I do believe it IS a crooked deal.
They want Dish and Cable to pay the same as DirecTV, but they are not giving them all the they are giving to DirecTV for the price, and this is partial ownership of the upcoming MLB Baseball Channel.
Why should other companies pay the same as DirecTV but not get all the same perks that DirecTV is getting?
Is that similar to the Comcast/Cox/TWC demand that Dish and DirecTV pay for each "digital" subscriber to receive InHD, knowing that the two DBS companies were all digital and the cable cos were then at about 10% digital?
That would have meant Dish and DirecTV would have (together) paid more than five times as much for InHD as the cable companies -- (which of course owned it and weren't offering a share of the ownership pie). As I understand it, both DirecTV and Dish were willing to pay the same per sub rate as the cablecos as long as it was per HD sub. Cable refused the deal.
But Comcast/Cox,TWC want us to forget all that.
The big companies (all of them) just whine and moan and bring up straw men at every chance. Ownership has nothing to do with the deal regarding the financials.
No one demanded an ownership of ESPN (or even the NFL Network). This is a bogus argument from the start. DirecTV is paying its money up front, no matter the number of subs, and is guaranteeing all subs get the Baseball Channel. DirecTV has a track record with MLB regarding EI. It has promoted MLB-EI very aggressively and has six times as many EI subs as Dish -- and more than the inHD constortium -- even though they have 50 million subs.
InDemand is saying it will pay on a subscriber basis and offer a similar number of homes as DirecTV -- or about a third of the Comcast/Cox/TWC subs. Doesn't sound similar to me at all.