MLB TV

[vampz26]

Just to followup...

Charlie made a comment on the Charlie Chat about watching the internet feed on your ViP receiver.

I got clarification from Dish Network on this and what he meant was that support for internet streaming is a planned function of the upcoming ViP 922 receiver.

So he SAID MLB Network, but what he meant was YouTube.

Seriously though, the whole thing does stink of thinly veiled deception here...I mean, I mean his choice of MLBNet as an example was no accident...

 

[grb]

I can only speculate that different channels cost different amounts per subscriber. Just speculating, I believe that many channels cost little to nothing per sub and go in the bottom package. Probably most channels that most people would balk at paying extra for and the providers know it. I have read that ESPN costs about 2 dollars per sub per month, yet it is in all packages above Dish Family (100 & higher). If MLB wants 2 bucks per sub I could understand Charlie not wanting all 13.5 million subs getting it as it would cost $27 million a month to put the channel on. This would require a rate increase. Again speculating that Charlie doesn't want to raise everyone's rates to add the MLB channel, but would prefer to aim the channel at people that want to pay extra for it, whatever that is. Speculating that is why he used the words "burden everyone with it" or words to that effect. The NHL channel & NBA TV are in AEP and NFL Network is in Classic 200 & above. I suspect he was looking to do the same with MLB, but MLB wouldn't play.

I agree entirely with everything you have stated. My problem with Charlie is that with so many new sports channels (NFL, Versus, etc. and now MLB) he makes the decision to play hardball (pun not intended) to get what he wants, regardless what his subscribers want. We end up being shut out (again, pun not intended)for long periods of time so he can play his games.

All other major providers are able to work out a deal to provide service to their subscribers expediently, but not Charlie. And while I'm on a rant, why do we still not have HD broadcasts from some of the major regional sports networks, in particular MSG? Instead, Charlie burdens us with outdated technology (SD broadcasts) and continues to advertise 100+ HD channels on Dish ( many of which are crap) in an attempt to convince everyone that Dish is just as good or better than the competition.

I expect that MLB will eventually come to Dish, but certainly not for this year's World Baseball coverage. But why should we have to wait several months longer for this channel than subscribers of any other service? Because Charlie has to play his games, no matter how much it inconveniences us.

 

[skysurfer]

How does the MLB.TV internet package look on your TV? When I watched it online last year, it was blurry on my PC at times, I would think it would be worse on my TV.

MLB TV internet package looks awesome on my set (since they added the 1.2 mb streams).

The flash they went to this year looks good, too (watching some WBC as the test).

HD feeds are being used for sourcing a lot of the time (so a nice clean image going into the system) and video appears to be widescreen when using HD sourcing so MLB.TV doesn't seem to be cutting down to 4:3 for the internet stream.

I don't do the mosaic (last season) and I haven't tried this year's flash equivalent of mosaic so I don't know how multi-window looks. Single window, full screen to my HD monitor is great.

The best part, I save quite a bit over DIRECTV EI, who jacked up the prices this season to just under $200 and should be over $200 in 2010, I'd think. I gave up on DIRECTV about 3 years ago because I was getting sick of their emperor syndrome.

 

[skysurfer]

I expect that MLB will eventually come to Dish, but certainly not for this year's World Baseball coverage.

???

Aren't the WBC games in HD on ESPN/ESPN2 on DISH?

 

[alcheez]

Some were, like this weekend's semi-finals and finals, but a lot of them were on MLB Network, especially last weekend and earlier this weekend since ESPN/ESPN 2 were tied up with conference tournament/NIT basketball.

 

[DodgerKing]

Caller
Q: David
MLB network?
A: We don't carry it because we would have to put it in all of our packages.(we don't want to burden everyone)




Ummm...this is a quote from the most recent "Charlie Chat"...which should be called "Cheap Charlie's Chat"

Then they do not know what they are talking about.

 

[DodgerKing]

You you know what I love most about these MLB Network Threads? The same thing I love about the E* vs. Tivo threads. It allows every fanboy/troll to come forth for judgement.

Let us all have a moment to reflect upon ourselves, and consider our individual contribution to this discussion thread. Gloating, bashing, and marketing does not count as a contribution. ITs counts as "more of the same".

Are some of us guilty?

And yet, your post was the first I have read on this thread to do what you said. The discussion was nice and civil until this.

 

[DodgerKing]

I believe that Charlie said MLB was requiring the channel be put in the lowest package thereby making it available to everyone. Charlie said he did not want to burden everyone with the cost of the channel. Sounds like he wanted to put it in the 200 or 250 package or in the platinum package so only those that want to pay for it will get it, but MLB said no. Question is do they get more complaints by not carrying it at all or more complaints by putting it in the lowest package and raising everyone's price? He must figure the latter. I personally would love the channel and wouldn't mind paying a bit more for it as long as none of the games they carry are blacked out. If games are blacked out then I would not pay one more cent for it.

That is not the case. MLB was requiring all provider to carry EI in order to carry MLBNet. Since Dish does not carry EI, they cannot carry MLBNet. It had nothing to do with the tiers. If Charlie wants MLBNet, then he must carry EI.

 

[stuckingoo]

Then they do not know what they are talking about.

From Wiki:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLB_Network"]MLB Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:MLB_Network_Logo.png" class="image"><img alt="MLB Network Logo.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/23/MLB_Network_Logo.png/150px-MLB_Network_Logo.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/2/23/MLB_Network_Logo.png/150px-MLB_Network_Logo.png[/ame]

"The network has signed contracts with 36 cable and satellite carriers. 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 [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLB_Extra_Innings"]MLB Extra Innings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:MLB_Extra_Innings.svg" class="image"><img alt="MLB Extra Innings.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/MLB_Extra_Innings.svg/200px-MLB_Extra_Innings.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/0/07/MLB_Extra_Innings.svg/200px-MLB_Extra_Innings.svg.png[/ame] package."

If wiki is correct then Dish cannot have have the MLB network. In other words, it is not the case that MLB was requiring providers to carry the MLB Network in order to get MLB EI.

 

[DodgerKing]

From Wiki:

MLB Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The network has signed contracts with 36 cable and satellite carriers. 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."

If wiki is correct then Dish cannot have have the MLB network. In other words, it is not the case that MLB was requiring providers to carry the MLB Network in order to get MLB EI.

No, it IS the case, as per the quote you bolded. Which means Dish cannot carry MLBNet until they carry EI. The tier they place it in is irrelevant. If Dish wants MLBNet, then they MUST carry EI as well.

 

[stuckingoo]

Yes.....that's what I thought I said. Gets confusing, doesn't it. I'm agreeing with you, LOL.

 

[DodgerKing]

Yes.....that's what I thought I said. Gets confusing, doesn't it. I'm agreeing with you, LOL.

OK... I read the part where you said it is NOT the case.

 

[ChiefIlliniwek]

I'm a Yankees fan, my forum name says it all and I already don't get YES, so I just hope Charlie will set aside his bitterness with Major League Baseball and give us this one channel in the same way he finally relented and gave us the NFL channel. We deserve this. This is so important to sI agreeo many subs. Come on C, negotiate with MLB!

I agree completely and am ready to switch from DN to Direct if Cheap Charlie does not reach a deal to show the MLB Network by Opening Day (April 6 for my local teams). I will be scheduling an appointment THAT DAY with DirectTV if Dish Network does not add the MLBN.

It should ABSOLUTELY be part of Dish Network's available and essential programming, just as the NFL channel.

I'm just another long-term Dish Network premium subscriber who will switch to DirectTV over this issue...soon...very soon!

 

[DodgerKing]

They will not reach a deal by April 6th. I can guarantee you guys that. They cannot reach a deal because in order to carry MLBNet, the provider MUST also carry EI. Since Dish will not be carrying EI, that means no MLBNet either. Those are the conditions.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

As far as I know they are not even talking, so those folks waiting for a last moment deal don't be disapointed when opening day comes.

 

[grb]

That is not the case. MLB was requiring all provider to carry EI in order to carry MLBNet. Since Dish does not carry EI, they cannot carry MLBNet. It had nothing to do with the tiers. If Charlie wants MLBNet, then he must carry EI.

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...

 

[DodgerKing]

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...

That is the million dollar question. Dish used to carry EI and dropped it, probably because it cost them too much. I would bet that Dish lost money and did not have enough EI subs to make up the cost difference???

 

[boomer69]

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...

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!!!...

 

[chikagobnd]

That is the million dollar question. Dish used to carry EI and dropped it, probably because it cost them too much. I would bet that Dish lost money and did not have enough EI subs to make up the cost difference???

If it costs Dish too much money to carry it, then why don't they just increase the package price. I mean, I would actually pay $50-100 more for the package versus D* just so I could have the option to buy it if I wanted. I'm sure there are people who would not want a higher price, but I'll take the higher price option over none at all!

 

[vampz26]

And yet, your post was the first I have read on this thread to do what you said. The discussion was nice and civil until this.

until this or because of this?

Your welcome...:up