MLB TV

[vampz26]

I don't think DISH can carry EI because I'm pretty sure DirecTV has the DBS exclusive on it, just like they do for the NFL package. When they did that last contract on MLB EI, D* had the complete exclusive on it, so they were the only carriers period (even cable) until Congress stepped in!!!...

Yup....another infamous attempt by D* to swindle their sports fan subs by creating a monopoly and jacking up the price. Then when congress did step in, the whole thing became a bidding war because whomever else wanted the package had to match whatever magnificient price D* was will to pay for the monopoly of the channel.

So why doesn't Charlie carry EI? It won't cost Dish subscribers anything unless they sign up for it. And I expect Dish's cost for EI is per subscriber, so they shouldn't have to "burden" their non-sports fan subscribers with additional price increases...

But what would it cost E* up front? Thats really the million dollar question here. Any rabid sports fan who is willing to cough up the kind of cabbage to fund a successful business model in the manner you've just described (only the EI subs paying for EI), are already happilly watching EI on D*. I can't imagine many E* subs are out there pining away for EI when its readily available elsewhere and has been for some time. So basically, if E* decided to offer EI tomorrow, who would pay for it? Its anticipated that the number of interested E* subs willing to pay the current going rate is rather low, so who would be paying the up front costs just for E* to have the ability to even offer the package? And THAT is where the whole 'burden their non-sports fan subs' comes in to play. E* would have to distribute the initial costs amongst its current subscriber base just to have the ability to even offer EI, and it would take quite a long time for E* to build up enough of a subscriber base that is even interested in EI to where the subscriber base is even large enough to cover the carraige costs. Like I said, anyone who wants EI bad enough is already on D*, and its not like E* is going to be wooing those D* subs over, EI or not, any time soon...

 

[chikagobnd]

But what would it cost E* up front? Thats really the million dollar question here. Any rabid sports fan who is willing to cough up the kind of cabbage to fund a successful business model in the manner you've just described (only the EI subs paying for EI), are already happilly watching EI on D*. I can't imagine many E* subs are out there pining away for EI when its readily available elsewhere and has been for some time. So basically, if E* decided to offer EI tomorrow, who would pay for it? Its anticipated that the number of interested E* subs willing to pay the current going rate is rather low, so who would be paying the up front costs just for E* to have the ability to even offer the package? And THAT is where the whole 'burden their non-sports fan subs' comes in to play. E* would have to distribute the initial costs amongst its current subscriber base just to have the ability to even offer EI, and it would take quite a long time for E* to build up enough of a subscriber base that is even interested in EI to where the subscriber base is even large enough to cover the carraige costs. Like I said, anyone who wants EI bad enough is already on D*, and its not like E* is going to be wooing those D* subs over, EI or not, any time soon...[/quote]

Alright, my situation is unique, but I'm sure there are others out there who may have some sort of similar situation. I live in an apartment building...actually more of a loft above a business. When the building was built(just a few years ago), they pre-wired the units for Dish Network only. They did not wire for our local cable company and when I inquired about switching to D*, my landlord denied my request because he didn't want to "drill more holes in the roof". So, if I want anything more than locals, I have to go with Dish...it's my only option. And yes, when I moved in, I asked the lady that showed me the place if we could get D*, she told me it was already installed and ready to go...then after I move in, I find out it's E*. So not every interested baseball fan who wants to pay the extra money is already with D*. There are situations out there that just make it impossible. Second, the whole "cost to all subscribers" argument is the biggest cop out I've ever heard. It's amazing to me how D* and the majority of cable companies are able to offer the package and MLB Network without their customers bills going up $10 a month as soon as it was added. The E* argument that they are the low cost alternative to D* and those who repeat that on here are either blind, ignorant or both. $3-4 a month difference doesn't sway me either way, and if it did, I probably shouldn't have cable or satellite. For D* to offer more channels in HD and far more sports and programming options altogether for a minimal difference in price, it amazes me that E* can sit there time after time making this lame argument when it comes to sports packages, disputes with locals, and national HD networks. If I was saving a substantial amount of money a month, that would be one thing, but between the two companies it's nearly a wash. I want to like this company, I really do...but I don't feel like they are honest and forthright when it comes to backing their programming decisions. It gets tiresome after a while!

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Dish has MLB EI for a few season but it failed for a number of reasons.

First was many of the games were missing from the Dish Network in the extra innings package. So yankees fans (and other) missed games since Dish did not offer channels like YES Network which they needed to rebroadcast those games. People didn't want to pay for EI on Dish since they didn't have the games they wanted to watch.

Then Dish didn't want to renew EI since they were not making money on it, when MLB wanted them to renew they threw the MLB Network cog into it, and to make things worse they announce that DirecTV was a owner of the network. (This is from memory so correct me if I am wrong)

Ultimately it was not worth it for Dish to carry MLB EI as the majority of folks who were baseball diehards were on DirecTV already.

 

[JonE]

If MLB Network is anywhere near the snorefest NFL Network is when there isn't actual games on (NFL Combine? Really?) I don't imagine I'm missing much. I'm already considering losing Dish Network because it's overpriced, I don't need more tacked on to make up for some silly sports package. Especially considering you can get out of market games on the Internet for WAY cheaper than D* or E* could ever offer it. I'm even considering downloading the iPhone app when it's out to get MLB Gameday Audio home and away feeds. A better alternative than having it on a Dish service I rarely watch and am still paying $65 and up for.

 

[stuckingoo]

But what would it cost E* up front? Thats really the million dollar question here. Any rabid sports fan who is willing to cough up the kind of cabbage to fund a successful business model in the manner you've just described (only the EI subs paying for EI), are already happilly watching EI on D*. I can't imagine many E* subs are out there pining away for EI when its readily available elsewhere and has been for some time. So basically, if E* decided to offer EI tomorrow, who would pay for it?

Yup. I think this is the third season Dish hasn't had EI. I would think just about anyone that had a problem with that has moved by now and new subs know in advance (or should know) that they won't be getting EI/MLB channel. I was one of those that had a problem with that and was a Dish sub until my contract expired and moved to DirecTV. As it turned out, it was the right time to move as shortly after I switched, D* made their long promised upgrade to their HD offerings which was quite sparse compared to Dish.

 

[vampz26]

Alright, my situation is unique, but I'm sure there are others out there who may have some sort of similar situation. I live in an apartment building...actually more of a loft above a business. When the building was built(just a few years ago), they pre-wired the units for Dish Network only. They did not wire for our local cable company and when I inquired about switching to D*, my landlord denied my request because he didn't want to "drill more holes in the roof". So, if I want anything more than locals, I have to go with Dish...it's my only option. And yes, when I moved in, I asked the lady that showed me the place if we could get D*, she told me it was already installed and ready to go...then after I move in, I find out it's E*. So not every interested baseball fan who wants to pay the extra money is already with D*. There are situations out there that just make it impossible. Second, the whole "cost to all subscribers" argument is the biggest cop out I've ever heard. It's amazing to me how D* and the majority of cable companies are able to offer the package and MLB Network without their customers bills going up $10 a month as soon as it was added. The E* argument that they are the low cost alternative to D* and those who repeat that on here are either blind, ignorant or both. $3-4 a month difference doesn't sway me either way, and if it did, I probably shouldn't have cable or satellite. For D* to offer more channels in HD and far more sports and programming options altogether for a minimal difference in price, it amazes me that E* can sit there time after time making this lame argument when it comes to sports packages, disputes with locals, and national HD networks. If I was saving a substantial amount of money a month, that would be one thing, but between the two companies it's nearly a wash. I want to like this company, I really do...but I don't feel like they are honest and forthright when it comes to backing their programming decisions. It gets tiresome after a while!

1) You said your situation is unique, so how does that negate my statement as it pertains to the rest of the world? I'm sure there are plenty of unique exceptions. I'm only talking about the general rules that effect the economics of the situation.

2) D* can keep (not add, keep) EI at any price quite easily because they already had an existing subscriber base that was generating a profit. They also have a bastion of sports fan subscribers willing to pay out the nose. So...there it is. As I've stated, and so has Scott...the EI sub base for E* was not profitable, so a price or cost increase was out of the question. Now, with the majority of former E*subs who wanted EI bad enough to defect to D* having done so, it makes no sense at all for them to get it.

3) When it comes to Cable...just look at the economic demographics of cable vs your typical DBS and than you can tell me how they can afford to do anything.

And lastly...what IS E*s "lame argument" that your speaking of? I mean, all the babble 'sounds' good if you take it strictly at face value. BUt the reality of it is this:

Don't make an investment in something that doesn't turn a profit, and don't make an investment that guarantees a loss.

I'm glad your amazed by the whole thing, but its really all just good business and common sense on E*'s part in terms of how they run their business, and just plain MLB greed on the other hand. But to give D* praise in any way shape or form regarding this whole nonsense is really what is blind, ignorant, or...well...both....

 

[david_jr]

I don't think DISH can carry EI because I'm pretty sure DirecTV has the DBS exclusive on it, just like they do for the NFL package. When they did that last contract on MLB EI, D* had the complete exclusive on it, so they were the only carriers period (even cable) until Congress stepped in!!!...

This is my memory of it as well. I clearly remember Senator John Kerry being outraged that he could no longer get EI on his cable in Washington to watch Red Sox games because it had gone exclusive to D*. Congressman John Olver was inundated with calls by angry cable customers also. I remember friends of mine here in Western Mass that lost EI from their Time Warner Cable so they could no longer watch their Mets and Yankees games (we are actually closer to NY here than Boston but are forced to receive Boston sports on cable & DBS), but got a reprieve because of congressional action and got their EI back on cable. I don't know if the deal was ever consumated or not but it was widely reported that D* would have exclusive rights to EI when the deal was signed, but congress stepped in.

MLB may drop plans to offer controversial DirecTV deal - Feb. 27, 2007

 

[chikagobnd]

1) You said your situation is unique, so how does that negate my statement as it pertains to the rest of the world? I'm sure there are plenty of unique exceptions. I'm only talking about the general rules that effect the economics of the situation.

2) D* can keep (not add, keep) EI at any price quite easily because they already had an existing subscriber base that was generating a profit. They also have a bastion of sports fan subscribers willing to pay out the nose. So...there it is. As I've stated, and so has Scott...the EI sub base for E* was not profitable, so a price or cost increase was out of the question. Now, with the majority of former E*subs who wanted EI bad enough to defect to D* having done so, it makes no sense at all for them to get it.

3) When it comes to Cable...just look at the economic demographics of cable vs your typical DBS and than you can tell me how they can afford to do anything.

And lastly...what IS E*s "lame argument" that your speaking of? I mean, all the babble 'sounds' good if you take it strictly at face value. BUt the reality of it is this:

Don't make an investment in something that doesn't turn a profit, and don't make an investment that guarantees a loss.

I'm glad your amazed by the whole thing, but its really all just good business and common sense on E*'s part in terms of how they run their business, and just plain MLB greed on the other hand. But to give D* praise in any way shape or form regarding this whole nonsense is really what is blind, ignorant, or...well...both....

The lame argument is that E* always uses the cost increase on all customers stuff to explain away why they can't offer channels that the others do. D* comparably is no more expensive than E*. And when you have available more viable HD channels and every major sports package for close to the same price, then it does amaze me that E* can't do the same. It's just inept management and ownership. It is E* who continues to lose money hand over fist. Maybe D* is another one of those companies cooking the books while they are really losing millions. I guess that's what you're assuming, so just continue to support the business model that continues to fail. I'm thinking the other guys have it right. I'm not just arguing the MLB decision...it's a consistent practice of E. Just about as consistent as their money lost per quarter.

 

[ChiefIlliniwek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chikagobnd
But what would it cost E* up front? Thats really the million dollar question here. Any rabid sports fan who is willing to cough up the kind of cabbage to fund a successful business model in the manner you've just described (only the EI subs paying for EI), are already happilly watching EI on D*. I can't imagine many E* subs are out there pining away for EI when its readily available elsewhere and has been for some time. So basically, if E* decided to offer EI tomorrow, who would pay for it?

Yup. I think this is the third season Dish hasn't had EI. I would think just about anyone that had a problem with that has moved by now and new subs know in advance (or should know) that they won't be getting EI/MLB channel. I was one of those that had a problem with that and was a Dish sub until my contract expired and moved to DirecTV. As it turned out, it was the right time to move as shortly after I switched, D* made their long promised upgrade to their HD offerings which was quite sparse compared to Dish.

I don't think that you can compare those subscribers who NEED MLB-EI to those of us who NEED & EXPECT to be able to view the MLB Network this season and beyond.

If people want to be able to watch any and every NFL football game, they have already left Dish Network for DirectTV or possibly cable.

Yet the "NFL Channel", which shows EXCLUSIVE games each season, is available on Dish Network and has been since it's first year in existance.

Frankly, if DishNetwork had not made this channel available that first season, I would have been long gone already from Dish...and I called/sent numerous e-mails to Dish letting them know my opinion at the time.

Now, if folks want to be able to watch MLB-EI, they have to subscribe to DirectTV or cable to get it. Those who HAD to have MLB-EI are long gone.

Yet, the MLB Network is an ABSOLUTELY different beast than MLB-EI.

The "MLB Network", which began this year, will show a large number of EXCLUSIVE games that won't be available even from the local networks for each MLB team for those specific games.

But, as of this date, Dish Network seems unwilling to negociate with MLB/MLB Network to allow it's carriage on the E* platform at ANY price tier.

I've been calling and e-mailing Dish Network on a monthly basis since last Fall (both CSR and ceo e-mail) regarding MLB Network and get PISSED OFF every time (Yes, I mean EVERY TIME) each CSR has no friggin' CLUE what "MLB Network" is! (They give me the spiel about "MLB-EI" when I call!).

For me, this is a make-or-break deal. For Dish Network to provide viewers the "NFL Channel" (but not have the NFL game pckg.) yet NOT to provide the "MLB Network" is complete BS.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Some folks dont seem to get it that in order for Dish to have MLB Network they need to have MLB Extra Innings.

If you want MLB Network, you need DirecTV or Cable (my local COX just added MLB Network over the past week.)

 

[Rangers484]

Some folks dont seem to get it that in order for Dish to have MLB Network they need to have MLB Extra Innings.

If you want MLB Network, you need DirecTV or Cable (my local COX just added MLB Network over the past week.)

On the MLB Network site they indicate some 40 plus cable and sat providers (D*) carry MLB Network.

This begs the question, how can some of these smaller regional cable companies afford to offer MLB Network if it is tied into carrying EI? How do they make it work financially but Dish can't or will not?

Also Direct's prices are very comparable to Dish now so how do they offer EI and Sunday ticket but maintain a competitive price across their entire platform? Based on the "it costs too much argument" Direct's prices should be considerably higher for all of their subscribers.

 

[vampz26]

The lame argument is that E* always uses the cost increase on all customers stuff to explain away why they can't offer channels that the others do. D* comparably is no more expensive than E*. And when you have available more viable HD channels and every major sports package for close to the same price, then it does amaze me that E* can't do the same. It's just inept management and ownership. It is E* who continues to lose money hand over fist. Maybe D* is another one of those companies cooking the books while they are really losing millions. I guess that's what you're assuming, so just continue to support the business model that continues to fail. I'm thinking the other guys have it right. I'm not just arguing the MLB decision...it's a consistent practice of E. Just about as consistent as their money lost per quarter.

Look, are we talking about E*'s vendor management practices here in general, or why E* will not get MLB net? Because you are kind of all over the board here. I mean, the concept of how Charlie manages his relationships with his current channel providers, and the concept of E* offering EI just to get MLBnet not being a prudent business decision, are two completely different concepts. Which one do you choose to discuss?

Hey, if you just want to bash E*, thats fine. Knock yourself out, but please don't pretend to actually have an intellectual response to one of my statements while doing so. Its been stated often as to why E* would not/should not offer EI because of the economics of the situation. I'd love to hear your thoughts regarding such, if you have any.

 

[vampz26]

On the MLB Network site they indicate some 40 plus cable and sat providers (D*) carry MLB Network.

This begs the question, how can some of these smaller regional cable companies afford to offer MLB Network if it is tied into carrying EI? How do they make it work financially but Dish can't or will not?

Also Direct's prices are very comparable to Dish now so how do they offer EI and Sunday ticket but maintain a competitive price across their entire platform? Based on the "it costs too much argument" Direct's prices should be considerably higher for all of their subscribers.

1) smaller cable companies are often affliates of larger business entities.

2) D* currently has a subscriber base that supports ST and will support high-priced sports packages in general. E* DOES NOT have a subscriber base that supports ST and will support high-priced sports packages in general. They would have to build one, and take a lost or raise current sub prices in the iterim.

and the most important point of all...

3) How often am I going to have to repeat 2) ??? Is it that difficult of a concept to grasp? I wouldn't think so...

 

[Rangers484]

1) smaller cable companies are often affliates of larger business entities.

2) D* currently has a subscriber base that supports ST and will support high-priced sports packages in general. E* DOES NOT have a subscriber base that supports ST and will support high-priced sports packages in general. They would have to build one, and take a lost or raise current sub prices in the iterim.

and the most important point of all...

3) How often am I going to have to repeat 2) ??? Is it that difficult of a concept to grasp? I wouldn't think so...

I understand the concept, it is simple. Your analysis is wrong.

 

[vampz26]

I understand the concept, it is simple. Your analysis is wrong.

and how so....

please explain.

Please explain how E* could cough up the cabbage, offer EI tomorrow just to get MLB-network, and NOT incur a loss in the interim UNLESS it raises the rates of current subs.

The argument that:

1) The "D* doe it" argument is invalid because D* already has a subscriber base that supports big ticket sports packs, whereas E* does not.

2) the "cable does it" argument is invalid because cable has much deeper pockets and a much wider subscriber base in general, and much more 'captive audience' subs. Cable just plain has a more stable basis for taking chances on a product offering than E* does.

E*'s current balance sheet, nor their current subscriber base support hte possiblity of adding EI any time soon.

How is that statement wrong?

 

[DodgerKing]

Some folks dont seem to get it that in order for Dish to have MLB Network they need to have MLB Extra Innings.

If you want MLB Network, you need DirecTV or Cable (my local COX just added MLB Network over the past week.)

That is pretty much the same point I have made in just about EVERY post on this thread. I got tired of repeating myself.

 

[DodgerKing]

I understand the concept, it is simple. Your analysis is wrong.

This is one instance in which I agree with Vampz. Actually agree with just about every point he has made in his last few posts.

 

[Jim5506]

DirecTV is operating EI and Sunday Ticket at a loss, i.e. the subscriber base as a whole is subsidizing EI and ST, Charlie will not do that.

Hurray for Charlie!!.

 

[DodgerKing]

DirecTV is operating EI and Sunday Ticket at a loss, i.e. the subscriber base as a whole is subsidizing EI and ST, Charlie will not do that.

Hurray for Charlie!!.

Is it really at a loss? Even if it cost them more to carry than they get directly from the sub payments to those particular packages, it may not be a net loss. The additional subs they gain and their payments to the base packages, fees, and other packages combined may give them a total net profit from each sub subscribing to EI and/or ST.

Without looking at the numbers, I will just make up hypothetical situation.

Say it cost Direct $200 per EI sub (EI subs only) and EI subs pay Direct $180 for the package. Direct will lose $20 per EI sub for EI only, thus a loss. But, because Direct carries EI they may gain additional subs. These addtional subs have to pay a base package and many of them pay additional equipment fees and for other packages as well. Let's just say (again, hypothetical) that Direct then makes a profit of $30 per year off of these additional subs for all of their other payments outside of EI. Direct, theoretically is making $10 profit off of a sub they probably normally would not have. If they get enough of these EI subs, they may make an additional net profit off of people that normally would not be with them.

 

[Slamminc11]

I've been house-sitting/dog-sitting for a friend for about a week now, and I gotta say, MLBN isn't that impressive to me. I can get just about the same thing from ESPN and there are a ton of re-runs of stuff, ironically about like ESPN.
As much of a baseball fan as I am, and as excited as I was to see what all the hub-bub was about, I am finding that I am spending less and less time paying attention to the channel as the week went along. Maybe it will get better, but at this point if Dish carried it and it was in the package about what I had, personally I wouldn't shell out the cash for the upgrade... but that's just me.