[mmichaels1970]

It's a good thing somebody is finally standing up for this.

Do we really need a Senator to start going after "big TV"? If DirecTV is only an annoyance, they won't make money, will stop dealing with MLB, and the market will change.

I'm fairly certain that if MLB starts seeing revenues drop because of this, things will change in a hurry. I'm not certain we need Mass. Senators attempting to fix this for us.

Also, I'm a DirecTV subscriber without the NFL ticket and I still love the service. Wanna know why I love it? Because I'm paying about $60/month less for my tv/internet then I was when I was a Time Warner Cable customer for 10 years.

[USMCWife6869]

How? I hear so many people say that DirecTV is cheaper, but we priced it out, and if I included the extra charge for getting network channels like ABC, etc, it cost the same as having Time Warner for us.

With TW, I have two dual tuner DVRs and the expanded digital package with all movie channels. I would have had to pay way extra for TiVo boxes with DirecTV. My husband really wanted the Sunday Ticket, which would have been even more, and we seriously considered DirecTV when TW took over Adelphia, and we lost the CW network (yes, I watch that network).

After figuring all the numbers, our $125 TW bill (includes internet) was lower.

[flintsilver7]

That's great that you're happy with it. I'm not drilling through my roof to install an ugly dish and I'm not paying for a land line that I don't need. (By the way, fewer and fewer people have land lines.) I've done the math and DirecTV would be considerably more expensive for what I get, so I've never believed that satellite was that cheap. I don't like being tied into a contract (thanks, Verizon!).

MLB won't be the ones who see revenues drop. I'm sure DirecTV would make a lucrative offer, and they still have the MLB.TV service. (Maybe their plan is to ramp MLB.TV sales up by shutting out the cable market, which would be a stroke of evil genius.)