs).

The percentage of local market customers without cable or satelite service is about 12% nationally. I don't subscribe to either service. I am happy with the 60 + games offered on over the air broadcasts in Chicago.

As far as the total number of 2006 subscribers to the MLB Extra Innings TV package, 500,000 signed up last season of which 270,000 did so via Direct TV. 230,000 customers (about 0.08 % of America) will need to switch over to Direct TV, subscribe via the Internet or pass on the package in 2007.

Domeshot17
02-09-2007, 06:11 PM
Here is a question I had. Can you get the games through E.I. In HD?

caulfield12
02-09-2007, 06:29 PM
The percentage of local market customers without cable or satelite service is about 12% nationally. I don't subscribe to either service. I am happy with the 60 + games offered on over the air broadcasts in Chicago.

As far as the total number of 2006 subscribers to the MLB Extra Innings TV package, 500,000 signed up last season of which 270,000 did so via Direct TV. 230,000 customers (about 0.08 % of America) will need to switch over to Direct TV, subscribe via the Internet or pass on the package in 2007.


How many Americans have/wach cable tv daily? 168 million

How many Americans subscribe to DirecTV? 16 million

Who owns DirecTV? Hmmmmm....Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corp.

2.24 is the average number of tv's per houseshold in the US, multiplied by 2.24, is about 376 million television sets that could be advertising/marketing baseball.

Versus about 35 million sets that receive DirecTV. Great job, Bud. Way to enrich a fellow multi-billionaire at the average baseball fans' expense.

caulfield12
02-09-2007, 06:33 PM
How many American households have/watch cable tv daily? 168 million

How many Americans subscribe to DirecTV? 16 million

Who owns DirecTV? Hmmmmm....Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corp.

2.24 is the average number of tv's per houseshold in the US, multiplied by 2.24, is about 376 million television sets that could be advertising/marketing baseball.

Versus about 35 million sets that receive DirecTV. Great job, Bud. Way to enrich a fellow multi-billionaire at the average baseball fans' expense. Wasn't it bad enough watching 'ol Rupert mess up a proud Dodgers' franchise, now you have to go adding insult to injury?

HotelWhiteSox
02-09-2007, 06:46 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070208sherman,1,5117825.column?coll=cs-home-utility

If they force everyone to DirecTV, Bud Selig deserves to be fired on the spot. This is what's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. No wonder the NFL is more popular than MLB.

The NFL is doing the same thing? :dunno:

Woh much is Mlb. tv cost per month? is it like $14.99?

I think it's like $80 total, so if you spread out throughout the entire year about $7. I don't know how they let you do that to pay though. About $11 if you want to look at it spread out over the baseball season

caulfield12
02-09-2007, 07:32 PM
But the NFL Network was what, about 4 games this season total?

MLB Extra Innings is literally hundreds of games.

HotelWhiteSox
02-09-2007, 07:48 PM
But the NFL Network was what, about 4 games this season total?

MLB Extra Innings is literally hundreds of games.

No I mean in having the entire package (NFL Sunday Ticket) exclusively. Not saying Bud is right or wrong here, but don't think the NFL shows any better.

CLR01
02-09-2007, 09:44 PM
Here is a question I had. Can you get the games through E.I. In HD?


I did not order EI last year so I am going solely off the free previews they had on DirectTV last year but unless they have changed things they only show a few games a week in HD on a seperate channel.

Fenway
02-09-2007, 09:51 PM
For whatever this is worth inDemand still has Extra Innings listed as a package.....

In Demand is a very interesting partnership of the major cable companies and one Donald King who took his old boxing pay per view network and morphed it into inDemand

http://www.indemand.com/sports/index.jsp

ewokpelts
02-10-2007, 12:40 AM
No I mean in having the entire package (NFL Sunday Ticket) exclusively. Not saying Bud is right or wrong here, but don't think the NFL shows any better.
but, as many writers have pointed out, is that sunday ticket has NEVER been offered to cable. infact, it was bars only at first(and the bars that carry it today pay MUCH MORE than the average joe at home)

extra innings has been offered TO ALL PROVIDERS since 2002.
Genen

p.s. on a side not, indemand offers thier sports ticket option now in hotels...i had the choice of the nhl or nba package while at soxfest(for a fee, of course)

WhiteSoxFan84
02-10-2007, 06:26 AM
I have DishNetwork, I love it (their service sucks a bit but the channels, reception, and DVR are sick!), and don't plan on switching to DirecTv. I also get Comcast Sports Net on DishNetwork.

My question is, will Comcast Sports Net even air Sox games in HD? I have the HD box, so that's not the problem. The problem is, CSN doesn't have Bulls games in HD (although tomorrow's game @ Phoenix will be in HD somehow), so how am I to even assume they'll have Sox games in HD? I'm pretty positive almost every WGN game will be in HD. And I'm pretty sure every WCIU game will not be in HD. Anyone know about CSN?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2007, 08:50 AM
This is about more than money. In 2009 MLB plans to launch the Baseball Network. According to sources, as part of the Extra Innings negotiations, MLB had hoped to leverage its new channel onto the basic-cable tier. The cable operators wanted it on the sports tier, where they placed the NFL Network.

DirecTV reportedly will put the Baseball Network on its basic service, and that apparently sealed the deal.

So there you go, all you self-described "Baseball fans". DirecTV is to become the one-stop shop for virtually all the extended baseball coverage your wallet can afford.

You have exactly two choices. You can either drag your feet, write letters to your congressman, and miss all the coverage you claim to love so much; or you can switch to DirecTV's for EXCLUSIVE regular service of The Baseball Network and/or sign up for DirecTV's EXCLUSIVE Extra Innings service, too. Not even the NFL gives you that...

Why am I guessing several of you would rather just keep bitching?

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 09:44 AM
Yeah, just like those who were bitching about Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape?

Because it's a monopoly when they only give you one choice. What competition exists if there are no other options? How is this better for the average American baseball fan? Explain that to me.

Besides bringing in a little more profit in the short-term, what is the long-term cost to the game in lost fans?

Do you ever complain about cell phone charges? At least you have options there, ones that are realistic. You sound like you own stock in DirecTV or News Corp. Is there anything that people should ever feel justified in bitching about?

Ticket prices? Parking? TicketMaster? Those who abuse the wristband system at SoxFest? People who cut in front of you at construction zones? People answering cell phones in churches or at funerals? You agree with your tax rates? You've never bitched about anything before?

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 09:47 AM
So there you go, all you self-described "Baseball fans". DirecTV is to become the one-stop shop for virtually all the extended baseball coverage your wallet can afford.

You have exactly two choices. You can either drag your feet, write letters to your congressman, and miss all the coverage you claim to love so much; or you can switch to DirecTV's for EXCLUSIVE regular service of The Baseball Network and/or sign up for DirecTV's EXCLUSIVE Extra Innings service, too. Not even the NFL gives you that...

Why am I guessing several of you would rather just keep bitching?

This is ALL about money, and how much cable companies will pay MLB and how much they will charge for the additional service, and whether its part of basic cable or premium. The only way to get it onto cable is to make the cable companies feel they will lose money if they don't carry it. That's the bottom line. The same arguments flew back and forth about ESPNU and the different ESPN offerings in that family of channels.

SoxFan78
02-10-2007, 10:10 AM
My question is, will Comcast Sports Net even air Sox games in HD? I have the HD box, so that's not the problem. The problem is, CSN doesn't have Bulls games in HD (although tomorrow's game @ Phoenix will be in HD somehow), so how am I to even assume they'll have Sox games in HD? I'm pretty positive almost every WGN game will be in HD. And I'm pretty sure every WCIU game will not be in HD. Anyone know about CSN?

Last year all Sox home games were in HD on Comcast Sports Net. I wish they would also do away games in HD, but the only team that does that right now are the Red Sox.

Also, all home games on WGN and WCIU are in HD. However, if you want to watch the games in HD on WCIU, you have to have a HD antenna to get it.

Fenway
02-10-2007, 10:10 AM
Sean McAdam of the Providence Journal just said on WEEI that Larry Lucchino told him there are enough teams against it to block it. The Yankees and Red Sox are demanding Selig take it to a vote.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2007, 10:32 AM
Yeah, just like those who were bitching about Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape?

Because it's a monopoly when they only give you one choice. What competition exists if there are no other options? How is this better for the average American baseball fan? Explain that to me.

Besides bringing in a little more profit in the short-term, what is the long-term cost to the game in lost fans?

Do you ever complain about cell phone charges? At least you have options there, ones that are realistic. You sound like you own stock in DirecTV or News Corp. Is there anything that people should ever feel justified in bitching about?

Ticket prices? Parking? TicketMaster? Those who abuse the wristband system at SoxFest? People who cut in front of you at construction zones? People answering cell phones in churches or at funerals? You agree with your tax rates? You've never bitched about anything before?

Yep, I knew it. Some would rather just bitch. I can't imagine where I got that idea...

Your attempts to drag ANYTHING else into this discussion are truly pathetic, Caulfield. You can't defend your position on its own merits, so instead you start bitching about Microsoft and parking fees?
:roflmao:

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 11:00 AM
Yep, I knew it. Some would rather just bitch. I can't imagine where I got that idea...

Your attempts to drag ANYTHING else into this discussion are truly pathetic, Caulfield. You can't defend your position on its own merits, so instead you start bitching about Microsoft and parking fees?
:roflmao:


Just name one thing its worthwhile to "bitch" about. I bet you can think of one or two. Can you think of something? You just blindly accept everything that happens to you?

How can it make more sense to baseball to have it available to only 16 million subscribers (5.5% of the country) versus 56% of the country, those who are currently subscribing to cable tv? Please explain to me how that's good for baseball and not just good for Rupert Murdoch? Obviously, that's not a credible argument to you...that everyone should just surrender to whatever Bud Selig wants them to do.

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 11:02 AM
Yep, I knew it. Some would rather just bitch. I can't imagine where I got that idea...

Your attempts to drag ANYTHING else into this discussion are truly pathetic, Caulfield. You can't defend your position on its own merits, so instead you start bitching about Microsoft and parking fees?
:roflmao:


And your position is WHAT exactly?

That's just the way it is, the NFL does it, MLB is going to do it, so get over it and fall in line like a good trooper?

That's some position. I'm sure you spent a lot of time reflecting on that one.

ewokpelts
02-10-2007, 12:08 PM
So there you go, all you self-described "Baseball fans". DirecTV is to become the one-stop shop for virtually all the extended baseball coverage your wallet can afford.

You have exactly two choices. You can either drag your feet, write letters to your congressman, and miss all the coverage you claim to love so much; or you can switch to DirecTV's for EXCLUSIVE regular service of The Baseball Network and/or sign up for DirecTV's EXCLUSIVE Extra Innings service, too. Not even the NFL gives you that...

Why am I guessing several of you would rather just keep bitching?the nfl did that with nfl network.....two years and zero profit later, they were hitting cable HARD.

lumpyspun
02-10-2007, 12:47 PM
You have exactly two choices. You can either drag your feet, write letters to your congressman, and miss all the coverage you claim to love so much; or you can switch to DirecTV's for EXCLUSIVE regular service of The Baseball Network and/or sign up for DirecTV's EXCLUSIVE Extra Innings service, too. Not even the NFL gives you that...


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

I'm not giving up on this fight just yet.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2007, 01:21 PM
And your position is WHAT exactly?

That's just the way it is, the NFL does it, MLB is going to do it, so get over it and fall in line like a good trooper?

That's some position. I'm sure you spent a lot of time reflecting on that one.

Here's my position. Those complaining about MLB's decision are acting out of selfish obstinance. They're too embarrassed to admit they can get MLB's extended package if only they weren't so selfish and obstinate and they're willing to say and do ANYTHING (including write their congressman) to avoid the truth about what selfish and obstinate people they truly are.

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 01:57 PM
So you've never had a problem with any decision that MLB has ever made?

Lots of people with Time Warner have Digital Cable, RoadRunner and Digital phone as part of a package deal. In your opinion, we should all dump our cable companies, pay to get DirecTV and pay $35 more per month for telephone and internet access.

Yeah, I guess I love giving my money away to monopolies, especially ones run by Rupert Murdoch.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2007, 02:14 PM
So you've never had a problem with any decision that MLB has ever made?

Lots of people with Time Warner have Digital Cable, RoadRunner and Digital phone as part of a package deal. In your opinion, we should all dump our cable companies, pay to get DirecTV and pay $35 more per month for telephone and internet access.

Yeah, I guess I love giving my money away to monopolies, especially ones run by Rupert Murdoch.

I think absolutely NONE OF THIS has one damned thing to do with MLB reaching a deal with DirecTV, unless we're talking about selfish and obstinate behavior of people just like yourself.

YOU signed up for these packaged deals. NOBODY held a gun to your head. Now you're living with the consequences. Excuse me, MLB, DirecTV, and any and all non-pandering politicians for not giving a ****.

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 02:38 PM
So, essentially you're saying 56% of the country should change to conform to what only 5.3% of the country is doing?

That makes a whole lot of sense.

If they just started charging SUV drivers an extra dollar per gallon for gasoline, I'm sure you would probably think that was fine too. After all, lots of people bought an SUV, knowing that it didn't get good gas mileage in the first place.

You're forgetting that most of the country (especially fans in their 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's) are not comfortable with satellite television. They think of satellite tv as "something for rich people."

You still haven't answered the question of why you would want to cut access down to 35 million tv's from the 158 million with cable tv that own 2.24 tv's?

Answer that question, please. Second, how, exactly, does it benefit baseball in the long-term?

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 02:41 PM
"and all non-pandering politicians for not giving a ****."

Why would ANY politician think this was better for his/her constituents, let alone "pandering/non-pandering" politicians?

HotelWhiteSox
02-10-2007, 02:44 PM
My question is, will Comcast Sports Net even air Sox games in HD? I have the HD box, so that's not the problem. The problem is, CSN doesn't have Bulls games in HD (although tomorrow's game @ Phoenix will be in HD somehow), so how am I to even assume they'll have Sox games in HD? I'm pretty positive almost every WGN game will be in HD. And I'm pretty sure every WCIU game will not be in HD. Anyone know about CSN?

According to Comcast's website, it's up to Dish Network to show the games, they haven't wanted to, and it says to contact them to let them know. WGN and WCIU home games were both in HD last year, I don't know if Dish Network gets them both though, maybe if you have a separate antenna

champagne030
02-10-2007, 02:49 PM
I think absolutely NONE OF THIS has one damned thing to do with MLB reaching a deal with DirecTV, unless we're talking about selfish and obstinate behavior of people just like yourself.

YOU signed up for these packaged deals. NOBODY held a gun to your head. Now you're living with the consequences. Excuse me, MLB, DirecTV, and any and all non-pandering politicians for not giving a ****.

Except, you're forgetting one thing.....MLB, is sticking their head in the sand thinking that they'll get any growth with new subcribers. Yes, cash in hand this year or next (small is retrospect) , but when subscription drops then, viewers.....ooops. Bud will be gone and it's the next guy's problem. Gain revenue, but be damned what funds that revenue....sound like the Telecom market of a few years ago. The very, very, hardcore viewer will follow MLB to Direct TV, the rest will be pissed off and stay with their current carrier.

http://www.witchsbrew.co.uk/head_in_sand2.JPG

Fenway
02-10-2007, 02:55 PM
I think it is important to remember when NFL Sunday Ticket first started cable TV in most cities didn't have the capacity to handle it. Digital cable was still some 5 years away and most analog systems just didn't have the channel space.

I don't think baseball will pull the trigger on this deal now as Selig is not that stupid. Very seldom is there an issue that gets 100% negative press.

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 03:02 PM
I also go back to the point...where you make a lot of people mad when you make something available and then capriciously take it away or make it a pain in the a-- to change.

lumpyspun
02-10-2007, 03:22 PM
Today I emailed about 5 congressmen over this.
If you haven't emailed your respective congressman/woman...don't worry b/c I probably have.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2007, 05:03 PM
I'm simply amazed how many of you Titans of the Business World believe you know how to negotiate a deal for Major League Baseball better than MLB... you just can't figure out a way to articulate your point without making yourselves sound like whiny children being denied their candy. You'll even write your congressman about it... which is exactly what a 4 year-old would do if they could afford the postage stamps.

Eureka! The NFL has done the same thing for years with their Season Ticket package, but they were smart enough to never tempt the spoiled brats into thinking they were entitled to it!
:wink:

You ARE NOT being denied access to Extra Innings except to the extent you obstinately refuse to buy it through DirecTV. Neither MLB or DirecTV have ANY responsibility for spoon-feeding children who won't help themselves.

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 05:37 PM
I'm simply amazed how many of you Titans of the Business World believe you know how to negotiate a deal for Major League Baseball better than MLB... you just can't figure out a way to articulate your point without making yourselves sound like whiny children being denied their candy. You'll even write your congressman about it... which is exactly what a 4 year-old would do if they could afford the postage stamps.

Eureka! The NFL has done the same thing for years with their Season Ticket package, but they were smart enough to never tempt the spoiled brats into thinking they were entitled to it!
:wink:

You ARE NOT being denied access to Extra Innings except to the extent you obstinately refuse to buy it through DirecTV. Neither MLB or DirecTV have ANY responsibility for spoon-feeding children who won't help themselves.

Obviously you have no idea what it's like to live outside of the Chicago area and try to follow the White Sox, do you? And you sound like some sort of cross between Potter from It's a Wonderful Life or Cruella de Ville from 101 Dalmations. However, luckily enough for you, it's not 1789. Maybe Rupert Murdoch himself (Bud's buddy, of course) will come here and post to your defense because we've yet to see a well-delineated or articulated argument. Apparently if Warren Buffett and Ted Turner posted, they would also agree with you. Because the only thing that matters is profitability...the bottom line...nothing else (could or) should be factored into the equation. Which is why baseball is losing its claim as the national pastime, unfortunately, little series of "cuts" that leave the arm bleeding until one day the game is on life support.

delben91
02-10-2007, 06:45 PM
You ARE NOT being denied access to Extra Innings except to the extent you obstinately refuse to buy it through DirecTV.

Some of us are being denied because we live in apartment complexes that don't allow the installation of satellite dishes. Not through refusing to purchase DirecTV. I guess I should just move though, instead of bitching about it.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2007, 07:08 PM
Some of us are being denied because we live in apartment complexes that don't allow the installation of satellite dishes. Not through refusing to purchase DirecTV. I guess I should just move though, instead of bitching about it.

Don't be silly, Del. What you ought to do is write your congressman and tell them how your constitutional right to DirecTV has been trampled upon by the neo-fascist who collects the rent in the apartment complex you signed a lease with.

:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2007, 07:09 PM
Obviously you have no idea what it's like to live outside of the Chicago area and try to follow the White Sox, do you? And you sound like some sort of cross between Potter from It's a Wonderful Life or Cruella de Ville from 101 Dalmations. However, luckily enough for you, it's not 1789. Maybe Rupert Murdoch himself (Bud's buddy, of course) will come here and post to your defense because we've yet to see a well-delineated or articulated argument. Apparently if Warren Buffett and Ted Turner posted, they would also agree with you. Because the only thing that matters is profitability...the bottom line...nothing else (could or) should be factored into the equation. Which is why baseball is losing its claim as the national pastime, unfortunately, little series of "cuts" that leave the arm bleeding until one day the game is on life support.

Wow... a little music to accompany this cheesy wine is in order...

:violin:

JorgeFabregas
02-10-2007, 07:25 PM
I never had the EI package and probably never will. I have no personal stake in this.

However, I think it would be in baseball's best long-term interest to be flexible and fan-friendly whenever possible.

Is that whiny?

delben91
02-10-2007, 08:00 PM
Don't be silly, Del. What you ought to do is write your congressman and tell them how your constitutional right to DirecTV has been trampled upon by the neo-fascist who collects the rent in the apartment complex you signed a lease with.

:cool:

Haha. Touche.

ondafarm
02-10-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm simply amazed how many of you Titans of the Business World believe you know how to negotiate a deal for Major League Baseball better than MLB... you just can't figure out a way to articulate your point without making yourselves sound like whiny children being denied their candy. You'll even write your congressman about it... which is exactly what a 4 year-old would do if they could afford the postage stamps.

Eureka! The NFL has done the same thing for years with their Season Ticket package, but they were smart enough to never tempt the spoiled brats into thinking they were entitled to it!
:wink:

You ARE NOT being denied access to Extra Innings except to the extent you obstinately refuse to buy it through DirecTV. Neither MLB or DirecTV have ANY responsibility for spoon-feeding children who won't help themselves.

I've never threatened to write my congressman or claimed I had any special right to Extra Innings. But I am a Chicagoan in exile and I'm willing to spend the few hundred bucks to continue to see nearly all the White Sox games. It does seem dumb of Major League Baseball to make it more difficult for me to watch the games.

Pro football has games a couple of nights a week, not every night of the week. Season Ticket was never available on cable, only on Direct TV. NFL is not reducing access as baseball will be if they do this deal.

I personally have sent email to several teams suggesting that as a paying customer, I would prefer they not make it more difficult for me to access their games.

If you think that's whiney or four year old behavior, you are entitled to your opinion.

ewokpelts
02-11-2007, 02:36 AM
Here's my position. Those complaining about MLB's decision are acting out of selfish obstinance. They're too embarrassed to admit they can get MLB's extended package if only they weren't so selfish and obstinate and they're willing to say and do ANYTHING (including write their congressman) to avoid the truth about what selfish and obstinate people they truly are.Same goes for webmasters pissed off at Jerry Reinsdorf in 1998?

ewokpelts
02-11-2007, 02:43 AM
Obviously you have no idea what it's like to live outside of the Chicago area and try to follow the White Sox, do you? And you sound like some sort of cross between Potter from It's a Wonderful Life or Cruella de Ville from 101 Dalmations. However, luckily enough for you, it's not 1789. Maybe Rupert Murdoch himself (Bud's buddy, of course) will come here and post to your defense because we've yet to see a well-delineated or articulated argument. Apparently if Warren Buffett and Ted Turner posted, they would also agree with you. Because the only thing that matters is profitability...the bottom line...nothing else (could or) should be factored into the equation. Which is why baseball is losing its claim as the national pastime, unfortunately, little series of "cuts" that leave the arm bleeding until one day the game is on life support.
Actually,
Ted Turner WORSHIPS at the Altar of Cable. That's why TBS and TNT have teh 2nd and 3rd highest carriage fees of any cable station. And he used Braves games to boost up his cable stations. Becuase of the Superstation Concept, Turner(and the tribsters) made a MINT. That's also why the Braves are worth 600 million dollars.

Gene

harwar
02-11-2007, 07:25 AM
Those out there that are not going to be affected by the changes are,of course,cavalier about the subject.
Those of us who are going to lose a great majority of,not only the white sox but all the other teams as well,are of course,greatly upset.
I thought that was why this place existed.To talk about all things baseball,good and bad,great and small.

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 07:29 AM
Same goes for webmasters pissed off at Jerry Reinsdorf in 1998?

Or Sox fans who were asked to switch to "pay" SportsVision after having access to "free Sox" for such a long period of time.

Another example of a move that was probably advantageous short-term in profits, but alienated the fanbase and cost even more down the line with lowered attendance and lost "market share."

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 07:35 AM
Actually,
Ted Turner WORSHIPS at the Altar of Cable. That's why TBS and TNT have teh 2nd and 3rd highest carriage fees of any cable station. And he used Braves games to boost up his cable stations. Becuase of the Superstation Concept, Turner(and the tribsters) made a MINT. That's also why the Braves are worth 600 million dollars.

Gene

I was joking. Turner and Warren Buffett actually are both in favor of estate taxes as well, and think the government is silly to get rid of this source of revenue...even though this is antithetical to their self-interests. Both have approached President Bush about wanting to pay their "fair" share. Maybe it's a little easier to do when you can donate a billion to the UN or $20+ billion to the Gates Foundation.

Now a cynic could say this is substantially different than the estate tax's affect on a family farm in Iowa valued at $2 million...but that's another argument.

But you're right, TBS/TNT and even SportsSouth gave the Braves a huge advantage. Not to mention all that territory (south to Florida, up to Washington and Ohio, west to Texas) without a competing MLB franchise.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-11-2007, 08:02 AM
Or Sox fans who were asked to switch to "pay" SportsVision after having access to "free Sox" for such a long period of time.

Another example of a move that was probably advantageous short-term in profits, but alienated the fanbase and cost even more down the line with lowered attendance and lost "market share."

1. More people were effected by Sportsvision (over 1 million Sox fans) vs. this issue (the minority of the 500,000 subscribers to this service - about 230,000 total).

2. The switch to Sportsvision required an additional fee. The switch to Direct TV has the same cost to the purchaser.

3. Since everyone here is already online, you all have a third option which is accessing the program online. 19 inch monitors are pretty cheap and larger ones are reasonable. I am pretty sure you can view the internet feed through your HDTV or LCD TV though I'll leave that to the technically competent to confirm or deny.

In summary, everyone has at least one of two options (switch to Direct TV and / or access via MLB.tv) to access this service yet many are selecting an option (write your representatives) which would most likely make matters worse. I personally would prefer if my representative did not know I exist (as well as the rest of government) and if I ever did feel the compulsion to write my gerrymandered elected Representative, it would be over a life or death issue, not the move of Extra Innings to Direct TV. :cool:

Give me Extra Innings on cable or give me death.
- Patrick Henry

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 08:18 AM
Same goes for webmasters pissed off at Jerry Reinsdorf in 1998?

Your posts are always good for comic relief in almost any thread, Gene.

Keep up the good work.
:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 08:24 AM
I never had the EI package and probably never will. I have no personal stake in this.

However, I think it would be in baseball's best long-term interest to be flexible and fan-friendly whenever possible.

Is that whiny?

No, Jorge. To the contrary, I believe yours is the best post I've read so far from those who are upset at MLB's decision.

It's easily the most CONSTRUCTIVE idea I've read here. We established several dozen posts ago that most of the people still complaining would simply prefer to complain... and writing letters to their congressman about their rights to DirecTV programming. Silly, silly, silly...

I completely support the notion of writing as many MLB owners as you can. Write the commissioner's office, too. It's their job to sell their product to you. Tell them why you believe they're making a mistake.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 08:27 AM
....

I personally have sent email to several teams suggesting that as a paying customer, I would prefer they not make it more difficult for me to access their games.

If you think that's whiney or four year old behavior, you are entitled to your opinion.

I never stated anything remotely like this and I challenge you to find where I did. I've been poking fun of those writing letters to their CONGRESSMEN, not MLB owners.

Reading is a skill...

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 08:48 AM
1. More people were effected by Sportsvision (over 1 million Sox fans) vs. this issue (the minority of the 500,000 subscribers to this service - about 230,000 total).

2. The switch to Sportsvision required an additional fee. The switch to Direct TV has the same cost to the purchaser.

3. Since everyone here is already online, you all have a third option which is accessing the program online. 19 inch monitors are pretty cheap and larger ones are reasonable. I am pretty sure you can view the internet feed through your HDTV or LCD TV though I'll leave that to the technically competent to confirm or deny.

In summary, everyone has at least one of two options (switch to Direct TV and / or access via MLB.tv) to access this service yet many are selecting an option (write your representatives) which would most likely make matters worse. I personally would prefer if my representative did not know I exist (as well as the rest of government) and if I ever did feel the compulsion to write my gerrymandered elected Representative, it would be over a life or death issue, not the move of Extra Innings to Direct TV. :cool:

Give me Extra Innings on cable or give me death.
- Patrick Henry


http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/market_mysterie.html

If anyone is willing to take 5-7 minutes to read it, this presents the two arguments as logically as I have seem them laid out.

It will be interesting to see if baseball's anti-trust exemption is "extrapolated" to cover this as well...if the rights last for 7 years, there is no reason to believe the costs to subscribers won't skyrocket into the $250-400 range quickly. I think they will treat it like an inelastic market, that they can take those subscribers almost anything and we will probably pay it because we are addicted to baseball. I would pay the fee, up to about $500 per year. Right now, it's a great deal as far as I am concerned.

lumpyspun
02-11-2007, 10:21 AM
I never stated anything remotely like this and I challenge you to find where I did. I've been poking fun of those writing letters to their CONGRESSMEN, not MLB owners.

Reading is a skill...

The only reason I started writing people in government is b/c of the fact that 2 different, experienced Senators (from opposing political parties-not that it matters) brought up that they would possibly research this issue and take a closer look into it. I realize that it is extremely odd for a congressmen to get involved in baseball and satellite dishes. But, if they bring it up, I might as well give them my two cents on it. If they get enough two cents on it from others, the issue doesn't die - it gets bigger, and MLB can't avoid the bad publicity.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 10:35 AM
It will be interesting to see if baseball's anti-trust exemption is "extrapolated" to cover this as well...

That's funny. Since when did the NFL have an anti-trust exemption to do an exclusive deal with DirecTV? Or are you saying Congress (or the Supreme Court) would seriously consider revoking MLB's exemption over a couple hundred thousand current EI users who refuse to sign up for DirecTV's service? Or are you saying exclusive deals are illegal on their face? Precisely how much government intervention are you expecting to receive in order to remedy the fact you're holding your breath and stomping your feet rather than sign up for DirecTV service?

Does DirecTV or MLB have any rights in the world you live in?

A big waste of time, Caulfield... 5-7 minutes of somebody offering their own speculative opinions as facts...
:nuts:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 10:41 AM
The only reason I started writing people in government is b/c of the fact that 2 different, experienced Senators (from opposing political parties-not that it matters) brought up that they would possibly research this issue and take a closer look into it. I realize that it is extremely odd for a congressmen to get involved in baseball and satellite dishes. But, if they bring it up, I might as well give them my two cents on it. If they get enough two cents on it from others, the issue doesn't die - it gets bigger, and MLB can't avoid the bad publicity.

Two senators out of 100 willing to pay lip service to The Cause? What are your odds of this being seriously discussed in a Senate sub-committee, forget about going to the full Senate for a vote?

Well, you've got 2... 49 more to go! And that's just the first hurdle... damned Constitution!
:cool:

Write MLB. You'll feel better doing something constructive.

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 10:50 AM
That's funny. Since when did the NFL have an anti-trust exemption to do an exclusive deal with DirecTV? Or are you saying Congress (or the Supreme Court) would seriously consider revoking MLB's exemption over a couple hundred thousand current EI users who refuse to sign up for DirecTV's service? Or are you saying exclusive deals are illegal on their face? Precisely how much government intervention are you expecting to receive in order to remedy the fact you're holding your breath and stomping your feet rather than sign up for DirecTV service?

Does DirecTV or MLB have any rights in the world you live in?

A big waste of time, Caulfield... 5-7 minutes of somebody offering their own speculative opinions as facts...
:nuts:


First of all, it's interesting that you blindly accept the numbers that are provided by MLB, just like most don't accept the owners when they constantly cry poor, only to receive the rebuttal of the Forbes and Fortune lists that appraise their values and profitability quite differently.

The anti-trust exemption won't be revoked over this. It will be just one more of a long string of practices that have caused it, if it ever does happen. The NFL has a tremendous steroids problem, bigger than MLB, but nobody mentions it. Instead reporters blather on and on about McGwire/Palmeiro/Sosa/Canseco/Bonds and Balco and how the NBA has been taken over by thugs. The NFL has no exemption because it is so good at what it does, marketing itself and controlling public opinion and perception. Senators and representatives in states where Yankee and Red Sox fans will care, though, and that will be enough to block it, simply because 90% of the other Congressmen/women could really care less, one way or the other.

I can't sign up for DirecTV. I live in an apartment, simply because there was no purpose in buying a house when I was only going to be living in the US for a year. I was still going to pay Time Warner the full amount for MLB Extra Innings even though I am leaving the US in June and would only be able to see 35-40% of the games. That's my problem, not yours.

If it comes down to it, I will get MLBTV or simply listen through the Gameday Audio program, because it's better than nothing. However, there are many baseball fans who will refuse to do this.

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 11:00 AM
Two senators out of 100 willing to pay lip service to The Cause? What are your odds of this being seriously discussed in a Senate sub-committee, forget about going to the full Senate for a vote?

Well, you've got 2... 49 more to go! And that's just the first hurdle... damned Constitution!
:cool:

Write MLB. You'll feel better doing something constructive.

Do you think all 100 senators cared about the International Marriage Brokers Law? Have you even heard of it? Probably not. And that's the point. It only took a Maria Cantwell here, a Sam Brownback there, and a Representative from each side of the aisle.

There are roughly 10,000 international marriages (between a US citizen and foreigner) per year, much less than the hundreds of thousands affected by this pending deal. Do you really think every member of Congress had an opinion?

No, they simply voted "yes" on the words of four people, who promised their "yea" votes in turn when something else was needed in the future.

It's politics, John Kerry represents the interest of Red Sox fans, it's no surprise that Massachusetts is already involved in this issue.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/2010AP_BBO_Kerry_Baseball_TV.html

I would also not be surprised to find lots of Democrats and Republicans falling all over themselves in the New England states (for that matter, the entire US) to make sure their constituents are not deprived of the Yankees game.

It's an instant winner for any politician, don't you see? Who is FOR Bud Selig, the always-incompetent MLB, Rupert Murdoch or monopolies/lack of competition????

MLB simply cannot win this battle in the court of public opinion, no matter what you say or how vehemently you protest.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 11:02 AM
...
I can't sign up for DirecTV. I live in an apartment, simply because there was no purpose in buying a house when I was only going to be living in the US for a year. I was still going to pay Time Warner the full amount for MLB Extra Innings even though I am leaving the US in June and would only be able to see 35-40% of the games. That's my problem, not yours.

EUREKA! Write your congressman about why landlords like yours are depriving you of your right to entertainment of your own choice! MLB and DirecTV aren't your problem: it's YOUR LANDLORD'S RIGHTS that are trampling yours to DirecTV!

And since you're leaving the country in June, the cost of paying for programming you'll never be here to enjoy -- regardless of who provides it -- hardly seems like something the U.S. Congress would discuss except for the comic value they can share with each other in the cloak room.
:tongue:

Get real...

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 11:06 AM
....

MLB simply cannot win this battle in the court of public opinion, no matter what you say or how vehemently you protest.

They can win it in the U.S. Congress, trust me.

Senators have better things to do than rewrite the Uniform Commercial Code for a bunch of whiny babies being denied their candy. You're NOT being denied anything by MLB except to the extent you obstinately refuse DirecTV's service.

Get a clue. Write MLB and tell them how wrong they are. Do something constructive.

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 11:08 AM
EUREKA! Write your congressman about why landlords like yours are depriving you of your right to entertainment of your own choice! MLB and DirecTV aren't your problem: it's YOUR LANDLORD'S RIGHTS that are trampling yours to DirecTV!

And since you're leaving the country in June, the cost of paying for programming you'll never be here to enjoy -- regardless of who provides it -- hardly seems like something the U.S. Congress would discuss except for the comic value they can share with each other in the cloak room.
:tongue:

Get real...

They don't care about anyone who can't pay $5,000 for a place at a fundraising dinner or can give $100,000 in "soft money" to the RNC or DNC.

However, when you add all those Yankees and Red Sox fans together in their righteous indignation...long with their voting as well as purchasing/net worth powers. Just watch, Bud Selig will be reversing himself as quickly as he sold his used car dealerships.

Please show me all the articles written in mainstream newspapers and magazines supporting your position. There simply aren't any.

To tell you the truth, I don't think most journalists are even trying to protect consumers anymore. They see blood in the water and MLB/Selig/Murdoch are the easiest targets in the world. It makes for good copy...and the 'talking points' for MLB are so esoteric/economic that they might as well be trying to sell the American people on the 1994/95 health care reform plan.

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 11:11 AM
They can win it in the U.S. Congress, trust me.

Senators have better things to do than rewrite the Uniform Commercial Code for a bunch of whiny babies being denied their candy. You're NOT being denied anything by MLB except to the extent you obstinately refuse DirecTV's service.

Get a clue. Write MLB and tell them how wrong they are. Do something constructive.

I'm scoring more points arguing with you, because there are probably some casual fans who actually might take action after reading your vitriolic comments here.

Your viewpoint does not come close to representing that of the majority of White Sox fans. I've yet to see one other person defend this action. Why do you think that is?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 11:11 AM
They don't care about anyone who can't pay $5,000 for a place at a fundraising dinner or can give $100,000 in "soft money" to the RNC or DNC.

You're going to get this thread shut down if you stay on this tack, Caulfield.

Try debating your point of view on MLB's new deal on its own merits, and leave the politics out of it. I know you sound ridiculous trying to do so, but it's the battle you've chosen to fight.

Lord only knows why...
:?:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 11:14 AM
Your viewpoint does not come close to representing that of the majority of White Sox fans. I've yet to see one other person defend this action. Why do you think that is?

I'm guessing because they find it amusing -- but not worth responding to -- somebody wasting their own time in a futile effort like yours?

:smile:

How many more hours do you plan to spend on this?

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 11:17 AM
I'm guessing because they find it amusing -- but not worth responding to -- somebody wasting their own time in a futile effort like yours?

:smile:

How many more hours do you plan to spend on this?


As many hours as it took Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" apparently.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 11:19 AM
As many hours as it took Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" apparently.

He was IN the U.S. Congress, not writing letters to it.

You planning to seek office? This ought to be good...

:wink:

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 11:21 AM
He was IN the U.S. Congress, not writing letters to it.

You planning to seek office? This ought to be good...

:wink:


http://www.petitiononline.com/MLBCABLE/petition.html (http://www.petitiononline.com/MLBCABLE/petition.html)

We already have 2,300 signatures at this site alone. Which is 1% of those affected, according to numbers provided by MLB that nobody believes.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2007, 11:25 AM
http://www.petitiononline.com/MLBCABLE/petition.html (http://www.petitiononline.com/MLBCABLE/petition.html)

We already have 2,300 signatures at this site alone. Which is 1% of those affected, according to numbers provided by MLB that nobody believes.

And your point?

Paulwny
02-11-2007, 11:43 AM
FWIW-- For those of you who reside in apartments or condos, the Satellite Home Viewere Improvement Act of 1999.

Another issue addressed by SHVIA, was the often heavy restrictions, and sometimes banning of satellite dishes by landlords, local governments, and Home Owner Associations. SHVIA allows landlords to restrict the placement of a satellite dish to the exclusive use area of the tenant. This means the porch, patio or deck. If the Tenant has exclusive use of the yard, then the yard is available for dish placement. The landlord can also require the Tenant not attach to or drill into the building.

http://www.dbsinstall.com/rights/yourrights.asp

Fenway
02-11-2007, 12:29 PM
PHG

Just for argument sake supposed this happened?

The White Sox contract with Comcast was to expire and DirecTV than made an incredible rights fee offer to the team for exclusive non free TV rights ( the games would NOT be available on cable. )

How would you feel about that?

lumpyspun
02-11-2007, 01:13 PM
Two senators out of 100 willing to pay lip service to The Cause? What are your odds of this being seriously discussed in a Senate sub-committee, forget about going to the full Senate for a vote?

Well, you've got 2... 49 more to go! And that's just the first hurdle... damned Constitution!
:cool:

Write MLB. You'll feel better doing something constructive.

My bad...I forgot I was dealing with people here at WSI who are clearly Titans of the Legislative Branch.:smile:

This thread is clearly going around in circles and I might have to bow out of it until we see the deal announced (or not announced).

Fear not though, I will still be emailing elected officials and MLB, ad nauseam.

ewokpelts
02-11-2007, 01:18 PM
Your posts are always good for comic relief in almost any thread, Gene.

Keep up the good work.
:cool:

Laugh it up fuzzball.

YOU'RE no different than the people you're mocking in this thread.

ewokpelts
02-11-2007, 01:21 PM
1

2. The switch to Sportsvision required an additional fee. The switch to Direct TV has the same cost to the purchaser.



And what makes you think DirecTv WONT raise the price of extra innings? Someone has to REALLY pay for that package now....

ewokpelts
02-11-2007, 01:22 PM
I would pay the fee, up to about $500 per year. Right now, it's a great deal as far as I am concerned.

Dont let Rupert Murdoch see this!

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 02:00 PM
Dont let Rupert Murdoch see this!


I'm laughing just conjuring up visions of what would happen in the Chicago media if Reinsdorf was acting commissioner of baseball and this deal was "good 'ol boyed" in a backroom full on cigar smoke while on his watch. He might be hung in effigy on street corners.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-11-2007, 02:58 PM
And what makes you think DirecTv WONT raise the price of extra innings? Someone has to REALLY pay for that package now....

Direct TV can only charge what the market will pay for it. Since I do not have Direct TV and refuse to pay for TV, perhaps you'll have this information and answer your own question.

How long has Direct TV owned the rights to the NFL package? How much has the NFL Package increased in price since it was initially offered? How does this increase compare to the percentage increase in cable television fees during the same period?

I would guess there has not been much variance between any increases in the exclusive NFL package and cable television in general. Knowing how ridiculous cable rates are in Chicago, I wouldn't doubt the cable fees going up more than the rate the NFL package has increased over the years.

My audio rights went up 50% (from $9.99 to $14.99) a few years after the service was offered (sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s IIRC).Tickets have increased nearly 50% over the past several years. I think beer has at the park as well. Entertainment inflation exceeds other types of general inflation because people have plenty of money to spend on these products.

From what I have read via the articles linked in this thread, it appears this deal will provide MLB fans more options at a lower cost with Direct TV offering MLB's channel as part of everyone's regular programing package vs. an additional fee.

ondafarm
02-11-2007, 03:07 PM
I'm simply amazed how many of you Titans of the Business World believe you know how to negotiate a deal for Major League Baseball better than MLB... you just can't figure out a way to articulate your point without making yourselves sound like whiny children being denied their candy. You'll even write your congressman about it... which is exactly what a 4 year-old would do if they could afford the postage stamps.

Eureka! The NFL has done the same thing for years with their Season Ticket package, but they were smart enough to never tempt the spoiled brats into thinking they were entitled to it!
:wink:

You ARE NOT being denied access to Extra Innings except to the extent you obstinately refuse to buy it through DirecTV. Neither MLB or DirecTV have ANY responsibility for spoon-feeding children who won't help themselves.


George,
somebody is posting false messages using your account.

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 04:56 PM
Direct TV can only charge what the market will pay for it. Since I do not have Direct TV and refuse to pay for TV, perhaps you'll have this information and answer your own question.

How long has Direct TV owned the rights to the NFL package? How much has the NFL Package increased in price since it was initially offered? How does this increase compare to the percentage increase in cable television fees during the same period?

I would guess there has not been much variance between any increases in the exclusive NFL package and cable television in general. Knowing how ridiculous cable rates are in Chicago, I wouldn't doubt the cable fees going up more than the rate the NFL package has increased over the years.

My audio rights went up 50% (from $9.99 to $14.99) a few years after the service was offered (sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s IIRC).Tickets have increased nearly 50% over the past several years. I think beer has at the park as well. Entertainment inflation exceeds other types of general inflation because people have plenty of money to spend on these products.

From what I have read via the articles linked in this thread, it appears this deal will provide MLB fans more options at a lower cost with Direct TV offering MLB's channel as part of everyone's regular programing package vs. an additional fee.


Yes, but there's no guarantee once they get you "onboard" that they won't try to pass the fee on to you ($200-400 per season) once you've switched from cable. If they have an exclusive deal for 7 years, it certainly will happen at some point so they can recoup some of their investment.

caulfield12
02-11-2007, 05:03 PM
Direct TV can only charge what the market will pay for it. Since I do not have Direct TV and refuse to pay for TV, perhaps you'll have this information and answer your own question.

How long has Direct TV owned the rights to the NFL package? How much has the NFL Package increased in price since it was initially offered? How does this increase compare to the percentage increase in cable television fees during the same period?

I would guess there has not been much variance between any increases in the exclusive NFL package and cable television in general. Knowing how ridiculous cable rates are in Chicago, I wouldn't doubt the cable fees going up more than the rate the NFL package has increased over the years.

My audio rights went up 50% (from $9.99 to $14.99) a few years after the service was offered (sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s IIRC).Tickets have increased nearly 50% over the past several years. I think beer has at the park as well. Entertainment inflation exceeds other types of general inflation because people have plenty of money to spend on these products.

From what I have read via the articles linked in this thread, it appears this deal will provide MLB fans more options at a lower cost with Direct TV offering MLB's channel as part of everyone's regular programing package vs. an additional fee.

What happens if you switch and then they start charging as an "added package" in Year 2, Year 3, Year 4? Either you pay the exorbidant fee or your reason for switching to DirecTV has completely disappeared, along with all the benefits of cable/online/digital phone packages all in one.

Another way for DirecTV to get money back is adding on a $99 HDTV fee (for NFL Sunday Ticket). Along with the $20 increase from the previous year.

Domeshot17
02-11-2007, 05:40 PM
I hope Selig makes a choice soon as to do this or not for sure. I like checking this thread for updates, but it sucks getting through pages of the fight between the 5 year olds. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Direct TV owners were being stripped, they would all be whining too. MLB needs to START thinking about its FANS and STOP thinking about their pockets all the time.

CLR01
02-11-2007, 08:22 PM
And what makes you think DirecTv WONT raise the price of extra innings? Someone has to REALLY pay for that package now....


And what makes you think the price won't go up even if it remains non-exclusive? It has every other year.

I know it was already asked but what about the price increases with NFL Sunday Ticket? I have never ordered it but I have looked into it and the increase in price seems to be steady much like EI's has been. And isn't the new contract something like 6 years $3.5 Billion and wasn't the old one like $400 millionper season? Where's the insane price hike to pay for it?

Another way for DirecTV to get money back is adding on a $99 HDTV fee (for NFL Sunday Ticket). Along with the $20 increase from the previous year.

Don't buy the HD package then.

I would guess that package would be set up much like Superfan is and allow you to watch multiple games at once.

downstairs
02-12-2007, 10:45 AM
PHG

Just for argument sake supposed this happened?

The White Sox contract with Comcast was to expire and DirecTV than made an incredible rights fee offer to the team for exclusive non free TV rights ( the games would NOT be available on cable. )

How would you feel about that?

I know you are asking him directly... but I'd like to add a side-point that is somewhat related.

The funny thing is this... everyone is complaining about this, and I assume the complaint is somewhat based on money.

What the heck does it cost to get DirecTV with Extra Innings? Now, subtract your current cable service.

We're talking about being out maybe $100 over a year? $200?

That's the freaking cost of 1-2 baseball games with a family of four!

Fenway
02-12-2007, 10:50 AM
I know you are asking him directly... but I'd like to add a side-point that is somewhat related.

The funny thing is this... everyone is complaining about this, and I assume the complaint is somewhat based on money.

What the heck does it cost to get DirecTV with Extra Innings? Now, subtract your current cable service.

We're talking about being out maybe $100 over a year? $200?

That's the freaking cost of 1-2 baseball games with a family of four!

My beef is simple............there is a 200 year old tree blocking the signal. I can not get DirecTV and the same applies to thousands of people in big cities that live in apartments.

I had no problem buying XM Radio......and I would buy DirecTV if I could, I can't get it.

itsnotrequired
02-12-2007, 11:01 AM
I know you are asking him directly... but I'd like to add a side-point that is somewhat related.

The funny thing is this... everyone is complaining about this, and I assume the complaint is somewhat based on money.

What the heck does it cost to get DirecTV with Extra Innings? Now, subtract your current cable service.

We're talking about being out maybe $100 over a year? $200?

That's the freaking cost of 1-2 baseball games with a family of four!

It is exactly a money issue. For those that get cable internet, they would have to keep that or go to DSL or something else. They would lose the savings that "bundling" brings.

This is a case of someone's ox getting gored, plain and simple. Even if you can't get DirecTV (landlord, tree in the way, etc.), damn near everyone can get mlb.tv on their computer. It may not be the optimal way to watch a game but it isn't as if this exclusive deal will make it impossible to watch the games. A very small percentage of fans will need to cough up more dough if they want to watch the games.

Don't get me wrong, I still don't like the idea but PHG is right on the money in terms of an individual's "rights" in regards to watching baseball.

downstairs
02-12-2007, 11:25 AM
My beef is simple............there is a 200 year old tree blocking the signal. I can not get DirecTV and the same applies to thousands of people in big cities that live in apartments.

I had no problem buying XM Radio......and I would buy DirecTV if I could, I can't get it.

Strange... I've never heard of that... aren't there many places on your house that they can put the thing?

I've seen them put Dishes on porches, fences, heck... maybe even *on* the tree itself?

caulfield12
02-12-2007, 11:43 AM
It is exactly a money issue. For those that get cable internet, they would have to keep that or go to DSL or something else. They would lose the savings that "bundling" brings.

This is a case of someone's ox getting gored, plain and simple. Even if you can't get DirecTV (landlord, tree in the way, etc.), damn near everyone can get mlb.tv on their computer. It may not be the optimal way to watch a game but it isn't as if this exclusive deal will make it impossible to watch the games. A very small percentage of fans will need to cough up more dough if they want to watch the games.

Don't get me wrong, I still don't like the idea but PHG is right on the money in terms of an individual's "rights" in regards to watching baseball.

Have you ever tried to watch a game this way, even with a T1 or cable line? I wish this experience upon you, then it would be easier for you to understand the issue.

gbacci
02-12-2007, 12:10 PM
Have you ever tried to watch a game this way, even with a T1 or cable line? I wish this experience upon you, then it would be easier for you to understand the issue.

hey caulfield, how bad is it? I may be forced into MLB.tv and I'm sort of dreading it. I do have a decent 3 mpbs connection at home and work.

NardiWasHere
02-12-2007, 12:23 PM
Here's a blackout question:

I recieve Comcast Sports Net over here at West Lafayette, IN. Last year I was able to watch Bulls and Sox games with no problem. This year, during Bulls games, they black me out and show poker or Jiggets instead.

Will the same happen for Sox games? Also, I know that mlb.tv does not work here because I'm still considered in the local market.

itsnotrequired
02-12-2007, 02:58 PM
Have you ever tried to watch a game this way, even with a T1 or cable line? I wish this experience upon you, then it would be easier for you to understand the issue.

I understand the issue perfectly. This move will result in you having to either pay more money to get DirecTV, listen to games on MLB audio or XM radio, watch games on mlb.tv or give up on watching/listening to the Sox. You are in the minority group of people that will be affected by this move. You don't like it and I don't blame you. I'm not a big fan of the move either.

That being said, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms "reparations" from these wrong-doings. No one is stopping you from following the Sox. There are many outlets to follow the team, some better than others. Unfortunately, you get the short end of the stick.

ewokpelts
02-12-2007, 10:55 PM
I know you are asking him directly... but I'd like to add a side-point that is somewhat related.

The funny thing is this... everyone is complaining about this, and I assume the complaint is somewhat based on money.

What the heck does it cost to get DirecTV with Extra Innings? Now, subtract your current cable service.

We're talking about being out maybe $100 over a year? $200?

That's the freaking cost of 1-2 baseball games with a family of four!
It's almost 200 now JUST FOR EXTRA INNINGS. And it has been rising every year(although in years past, you got freebies like books with your subscription). DirecTv charges monthly rates just like cable.

ewokpelts
02-12-2007, 10:58 PM
Strange... I've never heard of that... aren't there many places on your house that they can put the thing?

I've seen them put Dishes on porches, fences, heck... maybe even *on* the tree itself?
he dosent own the land where the tree is on.

caulfield12
02-12-2007, 10:59 PM
It's almost 200 now JUST FOR EXTRA INNINGS. And it has been rising every year(although in years past, you got freebies like books with your subscription). DirecTv charges monthly rates just like cable.

I paid $159.99 last year. Where have you seen the rates for this upcoming season, or at least the "projected" rates?

Fenway
02-12-2007, 11:04 PM
Strange... I've never heard of that... aren't there many places on your house that they can put the thing?

I've seen them put Dishes on porches, fences, heck... maybe even *on* the tree itself?

If there was I would have had it 10 years ago

I have NO LOVE for Comcast

ewokpelts
02-12-2007, 11:40 PM
I paid $159.99 last year. Where have you seen the rates for this upcoming season, or at least the "projected" rates?the 159 was the EARLY BIRD rate...it was 179 if you ordered it after opening day

CLR01
02-13-2007, 01:09 AM
If there was I would have had it 10 years ago

I have NO LOVE for Comcast


There's plenty of ways to kill a tree without anyone knowing. :wink:

caulfield12
02-13-2007, 05:02 AM
There's plenty of ways to kill a tree without anyone knowing. :wink:

It's probably a tree near where Ortiz peed or Schilling carved his first girlfriend's name...and thus, protected by the Boston Preservation Society from being cut down, with a $100,000 fine attached.

SaltyPretzel
02-13-2007, 06:40 AM
There's plenty of ways to kill a tree without anyone knowing. :wink:

Thanks Mr. T. :tongue:

Fenway
02-13-2007, 10:53 AM
plot thickens

Sean McAdam said on WEEI that MLB has been informed that Comcast, Time-Warner and Cox will not carry the Baseball Channel even on a sports tier if they are shut out of Extra Innings.

The cable companies didn't cave into the NFL even though the NFL Network actually has games so they will not blink over MLB.

ewokpelts
02-13-2007, 11:16 AM
plot thickens

Sean McAdam said on WEEI that MLB has been informed that Comcast, Time-Warner and Cox will not carry the Baseball Channel even on a sports tier if they are shut out of Extra Innings.

The cable companies didn't cave into the NFL even though the NFL Network actually has games so they will not blink over MLB.
solid

Jurr
02-13-2007, 11:21 AM
plot thickens

Sean McAdam said on WEEI that MLB has been informed that Comcast, Time-Warner and Cox will not carry the Baseball Channel even on a sports tier if they are shut out of Extra Innings.

The cable companies didn't cave into the NFL even though the NFL Network actually has games so they will not blink over MLB.
Though my comp.screen is pretty big, I really don't want to watch games on it. Arggghhhh!

AZChiSoxFan
02-13-2007, 11:54 AM
plot thickens

Sean McAdam said on WEEI that MLB has been informed that Comcast, Time-Warner and Cox will not carry the Baseball Channel even on a sports tier if they are shut out of Extra Innings.

The cable companies didn't cave into the NFL even though the NFL Network actually has games so they will not blink over MLB.

SWEET!!!

I think this was posted earlier (but I don't feel like reading every post in this thread again) but does anyone know the % of consumers who have cable TV vs. the % who have satellite TV?

Fenway
02-13-2007, 11:58 AM
SWEET!!!

I think this was posted earlier (but I don't feel like reading every post in this thread again) but does anyone know the % of consumers who have cable TV vs. the % who have satellite TV?


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/10/17/US_cable_and_satellite_households/

Cable 66%
Satellite 29%

caulfield12
02-13-2007, 12:15 PM
SWEET!!!

I think this was posted earlier (but I don't feel like reading every post in this thread again) but does anyone know the % of consumers who have cable TV vs. the % who have satellite TV?

More specifically, anywhere from 15-16 million suscribers for DirecTV.

Which makes it no more than 12-13% of the US population (based on "average" family size) with that particular company.

Iwritecode
02-13-2007, 12:24 PM
Obviously I'm coming in late to this whole discussion but I read through the whole thread and just have one question. I've got plain old basic cable. About70 channels and I watch the Sox on CSN. Will this affect me?

I looked into Direct TV once and decided that I didn't want to have to pay that much more money to get less overall. For whatever reason, you can only get up to 4 satellite receivers. If you have more than 4, they have to be "mirrored" off one of the others. That means both TVs will have to be on the exact same channel. I have 5 TVs. :(: Plus it's another 5 or 6 bucks per month for each additional receiver.

Not to mention the $20 "shipping fee" they fail to mention when they talk about their "free" installation.

Fenway
02-13-2007, 12:25 PM
Obviously I'm coming in late to this whole discussion but I read through the whole thread and just have one question. I've got plain old basic cable. About70 channels and I watch the Sox on CSN. Will this affect me?

.


No This is only an issue for people who want to watch out of market games.....

It isn't a shock that the 2 teams leading the fight against MLB doing this are the Red Sox and Yankees

Jurr
02-13-2007, 12:30 PM
No This is only an issue for people who want to watch out of market games.....

It isn't a shock that the 2 teams leading the fight against MLB doing this are the Red Sox and Yankees
I'm just not a big fan of exclusivity rights. It's ridiculous.
The great thing about the package is finishing the Sox game and watching our rivals duke it out. It's awesome when the pennant races are going strong.

It just sucks when big companies try to wrench the choice out of the consumer's hands by signing exclusive contracts. I know it happens all the time, but damn, it sucks.

Iwritecode
02-13-2007, 12:34 PM
No This is only an issue for people who want to watch out of market games.....

It isn't a shock that the 2 teams leading the fight against MLB doing this are the Red Sox and Yankees

That's what I was thinking. I couldn't care less about watching the other teams play. The only time I watch MLB is when the Sox are playing. After that I just check the final scores to see who won/lost.

I'll bow out of this thread now and let you all get back to your debate. :cool:

Fenway
02-13-2007, 12:41 PM
That's what I was thinking. I couldn't care less about watching the other teams play. The only time I watch MLB is when the Sox are playing. After that I just check the final scores to see who won/lost.

I'll bow out of this thread now and let you all get back to your debate. :cool:

Extra Innings is the way I keep up with the White Sox ( I really don't want to watch games on my computer )

Look MLB leaked the story to the NY Times nearly a month ago to sense reaction and boy did they get one.

Here is what will probably happen....DirecTV will get exclusive satellite rights and the big 3 cable companies will get likewise. I had to switch from RCN back to Comcast to get Extra Innings as RCN was not allowed to offer it.

voodoochile
02-13-2007, 12:49 PM
Extra Innings is the way I keep up with the White Sox ( I really don't want to watch games on my computer )

Look MLB leaked the story to the NY Times nearly a month ago to sense reaction and boy did they get one.

Here is what will probably happen....DirecTV will get exclusive satellite rights and the big 3 cable companies will get likewise. I had to switch from RCN back to Comcast to get Extra Innings as RCN was not allowed to offer it.

Watching on the computer isn't that bad. They have full screen mode and if you have a laptop with a wireless connection, you can set it up and watch other things at the same time on your TV or work on whatever with the screen visible from elsewhere in the house.

Chicken Dinner
02-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Watching on the computer isn't that bad. They have full screen mode and if you have a laptop with a wireless connection, you can set it up and watch other things at the same time on your TV or work on whatever with the screen visible from elsewhere in the house.

Not quite as good as the big 60" widescreen though.

ranger_bob
02-16-2007, 09:50 PM
I'm a user of DirectTV, so personally this has no effect on me. However, I do think this is a short-sighted move by MLB.

Jjav829
02-17-2007, 01:03 PM
I'm a user of DirectTV, so personally this has no effect on me. However, I do think this is a short-sighted move by MLB.

It does have an effect on you. You better believe that if DirecTV secures the exclusive rights to EI, the price you'll be paying for the package next year will be higher than what you paid last year.

CLR01
02-17-2007, 03:12 PM
It does have an effect on you. You better believe that if DirecTV secures the exclusive rights to EI, the price you'll be paying for the package next year will be higher than what you paid last year.


How is that's different than any other past year? The huge price jump every one keeps predicting simply won't happen. Yes, the price will go up but it is going to do that regardless of who gets to offer the package.

caulfield12
02-17-2007, 05:15 PM
How is that's different than any other past year? The huge price jump every one keeps predicting simply won't happen. Yes, the price will go up but it is going to do that regardless of who gets to offer the package.

1) They have to offset the cost of the deal by passing it on to customers

2) They will have a monopoly, a captive audience...it's the same reason a theatre in the Quad Cities (with no competition) can charge $9.50 or $10 per ticket whereas tickets in much bigger cities with higher costs of living (I live in Kansas City) are closer to $8.50-9.00.

Now there is a limit people will pay for a movie (due to Blockbuster, NetFlix, Digital Cable for $3.99 and no movie to return)...and there are some options like MLBTV or GameDay audio, but there's still more competition for a movie theatre (with no other theatre operators in the area) than there will be for MLB Extra Innings at DirecTV.

Once you've switched (just to get baseball), you're not going to turn around and dump it if they increase the price by $25-50 next year. Those 500,000 subscribers will pay a LOT to have access to Extra Innings, perhaps as much as $400-500 per season. Plus there are all the costs involved with cancelling, deinstallation and going back to cable to figure in.