Extra Innings Moving to DirectTV Exclusively
Alli and I are moving to Atlanta in a couple of weeks, and I was already planning on getting DirectTV so that I could buy the Sunday Ticket next fall. That looks like an even better decision now that it looks like MLB's Extra Innings package may be moving to just DirectTV:
According to The New York Times, the MLB Extra Innings package will soon be exclusive to DirecTV . With the NFL and MLB, that could really hurt cable companies. I've had MLB Extra Innings the last couple of years and have loved it. I love coming home and watching a Mariners or Dodgers game, or even catching random day games. I'm not sure how much this will help MLB, but I'd guess it'll help DirecTV.The linked article doesn't say when this would begin. However, it does say the long-talked about Baseball Channel will start in 2009.
Anyone else think this is really bad for the consumer? I probably wouldn't be going with DirectTV if it weren't for the NFL, and this locks me in even more.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This has to violate anti-trust laws
I'm really sick of sports television policies. I think it's time to get Congress involved.
class action
I thought...
I hope MLB doesn't go the way of the NFL. Games that air only on their own network. Streaming video of games only available if you live outside the U.S. :-P
couldn't happen
Well.........
I've got mlb.tv
by Reds123 on Jan 20, 2007 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
Sounds Good
by Pops Daniels on Jan 22, 2007 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
i live by mlb.tv
i'm good
I'm good
by ewquinn on Jan 20, 2007 11:22 PM EST reply actions
MLB on TV and All of Us
Games are available on free, over-the-air TV such as the Fox national games and your local teams on your home market. So there's no monopoly. The NFL skirted this same issue because of all the free games each Sunday on the OTA national networks.
I believe this is the third or fourth consecutive contract DirecTV and MLB have entered, dating to around 1997-98 or so. The difference this time is the cable component.
As I outlined on Trent Rosecrans' site, in prior contracts DirecTV recouped some of its payout to MLB by selling MLB Extra Innings to InDemand, a subscription cable content provider owned by Comcast. Since Comcast is the nation's largest cable company, obviously InDemand was available to a large number of people.
Conversely, Comcast sold InDemand to other cable companies such as Time Warner, Cox and a few others. So, the issue of getting Extra Innings in your cable market was not an issue of MLB or DirecTV, but of the contract with InDemand.
In the current renewal of the contract between MLB and DirecTV, MLB does not want DirecTV to sell rights to InDemand or any other cable provider. Reason: the amazing growth of MLB.TV online. With the proliferation of broadband MLB, (and most industry observers) agree that having the product on cable and MLB.TV is redundant.
In short, eliminate the middle men and have all those revenues and viewers go directly to MLB.TV instead of Comcast and DirecTV. This is a very smart business move by MLB.
So, if you don't want DirecTV, fine. Get the package online. It's cheaper and more convenient, though, as some have posted, the picture quality and customer service have a ways to go.
Of course, nothing beats sitting in front of your TV to watch the games. Sports Business Daily has reported negotiations have been ongoing with InDemand/Comcast.
Another way to look at this deal is how it impacts small-market teams like the Reds. Revenue streams from MLB Internet Properties were through the roof last season and gave each team a huge chunk of extra monies, which, in many cases, you saw blown by overpaying free agents.
But potentially, and very likely, by gaining more revenues from MLB.TV instead of those revenues going to Comcast and DirecTV for cable deals means substantial revenue sharing increases for the Reds. This could turn out to be $10-$15 million a year.
by Mr Redlegs on Jan 21, 2007 10:20 AM EST reply actions
just because it's not illegal
war is good for business, too. doesn't make it right.
blah
I have to say, I'd been on the fence for a while and moving prompted me to switch. But if I was still on the fence and had cable, this would prompt me.
Can't say I'll be weeping a tear for InDemand. The setup was quite obnoxious. They flatly refused to show any pre or post game shows - the coverage would literally kick on the moment the game was starting, and stop within moments of the final out. Perhaps that was in the contract, but it was mighty annoying. At least DirecTV shows some of that. Say nothing of the fact of not showing all the games every day.
And I fault baseball for making Saturday's totally unwatchable for Baseball thanks to the Fox deal - meaning that no day games get shown while the Giants/Dodgers/Red Sox/Yankees game is going on over on Fox.
PLEASE CONTACT ME
Thank you.
Chris McDonnell
chris@bigdawgbaseball.com
by Big Dawg Baseball on Jan 22, 2007 6:47 PM EST reply actions
Evils
Ohhh yeah..
Went with TW and my bill hasn't been the same since day one. It has been completely frustrating. We are thinking of trying DTV, but I want them to scope the sats before I place the order but they won't do that. Ugh!
MLB.tv
by 44magnum on Jan 25, 2007 9:14 AM EST reply actions

by 



















