Master Index of Archived Threads


Extra Innings Exclusively on DirecTV

Yancy Street Gang Jan 21 2007 08:13 AM

This sucks: ="New York Times"]Extra Innings Exclusively on DirecTV By RICHARD SANDOMIR Major League Baseball is close to announcing a deal that will place its Extra Innings package of out-of-market games exclusively on DirecTV, which will also become the only carrier of a long-planned 24-hour baseball channel. Extra Innings has been available to 75 million cable households and the two satellite services, DirecTV and the Dish Network. But the new agreement will take it off cable and Dish because DirecTV has agreed to pay $700 million over seven years, according to three executives briefed on the details of the contract but not authorized to speak about them publicly. InDemand, which has distributed Extra Innings to the cable television industry since 2002, made an estimated $70 million bid to renew its rights, more than triple what it has been paying. Part of its offer included the right to carry the new baseball channel, but not exclusively. The baseball channel is scheduled to start in 2009. M.L.B., DirecTV and InDemand officials declined to comment. DirecTV is also the exclusive outlet for the N.F.L.’s Sunday Ticket package, for which it pays $700 million annually. Sunday Ticket has about 2 million subscribers; Extra Innings about 750,000, according to The Sports Business Journal. Extra Innings lets subscribers, for a fee, watch about 60 games a week from other local markets except their own. The only other way that fans without DirecTV will be able to see Extra Innings will be on MLB.com’s mlb.tv service, but they must have high-speed broadband service. About 28 million homes have high-speed service, less than half the number of cable homes in the country. The picture quality of streamed games is not as good as what is available on cable or satellite. DirecTV is available to about 15 million subscribers. Last month, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who was then the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cited DirecTV’s exclusivity with Sunday Ticket as a reason to strip the N.F.L. of an antitrust exemption to negotiate all TV contracts for its teams. Comcast, which has complained that it cannot carry Sunday Ticket, is a Philadelphia-based company.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 08:57 AM

That suxx! I had really enjoyed having Extra Innings on cable :(

soupcan Jan 21 2007 09:08 AM

Totally sux. For the first time last summer we were able to watch the Mets at my in-law's house in Massachusetts. That's over unless my father-in-law buys a dish. The article doesn't indicate when this is going to start though. the '07 season? I'll tell you though, DirecTV made a good deal for themselves. Lots of people are going to go buy themselves that dish.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 21 2007 10:03 AM

I loved having Extra Innings last year. If this deal goes down, I think I'm going to have to get myself a dish.

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2007 10:09 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 21 2007 10:14 AM

As mentioned there, this is what the NFL has done for years now - withhold their 'Sunday Ticket' service from Cable operators in exchange for the big bucks they get from Direct TV's exclusivity agreement. In an interview on WFAN a few weeks back, Cablevision honcho Jim Dolan was asked why they're not carrying the NFL channel (something which had Rutgers fans PO'd about the possibility of missing their Bowl game until a temp deal was struck). Dolan answer was, that while the NFL is running around telling the public that it's Cable TV's fault that the channel isn't available in their area, they'd agree to carry it in a minute if the much more valuable 'Sunday Ticket' package were also made available to them. The NFL neglects to mention that part. It's not often I side with 'Cablevision' is these sorts of fights but they're right in this case. And now MLB decides that bringing more games [u:6a611545f7]to fewer people[/u:6a611545f7] is a good way to launch their own channel. Whether they turn out to be correct or not remains to be seen, but these sports leagues are betting that the future of their televised product lies in controlling it all through their own distribution system rather than the networks. A number of golf tournaments - long a staple of winter weekends - have been taken off the air this year and placed entirely on 'The Golf Channel', thus reducing the audience immensely.

metirish Jan 21 2007 10:11 AM

This sucks donkey balls....

KC Jan 21 2007 10:22 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 21 2007 02:50 PM

Fuck them and their ancestors. This would have been my fourth year with the package but I ain't getting no dish just to watch baseball. I'm getting sick and tired of sports leagues and teams looking for ways to fuck people like us who pour our stupid little lives into something only to be shit on by the almighty assholes in the sky just so they can make more money. (I'm on fuck sports kick - talking with the hommies yesterday about the likely ass fucking we're about to take from the Jets and seat licensing)

cooby Jan 21 2007 10:33 AM

You know, the thing is, it seems like even you folks who live closer to NY have to change the way you watch the Mets and other teams every couple of years.

DocTee Jan 21 2007 10:38 AM

I already have DirecTV, but much preferred when we had DISH network. I'll have tosee what it costs-- I do like NFL network, which comes free and re-broadcasts many Sunday games during the week (in addition to several Thursday exclusives).

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 10:54 AM

I'm not quite on a fuck sports kick, but I'm not buying a dish just to watch out of market games. Even I have my limits.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 21 2007 11:00 AM

I wouldn't get a dish for out-of-market games either. I only watched Mets games on Extra Innings anyway. But if I want to follow the Mets in 2007 like I did in 2006, and I have to switch to DirecTV to do it, then I just might go ahead and make the change.

KC Jan 21 2007 11:06 AM

Responding to SK's post ... Well, you're a little more level-headed than I am (a little). And you're one of the first people I think of when stuff like this goes down because I know you like to follow certain players. I'm just disheartned by the way we're treated. Coobs, it doesn't effect how we watch the Mets ... if effects being able to watch the other games which I've become quite used to being able to access. I was very happy to fork over the fee to watch the Royals at Oakland and feel used and abused if I have to put an ugly stupid piece of hardware some- where that doesn't work when it's raining out just to watch a baseball game. I have a breaking point with MLB and it's fast approaching.

cooby Jan 21 2007 11:34 AM

We had a dish for a few years just to watch the Mets, I'm not immune... I will say this though--since I can't watch the Mets on ESPN, my games are limited to Fox on Saturday (and I'm outside on summer Saturdays) Fox Sportsnet Pittsburgh, Comcast in Philadelphia, and any Atlanta games that are carried. So I only saw the Mets on TV about 10 times last summer. And it's amazing what you can get used to.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 11:48 AM

We just like being able to watch baseball games, even when the Mets aren't on. We're particularly fond of NESN, not due to any affinity for the BoSox, but because Jerry Remy's Bahston accent cracks us up. But not enough so that we're putting a dish up.

DocTee Jan 21 2007 12:07 PM

Living in California I see more than ten Mets games: six vs. the Giants, and whatever is on TBS or WGN (Braves and Cubs). Plus whatever FOX and ESPN have to offer-- I'd have to say I get like 30-40 games each season.

metsmarathon Jan 21 2007 12:30 PM

well, i already have directv, and am gloriously unaffected this time around. i do have some advice for any of y'all out there who may be considering the switch to the dish. do yourself a favor and ignore the urge to get the directv receivers with the DVR built in. get a tivo instead.

cooby Jan 21 2007 12:32 PM

Right you are Doc Tee, I forgot about WGN; I think I get that too The problem for us remote access fans is that now all the other previously super-stationed ball teams such as the Braves, Cubs, etc, now offer slim pickin's too

Farmer Ted Jan 21 2007 01:11 PM

Fuck MLB. I don't want their shit channel. I have the NFL network and it's ass. Cookie-cutter bullshit hurts the fans.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 21 2007 02:18 PM

metsmarathon wrote: do yourself a favor and ignore the urge to get the directv receivers with the DVR built in. get a tivo instead. I already have TiVo. I read this morning that DirecTV and TiVo are having some kind of compatibility issue. Shows sometimes don't show up in the Season Pass and don't get recorded. Have you experienced that?

Edgy DC Jan 21 2007 03:58 PM

Whats wrong with mlb.tv? And why does Kase have a single red letter in his post?

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 04:06 PM

Because it's a red letter day? Actually, I don't see any red letter.

KC Jan 21 2007 04:24 PM

I edited poor to pour and was pointing it out in red. I'm a teenage lobotomy.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 21 2007 04:26 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Whats wrong with mlb.tv? I don't want to sit in front of my PC to watch a game. I want to watch from the comfort of my family room. I had MLB.tv in 2005, and it was a far inferior experience.

Edgy DC Jan 21 2007 04:31 PM

Certainly. But when the alternative is springing for a new TV system... For what it's worth, the quality of MLB.tv improved a lot in 2006.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 04:59 PM

The alternative isn't springing for a new tv system. The alternative is mentally telling MLB to fuck off -- if they're not going to make it for us to view their product, we're not going to go out of our way to do so.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 21 2007 05:19 PM

Again, it's different for you Scarlett. You use Extra Innings to see the Twins and the Brewers. I use it to see the Mets. I enjoyed being able to watch all the games I watched in 2006. If I want to repeat that in 2007, and I do, I may have to sign up with DirecTV. Whether or not I actually do that or not remains to be seen, but I'm considering it. If I have to watch it on the PC I'll only catch a spare inning here and there. I won't ever be able to sit and watch an entire game. So if this announcement comes down as expected I'll have a decision to make. I suppose I could tell MLB to fuck off, but I'd miss their product more than they'd miss me. If it was a product I cared little about, it would be easier to walk away.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 05:57 PM

You're right - I'm in a market with more local options than yours. I'm in a position to tell MLB to fuck off without losing Mets coverage. What I'm losing will be the games from other markets with their local announcers. Fun, but not anything I care about as much as I care about Mets games.

KC Jan 21 2007 06:10 PM

I think it's total bullshit what they do (in case my profanity laden tirade this morning didn't make that clear). It's a silly little microcosm of an example, but here's two people in Yance and Mrs. Field's who love baseball (run state of the art fan site/plan vacations around which ballpark they haven't visited yet) and they are totally dissed by the very product they adore. I'm writing Sealeg a letter tommorow. I'm shouting at the wind, but that's the way I look at it.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 06:18 PM

You're right. It is bullshit. You're preaching to the choir here. And I'm sure that more than a few of us would be happy to sign off on your profanity-laden tirade to Selig.

KC Jan 21 2007 06:41 PM

Here's their swanky addy ... Major League Baseball Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner 245 Park Avenue - 31st Floor New York, NY 10167

ScarletKnight41 Jan 21 2007 07:13 PM

Do they have a less swanky e-mail addy?

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2007 10:23 PM

This all reminds me of the time (early '90s?) when MLB sold their entire network package ('Game of the Week' plus ASG & all post-season) to CBS, breaking the long-running streak of 'GotW' on NBC and a split ABC/NBC post-season. The change in the network wasn't a bad thing neccesarily except that CBS wasn't really interested in baseball - esp reg season baseball. They just bought the entire deal in order to gain exclusivity in the post-season which they used to plug the hell out of their new fall prime-time schedule. Meanwhile, the GotW sked got severely cut back and erratic as CBS put on a Saturday game seemingly whenever they felt like it, skipping weeks at a time during certain stretches. The joke at the time was that it went from 'Game of the Week' to 'Game of the Once-in-a-While' IOW, what MLB did back then - just like now - was to opt for the bigger pile of money that an exclusivity deal brings while bringing fewer games to the public. Those intent on writing letters might want to remind Bud & co of how THAT deal worked out for them.

Sandgnat Jan 22 2007 10:38 AM

KC wrote: I think it's total bullshit what they do (in case my profanity laden tirade this morning didn't make that clear). It's a silly little microcosm of an example, but here's two people in Yance and Mrs. Field's who love baseball (run state of the art fan site/plan vacations around which ballpark they haven't visited yet) and they are totally dissed by the very product they adore. I'm writing Sealeg a letter tommorow. I'm shouting at the wind, but that's the way I look at it. Of course, they could just get Direct TV.

metsmarathon Jan 22 2007 10:59 AM

i would tend to think that they make less money by making the deal exclusive to one provider, as compared to all the money they could make by allowing anybody to pay for it irrespective of their cable or satellite system. and it would be better for building and maintaining a strong fan base.

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2007 12:35 PM

I suspect that it's partly - if not largely - a way to gain a foothold for their MLB channel as an agreement to carry the new channel whenever it launches is most likely linked as part of the deal. It'll save them any possible embarrasment if they were to lauch a channel only to either have everyone yawn, or, worse yet, not get their price. Again, it's the same route the NFL took. Most of the big cable providers are ignoring the NFL channel both because they won't take it unless they can get the more attractive 'Sunday Ticket' package as well, and that the channel itself - with 24/7 minutae in addition to a handful of out of town games - just isn't all that interesting as a stand-alone.

Frayed Knot Jan 23 2007 09:22 AM

="metsmarathon"]i would tend to think that they make less money by making the deal exclusive to one provider, as compared to all the money they could make by allowing anybody to pay for it irrespective of their cable or satellite system. From Baseball Prospectus: DirecTV is paying a whopping $100 million a year over seven years for these rights. Based on the information in the Sports Business Journal, that represents a five-fold increase over what inDemand was paying for the rights to EI. This is a considerable boost to MLB’s bottom line, although the marginal gain isn’t necessarily over the $20 million or so they were making under the previous deal, but over the reported $70 million a year SBJ claims inDemand offered. ]and it would be better for building and maintaining a strong fan base. Yeah, but what's that compared to a $1mil/team/yr increase in revenue?

KC Jan 23 2007 09:46 AM

I ain't going to keep harping on this, but I just feel like it's always something with MLB that pisses me off. Maybe I like being pissed off, but I ain't getting no DirectTV when the digital cable entering my living room is working just fine so I'm a loser in this deal -- I watch too much baseball anyways, maybe I'll start stamp collecting or raise goats.

KC Jan 23 2007 09:58 AM

And just one kinda related point. There are by my count four ways for me to get tv service now. We got FIOS, digital cable, and two satellite providers. The argument has always been that everyone should have a way to provide service and get a piece of the pie and that will ultimately be best for consumers because of competition. The cost of all this crap has never been more ridiculous, certain things are only available here and some there and if they shell out nine figure payments to get some exclusivity the price and competition factor goes out the window because the have to recoup their over-priced investment.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 23 2007 10:03 AM

I'm thinking I might get the cheapest DirecTV package and keep my digital cable as well. Not the cheapest option, but given all the issues I've been hearing and reading about concerning DirecTV, especially regarding weather and TiVo, it's probably better than putting all of my television eggs in one basket. So if I do this, and I'm not sure I will, Extra Innings would end up costing me about $400 or $500 per year instead of $150. I don't like that at all, but the additional $350 or so is about the price of two nights in a nice hotel. You could argue that getting to watch about 100 to 120 Mets games over six months has more value than a comfy mattres (I left off the last S for savings) for two nights. Again, if I was in New York, and able to get SNY, I'd tell MLB and DirecTV to go to hell. Actually, if I was in New York I wouldn't have subscribed to Extra Innings in the first place, since I don't care about watching any of the other 29 teams.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 23 2007 03:56 PM

From Sports Illustrated: ="John Donovan"] MLB's brushback pitch Deal with DirecTV could leave most fans out in cold Posted: Tuesday January 23, 2007 2:42PM; Updated: Tuesday January 23, 2007 2:55PM The last place that any baseball fan ever wants to be is between team owners and a dollar bill. It's like stepping between Pete Rose and Ray Fosse, circa 1970. Or between Jose Canseco and his syringe sometime in the '90s. If it takes bowling over fans to get to that buck -- or giving them a nice, quick shot in the butt to get them out of the way -- that's exactly what baseball owners are going to do. It's not even a contest. Major League Baseball is in the process of negotiating exclusive rights to its Extra Innings package of out-of-market games to satellite giant DirecTV, and that means a lot of fans are about to get absolutely crushed into the dirt. The Extra Innings package, for the hundreds of thousands of fans who have shelled out the $170 or so for it already know, is a seamhead's dream: almost unlimited baseball broadcast by home-team announcers for six months. Up to 60 regular-season games a week. Say you're a transplanted Washingtonian living in Miami and you want to see your hometown Mariners every night. You can do it with Extra Innings. Say you just want to spend a few evenings a week poring over six or seven games between teams you'd rarely get to see otherwise. Go for it. You can hear Jerry Remy do the Red Sox on NESN, pop over to take in a little Hawk Harrelson with the White Sox (if you can take him) and finish up with Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow calling a Giants game -- all in one dizzying, bleary-eyed evening. Then you can do it again the next night. But now, if this deal between MLB and DirecTV goes through as expected, you won't be able to get Extra Innings through your local cable TV outfit. Or through Dish Network, either. If you want the Extra Innings package, starting with the 2007 season, you'll have to be a DirecTV subscriber. No exceptions. That, as I understand the concept, is the whole "exclusive rights" thing. (DirecTV, we should point out, is becoming the runaway leader of sports programming among satellite providers. The company already has exclusive rights to NFL out-of-market games via its Sunday Ticket package. It just announced exclusive rights to Mega March Madness for the NCAA basketball tournament. DirecTV is becoming the ESPN of the shiny dish set.) If it so happens that you can't get DirectTV, or you don't want to -- say, you live in an apartment complex that doesn't allow satellite dishes, or you're in a place where a dish can't get a clear shot at a satellite, or satellites are verboten by your homeowners association, or you just don't like their looks or the fact that the reception can get a little fuzzy in the worst of weather -- well, you're pretty much out of luck. Move over, pal, you're about to get posterized for posterity. You're going to be stuck with whoever broadcasts your local team, the Fox national game of the week and whatever national games ESPN decides to put on twice a week. There is another option, of course, which not so coincidentally falls rather nicely into baseball's money-hungry ways. If this deal goes through, and DirecTV isn't an option, you could always go to MLB.TV, Major League Baseball's Internet-based version of Extra Innings. You have to have a broadband hookup, of course, and the computer screen is super wimpy compared to that 42-inch living room screen of yours. The technology isn't flawless, by any means. But it's there, for those who get shut out by the DirecTV deal, at about $100 a season. It's hard to say exactly how many people this new MLB-DirecTV hookup is going to affect because nobody wants to talk much about something still in the works. According to The Sports Business Journal, Extra Innings pulled in about 750,000 subscribers last year through sales on Dish Network, DirecTV and cable systems throughout the U.S. With two-thirds of that equation potentially gone -- including, we'd have to assume, the largest part, cable TV -- we could have, maybe, as many as a half-million die-hard baseball fans scrambling around. It's not a pretty proposition. Many of those can, and probably will, switch to DirecTV. But many, also, would be left out or left to MLB.TV. The reason MLB is forsaking that many fans shouldn't surprise anyone. DirecTV, according to a report in the New York Times, will fork over $700 million for seven years for the exclusive rights to carry Extra Innings. So MLB is faced with this simple decision: $700 million or a few thousand upset seamheads. It's no contest. It's Rose against Fosse. Business-wise, short-term, you can see baseball's side in this, if you forget about the fans. A thirtieth of a $700 million deal will pay a good-sized piece of any team's over-inflated payroll. And a lot of the money that baseball sees from the DirecTV deal could go toward seeding the game's next big money-making venture, the MLB Channel, coming to a television near you around the 2009 season. But the shame -- and isn't this always the problem? -- is that it's the fans who ultimately end up taking it in the Canseco once again. The deal with DirecTV will make it more difficult for many baseball fans to get what they want, how they want. It's really as simple as that. And that's no way to treat the customer.

KC Jan 23 2007 04:12 PM

Draggin' Rose and Canseco and steroids in makes the piece kinda, no very, silly to me. There are a half dozen better writers on this forum who should be working for SI and wouldn't stoop that nonsesnse. I don't see why they can't charge $250 million to three carriers and make everyone happy instead of throwing a wrench into what is otherwise a pretty lucrative package already if they have so many happy subscribers.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2007 04:18 PM

True that, but many a good writer gets stuck for a lead and uses a tortured metaphor like that.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 23 2007 04:27 PM

I'm with Kase on this one. The facts of this situation are offensive enough. Why divert attention away from that with unrelated matters?

metsmarathon Jan 23 2007 04:38 PM

take it in the canseco. get it? 'cause canseco's an ass! ha!

KC Jan 23 2007 04:40 PM

SK: >>>I'm with Kase on this one.<<< First time this year ... things are looking up lol

ScarletKnight41 Jan 23 2007 05:34 PM

I'm sure there was another time a week or two ago.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2007 07:00 PM

I'm not saying Kase is wrong, I'm sympathizing with a bad writing job.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 23 2007 07:04 PM

The hell with bad writers!

Edgy DC Jan 23 2007 07:11 PM

Um, yeah!

cooby Jan 23 2007 10:29 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I'm thinking I might get the cheapest DirecTV package and keep my digital cable as well. Not the cheapest option, but given all the issues I've been hearing and reading about concerning DirecTV, especially regarding weather and TiVo, it's probably better than putting all of my television eggs in one basket. So if I do this, and I'm not sure I will, Extra Innings would end up costing me about $400 or $500 per year instead of $150. I don't like that at all, but the additional $350 or so is about the price of two nights in a nice hotel. You could argue that getting to watch about 100 to 120 Mets games over six months has more value than a comfy mattres (I left off the last S for savings) for two nights. Again, if I was in New York, and able to get SNY, I'd tell MLB and DirecTV to go to hell. Actually, if I was in New York I wouldn't have subscribed to Extra Innings in the first place, since I don't care about watching any of the other 29 teams. Yancy, I don't think this is going to happen until 2009, I wouldn't do anything yet. Unless I'm reading everything wrong.

Frayed Knot Jan 23 2007 10:34 PM

The exclusive deal with DirecTV would start with the '07 season. It's the MLB channel which is sked for '09

cooby Jan 23 2007 10:35 PM

Ah...I went back and reread that and still didn't catch that, thank you, Frayed Knot. Now I see Yancy's dilemma.

Sandgnat Jan 24 2007 11:50 AM

I can't comment about the Tivo issue since I know nothing about it. I can tell you that you can get a HD receiver with DVR from DirecTV and everyone I know who has that loves it. Originally, I switched from cable (Comcast in NJ) to DirecTV just for the NFL Sunday ticket and the college football package (lived with two other guys, we had 6 TV's and a serious gambling problem). I have been a DirecTV customer for about 6 years now and have no complaints at all. I actually couldn't imagine going back to cable. I regards to the weather issue, I think some of the concerns are way overblown. I live in Savannah where we have regular, daily downpours in the summer and my TV never goes out. It takes monsoon-like conditions for it to lose the signal. Yancy, if you were going to move to DirecTV, I don't think keeping cable would be necessary. It takes one hell of a storm to lose the signal, and the signal is not lost for very long if it does go out. Incidently, the national average for outages for cable are 3-5% per year, while DirecTV is at 1%. What I don't understand is why MLB would want to limit thier audience for thier product. I understand that $ 700 million is a lot more then $ 70 million, but what about the economic effect of not showing your product to as many people? Cable, DirecTV and Dish Network have a combined 98 million subscribers. DirecTV is only 15 million of that total. Sure, some people will move to DirecTV to continue to receive the extra innings package, but you can't expect all 83 million to so you lose that much exposure of your product.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 30 2007 09:15 AM

No new developments on this story. There's been quite a backlash from the fans, but no indication that the groundswell of anger and dismay will do anything to derail the deal.

silverdsl Jan 30 2007 09:28 AM

Considering how much money is involved in this deal, I think that will probably outweigh the complaints from the fans.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 30 2007 09:34 AM

I'm sure. Some articles, though, are pointing out that MLB would make more money selling to InDemand and to DirecTV. The combined income from the two sources could easily add up to more than the exclusive amount from DirecTV alone.

Frayed Knot Jan 30 2007 09:59 AM

Except that a lot of what this is about is an apparent quid pro quo with DirecTV to save a spot for the MLB channel when it launches. The cable systems, who have managed to resist putting the NFL & NBA channels on their main tier quite easily, wouldn't be expected to lay down the red carpet when baseball comes knocking with their new toy either. The NOT suprising part in all this that (as usual) baseball is getting killed in the media for considering doing what football has been doing all along; ie, giving DirecTV an exclusive on the out-of-town package while trying to blame cable companies for "depriving" customers of the NFL channel. The NFL, of course, comes off critisism-free in the whole deal. Now I suppose one could argue that MLB deserves worse as it initially sold their package to both cable & satellite and then pulled back, but I'm not sure that that's neccesarily worse than never offering it to one segment from the beginning.

ABG Jan 30 2007 12:38 PM

The relevant guy to email apparently is Bob Bowman: Bob.Bowman@mlb.com Posted elsewhere, have at him.

soupcan Jan 30 2007 01:48 PM

Just so happens that I know Mr. Bowman.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 30 2007 02:00 PM

Then introduce him to Billy Squier, ya Starfucker.

soupcan Jan 30 2007 02:03 PM

You make me laugh Mr. Dickshot. Dude - can I help it if I tend to be in the right places and the right times?

cooby Jan 30 2007 02:23 PM

I hate to break this to you, but meeting Billy Squire is not pee your pants exciting. Meeting Rusty Staub is.

soupcan Jan 30 2007 02:31 PM

I never claimed that the Billy Squier incident was anything more than an embarassing 'DOH!' moment for me. 'Twas Dickshot that alotted him 'starfucker' status.

Willets Point Jan 30 2007 02:41 PM

Takes a Dickshot to know a Starfucker.

metirish Jan 30 2007 02:43 PM

What's with Billy Squier?...

Johnny Dickshot Jan 30 2007 02:45 PM

Billy Squier and Soupcan are drinking buddies. Sometimes they go out on the town with Bob Bowman of MLB Advanced Media.

metirish Jan 30 2007 02:55 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Billy Squier and Soupcan are drinking buddies. Sometimes they go out on the town with Bob Bowman of MLB Advanced Media. WOW..I mean Squier used to be famous......soupcan,does he regale you with stories of his heyday?

ScarletKnight41 Jan 30 2007 02:56 PM

It wasn't quite that way. Soup met Mr. Squier at a party, but didn't know who he was until Squier was leaving.

ABG Jan 30 2007 02:57 PM

This thread has really taken a turn for the lame.

seawolf17 Jan 30 2007 03:00 PM

Has Billy Squier met Rusty Staub? That'd be a boring conversation.

soupcan Jan 30 2007 03:01 PM

metirish wrote: WOW..I mean Squier used to be famous......soupcan,does he regale you with stories of his heyday? Absolutely. He even wears the pink teddy when we go out.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 30 2007 03:17 PM

ABG wrote: This thread has really taken a turn for the lame. I'm really being a douche lately. I killed Edgy's Yogi berra thread yesterday too. Sorry.

Edgy DC Jan 30 2007 03:21 PM

It ain't dead until it's dead. I wonder if the UMDB can tell us when the last time the Mets had a winter this inactive.

metirish Jan 30 2007 04:37 PM

Edgy DC wrote: It ain't dead until it's dead. . Bingo

Farmer Ted Jan 30 2007 04:38 PM

Jilted again? As usual, MLB about to give the shaft to its fans If you want me to be completely honest with you, I'll just come right out and say it: I'm not sure that I'm in love with you anymore. OK? Do you feel better, now that it's out there all honest and raw? Because I don't. And I'm not even sure that I mean what I'm saying. Look Baseball, it's been a while since we talked. But you know as well as I do, that's the type of relationship we've always had. We fall in love all over again each February, we're torrid from March through June, things get stagnant in July and August, and then we go all out in September and October. Then Football shows up and I hang out with her and Basketball throughout the winter. You know I'm coming back though, and each and every spring, like clockwork, we get together again. So why am I thinking of moving on? After all, we've always had good times, and you've allowed me to watch my favorite team win an unheard of 14 straight division titles. Well, to be honest, you've been acting differently lately. Not good different, strange different. I've always paid attention to you. You've always fulfilled my needs. And then I heard about this, about how you're trying to take away my Extra Innings package. After three straight summers of my being able to spend more or less unlimited time with you, you're leaving cable TV behind? For a satellite system I'm not allowed to have in my apartment building? Why? Why would you break something up that's worked so well? There was a time when I would've done practically anything for you. I rushed home from school every day to throw a tennis ball against the wall of my parent's house. I loved the summer months when it was light outside later in the afternoon, so my dad could come home from work and throw pop flies for me to catch. There was that grand slam that I hit during little league, that game-winning RBI I had playing JV in high school. My knees still crackle and pop when I walk from too many years of crouching behind the plate. I'll never forget sitting in an almost completely empty Fulton County Stadium, watching some miserable Braves teams get pounded. I won't forget Sid Bream sliding into home plate in 1992, and being with thousands of college students as we poured into downtown Athens to celebrate in the streets. I was there at Turner Field in 1999 for Game Six of the NLCS, when Kenny Rogers melted down. I saw the Braves win a World Series. You're probably not America's game any more, now that Football is hanging around, but you remain beloved. There is no way to quantify how much I look forward to coming home from work most nights and hanging out with you. I find a groove in the couch, turn down the lights, listen to old friends like Skip and Joe and Pete while I try and guess the location of the next 250 pitches. What I don't understand is why you chose now to flirt with DirecTV. I get that you're thinking about launching your own TV station down the road, and I get that DirecTV is offering you more money than cable TV did. Fine. And I understand that if you go through with this deal, all the games will still be available on your MLB.TV Web site. But as much as I love you, Baseball, there's no way I'm spending eight hours at work staring at a computer screen and then coming home and sitting down for three hours to stare at herky-jerky action on another computer screen. If you leave, I'm not sure what I'll do. I'm not allowed to have DirecTV, I don't want to look at my computer any more than I already do, and I want to watch the games, not listen to them (sorry, XM). So if you're really running off to satellite TV, I think I'll just have to break it off with you. I don't know for how long, but at least for a while. No games in person, no games on TV, maybe even not even using your sponsors anymore. I'll get Yankees and Mets games on my cable system, but I don't like either of those teams. I want to watch my Atlanta Braves. And you're telling me I'm not allowed to watch my team play? That's what you're telling me, isn't it? I get that the Braves aren't spending huge money and they probably won't be favored to even win the NL East, much less a championship. But the Braves trigger my memories and make me feel closer to home. And that makes me feel good. And now, baseball, you're saying that you don't want me to feel good. Because making a deal with a network of satellites is more important to you than my feelings. Your decision isn't final yet, I understand, and maybe there's a part of me that's hoping that this letter will make you change your mind. But I don't expect it to. You're going to make the choice that benefits you, not the choice that would benefit me or us. I know you think you're perfect, but you've made your share of mistakes. Remember the lockout, and how you had to have the players throw balls into the stands to try and generate some positive karma? Remember when you were going to put the Spider-Man 2 logo on bases? So you're not perfect. You can make bad decisions. This is one of them. This seems like just another bad choice that you're just determined to make. And you're going to leave me with no choice at all. Lang Whitaker is the online editor of SLAM magazine and writes daily at SLAMonline.com.

cooby Jan 30 2007 05:25 PM

Like I said yesterday, it's as much the Mets fault as MLB's. Everything was just fine until they had to get their own channel. But maybe Mr. Slam still lives somewhere we he can watch his favorite team. ] and I want to watch the games, not listen to them (sorry, XM). So if you're really running off to satellite TV This is an interesting point. I wonder how long it'll be until we can't listen to them on WFAN anymore either

Yancy Street Gang Jan 31 2007 09:49 AM

From bizofbaseball.com ="Maury Brown"] DirecTV Deal Tied to New 24-Hour MLB Channel Written by Maury Brown Monday, 29 January 2007 Some more details are emerging this AM via Eric Fisher, John Ourand and the Sports Business Journal and MLB's effort to make Extra Innings available exclusively through DirecTV. If you do not have a subscription to the Sports Business Journal, I highly recommend it. Here are some more details on the deal, as it is now known. MLB and DirecTV are in the final stages of negotiating the $700 million deal, and that a formal announcement will occur within the next 2 weeks. Extra Innings as an exclusive on DirecTV would begin this year. The MLB channel slated to air in 2009 and provisionally titled in the past as The Baseball Channel, will be provided on the basic tier of DirecTV As reported by the SBJ, "Programming will include some regular-season games, in particular some nonexclusive Saturday night contests that were not sold last year in the national broadcast deals with Fox and Turner." Some Arizona Fall League, spring training and minor league games will be shown on the channel, as well. Extra Innings would be co-marketed with MLBAM's online out-of-market product, MLB.TV. In related news, MLB.TV will see an increase in the quality of the feeds this season. As reported, "Game video will be streamed at a rate of 700 Kbps instead of the 350 Kbps to 400 Kbps rate of last year." As to how the press -- both mainstream and alternative -- have slammed the deal due to the restrictions on consumers, one executive is quoted as saying: ]"There will be some people unhappy at the outset, but this is exactly what the NFL, the alleged market leader, and the NCAA have already done" said an MLB executive, referring to their DirecTV-only deals for out-of-market game packages. "This is a chance to reinvigorate the product and, with the channel, get to some underserved areas of the sport. Apparently, the deal hinged on DirecTV's willingness to place Major League Baseball's long-planned 24-hour TV network on an expanded basic tier, which InDemand was unwilling to do. Since MLB has been working toward a 24-hour baseball-only channel since 2004, this appears to be the tipping point in relationship to fan backlash due to removing Extra Innings from cable and the Dish Network.

soupcan Jan 31 2007 10:17 AM

Just so I understand - This is all really about putting the soon-to-come MLB channel on a basic tier. Cable was/is not willing to do that but DirecTV is if they get the exclusive on the Extra Innings package for 7-10 years. MLB wants the MLB channel on basic because it reaches more people and they can charge advertisers more as a result. I'll assume that cable was not willing to make that deal. So by 2009, if one wants either the Extra Innings package or the MLB channel one would have to get DirecTV. I'm thinking I'll hold off on the satellite and see how the MLB.com feed is this summer.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 31 2007 10:39 AM

I'm thinking I'm going to have to sign up for DirecTV.

Frayed Knot Jan 31 2007 04:15 PM

And, gee whiz, what a shock that Mike & the Mad Dog are: A) just now getting word of this B) misunderstanding it C) dismissing it as "not a big deal"

Yancy Street Gang Jan 31 2007 04:49 PM

How are they misunderstanding it? And of course, it's not a big deal because it doesn't affect them. What a pair of jerks. I don't miss them at all.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 31 2007 08:59 PM

If I had any hope that this DirecTV thing wouldn't go through, it's dashed by the news that John Kerry is going to try to stop it. ="THE ASSOCIATED PRESS"] Kerry takes up 'Extra Innings' issue WASHINGTON -- A proposal to make Major League Baseball's "Extra Innings" exclusive to DirecTV has drawn the ire of Sen. John Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat said he plans to raise the matter with the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission at a hearing Thursday. "I am opposed to anything that deprives people of reasonable choices," Kerry said in a statement. "In this day and age, consumers should have more choices - not fewer. I'd like to know how this serves the public - a deal that will force fans to subscribe to DirecTV in order to tune in to their favorite players. A Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch their team without having to switch to DirecTV." "Extra Innings" is a service that allows viewers to watch games involving teams not in their local markets. In past years, the service has been available through a range of providers, but a pending deal would make the service only available to DirecTV subscribers. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is a scheduled witness at Thursday's hearing of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

cooby Jan 31 2007 09:14 PM

]"Extra Innings" is a service that allows viewers to watch games involving teams not in their local markets. That's horsehockey, I couldn't watch the Mets last year on Extra Innings and I'm not in their local market, I don't care what they say. Everybody (Yancy I know you already have checked it out), please check into it before you invest in all that stuff (a dish, Extra innings subscription, etc, etc, will not be cheap) before you spend one cent and make sure you are in the right market. Even if you are, I don't think it's worth it.

Frayed Knot Jan 31 2007 11:04 PM

]How are they misunderstanding it? They were confused as to this affecting the 'Extra Innings' package and, were instead, seemingly under the impression that MLB was somehow trying to prevent ALL telecasts from going out of market; ie. stopping Yanqui games from appearing on 'YES' broadcasts except on systems within the NYC area, etc. I know they've been in Florida all week talking SB 24/7 but it's not like this issue has been kept secret for the last 10 days or so. Also, now that I think about it, night-time host Steve Somers was totally unaware of the issue also the other night when asked about it by a caller - although in his case I'm used to him being clueless & uninformed. M&MD, to their credit, are usually up to date on their facts before staking out an elistist's positions.

Frayed Knot Jan 31 2007 11:09 PM

Kerry: "I am opposed to anything that deprives people of reasonable choices, ... a Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch their team without having to switch to DirecTV." Does that go for Patriot fans too Senator, or is the NFL somehow exempt from offering "reasonable choices"? This sort of duplicity drives me nuts. I'm all for the gov't looking into the ethics of this (although I suspect there's nothing legally that can be done) - but radio talk show hosts (not just M&MD) have been conducting virtual daily commercials for DirecTV over the last few years since the NFL started offering their "Sunday Ticket" package, giving testimonials to listeners that DirecTV is the only way to go due to the glories of "Sunday Ticket". Now, not only are some of the same voices tripping over themselves to knock MLB for going the same route but we have elected officials doing the same. Have you no sense of decency, sir?

Centerfield Feb 01 2007 03:34 PM

="Frayed Knot"]Have you no sense of decency, sir? Um, let me check....nope! No decency here.

Frayed Knot Feb 01 2007 04:16 PM

Actually, I was directing that line at Sen Kerry in a lame attempt to emulate the time the same line was said to Sen Joe McCarthy under very different circumstances ... but it works for MadDog too. Or maybe; 'Have you no brains, Sir?' would work even better in his case.

metirish Feb 02 2007 11:35 AM

Neil Best who covers TV and Radio for Newsday.. ] JUST WONDERING: Kerry flipping over MLB flop Can Congress save "Extra Innings" from DirecTV exclusivity? Probably not, but some politicians likely will get some political mileage out of the issue. Last week, John Kerry said he will not run for president in 2008. But he sounded like a candidate this week when he questioned MLB's plan to sell its out-of-market package only to DirecTV (while, it hopes, driving some to its own mlb.tv out-of-market option). "A Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch their team without having to switch to DirecTV," Kerry said, perhaps forgetting that Bosox fans in Massachusetts are safe; those in New York have the problem. Anyway, at least Kerry was thinking of fans' interests. While joining Mike Francesa in spectacularly botching the basics of the MLB / DirecTV controversy Wednesday on WFAN, Chris Russo blithely dismissed concerns of tens of thousands of "Extra Innings" subscribers as not being a big deal. Russo might have been confused because he wasn't feeling well and left the show early. Or not. Two weeks ago, he similarly pooh-poohed the grievances of Brooklynites threatened with being booted out of their homes for the Atlantic Yards project. Eminent domain fever! Catch it! Best also reports that on SNY the NY Titans lacrosse team scored higher ratings than the Islanders game on FSNY and the Devil's game on MSG..had hockey ever been more dead?

ABG Feb 02 2007 11:42 AM

M&MD have a vested interest in the widening subscriber base of Direct TV--YES is picked up through DTV, bringing them a wider audience. ]Does that go for Patriot fans too Senator, or is the NFL somehow exempt from offering "reasonable choices"? This sort of duplicity drives me nuts. I'm all for the gov't looking into the ethics of this (although I suspect there's nothing legally that can be done) - but radio talk show hosts (not just M&MD) have been conducting virtual daily commercials for DirecTV over the last few years since the NFL started offering their "Sunday Ticket" package, giving testimonials to listeners that DirecTV is the only way to go due to the glories of "Sunday Ticket". Now, not only are some of the same voices tripping over themselves to knock MLB for going the same route but we have elected officials doing the same. Have you no sense of decency, sir? This is, quite frankly, crap. It's not duplicitous to raise a relevant point under consideration while not debating an already-answered question. [nbf] Extending our your rationale, you would tell John Kerry he was being duplicitous for criticizing a troop surge in Iraq while not taking President Johnson to task for sending more troops to Vietnam. [/nbf]

Edgy DC Feb 02 2007 12:05 PM

Mmmm.... I don't know. It's not like Vietnam is an active situation. The "decency" thing is a distorition, but lawmakers can't say certain behaivor is OK on Tuesday but worthy of government intervention when the same party engages in it on Thursday. It's not like Kerry is explicitly saying the NFL contract is OK (that's merely inferred by Knotty), but neither does the Vietnam analogy work.

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2007 12:24 PM

]This is, quite frankly, crap. It's not duplicitous to raise a relevant point under consideration while not debating an already-answered question. How is MLB's (potential) contract with an exclusive provider something to be subject to gov't regulations while the NFL's identical arrangement is "an already answered question"? Simply because the one deal has been ignored up to now hardly means it's been legally sanctioned or that it should continued to be ignored.

ABG Feb 02 2007 01:11 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Mmmm.... I don't know. It's not like Vietnam is an active situation. Neither is the consideration of the NFL's contract with DTV.

Edgy DC Feb 02 2007 01:24 PM

The contract is active (and "consideration" can take place at any time). The Vietnam War is not.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 03 2007 08:54 AM

This article in the Los Angeles Times suggests that the deal may be in jeopardy because of the backlash, but I'm skeptical. ] Baseball TV deal contested MLB is trying to move Extra Innings package exclusively to DirecTV, but there's resistance. By Larry Stewart Times Staff Writer February 3, 2007 Red Sox Nation has spoken. A pending deal by Major League Baseball to put its Extra Innings pay package exclusively on DirecTV may have to be put on hold now, buffeted by an uprising involving baseball's most ardent fans, spearheaded by those who live and die with the Boston Red Sox. MLB expected to announce the deal as early as next week, but that was less certain after Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the matter. For five seasons, MLB's Extra Innings has offered up to 60 regular-season, out-of-market games a week on cable, through the In Demand service, as well as DirecTV and Dish Network. Under terms of the new deal, DirecTV reportedly would pay $100 million a year over seven years for the rights to the package. In Demand reportedly had offered $70 million a year to retain Extra Innings. The crux of the deal apparently centered on MLB's plans to launch its own channel in 2009, similar to NFL Network and NBA TV. According to a source familiar with the negotiations, MLB unsuccessfully used Extra Innings as a negotiating wedge to get cable to put the new channel on a basic tier rather than a pay tier so it could get the widest exposure possible. Cable companies, including Time Warner in L.A., often seek to place such niche offerings on a pay sports tier so that only the customers who want them have to pay for them. Last year, a similar carriage dispute took NFL Network off Time Warner. Sports television consultant Neal Pilson said Friday it is his understanding that, indeed, the baseball channel "was a component" in the negotiations. But, he added, "Baseball is almost religious in its financial analysis before making any deal and you can be sure there has been a lot of deliberation and a lot of research that has gone into this." That didn't matter to fans, who have been voicing their displeasure since news of the pending deal broke two weeks ago. Michael Abramowicz, 34, of Arlington, Va., is a law professor at George Washington University who gets Extra Innings on cable. He talked about the pending deal in a blog last week. "My reaction to this has been genuine sadness," he wrote. "Watching baseball games is my No. 1 hobby, and my house can't get DirecTV because of nearby trees. It did occur to me that if I chopped down my neighbors' trees, I would probably do a year in jail, which would leave me six years to enjoy the games." Reached by phone Friday, Abramowicz said he would switch to DirecTV to keep Extra Innings if he could. Ryan Hecht, 34, of Queens, a Time Warner Cable subscriber and a die-hard Dodgers fan, is in the same situation as Abramowicz. Reached by phone Friday, he said, "I'd switch to DirecTV if I could, but my landlord will not let me install a satellite dish." The issue gained national attention when Kerry on Wednesday said he would question FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin at a previously scheduled Senate Commerce committee hearing the next day. Kerry left the hearing early, though, and instead faxed a letter to Martin, citing concerns about the deal and contending that Extra Innings has been available to 75 million subscribers but would be available to only 15 million if DirecTV has it alone. Of the 500,000 subscribers to the Extra Innings package last season, 270,000 were with DirecTV, according to sources. Going by those numbers, 230,000 would be left out this season. DirecTV has a disproportionate number of Extra Innings subscribers because it caters to sports fans. NFL Sunday Ticket, by far the most popular pay sports package, has always belonged to DirecTV exclusively, and the rights fee is now a whopping $700 million a year. That package's exclusivity never caused much of an uproar among fans because it was never available on cable. Kerry, in his letter, said, "In the case of my hometown team, Red Sox Nation stretches all across our country from coast to coast. I am concerned that this deal … will separate fans from their favorite teams." Kerry could not be reached by phone Friday, but Vince Morris, a spokesman, said the senator is taking up the fight not only because he is a Red Sox fan but because people had been approaching him, seeking answers. "He wants to find out more facts and find out what the FCC can do," Morris said. An FCC spokesman would not comment on Kerry's letter. The agency has some authority over cable and satellite television but generally stays out of programming issues that don't involve local content. The FCC has allowed NFL Sunday Ticket to be offered exclusively on DirecTV since 1994. However, News Corp. has filed a request for permission from the FCC to transfer its controlling 38.5% stake in DirecTV to Liberty Media Corp in a swap of assets, and any complaints about baseball's Extra Innings deal could come up in that review. Those involved in the deal declined to comment, but baseball executives have privately suggested that fans with cable can subscribe to the broadband package, which cost $79 last season, $100 less than what Extra Innings cost. But Hecht, for one, isn't buying it, saying, "There is no substitute to kicking back on a couch and watching a game on a TV screen."

Edgy DC Feb 03 2007 09:12 AM

Be skeptical. But keep lashing back.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 09 2007 02:09 PM

From Baseball Digest Daily. Apparently people who complain to MLB are getting some pretty unsatisfactory responses. ="Craig Brown"] DirecTV and MLB Extra Innings - Part II Contributed by Craig Brown Friday, 09 February 2007 Since my article about the pending marriage between MLB and DirecTV, the responses have been flying into my in box. I’ve literally heard from all sides on this story: Long-time Extra Innings subscribers, DirecTV subscribers and people who have never bought the package. And not a single person thinks this is a good idea. Here’s a sampling. Bryan disagrees with my assessment that Extra Innings was for the “hardcore” baseball fan. But we can agree on one thing… “(W)hat this deal is taking away (is) the ability of the long time fan to watch their hometown team while living in another part of the country. And if this deal goes through I for one will miss it for I am a Dish Network subscriber and they have given me nothing but great service for the 10 years I have had them, so I for one am rewarding them for their service and loyalty to me. Maybe Bud should do the same to the fans.” That paragraph neatly sums up the majority of the emails I’ve received in the last week. First, this deal is going to disenfranchise a ton of fans who live out of their team’s market. And second, there is a loyalty from consumers to their cable or satellite provider. Most of us are actually happy with how we receive our television, and we’re not going to change. Nicole feels our pain. “I am a DirecTV subscriber in my 6th year this month. I have always had the MLB Extra Innings package. As a DirecTV subscriber I feel bad for those who don't have and can't get it. I think it is unfair for MLB to make a deal to shut out their fans.” She also made a point about the lack of choice for the games and it’s a good one. Why can’t viewers choose between the home and the away feed for the games in the Extra Innings package? Myself, I like to listen to the opposition announcers because that tends to give me a better feel for what others around the country think of my team. (I’m a Royals fan, so it’s not that difficult to guess what other people think about my team.) But more than any other sport, baseball unfolds on a daily basis and the team’s announcers provide continuity to the story. If MLB is looking to enhance the package (and find a way to charge a little more money) this could be a way to do it. Jeanette wrote our friend Bud and even got a reply! “I've even written to the Commissioner, and received a hand-signed response back. But I'm not sure he really read my plea, especially since he told me that I could watch Red Sox games in place of my beloved Yankees. This was a little galling given that I had expressed that I was a diehard, out-of-market Yankees fan living in the heart of Red Sox Nation. And then he went on to tell me that DirecTV is available, even after I had written the reasons why it is not an option for me. Oh well, what did I expect, really?” No wonder Bud has gone on the record and said he hasn’t heard much in the way of negative responses from the fans. Everything in his world is backward. Yankee fans want to watch Red Sox games, people that can’t receive DirecTV should buy it and negative comments are actually in support of his plan. I said in my previous column (and still believe) that Bud isn’t the main culprit in all of this. But he doesn’t make it easy, does he? And this is the man in charge of our game. Actually, the way MLB has handled this whole issue reeks of fiasco. Early on, people who wrote in protest were issued a form email that included phone numbers to call to order DirecTV. Unreal. It never ceases to amaze me when a major corporation (and that’s what MLB is) fumbles PR 101. How difficult would it be to send a form response stating they understand our concerns and then lay out a couple of reasons of why this could be good for baseball? We wouldn’t have to agree, but don’t send us canned responses that will only increase our frustration. Taking the time to send a note to MLB explaining that this is a bad deal because you can’t get DirecTV, and then getting this response? From: MLBAMCS - Customer Service Date: Feb 1, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: RE: no on direct TV To: (removed for privacy) Call For existing DIRECTV® service Home service: 1-800-494-4388 Hearing impaired customers (TTY): 1-800-779-4388 Business service: 1-888-200-4388 Hotel/dorm/hospital service: 1-800-388-2505 For new DIRECTV service Home service: 1-888-777-2454 At your business: 1-888-388-4249 DIRECTV dealers 1-800-323-1994 Supposedly, this has been fixed. If you’re looking for somewhere to fire off an email, try feedback@mlb.com . I don’t know if it will accomplish anything, but there is an online petition against the proposed deal. As of Wednesday morning there were 810 signatures. Hurry over and get your name on there. Maury Brown at the Biz of Baseball points out we probably won’t hear anything from MLB on the deal this week because several of the key players are out of town. Is there any possibility we can buy them one-way tickets for next week? A resolution has to come in the next week or two. It’s a longshot, but it doesn’t hurt to keep fighting until the bitter end. Keep the faith.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 23 2007 12:22 PM

] FCC investigating reported "Extra Innings" deal between DirecTV, MLB Washington, DC (AP) - The government is investigating a proposed deal between Major League Baseball and DirecTV Inc. that has had fans in a tizzy. MLB reportedly seeks to strike an exclusive deal with the satellite television provider to offer its "Extra Innings" baseball package. Disclosure of the Federal Communications Commission's investigation of any such deal came in a letter from FCC chairman Kevin Martin that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., released Thursday. The programming option allows baseball fans who live outside the markets of their favorite teams to watch them play for an extra fee. It is currently available to a number of cable and satellite television providers. Kerry had asked Martin to investigate the "proposed $700 million television deal that could deny many consumers the ability to watch their favorite teams." Martin, in reply, wrote Kerry: "I share your concerns regarding this proposed deal." The chairman added that he understood the package had been available to 75 million cable and satellite viewers for the past several years, and would only be viewable by DirecTV customers if a deal were signed. "I am concerned whenever consumers cannot purchase the programming they want or are forced to purchase programming they don't want," Martin wrote. DirecTV has never confirmed that the widely reported deal even exists. Robert Mercer, director of public relations for DirecTV, declined to comment late Thursday. Martin wrote that the agency has "contacted the parties and requested additional information about their proposed arrangement. Once we have this information, we will report to you on the deal's implications for consumers and any recommended changes to the law to ameliorate any harms to consumers."

ABG Feb 23 2007 03:36 PM

Anything to slow it down...

KC Feb 23 2007 05:10 PM

Don't want to slow it down too much. If they block it, then a deal has to be negotiated with the other service providers. I'm not optimistic that we will be able to get the package this year ... but I'm holding out hope.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 04 2007 12:58 PM

From TVPredictions.com: ] Bud Selig Boosts DIRECTV MLB Deal Baseball's commissioner says criticism of the proposed agreement is "ridiculous." By Phillip Swann Washington, D.C. (March 4, 2007) -- Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig yesterday appeared to give his okay to an exclusive deal with DIRECTV to broadcast out of market games. DIRECTV is close to landing the exclusive rights to air MLB's 'Extra Innings' package, which includes up to 60 games each week. The satcaster is likely to broadcast many of the games in High-Definition TV as part of its plan to expand high-def coverage. However, the proposed deal has sparked protests from lawmakers and media critics who say it would deny cable viewers an opportunity to see the games. Selig yesterday called that criticism "ridiculous" and characterized the controversy as "slight." Speaking to reporters before a spring training game in Arizona, the commissioner said cable viewers would still be able to see hundreds of games on networks such as ESPN, TBS, WGN and local channels. "I've heard for years we have too much product out there," Selig said. "Everywhere I've gone...there's no market that has less than 350 to 400 (games on TV) and some have quite a bit more than that. We have an enormous amount of product out there." Selig also echoed an argument made by DIRECTV CEO Chase Carey in a recent letter to the Federal Communications Commission. Carey told the FCC that that only 5,000 current (cable and EchoStar) subscribers to the Extra Innings package would not be able to subscribe to DIRECTV. "As for this deal, what fascinates me is I have spent a lot of time going over it and trying to find out who can't get (DIRECTV)," Selig said. The commissioner said the DIRECTV deal is "close" to being completed. Looks like Comcast will lose my business to DirecTV in the next few weeks. The only thing that really sucks about this for me is that I can't get most of the Phillies games on DirecTV. (I'll get the over-the-air games, but not the ones on cable.) So I'll see very few of the 19 Mets-Phillies games, and some of the ones in September might be very important. I don't care about any of the other Phillies games, though. Just the 19 against the Mets.

cooby Mar 04 2007 01:03 PM

"As for this deal, what fascinates me is I have spent a lot of time going over it and trying to find out who can't get (DIRECTV)," Selig said Dear Mr. Selig: That is not the friggin point. Love, cooby A former baseball game watcher who refuses to keep paying more and more money to watch games.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 08 2007 02:22 PM

Rumor has it the deal will be officially announced this afternoon.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 08 2007 03:13 PM

Major League Baseball, DIRECTV to Host 4:15 P.M. (EST) Conference Call Today NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Major League Baseball and DIRECTV will make a major joint announcement on a 4:15 P.M. (EST) conference call this afternoon. Baseball Commissioner Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Major League Baseball President & Chief Operating Officer Bob DuPuy, MLB Executive Vice President for Business Tim Brosnan and DIRECTV President & Chief Executive Officer Chase Carey will be among the representatives who will be available on the call. Members of the media may join the call by dialing (877) 560-2269 and stating their affiliation. Callers outside North America may dial (706) 643-0091. Participants will be taken on a first-come, first-served basis.

soupcan Mar 08 2007 03:26 PM

"Hi, um this is Soup Cann, representing the Crane Pool Picayune Times."

Edgy DC Mar 08 2007 03:28 PM

Sue Pecan.

soupcan Mar 08 2007 03:30 PM

Couldn't pull it off - I'm a baritone.

KC Mar 08 2007 03:42 PM

Pox on them and their ancestors. I hope they all get big warts on their johnsons.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 08 2007 03:50 PM

I don't blame DirecTV in this at all. They're not doing anything that will adversely affect their clients. It's MLB who are the bad guys here, showing disregard for their clients (that is, fans.) I've never liked Bud Selig, but now my regard for him has sunk to unprecedented depths. If only George W. Bush had become Commissioner of Baseball instead of President.

metirish Mar 08 2007 03:52 PM

Of course Selig has the owners to think about....fuck us fans.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 08 2007 04:01 PM

I read that the San Diego owner wasn't happy about this. Padres games aren't available on satellite in San Diego. That means that anyone who lives in that market and gets DirecTV won't be able to watch Padre telecasts. Same is true in Philadelphia, but I haven't read any comments on this deal from the Phillies owners. I live in the Phillies market, so once I get DirecTV, I'll only be able to see a limited number of Phillies games. (They play a small fraction of their games on broadcast television. Most of the games are on Comcast SportsNet.)

KC Mar 08 2007 05:20 PM

How much was MLB.TV last year? This year it's $90, which seems a little steep for a four inch picture (or can you make it bigger somehow?). The one that lets you watch 6 games at once would make me dizzy and the screens are less than an inch (or can you click on one to make it full screen if some- thing is happening?). I know nothing about the PC version offered by mlb.com. I know a few of you use it ... enlighten me, por favor.

metirish Mar 08 2007 07:05 PM

So what was the announcement ?

KC Mar 08 2007 07:09 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2792214 Sounds like the speculation was wrong.

KC Mar 08 2007 07:48 PM

Well, no one says that InDemand or whoever is gonna come through, but at least they are given the opp ... Baseball Signs Deal With DirecTV, Lets Cable Match (Update2) By Danielle Sessa March 8 (Bloomberg) -- DirecTV Group Inc. and Major League Baseball relented to political pressure and signed a seven-year deal that lets rival pay TV services continue to broadcast out- of-market games. DirecTV, the largest U.S. satellite television service, also agreed to invest in and carry MLB's Baseball Channel on its basic tier starting in 2009, MLB President Bob DuPuy said today on a conference call. Financial terms weren't disclosed. Lawmakers including U.S. Senator John Kerry had criticized the anticipated $700 million agreement based on reports it would cut off out-of-market games to millions of subscribers to cable TV and the Dish satellite network. Under today's pact, companies including Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp. and Dish owner EchoStar Communications Corp. have until the end of the month to match the deal. ``Baseball occupies a somewhat different status with the American public than does any other sport,'' said Neal Pilson, a former president of CBS Sports who runs Pilson Communications. ``The political scene is frankly different for baseball.'' DirecTV, based in El Segundo, California, had defended its plan to sign an exclusive agreement with Major League Baseball, saying in a letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that consumers wouldn't be harmed by such an arrangement. Today the company signaled it would be paying less for those games if they're also available to competitors. Non-Exclusive ``Whatever we are paying for these rights, it is a significantly different number in a non-exclusive arrangement than it is in an exclusive arrangement,'' Chase Carey, chief executive officer of El Segundo, California-based DirecTV, said today on a conference call. To continue offering baseball's ``Extra Innings'' package, which features 60 games a week, cable companies must agree to carry the baseball channel on their basic tier when it starts up in two years. Extra Innings was available to 75 million cable and satellite customers last year. If the rival services are unable to reach a deal with baseball, fans would have to subscribe to DirecTV to continue receiving the games. The company has almost 16 million subscribers. `Broader Access' ``I'm encouraged that Major League Baseball may be willing to provide broader access to their games than what was initially proposed,'' Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said today in a statement. ``I will be watching closely to ensure the league works in good faith so that America's pastime is available to all fans.'' Shares of DirecTV fell 1 cent to $22.70 at 4:19 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They have declined 9 percent this year. Englewood, Colorado-based EchoStar, second to DirecTV with 13.1 million customers, gained 49 cents to $44.43. Kathie Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for EchoStar, didn't immediately return a phone call seeking comment. Cable providers criticized the agreement, saying DirecTV and baseball included conditions they can't meet. ``Major League Baseball has chosen to cut a de facto exclusive deal -- including conditions for carriage that MLB and DirecTV designed to be impossible for cable and DISH to meet,'' Robert D. Jacobson, chief executive officer of the cable industry's In Demand network, said in a statement. In Demand, owned by Comcast, Time Warner and Cox Communications Inc., the largest cable companies, is the biggest supplier of pay-per-view programming and distributes the Extra Innings package. ``This decision represents the height of disrespect and disregard for their loyal baseball fans,'' Jacobson said. To contact the reporter on this story: Danielle Sessa in New York at dsessa@bloomberg.net

Yancy Street Gang Mar 08 2007 07:48 PM

KC wrote: ...are less than an inch (or can you click on one to make it full screen if some- thing is happening?). I know nothing about the PC version offered by mlb.com. I know a few of you use it ... enlighten me, por favor. I haven't used it since 2005, but you were able to make it full screen, but the picture wasn't too clear. I had to push my chair back from the PC so I wouldn't notice the pixels so much.

cooby Mar 08 2007 08:09 PM

Unbelievable. If I were DirectTV, I'd be pissed. If I were cable TV or DishNetwork, I'd also be pissed. I am cooby, and I already was pissed.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 08 2007 08:32 PM

That sop to cable is just to get Congress off their backs.

Edgy DC Mar 08 2007 09:06 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: ="KC"]...are less than an inch (or can you click on one to make it full screen if some- thing is happening?). I know nothing about the PC version offered by mlb.com. I know a few of you use it ... enlighten me, por favor. I haven't used it since 2005, but you were able to make it full screen, but the picture wasn't too clear. I had to push my chair back from the PC so I wouldn't notice the pixels so much. It's improved, in picture quality and in delivery. Not perfect.

Frayed Knot Mar 08 2007 10:32 PM

]DirecTV Group Inc. and Major League Baseball relented to political pressure and signed a seven-year deal that lets rival pay TV services continue to broadcast out- of-market games. Well, sort of. What they're doing is offering the Cable systems an opportunity to match the deal DirecTV signed ... but the kicker is that they'll need to agree to place the yet-to-be launched MLB channel on a basic tier. That - to most if not all of the cable systems - is akin to a poison pill. They don't want program suppliers dictating to them where and how to market their packages and I can't see there being that big a demand for the channel (not available until 2009) for them to swallow this. On a grand scale there simply weren't that many subscribers to the 'Extra Innings' package to make that worth that bargain. ]If I were DirectTV, I'd be pissed Why? For DirecTV and their viewers nothing has changed.

cooby Mar 09 2007 06:17 AM

I just mean that what was supposed to be an exclusive deal for DirectTV has suddenly been possibly compromised

Frayed Knot Mar 09 2007 10:21 AM

On a side note from the TV world, the traditional Saturday afternoon 'Game of the Week' is somewhat improved. First of all they're actually having one every week, and they're doing so right from the beginning of the season through the end -- [url=http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6524072]Sked[/url] No more weeks-long gaps because ... eh, because they felt like showing something else instead. The other change is a move to a 3:30 EDT (prolly 4:00 actual game time) start for those games on the network. What that means it that, since local telecasts can't compete with the national games, things will essentially work backwards from how they've been done in recent years: Now, if the Mets are NOT part of the GotW package, their Saturday games will be 1PM starts (or the occasional night game) - and if they are part of the regional package (like the first week of the season for instance) it'll be a 4PM game. Looks like we're on tap for about 8 Saturday GotW games plus maybe 1 or 2 more at the tail end of the season if those games affect a pennant race.

Edgy DC Mar 09 2007 11:36 AM

A possible sweet cherry on top of that sweet bonus is perhaps, by showing a game every week, FOX will be less inclined in the post-season to treat viewers like they've never seen a baseball game before. ("A change-up is a pitch that goes reeeealy sloooow.")

Yancy Street Gang Mar 09 2007 07:23 PM

I'm wondering: Am I really the only out-of-towner on this forum who watches the Mets on Extra Innings? If our (small) sample size is anything to go by, maybe this won't affect many people after all.

cooby Mar 09 2007 08:13 PM

We had MLB Extra Innings last year, but I still could not watch the Mets. Their in-market parameters are bunko, hunko. (hey, it rhymes)

Yancy Street Gang Mar 09 2007 08:33 PM

It really is absurd that you're in the Mets blackout area. It would only make sense if you were able to somehow order SNY. (Is it possible that you are?)

cooby Mar 09 2007 09:25 PM

Nope, comcast said no.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 09 2007 09:59 PM

Comcast suxx :(

soupcan Mar 09 2007 11:54 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I'm wondering: Am I really the only out-of-towner on this forum who watches the Mets on Extra Innings? My father-in-law had it at his summer house in Massachusetts last summer and it was great. We go up there with the kids as often as possible, so after years of being Mets-less during summer weekends, finally being able to watch them there was a treat. He said he enjoyed it so much that if he has to get DirecTV he will.

Frayed Knot Mar 10 2007 09:17 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Am I really the only out-of-towner on this forum who watches the Mets on Extra Innings? If our (small) sample size is anything to go by, maybe this won't affect many people after all. The number ordering 'Extra Innings' isn't all that many when viewed on a national scale -- about 700-800K homes from what I've read - with more than half of them already getting it through DirecTV and a certain portion of the rest will (or at least can) switch to it now. All of which explains why both Selig and sports radio jocks have been quick to dismiss the fuss over this as "no big deal". My father lives out of state and has been a EI customer for years now (thru DirecTV) specifically to get Met games

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2007 10:16 AM

soupcan wrote: He said he enjoyed it so much that if he has to get DirecTV he will. That's exactly how I feel. I placed the order last night, and installation will probably be next week.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 19 2007 03:40 PM

Well, I am now a DirecTV subscriber. The dish was installed on my house on Saturday, and I have three receivers, one for each television. It will end up costing about $6 more per month than I had been paying for cable, but I'm now getting a bunch of additional channels. The picture is nice and clear, but it hasn't been tested by bad weather yet. The kids are enjoying Cartoon Network's Boomerang, and I am too. (Classic episodes of The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Magilla Gorilla, Wacky Races, etc.) The downside is that now that cable is gone I can't watch one live show while recording another on TiVo. We don't do that all that often (we rarely watch live TV) but it was a nice option to have. I can also get the Sports Premier package (I think they call it) which would allow me to get SNY, YES, and all of the various Fox Sports channels from around the country. As I understand it, I'd be able to watch SNY except for when a Mets game is on. At that point it would black out and I'd have to watch the game on Extra Innings. If I had the option of getting SNY a la carte, and without the blackouts, I'd opt for that over Extra Innings. Although I enjoy sampling other team's broadcasts, I'd prefer to see Gary, Keith and Ron do each game. And I'd be able to see pre-game and post-game shows and whatever else SNY offers. But I don't care to pay for that whole sports tier; it's more than I'd care to spend. Maybe one day I'll ask if I can get SNY a la carte, but I suspect the answer would be no.

soupcan Mar 19 2007 05:09 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I'd prefer to see Gary, Keith and Ron do each game. And I'd be able to see pre-game and post-game shows and whatever else SNY offers. That's a good bonus. That was the one thing I missed watching Extra Innings. The game would basically begin on the first pitch and pretty much end right after the last out.

A Boy Named Seo Mar 20 2007 03:03 PM

Add one to that 800K figure as I'm a new dish/Extra Innings person, too. Guy just left about a half hour ago. I ordered the same thing Yancy did, and am planning on the sports thing, too, to get SNY and Fox Soccer.

Frayed Knot Mar 21 2007 12:59 PM

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2806948]'Not so fast' says 'In Demand'[/url] "IN Demand said Wednesday it will offer to match the terms of DirecTV's $700 million, seven-year deal with Major League Baseball on behalf its owners, who are affiliates of the companies that own Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems ... iN Demand also said it would carry The Baseball Channel when it launches in 2009 to at least the same number of subscribers who will get the channel on DirecTV." Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said he would have to find out details of iN Demand's offer before commenting.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 21 2007 01:14 PM

Too late! That cable spokesman said a week or two ago that DirecTV's offer would be "impossible" to match. I suspected he might be posturing, but I didn't want to delay my decision. And I figured that if he WAS posturing (which apparently was the case) then he was messing around with his own subscribers, who were poised wondering what to do. So in all of this, DirecTV was the only entity that wasn't messing around with its client base. (MLB and cable clearly were.) Because of this, I don't regret ditching cable. (I may come to regret it, of course, if DirecTV turns out to work poorly for me. But so far so good.)

Kid Carsey Mar 21 2007 04:08 PM

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8O0O7F00.htm Cable, MLB argue over out-of-town games by RONALD BLUM NEW YORK Cable television said it offered to match DirecTV's deal for the "Extra Innings" package of out-of-market games, but Major League Baseball said the proposal fell short. When baseball announced its $700 million, seven-year deal with DirecTV on March 8, it gave the other incumbent carriers until the end of the month to match the deal. In Demand, owned by affiliates of the companies that own Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems, said Wednesday it was agreeing to the terms and that its partners would carry The Baseball Channel when it launches in 2009 to at least the same number of subscribers who will get the channel on DirecTV. "As the current home for 'Extra Innings' for more than 200,000 cable subscribers, we have extended ourselves to do our best to be able to continue to provide this package to baseball fans and our customers," iN Demand president Robert Jacobson said. "This offer meets all the conditions set forth by MLB last week. " Not so fast, said Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer. "The communication sent to our office today by iN Demand is not responsive to that offer," he said. "In spite of their public comments, the response falls short of nearly all of the material conditions (among them requirements for carriage of The Baseball Channel and their share of the rights fees for Extra Innings) set forth in the Major League Baseball offer made to them on March 9." DuPuy said the March 31 deadline to match remains. "Extra Innings" had more than 500,000 television subscribers last year plus about 60 percent more on MLB.com, the sport's Web site. EchoStar Communications Corp.'s Dish Network also has carried the "Extra Innings" package. Dish spokeswoman Kathie Gonzalez did not return a call seeking comment. IN Demand is owned by Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Comcast iN Demand Holdings Corp and Cox Communications Holdings Inc.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 28 2007 03:08 PM

Here's the latest on my DirecTV adventure. Anyone who's planning to get MLB Extra Innings this season should pay attention: The original installation was on Saturday, March 17. While he was at my house, the installer asked me if I needed to get the phone lines hooked up to my satellite receivers. Since none of my three televisions are near a phone jack, I asked him if it was necessary and he said no. It was only required if I wanted to order any Pay Per View movies. (A customer service rep from DirecTV had told me the same thing before I had even scheduled the installation.) Since I had no interest in Pay Per View, I told him he didn't need to bother. Then, last week, I was browsing around on DirecTV's web site looking to see if I could order SNY a la carte. (I can't, by the way. But I can get the Sports Tier that includes SNY for $12 per month. I may eventally decide to do that for the baseball season months. But that's another story.) Anyway, while at directv.com, I read the following: ]Why do I need to have a land-based phone line connected to receive sports programming? In order for us to comply with the blackout rules established by each professional sports league, we require our sports customers to have a continuous land-based phone connection to their DIRECTV Receiver. I call DirecTV to verify this, and they say yes, it is necessary because the phone line is used to see which market I'm in so that the satellite box knows which games need to be blacked out. The rep I was speaking to told me that I don't need to wire any phone jacks, I can just buy wireless jacks at Circuit City or Wal Mart. (You plug a transmitter into your phone jack and a receiver into an outlet behind your TV.) She even gave me a couple of make and model numbers that are compatible with DirecTV's satellite receivers. I go to Wal Mart's and Circuit City's web sites, and find that the model numbers no longer exist. They've been discontinued. I can get them on eBay, but they run about $40 to $50 each. Since I have three TV's, that's a lot of money to spend since the installer was willing to do it as part of the free installation. So I call DirecTV again, and they tell me that my installation comes with a 90-day warranty, and since it wasn't completed to my satisfaction, they'd schedule a follow-up at no charge. I arranged for them to come yesterday morning, since I was working from home. At 9 a.m. a two-man crew arrives. I explain the situation, and the guy tells me that 1) it's NOT necessary to have a phone line for sports programming because the box already knows where it is, which is why I'm able to get Philadelphia local channels and not channels from other markets, and 2) that he doesn't do phone lines anyway (Clearly they sent the wrong guy.) and 3) he has the NFL package with no phone line and it knows to blackout the Eagles games for him. He then calls his boss on the phone, and the boss verifies that no phone line is needed for Extra Innings. I tell him, look, some people tell me I need a phone line and others don't. But I DON'T want to turn on a baseball game next week and find out that I can't watch it. But since the guy in my house can't do phone lines, there's no point in keeping him hostage. We agree that I'll try to view a ballgame on Monday when the season opens, and if I can't they'll deliver me four wireless jacks on Tuesday at a total discounted cost of $100. (The normal price, according to this one guy, is $80 each.) What can I do? I agree to that deal and let him go. THEN, later the same day at 5:30 p.m. a DirecTV van pulls into my driveway. I had no idea they were coming. They're the guys who can install phone jacks. They again make a convincing argument that I don't need the jacks. They do these installs for a living and they've seen many customers who get the NBA or NFL packages and don't have or need a phone line. Maybe it's different for MLB, I ask? No, he answers. If it was, they'd have been briefed in a meeting. But he'll call DirecTV anyway to get the straight scoop. He calls, and they tell him that yes, you DO need the phone line. It's in order to enable all those silly interactive features that Bud Selig is so excited about. I ask, I don't care about interactive features. I just want to watch a baseball game. Can I watch the game without the phone line? And the answer again is no. The interactive features are apparently bundled in with the rest of the Extra Innings that the whole deal falls apart without a phone connection. So the guys reluctantly agree to install the phone jacks. They had been on their way home when they got dispatched to my house, and thanks to me they had to extend their days by three hours to install these jacks that may or may not have been necessary. And that's where we are now. I have the jacks. Everything seems GO for baseball season. Hopefully this is the last chapter of my DirecTV installation story. If you're getting Extra Innings and you don't have phone jacks near your television, you may want to start making some phone calls.

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2007 04:11 PM

Two things: * Installing or moving your own phone jacks is real easy. For $10 bucks you can buy a length of wire and a new jack or two and simply run a wire from an existing jack to wherever you want to put the new one. Phone wire is all color coded and low voltage so, if you do get caught short, you needn't neccesarily wait for a potentially expensive service call or rearrange your whole house in order to link the two. * Due to a bout of insomnia this morning, I was channel flipping at about 4AM and stumbled across CSPAN in time to see a replay of Sen Kerry's Tuesday hearing with MLB honcho Bob DuPuy and the cable/satellite guys. Nothing was settled of course. - The 'InDemand' spokeman talked about how matching MLB's offer to match the DirecTV deal would saddle it with 60% of the costs for only 40% of the benefits (and other such breakdowns). - DirecTV says they paid extra specifically for the exclusivity of it all and that they had a different price in mind if they were going to share this feature. - DuPuy was very up front about how this is all about pushing the future MLB channel - And Kerry is wondering why they can't all get along and tried to get them to promise to talk further seeing as how the season is 4 days away.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 28 2007 04:25 PM

I wouldn't have known how to even begin to install new phone jacks. It took those technicians three hours to do it, so I can only imagine how long it would have taken me to do it. Especially since in two of the three cases the TV was on the opposite side of the room from the phone jack. And in the third case, there's no jack at all in the room with the TV. I would have had to run the line under the carpeting or all the way around the baseboards. Otherwise I would have ended up stringing a line across the room that would have been constantly tripped over. The installer guys ran the thing through the basement and through the insides of the walls. I very much want to watch the Mets this year, but if I had to run wires myself to do it I'd prefer to just become a Phillies fan.

metirish Mar 28 2007 04:27 PM

What a run around you got Yancy...hope all is ok after that crap.

A Boy Named Seo Mar 28 2007 07:16 PM

Yancy- Thanks for the heads up. My install guy told me the same regarding the phone line. I would need it for PPV, but not for the Extra Innings package. I have a phone line connected to the receiver in the living room anyway, but not to the receiver in the bedroom. The install guy said it wouldn't matter for the baseball package, I'd be able to watch it in the bedroom just the same and it looks like he's right. II ordered Extra Innings online and now if I go to channel 217 (the order Extra Innings channel), it says in my bedroom (no phone line) that I am authorized for that programming. I don't know about any new or different features, but it looks like I'm okay from that room. You might want to check that channel, too.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 28 2007 07:38 PM

Thanks, I'll do that.

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2007 10:26 PM

"I wouldn't have known how to even begin to install new phone jacks. It took those technicians three hours to do it, so I can only imagine how long it would have taken me to do it." Nothing wrong with having it done for you of course, particularly if it's part of the initial service. Plus, part of their expertise in it comes from doing what you said about having to rout the wire through walls, around obstacles and what not. But for simple jobs - like say moving a jack to a different spot in the room - it's usually simple, safe, and requires nothing beyond a screwdriver. Basically the wire that feeds a phone jack has several (up to 4) color coded wires in it which attach to standard screws inside the jack. A new wire can then be led from there and strung to a new locale with the green wire attaching to the same terminal where the green is already attached from the old wire; the new red wire to where the red already is, etc. Single-line phones use just the red & green; if you have 2 phone #s feeding that jack then all four wires will be used.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 29 2007 06:53 PM

They're a day late and a dollar short, but I got a letter from Comcast today telling me that, as a 2006 Extra Innings subscriber, they'd offer me a one-time $89.00 credit towards the purchase of a year's subscription to MLB TV. They're trying to make it sound like MLB TV is an adequate substitute for Extra Innings. I can get the baseball anyway, and I don't have to get rid of my cable! Like I said, too late. If money was an issue this would be tempting. I would save the money I spent on Extra Innings and I'd get MLB TV for free for 2007. I'm sure a bunch of people will take that offer. But they're probably the ones who weren't going to drop cable anyway.

Kid Carsey Mar 29 2007 07:07 PM

The whole saga from start to finish sBHMC. I'm glad you're happy, but I think the fans were screwed and there could have been a way to get Extra Innings to all types of service providers. As I think I stated earlier in this whole thing, the "all types of companies should be able to provide stuff and end the monopoly" thing is supposed to be good and save people money but all it's done is create a clusterfuck of choices and competition for ways to screw the end user out of phone, tv, and internet dollars. I blame Al Gore and his rock 'n roll lyric hatin' wife.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 30 2007 08:31 AM

I don't know that I'm happy. I'm glad that I'll be able to watch the games. But I'd much rather that I didn't have to jump through all these hoops to enable that to happen.

cooby Mar 30 2007 08:55 AM

I predict that in a year or two, you'll be going through a whole nuther process to watch them. But I hope I'm wrong, Yancy

Yancy Street Gang Mar 30 2007 09:11 AM

I have a feeling you're right, cooby, although your timeframe is probably a little too pessimistic. This DirecTV deal runs seven years, so I should be good for that long. A better option may come along before the seven years is up, though, so I may jump ship before 2013 but if I do at least it will be by my choice. This recent nonsense aside, I would think (or hope) that as the years unfold, it should become easier to access out-of-market games. My prediction is that MLB TV will be more easily viewable on television sets as the gap between television and Internet narrows. Right now MLB TV isn't a viable alternative for me, but someday I expect it will be.

Frayed Knot Mar 30 2007 10:01 AM

The biggest change over the next few years is likely to be the introduction of the MLB channel and whatever programming will wind up being shown exclusively there. The sheer volume of MLB games means that it'll never be able to control their product the way the NFL does. But, after several years of just providing "extra" programming, the NFL is now trying to tempt fans towards their channel (and to their exclusive provider: DirecTV) by hording a handful of late-season games so that most fans could get them by no other means.

Kid Carsey Apr 02 2007 01:07 PM

Broke down and got mlb.tv for a month today to try it out. It kinda sucks but in a way it's kind cool too to have a tv on any pc you may be on. For 50 cents a day I guess it's worth it. Braves vs. Phillies in all it's grainy glory is on as we speak.

Kid Carsey Apr 03 2007 04:30 PM

Here's one for the holy crap file: Came home to an answering machine message from Cablevision saying they were working on the negotiations and that they'll credit your cable bill the $15 a month for signing up for MLB.tv in the interim.

Yancy Street Gang Apr 03 2007 04:33 PM

Same thing happened to me. (See the fourth post on this page, above.)

Kid Carsey Apr 03 2007 04:43 PM

I'm senile.

Farmer Ted Apr 05 2007 09:13 AM Fans win

NEW YORK (AP) -- After negotiations that went into extra innings, baseball struck a deal to keep its "Extra Innings" package of out-of-market games on cable television. Under pressure from Sen. John Kerry, baseball and iN Demand reached an agreement in principle Wednesday on a seven-year contract, a deal that likely will allow the sport's new TV network to be available in at least 40 million homes when it launches in 2009. Baseball announced an exclusive seven-year, $700 million agreement with DirecTV on March 8, but viewers who would have lost TV access to the games complained. "The concern expressed by our fans who would have been forced to switch to alternative carriers or were unable to switch was something we tried to be responsive to," baseball chief operating officer Bob DuPuy said. Kerry had asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the original deal, and during a hearing last week in Washington he pushed baseball to resume talks with iN Demand, owned by affiliates of Time Warner, Comcast and Cox. While baseball had set a March 31 deadline, the sides kept negotiating and announced a deal Wednesday night, an agreement that still must be finalized. "All we ever wanted was a victory for the fans, and this outcome is a big step forward," Kerry said in a statement. "Everyone kept talking and pressing until we had a deal that protects the rights of most fans to follow their hometown team." IN Demand began making games available to cable systems in progress starting at 8 p.m. EDT Wednesday, president Robert Jacobson said. The package will be available for $159 this year through a free preview period that will extend into next week, he said, but the 2007 price for those subscribing after that has not been set. "I'm exhausted but happy," Jacobson said. "We always needed to feel like we were treated fairly relative to the other distributor. We felt like got our fair share." As part of the agreement, iN Demand and DirecTV each will receive about 16 percent equity in the new network, a person familiar with the deal said, speaking on condition of anonymity because that detail wasn't announced. Under the original agreement, DirecTV was to be a 20 percent owner. In Demand will make the "Extra Innings" package available to other cable companies, which also would be required to carry the MLB channel. Baseball is willing to resume negotiate with Echostar's Dish Network, baseball spokesman Rich Levin said, but DirecTV president Chase Carey said he anticipated for now that his company would be an exclusive satellite carrier. The dispute was largely over baseball's desire to have a deal that will allow its network to be widely available on a basic cable tier. At 40 million homes, it would be one of the largest launches in cable history. "It provides both the financial stability and the exposure to ensure a successful launch of the channel and bring the game to as many fans as possible," DuPuy said. Because of the new deal, DirecTV will pay less than it would have under the original agreement. "The economics are better for us on the 'Extra Innings' side," Carey said. "Clearly there were benefits you had in capturing subs (subscribers). We were paying a lot of money to get it. At what price? We weighed all the positives of each."

Frayed Knot Apr 05 2007 09:23 AM

]a deal that likely will allow the sport's new TV network to be available in at least 40 million homes when it launches in 2009 "40 million" certainly sounds like a lot when quoted w/o any context but really isn't when compared to all cable-wired homes in the country. Sounds to me that the new MLB channel will NOT be put onto the most basic tier for most systems and that MLB caved somewhat from their initial stance.

Kid Carsey Apr 05 2007 09:33 AM

Yancy Street Gang Apr 05 2007 09:35 AM

I'm glad that the cable subscribers will be able to watch their baseball. And if I ever decide that I want to ditch DirecTV I'm glad I'll have cable as an option to fall back on. The cable spokesman who said that it would be "impossible" for them to match DirecTV's deal is responsible for a lot of lost customers. I guess I really didn't need to switch to DirecTV, but I won't dwell on that now that it's all behind me. This whole thing has been very stupid, though. The Baseball Channel will probably have about 1,000 viewers, and most of them will be over 50 years old.

Frayed Knot Apr 05 2007 09:45 AM

I don't know how well these sport-specific channels (NFL, NBA, Golf, etc) are doing, but all these sports want one because it gives them the ability to control their own product and, even if they're mosey losers now, they see them as the wave of the future. As usual the NFL channel is likely the most popular and, because that sport has the smallest inventory (256 games/yr vs 2,430 for MLB), moving a handful of games to their own channel will always be the bigger draw and have the bigger impact. But even they can't get the cable systems to clear a spot for them and are relying exclusively on DirecTV for distribution.

Kid Carsey Apr 10 2007 09:51 PM

Cablevision ain't exactly rushing to get the service on. Imagine baseball viewing today if Harry Caray had gotten a vasectomy.

metirish May 04 2007 04:17 PM

] BREAKING NEWS: CABLEVISION TO CARRY EI! You read it here first (I think) . . . Cablevision struck a deal Friday with Major League Baseball and In Demand, a consortium of other cable companies, to carry MLB’s “Extra Innings’’ package of out-of-market games. The package had been in limbo for months, even after other cable companies made an agreement as the season began. Like DirecTV, the leading satellite TV company, and cable giants Comcast, Time Warner and Cox, Cablevision agreed as part of the deal to put the MLB Channel that is scheduled to launch in 2009 on its digital basic level. Cablevision said “Extra Innings’’ would be available immediately at a price of $159. Although Cablevision had offered a rebate of the $90 cost for Internet-based mlb.tv to anyone who subscribed to “Extra Innings’’ last year, many fans of teams other than the Mets or Yankees were frustrated by no longer having access to the TV version of the out-of-market package. Now they have it back. Cablevision faced a deadline of the end of business Friday to make an agreement, or it would have been shut out of “Extra Innings’’ through 2013. Now everyone can stop e-mailing to ask me about this. (Just kidding. I love it when you e-mail. Sort of. As long as I don't have to respond.) http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/

Frayed Knot May 04 2007 04:30 PM

"Cablevision said “Extra Innings’’ would be available immediately at a price of $159" Isn't that the usual price? If so then - in typical Cablevision fashion - for missing approx 16% of the season you're getting a 0% discount.

Kid Carsey May 04 2007 04:56 PM

Freakin's whores is all they are, from the top down. Whore I talked to said they'd prorate the price automatically, we'll see. Whore tried to get me to buy the fight too, I told him I was going to the fight and he believed me. That being said, it's nice to come home to Nats/Cubs from Wrigley so I ain't be that pissed. I really got addicted to having this, I feel like I just scored an eight ball.