INDEMAND will carry MLB EI? No so fast says MLB... How about E*?

[Chris Walker]

I saw keep the same deal all providers had last year, plus a 10% increase to MLB for all and let them hash this all out over the season why MLB fans enjoy their baseball on DirecTV, Dish Network and Cable TV.

MLB is not being fair on this by making this announcement and then giving them only a few weeks to get a deal done, especially since the deal with DirecTV is not the same deal they want to make with the other companies.

Let the fans enjoy this season while all the details are hashed out, there is always 2008 for DirecTV to get its exclusive.

Exactly, MLB and D* can harp on the "non-exclusive" and "pro-competitive" BS all they want, but they gave their competition 2 weeks to match an offer which is completely impossible to match. Unless D* wants to lower their percentage of ownership in the MLB channel or MLB will allow E* and In Demand to have 20% of the channel as well, this deal will be killed by Congress. That's the only way I see this getting through.

 

[FKy.Guy]

I may have missed this one key element from all of the afore mentioned play-by-play,but what was the final answer/outcome of all of the point,counter-point stuff ????????????? In other words where does this topic now stand ???

 

[Chris Walker]

Not sure I understand where you are coming from. First, I do have D*, but I also do hope that MLB is available thru other providers.

That being said, why is it acceptable for Comcast in Philly to PREVENT both D* & E* from providing those fans with HOME TEAM sports? That to me is WORSE than not getting out-of-town games.

Why is it OK for Dolan to have MSG-HD and FSNY-HD ONLY on Cablevision?

Why is this a 'crooked' arrangement?

Wouldn't we ALL win if all of these 'exclusives' didn't exist? I certainly think so. And it is obvious that cable has done this already, why the outcry when D* does it?

It's crooked because D* and MLB claim that this is a non-exclusive arrangement and their competition is free to offer it as well if they will simply "match the terms we agreed to" but it's IMPOSSIBLE for E* and In Demand to do so and D* keeps jumping around this issue and would rather harp on the pricing of cable internet.

I don't like the cable deals in San Diego and Philly either, but the fact remains what they are doing is legal because they do not broadcast those channels by satellite, so they would have to go to the expense of creating a satellite uplink just so D* and E* can have access.

 

[ScoBuck]

I don't like the cable deals in San Diego and Philly either, but the fact remains what they are doing is legal because they do not broadcast those channels by satellite, so they would have to go to the expense of creating a satellite uplink just so D* and E* can have access.

Wait - this is common practice of ALL the RSN's isn't it? And it's not that they offered the channels to the satcos and that the satcos turned down the pricing or anything - it's simply that they have a crooked arrangement as you like to put it. These same cablecos that do this are part of the bandwagon complaining about D* - that doesn't make any sense to me.

Comcast does it for one reason only (and it has NOTHING to do with satellite uplinks) - it has to do with KEEPING SUBS! Plain and simple.

 

[RVD420]

Not sure I understand where you are coming from. First, I do have D*, but I also do hope that MLB is available thru other providers.

That being said, why is it acceptable for Comcast in Philly to PREVENT both D* & E* from providing those fans with HOME TEAM sports? That to me is WORSE than not getting out-of-town games.

Why is it OK for Dolan to have MSG-HD and FSNY-HD ONLY on Cablevision?

Why is this a 'crooked' arrangement?

Wouldn't we ALL win if all of these 'exclusives' didn't exist? I certainly think so. And it is obvious that cable has done this already, why the outcry when D* does it?

The thing is MLB is not being honest with the other providers.

They say match D* offer and we have a deal, but we will not allow the other providers to obtain 20% ownership in the MLB channel like D* gets in their deal.

It looks like E* is willing to match the EXACT deal D* got with MLB. And MLB is saying no.

 

[Chris Walker]

I may have missed this one key element from all of the afore mentioned play-by-play,but what was the final answer/outcome of all of the point,counter-point stuff ????????????? In other words where does this topic now stand ???

Nothing was decided, just testimony from In Demand, Dish, Direct, and MLB. Kerry and Specter are both very critical of the deal still and would like the MLB to hold off any further discussions on a possible deal for 2 years or so, Specter warned D* and MLB "when fans react, Congress reacts.. you might be advised to take action before we do". 1 of 2 things is going to happen IMO, MLB will pull out of this deal or Congress will slap the anti-trust provision on MLB which like was said above will cost MLB a fortune and WAYYY more than they would ever get from an Extra Innings deal. Option 1 is most likely what will happen.

 

[Chris Walker]

Wait - this is common practice of ALL the RSN's isn't it? And it's not that they offered the channels to the satcos and that the satcos turned down the pricing or anything - it's simply that they have a crooked arrangement as you like to put it. These same cablecos that do this are part of the bandwagon complaining about D* - that doesn't make any sense to me.

Comcast does it for one reason only (and it has NOTHING to do with satellite uplinks) - it has to do with KEEPING SUBS! Plain and simple.

I agree that it's all about retaining subs and it's BS, but it's perfectly legal. This MLB deal is not because E* and In-Demand are agreeing to match the deal, and MLB says no you can't match it.

 

[Chris Walker]

.

It looks like E* is willing to match the EXACT deal D* got with MLB. And MLB is saying no.

Exactly and this is why Congress is (rightfully so) giving MLB and D* hell over this.

 

[bagsy]

I heard on the mlb channel on xm that it has been reported that Dish is closer to making a deal. I don't recall the source they said the info came from. It didn't give any details, either, so I don't know if it really means anything.

 

[Sammy033]

Exactly, MLB and D* can harp on the "non-exclusive" and "pro-competitive" BS all they want, but they gave their competition 2 weeks to match an offer which is completely impossible to match. Unless D* wants to lower their percentage of ownership in the MLB channel or MLB will allow E* and In Demand to have 20% of the channel as well, this deal will be killed by Congress. That's the only way I see this getting through.

If I understand this correctly, the deal as it stands now gives D* %20 of the upcoming MLB channel. If this is so, and the other 4 (4 right?) providers all submit matching offers and demand the same exact deal, would that mean that each of the 5 providers owns %20? And in the end MLB would have no stake in its own channel? Quite a thought.

The 5 are D*, E*, Comcast, Cox, and TimeWarner/In-demand right?

 

[ehren]

all providers get the same deal and equity in the baseball channel and CSN-Philly and COX Channel 4 Padres are available on satellite, is this too god damn hard to get?

 

[skysurfer]

I don't like the cable deals in San Diego and Philly either, but the fact remains what they are doing is legal because they do not broadcast those channels by satellite, so they would have to go to the expense of creating a satellite uplink just so D* and E* can have access.

Why do they have to create a satellite uplink?

There is this thing called FIBER. ESPN gets their Cox 4 San Diego and Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia highlight feeds by fiber, and all those two broadcasters would have to do is shoot off the channel to D* and E* at D*/E*'s expense for the link if agreements for usage in Extra Innings or whatever are agreed upon by D* and E* and those two broadcasters.

 

[skysurfer]

A pox on all their houses.

For me, there's plenty of free HD baseball on ESPN & ESPN-2 this year.

What alternate planet are you living on?

ESPN/ESPN2 have cut way back on their coverage in 2007.

OTOH, it might be fine for you if you like about 10-12 games a week on ESPN/ESPN2/WGN/TBS and FOX.

 

[skysurfer]

The 5 are D*, E*, Comcast, Cox, and TimeWarner/In-demand right?

iN DEMAND is made up of Comcast/Cox/Time Warner, so there are only 3 major players in the EI talk (DIRECTV, DISH Network and iN DEMAND).

If everyone got a 20% stake, then the three would hold a 60%-40% advantage over MLB in the MLB channel. I highly doubt MLB will give up majority ownership in the channel to someone other than them.

 

[ehren]

Why do they have to create a satellite uplink?

There is this thing called FIBER. ESPN gets their Cox 4 San Diego and Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia highlight feeds by fiber, and all those two broadcasters would have to do is shoot off the channel to D* and E* at D*/E*'s expense for the link if agreements for usage in Extra Innings or whatever are agreed upon by D* and E* and those two broadcasters.

And that's how MLB.TV got all the CSN and CW 57 feeds for all Phillies games last season. Some road games as well when the home team wasn't televising. I guess MLB has the money for all those game eh.

 

[bagsy]

from bizofbaseball.com :

John Ourand and Eric Fisher of the Sports Business Journal report today on the Sports Business Daily that, "EchoStar's Dish Network appears much closer than cable's InDemand to striking a deal with MLB to carry Extra Innings and the planned MLB Channel, marking a potentially significant breakthrough in the distribution logjam that has lasted for months."

Further reporting by Ourand and Fisher indicate that MLB and DirecTV are considering EchoStar's offer, which most likely would ask for an equity stake in The MLB Channel as is currently the deal with MLB and DirecTV's agreement.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Here's something Congress should be focusing on.....

1. Close the cable loophole to force cable to deal with the satellite providers (you can't cry "monopoly!!!!" when you do it yourself....)

2. Baseball needs to give Cable/E* the rights to the EI package for the same price PER SUBSCRIBER D* pays and the same conditions. Threaten the antitrust exemption removal if they don't.

 

[Chris Walker]

from bizofbaseball.com :

John Ourand and Eric Fisher of the Sports Business Journal report today on the Sports Business Daily that, "EchoStar's Dish Network appears much closer than cable's InDemand to striking a deal with MLB to carry Extra Innings and the planned MLB Channel, marking a potentially significant breakthrough in the distribution logjam that has lasted for months."

Further reporting by Ourand and Fisher indicate that MLB and DirecTV are considering EchoStar's offer, which most likely would ask for an equity stake in The MLB Channel as is currently the deal with MLB and DirecTV's agreement.

E* owns 20%, D* owns 20*, MLB owns 60%.. That would work.

 

[Neutron]

Directv shouldn't even be a part of evaluating Echostar's offer....

 

[HokieEngineer]

I noticed that MLB games are in the Extended EPG guide data for Dish. Attached is a screenshot for the guide data for April 03. The SKDL channels are the channels that Dish uses for all the sports packages (Center Ice, NBA, ESPN Full Court, MLB EI, etc).

Doesn't mean that they'll be available or even shown, but at least they went through the trouble of importing the MLB EI guide data into their system...