Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 |
Joe Sheehan, Esq., Representing The MLB/DirecTV Devil
Joe Sheehan plays devil's advocate on the news that Extra Innings won't be available on cable anymore:
MLB is going to tick off a subset of that group: EI subscribers who either have Dish Network or cable. However, they’re not going to lose that group of people as fans of MLB as a whole. Some of those people will switch to DirecTV, others will make do with MLB.tv, still others will not purchase a package and live without the extra games. The number of fans that MLB will lose because of this decision, however, could fit in my living room. You simply don’t go from being such a big fan of baseball that you would purchase 1200 games a year on satellite to a non-fan based on one decision.I don't know about that. DirecTV is generally much worse about rebroadcasting local TV. They're still playing the buy a seperate antenna for local broadcasts game, and now that it's becoming increasingly clear that terrestrial broadcast HD is about to go cable-only, that's a bad way to bet in even the short term.
Another point that Sheehan makes is that this is a niche product; only the extremest of fans buy it. Fair enough. And, it's not like an alternative doesn't exist in the form of MLB.TV, however slow that is; try switching between games. (MLB.TV will offer a new product this season called MLB.TV Mosaic, which allows you to watch up to six games simultaneously.) But even so, those are substantially worse products. Regardless of whether this makes short-term sense for MLB, I just don't think annoying any large segment of your customer base is worth it.
Update: David Pinto adds his two cents, which amount to DirecTV being a better deal than cable anyway, so what's the big fuss?
In 2009 when the FCC has mandated total NTSC phaseout and all terrestrial broadcasts switch to HD, you may or may not have a way to receive such broadcasts. Certainly, you'll have to do so with an exterior antenna. With the exception of LA and NYC residents, for whom this is not a problem, if you want local HD, you're stuck with cable or terrestrial HD broadcast; the latter is much spottier than NTSC, and has far more problems with weather.
Finally, there's ISP services. Time-Warner was a welcome sight when they came to our neighborhood; we were totally fed up with Pac*Bell and their ongoing excuses for poor service quality and uptime on our DSL line. While there's nothing that says I'd have to switch from cable, I'd most likely have to increase my monthly payment if it were divorced from a cable bill.
Comments:
I'm confused about one thing. I have DirecTV, but I don't have a separate antenna to get local stations, at least that I know of.
DirecTV won't even install a dish on our house, because our roof is too steep.
# posted by 
: 1/24/2007 12:14:00 PM
: 1/24/2007 12:14:00 PM
i've been happy with MLB.tv. yes, the picture isn't as good, but i'm pretty much able to watch the games anywhere - home, work, Starbucks, Borders .... any hot spot. i live in Arizona so i get all the Angel games pretty much.
and yes, its a worse picture, but again it costs less too (besides being mobile) - $80 for the year. (i also get the radio feed package too).
How much does EI cost (i'm sure a lot more than $80/yr), and is it really worth the extra $$?
most of the time, the signal and feed is fast enough too. not perfect, but that's the internet.
and yes, its a worse picture, but again it costs less too (besides being mobile) - $80 for the year. (i also get the radio feed package too).
How much does EI cost (i'm sure a lot more than $80/yr), and is it really worth the extra $$?
most of the time, the signal and feed is fast enough too. not perfect, but that's the internet.
I seem to remember that we were paying $100-$120 for it last year. Add to that a DirecTV sub at about $30 for basic service and the fact that there's no freaking way we're giving up cable (FAR better Internet service than the DSL we'd be forced into if we switched everything to DTV), and it just doesn't seem worth it to me.
HD is still something that I can only dream about financially.
Are you saying that if it's not on HD, it doesn't count?
Are you saying that if it's not on HD, it doesn't count?
Jon, the FCC has mandated complete phaseout of NTSC by 2009. That's only two years from now. Investing any money in a system that doesn't have a solid answer for local TV broadcasts seems silly to me.
I had DirecTV for a year and loved it (disclosure: I have a friend who currently works for DirecTV, although not at the time that I had it). Cable stinks in comparison. When I had DirecTV, I was able to get all of the equipment for free with free installation as long as I subscribed to the service for a year (and shortly after that they were giving away equipment and free installation for up to 4 rooms for free). For $40 a month, I had more channels (including local and without a separate antenna) than my current cable has at $55 a month. Plus the quality of picture was better and I had an interactive guide. If I wanted to get equivalent picture and the interactive guide for cable, I would have to pay $80 a month for the digital service (although they usually have deals where the first three months are $60 each). Also, I had to pay $60 to install the cable, despite the fact that its basically just someone coming to your place and doing little to nothing (for DirecTV installation, they actually install the dish and get the whole thing set up).
Now, this isn't exactly a fair comparison as the DirecTV was in California (minimal weather issues...and I never had screwy signal because of that and few tall buildings or trees to block the signal). In Madison, where I have the cable (and am not allowed to get a satellite dish by decree of my apartment complex), I can imagine the ridiculous thunderstorms and build up of snow could affect the signal. But even so, DirecTV offered a better, cheaper product that I cannot obtain. In addition, I have no choice if I want more than the most basic channels but to go with my local cable company. The real issue with this TV stuff is that there is absolutely NO competition for cable companies.
Anyways, Extra Innings wasn't available to me either, because I didn't want to shell out the extra $25 a month (it was only on our digital service) BEFORE even buying the package. If you want to particularly rip on this DirecTV/MLB deal, it would make more sense to do it from the point of view that it might actually violate baseball's antitrust exemption (and I have absolutely no clue if it does, but it certainly seems like it could).
I would probably actually buy the MLB.tv option if they had a single team deal (you get to watch a signal team's games for the whole season).
Now, this isn't exactly a fair comparison as the DirecTV was in California (minimal weather issues...and I never had screwy signal because of that and few tall buildings or trees to block the signal). In Madison, where I have the cable (and am not allowed to get a satellite dish by decree of my apartment complex), I can imagine the ridiculous thunderstorms and build up of snow could affect the signal. But even so, DirecTV offered a better, cheaper product that I cannot obtain. In addition, I have no choice if I want more than the most basic channels but to go with my local cable company. The real issue with this TV stuff is that there is absolutely NO competition for cable companies.
Anyways, Extra Innings wasn't available to me either, because I didn't want to shell out the extra $25 a month (it was only on our digital service) BEFORE even buying the package. If you want to particularly rip on this DirecTV/MLB deal, it would make more sense to do it from the point of view that it might actually violate baseball's antitrust exemption (and I have absolutely no clue if it does, but it certainly seems like it could).
I would probably actually buy the MLB.tv option if they had a single team deal (you get to watch a signal team's games for the whole season).
Well, I expect HD prices will have come down by then, Rob. My point is basically that in the here and now, local access isn't an issue for this DirecTV customer, and I suspect many others.
I've had DirecTV for 2 1/2 years now and have preferred it to cable.
I've had DirecTV for 2 1/2 years now and have preferred it to cable.
At Baseball Musings, David Pinto writes:
"When DirecTV gets HD over the air channels (and they've told me they're working on it) ..."
I suppose I should also add that I have never had EI, so I don't know what I would be missing.
"When DirecTV gets HD over the air channels (and they've told me they're working on it) ..."
I suppose I should also add that I have never had EI, so I don't know what I would be missing.
Jon, it's not a matter of the price of the gear, it's that DirecTV won't be able to receive local broadcasts. And if you have DirecTV, neither will you. That means no Dodger games on days they're on KCAL. I mean, I sort of doubt it will come to that, but this is a battle that's been going on for years, and I don't expect it to be resolved before the "mandatory" cutover to terrestrial HD.
In response to you internet issues, it depends a lot on how close you are to a DSL station for how fast of service you get. I get speeds akin to cable internet on my SBC (now ATT&T) DSL for cheaper. And, unlike cable, I could choose (if I wanted) to get slower DSL for just $15 a month. Cable companies may have the most stable technology (which I am not necessarily willing to grant), but I trust the phone and satellite companies more to provide cheaper, better service in the long run. I trust that if the NTSC format is turned over (which is still not absolutely certain), then DirecTV will find some solution to obtain local broadcasts. And actually, I bet many DirecTV don't care about local broadcasts anyways (I only watch network TV for the particular TV shows, never for news...I have internet for that) and with DVRs, you don't even need to be there at the time those shows start, so it doesn't matter if you get a program 3 hours earlier or later than everyone else in your area.
it's that DirecTV won't be able to receive local broadcasts.
Explain this to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but currently in Chicago, my friends who have DirecTV get all local channels, and they get the ones in HD that broadcast in HD (the networks, WGN, etc.). Are you saying this WON'T be the case in 2009?
I know when DirecTV originally came out, you couldn't get local channels unless there some agreement (like you lived in a rural area or something). But at least in Chicago, you can get all the local channels.
Explain this to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but currently in Chicago, my friends who have DirecTV get all local channels, and they get the ones in HD that broadcast in HD (the networks, WGN, etc.). Are you saying this WON'T be the case in 2009?
I know when DirecTV originally came out, you couldn't get local channels unless there some agreement (like you lived in a rural area or something). But at least in Chicago, you can get all the local channels.
# posted by : 1/24/2007 07:28:00 PM
: 1/24/2007 07:28:00 PM
I misspoke earlier (miswrote?). It seems to be the case that for select markets (LA, NYC, and apparently, Chicago), you can get HD for local broadcasts. But this is not generally the case.
Rob,
HD shouldn't be an issue for DirecTV by 2009. See the press release:
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P4130030
Currently, DirecTV has local HD in 49 markets, although there are very few regional sports networks (RSNs) in HD even in those markets. Having the capacity to carry 1500 local HD channels should cover the rest of the US, including the RSNs.
Now, whenever D* says a date for anything, I generally add 6 months onto it. So instead of Q3 2007 I'd expect late Q1 2008 before you'd start seeing the first of the national HDs go up, along with some RSNs in the current 49 HD markets.
The biggest stumbling block for D* for local HD is going to be contractural, not technical. Local HD rebroadcast rights are separate from local standard def rights, so D* has to re-do all the legwork it did years ago when it first offered local channels. Some of the affliates are holding out for a bit more cash this time around, which is why you'll have some markets with only 3 HD channels, some with the big 4 and the CW, etc.
HD shouldn't be an issue for DirecTV by 2009. See the press release:
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P4130030
Currently, DirecTV has local HD in 49 markets, although there are very few regional sports networks (RSNs) in HD even in those markets. Having the capacity to carry 1500 local HD channels should cover the rest of the US, including the RSNs.
Now, whenever D* says a date for anything, I generally add 6 months onto it. So instead of Q3 2007 I'd expect late Q1 2008 before you'd start seeing the first of the national HDs go up, along with some RSNs in the current 49 HD markets.
The biggest stumbling block for D* for local HD is going to be contractural, not technical. Local HD rebroadcast rights are separate from local standard def rights, so D* has to re-do all the legwork it did years ago when it first offered local channels. Some of the affliates are holding out for a bit more cash this time around, which is why you'll have some markets with only 3 HD channels, some with the big 4 and the CW, etc.
# posted by : 1/25/2007 12:14:00 PM
: 1/25/2007 12:14:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.