Posted on 02/07/2007 6:16:11 AM PST by presidio9
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.
Are you claiming that cable should show each and every game available for free, because there might be someone that can't afford a dish? I really must not understand the complaint.
Actually, most of the ketchup that I have consumed in my lifetime was free.
No, not at all. I think cable should be allowed to carry the Sunday Ticket package as well. I have no complaint with charging for the service. I'd simply like to see all satellite companies and cable companies have the option of carrying the NFL and MLB seasons.
Fortunately for me, there isn't a single product on the market where I feel my right to possess it trumps its producers rights to distribute it in any way they see fit. So I'll never have to run to the government to petition them to use coercive force to make a producer do business with me.
Not that I'm doubting your numbers, but I will say that I've had DirecTV, Dish Network, and Time Warner cable over the past 7-8 years or so. I note that both DirecTV and Dish BLOWS AWAY the service from my cable company.
Where I live now, I regretfully can't get satellite. My cable service is the lowest "basic" tier, plus Time Warner HD, so I just get channels like TBS, ESPN, TNT, etc. Nothing fancy, digital cable on one set. My service costs $78/month.
My old man has Dish Network at his house. He gets every channel Dish offers, minus the "premium" channels (HBO, Starz, etc.) But he gets ESPNU and CSTV and History International and all that jazz. His bill per month? $65--and a free DVR (which I pay $7 a month for).
However, all of this will be somewhat irrelevant in years to come. Once fiber optic takes over, satellite and cable will be obsolete.
OK that makes more sense. I don't know if I agree or not, but at least it makes more sense. Thanks.
No, it's got nothing to do with a satellite vs. cable debate. I don't support government intervention in pretty much any case, but I have a problem with companies buying out their competition. In this case the only entity who really loses is the consumer, because cable companies don't rely on sports packages, MLB gets paid, and DirecTV gets another "exclusive attraction" to boost its business.
I still don't see why this merits senatorial involvment. So DirecTV finds an "exclusive attraction" to boost it's business. Wouldn't this then spur DishNetwork to find its own "exclusive attraction". Won't Time Warner then join the fray and find something IT can exclusively offer? As these companies go to war to offer the consumer the best "exclusive attractions" doesn't the customer end up winning?
But Chevrolet DOES have an exclusive dealings contract with Chevrolet dealers. If you want to buy a Chevy, you HAVE to go to a Chevy dealer. You can't go to a Pontiac dealer, you can't go to a Ford dealer--you HAVE to go to a Chevy dealer. Moreover, automobile dealerships are given exclusive territories in which ONLY they can sell automobiles.
What you seem to not understand is that you think that exclusive distributorships are illegal, or even wrong. They simply are not.
This isn't about rights. It's about single-seller contracts raising prices and generally being bad for the market.
It depends entirely on what it is. Chevrolet is not the only manufacturer or seller of automobiles. If they were, I would be upset if there were only one place to buy one.
There are a lot of these partnerships and contracts around, but they aren't as prominent as some of these sports deals.
So what if they aren't as prominent? They certainly effect your life a lot more.
Back to your car analogy, though there are many other car manufacturers, only Chevy sells the SS brand. If I want an SS, I have to buy a Chevrolet. There are plenty of automobiles that will get me from point A to point B; there is but one SS, and it belongs to Chevy--which sells its products exclusively through Chevy dealers, which have exclusive territories, into which no other dealers may sell Chevrolets.
Along those same lines, there is only one Major League Baseball, but there are options for sports entertainment out the wazoo. There is minor league baseball, there is football, basketball, golf, hockey, curling, horse racing (TVG), etc. etc. Each of these sports will entertain a person. So there are general competitors to baseball, just as there are general competitors to Chevy, even though Chevy owns the SS brand. But you're ok with Chevy having an exclusive distributorship chain, but not OK with MLB doing the same?
I understand what you're saying, but MLB would be literally preventing millions of people from even being able to watch their games by this. Also, as I said, there is no alternative. The SS analogy doesn't work for me because there are no similar products. I would equate that to a player in MLB - possibly a team at best - but not the entire league.
If MLB wants to prevent millions of people from buying its product, that's its decision. It may be dumb, but presumably (I know with Bud Selig in charge, this is a leap) MLB is making a decision in its best interest.
Perhaps Chevrolet would sell more cars if it didn't sell exclusively to Chevrolet dealers, but it doesn't. Why? Because Chevrolet feels that if it has exclusive dealers, those dealers will work to promote the Chevy brand and reduce intrabrand competition and promote interbrand competition.
Like it or not, there are only so many sports entertainment dollars to go around, and as much as you'd like to separate baseball into its own individual market, it's not. People don't view baseball that way; rather, it's simply a sport, on which they will choose or not choose to spend money based on their entertainment budget. MLB, in a very real way, competes for money from NASCAR and the NFL and the NBA, and if MLB thinks that an exclusive dealings contract with DirecTV will help it better position itself for the limited entertainment dollar of Americans, then who am I to question? Who is John Kerry to question?
B.S., TBS is provided by every cable company.
Sounds like it is a rights issue between the rights of the producer and the rights of the consumer.
You tell the people in Manhattan that. I've lived her for years and have only seen a handful of dishes on apartment buildings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.