That is just like ESPN being made available exclusively to satellite television.  

I'm really sick of sports television policies.  I think it's time to get Congress involved.

I have dish, so I'm screwed unless I switch to directv.  Which I really don't want to do.  I just priced out the package I currently have with dish, and it would cost me about $15 more a month.  That, coupled with the fact that you KNOW Directv will bump up the price for the extra innings package now that they have exclusive rights, and I may just go with mlb tv from mlb.com/

as long as the XM radio deal stands

I see some of you are upset about the DirecTV deal with MLB but in truth there is nothing illegal being done on this matter and no merit or precedent for federal action.

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.

I run www.bigdawgbaseball.com.  Would the webmaster from this site contact me?

Thank you.
Chris McDonnell
chris@bigdawgbaseball.com

Choosing between DirecTV, Dish and Time Warner is really one of the more frustrating moments I've had as a consumer.

I've had mlb.tv a few times.   Always with high speed connection & the frustrating thing is that there was never any consistency in the quality.  I could go 2 or 3 days with great reception & then be be subjected to the equivalent of a super delayed slide show with out of sync audio.  I plan on testing it with the Spring Package (Caribbean World Series+some Spring Training games $14.95), but worry that those will work & once I buy the regular season, the quality will go into the crapper.