The deal is done.

[ExpatNYC]

Once again, Major League Baseball kicks its fans in the balls. Read it and weep, cable subscribers.

 

If you want to watch the Major League Baseball's Extra Innings package, you'll need a satellite dish.

 

DirecTV has acknowledged its agreement with MLB to become the sole television distributor of the sport's out-of-market package.

 

The package also has been available on cable television in recent seasons, but will be available solely on DirecTV and MLB.com under the new agreement.

 

DirecTV president Chase Carey says consumers will receive a better product, with more content and features.

 

Carey also says DirecTV would make The Baseball Channel available when the network launches in 2009.

 

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry released a letter last month disclosing that the FCC was investigating the deal.

 

MLB chief operating officer Bob DuPuy did not immediately return an e-mail from The Associated Press seeking comment.

 

The Associated Press Contributed To This Report

Edited March 5, 2007 by ExpatNYC

[elrockinMT]

Not sure I like this idea. MLB is not thinking of its fans by doing this in my opinion. Not everyone has the DirectTV and these exclussive deals always leave out a lot of consumers. I am hoping this gets real serious examination by the FCC,

[Kalapse]

As far as I know they're not breaking any laws by signing this deal, I don't want a government agency stepping in to stop a deal that is not unlawful just because I don't like it. Otherwise they should have stopped the NFL from signing the exact same deal with DirecTV. Other than the MLB's Antitrust exempt status this deal is in no way different from the NFL's and they did nothing about that.

 

If they want to do something they should think about taking away MLB's Antitrust exemption since they've proven over the years that they certainly don't deserve to hold it.

[vandy125]

This is crap. Just like the exclusive rights with the baseball game. They are just making it harder to follow your team because they are looking at the $$$$ they need to pay for ridiculous salaries.

[Balance]

This is a lousy deal indeed. As Gregg Easterbrook has pointed out about the NFL's Sunday Ticket package, both football and baseball teams get the benefits of taxpayer-financed stadiums, and then turn around and deny a great deal of those very taxpayers the right to pay for and watch games on TV.

[Chisoxfn]

I agree 100% with what Kalapse said. The reality is this sucks for baseball fans, but this isn't something the government should be sticking its nose in either (even though if the package came back to cable I would be happy, I also know it wouldn't be for the right reasons).

 

I guess I'll be getting the mlb.tv platinum this week. On the bright side I'll get to catch a few games while I'm at work but the thing that dissapoints me is I won't be able to tivo games becuase the only way to watch replay will be go to onto the site and somehow see the score (and I hate doing that).

[maggliopipe]

Does anyone have knowledge about the Slingbox option? If I have my Dad hook it up to an unused cable box in Chicago, will he still be able to watch whatever he wants on any other TV in the house? And is the quality I'll get from a Slingbox connection over the internet going to be any better than I'd get from the MLB.tv package over the internet?

 

This is such a downer.

[RME JICO]

It sucks for fans, but isn't this just for the Extra Innings package?

 

Exclusive deals happen all the time. I think XM has an exclusive deal with MLB as well.

 

MLB must have gotten a huge contract from DirecTV.

 

Just get MLB.tv, it is way more flexible since you can watch it anywhere.

[Kalapse]

The Mighty MJD had a pretty good take on this over at Deadspin, it all revolves around a quote from Bud Selig that I would describe as f***tardian.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...1&cset=true

http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/bud-se...hing-241380.php

http://www.sportsfrog.com/2007/03/bud_seli...ectv_basbal.php

Bud Selig Is Trying Very Hard To Tolerate Your b****ing

 

Selig, rebel bad-ass that he is, is taking a little bit of a contentious stance against the backlash towards the MLB's exclusive deal with DirecTV. He referred to it as "a slight controversy, in some places," and he believes that the solution is for you to get off your broke ass and buy yourself a dish. Via The Sports Frog, from the Chicago Tribune:

 

"I've heard for years we have too much product out there," Selig said.

 

"Everywhere I've gone ... there's no market that has less than 350 to 400 [televised] games, and some [like Chicago] have quite a bit more than that. We have an enormous amount of product out there.

 

"As for this deal, what fascinates me is I have spent a lot of time going over it and trying to find out who can't get [DirecTV].

 

"We're down now to such small numbers, that I'm really wondering [about the fuss].

 

"... In a year or two, when people understand the significance of this deal ... everybody will understand it."

 

Ohhhhhhh, okay. See, here's what's happening: You don't understand how awesome Bud Selig is, because you are a weak-minded b****. The solution is simple. If you live in an apartment building where you can't have a dish, just move. If you get your cable TV and internet in one package deal, just cancel it. If you've got a 2-year contract with some other company, just eat the cost. See? Simple.

 

And if all of that fails, just quit whining, you little pansy, because you have 162 local market games at your disposal, and if your favorite team doesn't happen to be your local team, then you're a greedy jackass to begin with.

 

See, don't worry, fans. Bud has your back. Even if you are a pansy.

[ExpatNYC]

Good grief. It's like reading Rush Limbaugh. The government has a role to play in breaking up monopolies. The NFL Sunday Ticket deal was also examined by the feds for reasons that should be obvious. And now the MLB deal does nothing but restrict consumer choice. That sort of business practice is antithetical to free-market capitalism.

Edited March 5, 2007 by ExpatNYC

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah but there's nothing illegal about restricting consumer choice of a broadcast. If that was illegal, anyone could broadcast American Idol live on their channel so long as they cut a check to FOX. It doesn't make sense.

 

The better argument is the antitrust exemption. Just because Bud Selig wants to limit the reach of local teams doesn't mean that the White Sox necessarily wants to, or the Royals, or the Dodgers. If the White Sox own the rights to their broadcast, shouldn't they own the right to opt out of an exclusive Direct TV deal?

[southsideirish]

Just a question, but what is stopping someone or anyone from getting DirecTV if they really wanted this package or the NFL package? What does cable have over DirecTV? The only thing I can figure out is On Demand.

 

Now my friend had condo pointed in the wrong direction, so he was unable to install a dish and receive the signal, but other than that what are the reasons for not getting DirecTV if you want the NFL or MLB package?

[Kalapse]

Just a question, but what is stopping someone or anyone from getting DirecTV if they really wanted this package or the NFL package? What does cable have over DirecTV? The only thing I can figure out is On Demand.

 

Now my friend had condo pointed in the wrong direction, so he was unable to install a dish and receive the signal, but other than that what are the reasons for not getting DirecTV if you want the NFL or MLB package?

1.) Where you're living you can't have a dish (apartment, condo, dorm)

2.) You have a package deal with internet and cable.

3.) You have a multi year contract with the cable company.

4.) There are certain channels that you can only get on cable.

5.) You don't want a dish or you just prefer cable to DirectTV.

[Linnwood]

Good grief. It's like reading Rush Limbaugh. The government has a role to play in breaking up monopolies. The NFL Sunday Ticket deal was also examined by the feds for reasons that should be obvious. And now the MLB deal does nothing but restrict consumer choice. That sort of business practice is antithetical to free-market capitalism.

 

MLB is a government sanctioned monopoly. Has been since May 29, 1922, by the Supreme Court case Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It was reaffirmed in Toolson v. New York Yankees in '52 and in Flood v. Kuhn in '72.

 

I think this deal is awful and pisses me off. But there is nothing illegal about it. Sadly, like an addict, I will now go and sign up for MLB.tv since I could care less how much "product" is on in the Washington DC metro area. Sure there will be 300 some games on, but save for the 8 when the O's play the Sox, I don't give a s*** about any of them.

 

f***ing hate Selig.

[Balta1701]

1.) Where you're living you can't have a dish (apartment, condo, dorm)

This should be broken into 2 categories:

 

a. The place you're living does not allow satellite dishes (apt, Condo, Dorm)

b. The place you're living does not have a view of the southern sky.

 

I think the best argument about doing something in this case is that it denies a government-subsidized form of entertainment to people because they happen to live in the shadow of or on the wrong side of a tall building.

[ExpatNYC]

I wonder if DirecTV or MLB has employees who troll blogs... Anyway, Kalapse lists all the reasons one wouldn't want to or be able to switch to DirecTV. For my part, I live in an apartment building that does not allow satellite dishes. But I also have a triple-play package from my cable company, which I can't really afford to break up. Moreover, my cable company offers free HD--there's no "HD package," like there is with DirecTV. In fact, I left DTV a year ago when I bought an HD set because their HD offering is a joke. I haven't missed them at all. My cable service is reliable, the VOIP phone rocks, and the Internet connection is fast as hell--much faster than my crappy DSL line I had when I was with DirecTV. Why DSL? Because DTV required me to plug a phone line into the receiver.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MLB is a government sanctioned monopoly. Has been since May 29, 1922, by the Supreme Court case Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It was reaffirmed in Toolson v. New York Yankees in '52 and in Flood v. Kuhn in '72.

 

I think this deal is awful and pisses me off. But there is nothing illegal about it. Sadly, like an addict, I will now go and sign up for MLB.tv since I could care less how much "product" is on in the Washington DC metro area. Sure there will be 300 some games on, but save for the 8 when the O's play the Sox, I don't give a s*** about any of them.

 

f***ing hate Selig.

 

If you care this much about it why don't you or won't you get DirecTV istead of cable? I am just curious why people are getting so pissed off about it when they can just get the DirecTV and have it.

[Linnwood]

If you care this much about it why don't you or won't you get DirecTV istead of cable? I am just curious why people are getting so pissed off about it when they can just get the DirecTV and have it.

 

 

I can't get DirecTV. The last place I lived, I rented a condo. And the building had a deal with RCN, and forbid DirecTV/DISH in its bylaws. Bylaws that the owner agreed to when he bought the place and bylaws I agreed to when I rented the place.

 

Where I live now the apartment complex is fine with me getting a DirecTV, but there is a gigantic pine tree blocking my southern exposure. So unless I am going to move, I can not get DirecTV.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't get DirecTV. The last place I lived, I rented a condo. And the building had a deal with RCN, and forbid DirecTV/DISH in its bylaws. Bylaws that the owner agreed to when he bought the place and bylaws I agreed to when I rented the place.

 

Where I live now the apartment complex is fine with me getting a DirecTV, but there is a gigantic pine tree blocking my southern exposure. So unless I am going to move, I can not get DirecTV.

 

That sucks. That is the same issue my buddy had. His window was facing the wrong way and he could not get DirecTV. Can't DirecTV do something about that issue?

[Linnwood]

That sucks. That is the same issue my buddy had. His window was facing the wrong way and he could not get DirecTV. Can't DirecTV do something about that issue?

 

 

There is really nothing that can be done, aside from cutting down the tree in my case. DirecTV uses geostationary satellites, so your dish needs to be line of sight. If anything blocks it you get no signal.

 

Also, I don't blame DirecTV... This is a great deal for them. I had DirecTV years ago, and prefer it to Comcast.

 

I blame MLB for not thinking of what is best for their customers (fans) and the cable companies for being too cheap to carry The Baseball Channel, which seems to be the big reason MLB went with DirecTV.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(ExpatNYC @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if DirecTV or MLB has employees who troll blogs... Anyway, Kalapse lists all the reasons one wouldn't want to or be able to switch to DirecTV. For my part, I live in an apartment building that does not allow satellite dishes. But I also have a triple-play package from my cable company, which I can't really afford to break up. Moreover, my cable company offers free HD--there's no "HD package," like there is with DirecTV. In fact, I left DTV a year ago when I bought an HD set because their HD offering is a joke. I haven't missed them at all. My cable service is reliable, the VOIP phone rocks, and the Internet connection is fast as hell--much faster than my crappy DSL line I had when I was with DirecTV. Why DSL? Because DTV required me to plug a phone line into the receiver.

 

That is kind of silly if you ask me. I have DirecTV and I have had Comcast cable. Both have HD packages, but the HD picture that I get from DirecTV is much much better than the one I received from Comcast cable. I don't know if it is the quality of cables of if Comcast has to use converters or what not, but you can definitely tell a huge difference in quality.

 

I won't get VOIP for a while. I don't trust it.

 

You have to get DSL because you need a phone line to plug into the DTV receiver? I don't get it.

 

 

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is really nothing that can be done, aside from cutting down the tree in my case. DirecTV uses geostationary satellites, so your dish needs to be line of sight. If anything blocks it you get no signal.

 

Also, I don't blame DirecTV... This is a great deal for them. I had DirecTV years ago, and prefer it to Comcast.

 

I blame MLB for not thinking of what is best for their customers (fans) and the cable companies for being too cheap to carry The Baseball Channel, which seems to be the big reason MLB went with DirecTV.

 

I too much prefer it to Comcast.

 

What does COmcast offer DirecTV customers besides On Demand? Are there any channels that Comcast customers get that you can't get on DirecTV?

[Iwritecode]

If you care this much about it why don't you or won't you get DirecTV istead of cable?

 

I like cable better because it's less expensive and I can have 5 different TV's hooked up to cable and watch five different channels on each TV. Try that with a dish...

[RockRaines]

1.) Where you're living you can't have a dish (apartment, condo, dorm)

Also it would cost me 25 more dollars a month to then have internet without the cable tv. My condo association bans any dish on the outside of our building. Many of the buildings around me are the same, even some have contracts with dish network or somehting other than Directv. Basically, im screwed if I ever wanted the package.

 

What does COmcast offer DirecTV customers besides On Demand? Are there any channels that Comcast customers get that you can't get on DirecTV?

On Demand itself it freakin awesome. If you havent had it, I understand, but the quality of TV on there is worth every penny.

[Rex Kickass]

This should be broken into 2 categories:

 

a. The place you're living does not allow satellite dishes (apt, Condo, Dorm)

b. The place you're living does not have a view of the southern sky.

 

I think the best argument about doing something in this case is that it denies a government-subsidized form of entertainment to people because they happen to live in the shadow of or on the wrong side of a tall building.

 

Except not really... how much federal funding went into the Cell? If you use that argument, I could see courts requiring carriage in the state where the funding came from (i.e. White Sox games must be given statewide cable carriage in Illinois, Tigers in Michigan, Brewers in Wisconsin, etc.) but only if the stadium was financed using public financing. So no requirement for the Cubs, Red Sox or Yankees for example.

[Chisoxfn]

I want to point out that unless your cable company has real terrible HD signal, you should get infinitely better HD quality with Cable. Both Cable and Direct TV (and any satellite provider for that matter) compress the HD signal a bit but Direct TV does it far far worse and because of it (unless your cable provider is absolutely horrid or you are in an area where the cable isn't using updated technology such as fiber optics) the HD picture quality on cable is superior (that may change in a few months when direct tv puts up a new satellite that is supposed to up its HD capacity) but right now if you like HD picture quality than Cable is 100 times greater (with about a 2% exception).