MLB Network

[Mr Tony]

Well, yeah...I already knew that just living in Chicago with two teams. There is always a game on OTA game on WCIU 26 thats just a spill-over channel for the broadcast. Are you saying MLBN will show those games?

unknown...but its possible (and I am just speculating) that maybe they will carry those games

I know mlb.tv carries ALL games.....if a game is not televised by both teams they use the "scoreboard" setup (2 or 3 cameras...after all how else do media get hilites of other games) and pump in the home teams radio broadcast.

EI (from last I knew) carried the games that were on FSN, CSN and started using feeds that normally werent available like cable only feeds (4 San Diego, CSN Philly) and Canadian feeds from TSN, CBC & Rogers Sportsnet. I know those were if that was the only option. OTA games were never shown.

Will MLB Channel pick some of them up? Nobody really knows yet. But if they show a couple extra games (like the NHL Network does) then its kinda cool to see extra games. And usually its not the same teams that the "big" networks always pick up

 

[dfergie]

anyway...

Thanks again Ice!

I guess it is My Bad as this discussion has turned around for the better... Thanks for restoring Tony

 

[DodgerKing]

Since 36 pay TV companies are offering MLB-EI and MLB Network (covering 50 million subs), I would be venting towards the provider NOT willing to contract for it as opposed to Major League Baseball if I felt alienated.

If a local cable company can make economic sense of it, and if FiOS can make economic sense of it, and if DirecTV can make economic sense of it - why is it that DISH can't make economic sense of it?

Remember for example in my home market (NY - which is the LARGEST DMA), they still have no intention of offering the most viewed RSN in the nation - and they are the ONLY pay outlet that doesn't offer it. It is their choice, but I got to tell you it makes no sense to me. I don't blame YES Network for this at all, but when I left CABLEVISION I went to DirecTV for this reason.

And the MOST profitable RSN as well. YES is one of the reasons the Yanks can have a $300 million payroll.

 

[Mr Tony]

Remember for example in my home market (NY - which is the LARGEST DMA), they still have no intention of offering the most viewed RSN in the nation - and they are the ONLY pay outlet that doesn't offer it. It is their choice, but I got to tell you it makes no sense to me. I don't blame YES Network for this at all, but when I left CABLEVISION I went to DirecTV for this reason.

I know alot of people did that a few years ago here in Minneapolis. When Time Warner (the cable co at the time) dropped FSN North due to a dispute right before the Twins season started, lots of folks left for Dish or Direct.

They wanted to see the local team

 

[ScoBuck]

And the MOST profitable RSN as well. YES is one of the reasons the Yanks can have a $300 million payroll.

And one of the reasons DISH will never get a larger market share in of all places, the LARGEST (and among the WEALTHIEST) DMAS. YES is provided in the entire NY Metro area -encompassing NY, CT, NJ for a start.

 

[vampz26]

Since 36 pay TV companies are offering MLB-EI and MLB Network (covering 50 million subs), I would be venting towards the provider NOT willing to contract for it as opposed to Major League Baseball if I felt alienated.

If a local cable company can make economic sense of it, and if FiOS can make economic sense of it, and if DirecTV can make economic sense of it - why is it that DISH can't make economic sense of it?

Remember for example in my home market (NY - which is the LARGEST DMA), they still have no intention of offering the most viewed RSN in the nation - and they are the ONLY pay outlet that doesn't offer it. It is their choice, but I got to tell you it makes no sense to me. I don't blame YES Network for this at all, but when I left CABLEVISION I went to DirecTV for this reason, and this reason alone.

Look...let me simplify it for you. I do not care about your DMA or anything else for that matter, its OT, and quite irrelevant in general...here is what I do care about:

I have no interest in EI. I do not think its worth the money, and I do not have the time to enjoy if completely even if I did. If I was interested in EI, I had two years to pick a provider to give it to me.

I AM interested in MLBN. I cannot get MLBN. Am I to blame Dish for a decision they made 2 years ago that wasn't even affected by MLBN when it didn't even exist? Or a decision that MLB has made now regarding MLBN now that it does?

Sorry, throw anything you want at the problem, but the problem stands exactly as I've stated it. The decision on this one is all MLB, and thus the blame as well...

 

[Rey]

But if its truly a channel meant for general availability, and MLB is just using that channel to show preference to their current EI providers...how does that not alienate those fans who sub to one of the other providers?

you're right it does. I'm not saying it's right because it isn't but what I'm trying to say is that switching providers over one channel is ok as long as you're happy with the rest of the service you're getting with that provider. What happens if you're not happy with what you're getting besides the MLB network? again I fully agree with what you're saying. It's just best to be careful before jumping ships. am I making any sense?

 

[dfergie]

Best thing if you can afford it.. is both worlds (no income at this minute so that might change ) (actually add in FTA for more choices )

 

[Mr Tony]

I have no interest in EI. I do not think its worth the money, and I do not have the time to enjoy if completely even if I did. If I was interested in EI, I had two years to pick a provider to give it to me.

we're aware of it....

I AM interested in MLBN. I cannot get MLBN. Am I to blame Dish for a decision they made 2 years ago that wasn't even affected by MLBN when it didn't even exist? Or a decision that MLB has made now regarding MLBN now that it does?

part of the agreement was you'd get access to MLB N if the company (D*, E*, Fios, cable, etc) agreed to have MLB EI available to the customers

In a deal that may be copied by other sports league owned channels, MLB tied carriage of the MLB Network to the ability to carry the popular out of market MLB Extra Innings package. In return, cable and satellite providers were offered a minority share of the new network. The only major television provider that isn't currently carrying the channel is Dish Network, who also does not carry MLB Extra Innings, denying approximately 15 million subscribers. Dish Network has not carried the package since 2006.

 

[ScoBuck]

I AM interested in MLBN. I cannot get MLBN. Am I to blame Dish for a decision they made 2 years ago that wasn't even affected by MLBN when it didn't even exist? Or a decision that MLB has made now regarding MLBN now that it does?

Sorry, throw anything you want at the problem, but the problem stands exactly as I've stated it. The decision on this one is all MLB, and thus the blame as well...

Nope you're wrong. The combining of MLB Network and EI was stated as part of the agreement on the day it was signed in March of 2007. DISH took their stand NOT TO OFFER this channel to YOU 2 years ago - this is in no way a decision that MLB has made now.

You have had 2 seasons of baseball knowing that this day was coming.

 

[ScoBuck]

To put it in baseball terms for you vampz.........


DISH just needs to STEP UP TO THE PLATE. I hope they do, I feel they should offer the entire package to their customers, just like the other providers do.

 

[drx6]

Nope you're wrong. The combining of MLB Network and EI was stated as part of the agreement on the day it was signed in March of 2007. DISH took their stand NOT TO OFFER this channel to YOU 2 years ago - this is in no way a decision that MLB has made now.

You have had 2 seasons of baseball knowing that this day was coming.

Absolutely - and as stated before, I made the switch on Dec. 26 - just in time
Sure is taking a lot to get use to a new DVR interface after 8 years with my 508!

 

[Rey]

Best thing if you can afford it.. is both worlds (no income at this minute so that might change ) (actually add in FTA for more choices )

man that's a strange avatar you got there dfergie what the hell is it?

 

[vampz26]

we're aware of it....

part of the agreement was you'd get access to MLB N if the company (D*, E*, Fios, cable, etc) agreed to have MLB EI available to the customers

...and nobody else would? Look...it makes sense as an 'add-on', gravy just like I said, but what I'd like to know is when was the decision was made that ONLY current EI providers would have access. I'm sure it was a tasty add-on to the package, but when was the decision made that everyone else would be SOL?

BEcause if E* can get MLBN tomorrow for a nominal fee in and of itself, that changes everything. If E* passed up MLBN KNOWING they would never get it if they didn't grab EI, that changes everything too. But if all MLBN was, was gravy to the EI contracts two years ago, and nothing was ever said about whether or not it would be available independently or not, well then...that doesn't change a thing...

I am curious here...

 

[ScoBuck]

...and nobody else would? Look...it makes sense as an 'add-on', gravy just like I said, but what I'd like to know is when was the decision was made that ONLY current EI providers would have access. I'm sure it was a tasty add-on to the package, but when was the decision made that everyone else would be SOL?

BEcause if E* can get MLBN tomorrow for a nominal fee in and of itself, that changes everything. If E* passed up MLBN KNOWING they would never get it if they didn't grab EI, that changes everything too. But if all MLBN was, was gravy to the EI contracts two years ago, and nothing was ever said about whether or not it would be available independently or not, well then...that doesn't change a thing...

I am curious here...

Again, it was part of the contract negotiated in March of 2007, which was open to ALL of the incumbent providers of MLB-EI when the previous contract expired after the 2006 baseball season. It has not changed a bit.

Catch your breath and take a moment to read the link below.
http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286326

 

[vampz26]

Nope you're wrong. The combining of MLB Network and EI was stated as part of the agreement on the day it was signed in March of 2007. DISH took their stand NOT TO OFFER this channel to YOU 2 years ago - this is in no way a decision that MLB has made now.

You have had 2 seasons of baseball knowing that this day was coming.

So your saying that when MLBN was added as gravy to the EI deals, it was also said that no provider would be able to carry MLBN UNLESS they had EI...is that what you are saying?

 

[Mr Tony]

...and nobody else would? Look...it makes sense as an 'add-on', gravy just like I said, but what I'd like to know is when was the decision was made that ONLY current EI providers would have access. I'm sure it was a tasty add-on to the package, but when was the decision made that everyone else would be SOL?

I'm not saying current EI customers...I'm saying when the agreement was set up (I guess 2 years ago) if the company carried EI (not the subs...the company) then you'd have access to MLB-N.....so as long as you carried EI you would have access to it.

So if you were Directv, Fios, Time Warner, Charter or the podunk cable company in Buckskin, MT as long as you offered EI to your customers then you had access to MLB Network

 

[Rey]

part of the agreement was you'd get access to MLB N if the company (D*, E*, Fios, cable, etc) agreed to have MLB EI available to the customers

this is what gets to me. why is that the rest can agree to terms with services like this ,even cable can agree to it but Dish can't? I can't put the whole blame or even most of it on MLB.

 

[vampz26]

Again, it was part of the contract negotiated in March of 2007, which was open to ALL of the incumbent providers of MLB-EI when the previous contract expired after the 2006 baseball season. It has not changed a bit.

BE specific, and not available too who?...

Look...I'm PO'd as heck here...I want a throat to choak...

You tell prove to me that E* turned down MLBN KNOWING that it would not have been available to them as an individual channel, I'm on the phone with them in five minutes.

I understand why they turned down EI...its simple cost/benifit analysis when they jacked up the prices...I get that. BUt if this channel was to be avialable to base subs, and E* turned that down...KNOWING they would never get it, even as in an individual offering...that thats it...E* is gone...

We all know I've been very down on them since Voom was dropped...

 

[Mr Tony]

So your saying that when MLBN was added as gravy to the EI deals, it was also said that no provider would be able to carry MLBN UNLESS they had EI...is that what you are saying?

correct...Its kinda like when local networks play hardball with Dish & Direct come resigning time. The CBS in Market X may have a CW subchannel they want Dish to carry. Dish says no and CBS pulls its channel

Basically MLB said "to get MLB Channel you MUST carry MLB EI at the price we set". Dish said no so they lost the ability to get MLB Channel