skyreport subject on directv mlb deal

[ronfelder]

I agree with the below article. been saying it all along.

ron

Keep Crying Over DIRECTV/MLB

SkyREPORT: After many months of negotiations, which also allowed an open period for other providers to match this deal, those competitors who failed to step to the plate (pun intended) and finalize their own agreements are all tears. It's funny (coincidence - NOT) how the politicians representing the home states of Comcast and EchoStar in particular, are equally watery-eyed and crying "foul ball" (OK, I'll stop). It's an open market to get these deals done.

If one sport or another is so important to any viewer, they can switch to another service to get that one easily enough. There are so many promos out there for switching between satellite and cable that your head can spin. Satellite is generally cheaper than cable in most places anyway, and cable is behind in HDTV looking on to 2008, so they've done folks a favor to make the choice clear.

Kudos to DIRECTV for having the guts and persistence to be the true sports leader in HDTV and broadcasts in general with agreements for the NFL, MLB, and others. The competition should stop its whining and deal with reality - they failed to do their job and be competitive in the broadcast re- transmission marketplace.

Shame on them - for that they deserve to cry.

- Pete Radike

2nd article from skyreport on same subject

Is cable getting a taste of its own medicine?

by Michael Hopkins

Earlier this week, lawmakers debated with those in the multiplatform business what is expected to become DIRECTV's exclusive lock on Major League Baseball's Extra Innings out-of-market package. Those in the cable business (and EchoStar) cried foul about the arrangement during testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee. DIRECTV and Major League Baseball defended the deal.

Chase Carey said about the exclusive agreement, "Simply put, this is competition at work."

At the hearing, cable complained that the DIRECTV/MLB deal is bad for consumers. Truth is the wired incumbent has engaged in similar, consumer-unfriendly practices when it comes to blocking access to highly valuable sports programming. All one has to do is look at the City of Brotherly Love for cable's bad example.

Comcast owns the local regional sports network in Philadelphia, known as Comcast SportsNet. The channel delivers local coverage of Phillies baseball as well as Flyers hockey and 76ers basketball.

And the network is not available to small dish competitors ... at any price.

The cable giant delivers the Philly RSN via terrestrial means. That creates the so-called terrestrial loophole. Because Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia isn't delivered to the headend via satellite, it can be kept out of the hands of DIRECTV and EchoStar's DISH Network.

Thus, Comcast has created a near-exclusive sports programming property of its own. (It should be noted that Comcast is offering the network to a telco competitor ... Verizon FiOS TV). Worse yet, satellite TV customers in Philadelphia become disenfranchised consumers, lacking access to their home teams.

At the end of the day, it's hard to understand cable's argument about the lack of access to MLB Extra Innings when the business is engaged in similar activities.

 

[josem3]

I seconded that. Because I live in Florida, I didn't know that Comcast SportNet at Philladelphia play the same game with the satellite providers(DirecTV and Dish) not allowing them to get those exclusive sport channels. It is time to DirecTV to play the same game to Comcast on MLB/DirecTV deal. I'm glad I don't have to deal with the monopoly of Comcast cable in Florida. If I have to get cable, I will go thru Brighthouse.

 

[ekilgus]

There is a solution to all of this nonsense. Do away with all of those ridiculous distant network restrictions. The satellite consumer should be able to purchase as many distant stations from any city as they are willing to pay for. Then people can watch their local sports teams and any other teams they have an interest in. That would be a true competitive environment.

 

[FlyingJ]

Agreed with the article and the OP post. Thedistants restrictions are another story. Sounds good and all but the only reason we get to watch any non pay TV is advertising. Doesn't do the stations, any good to let everyone in LA see everything they want in KC. The advertising especially for these ballgames is generally local. Rates and everthing else get affected. So sounds fine but doesn't work.

 

[rad]

The satellite consumer should be able to purchase as many distant stations from any city as they are willing to pay for.

The reason D* and E* could do the LIL was because of the spot beam technology. If the law did change would there even be enough bandwidth available out there to do this?

 

[ekilgus]

First of all, I think there's at least as much (probably more) national advertising than local advertising. Anyway, by that line of reasoning, I should be prohibited from subscribing to a local newspaper from some distant market. Afterall, it's the content and not the technology, isn't it?

As for bandwidth, it's already there. you ought to be able to subscribe to the NYC networks for example and all E* needs to do is turn it on for you.

 

[rad]

As for bandwidth, it's already there. you ought to be able to subscribe to the NYC networks for example and all E* needs to do is turn it on for you.

Excuse me, where did you get the bandwidth is already there? Except for some HD cities E* has all the SD locals on spot beams, they were removed from CONUS beams when they lost their DNS court fight. If E* had enought spot beam capability for the HD channels you'd see them also on spots. On D*, except for NYC and LA having ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC as national feeds everthing else is on spot beams.