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.
I think this is the type of "line of site" issue he was describing.
*************
LOL!
I do know people who say that their coop or condo association doesn't allow dishes because of the appearance.
What does that have to do with anything? TBS occasionally broadcasts Braves games. WGN occasionally broadcasts Cubs games. INHD occasionally has a game on. Nationally broadcast games do exist, but they probably account for 5% of all the games. If you don't live in your team's home market, taking the Extra Innings package away from cable is literally preventing millions of people from being able to watch games. This is straightforward. Of course, you could say that they could always go to DirecTV, but it's been pointed out that those laws are next to worthless.
Well, as a lifelong sports fan, I disagree strongly with your statement. I don't give a damn about NASCAR, basketball, or hockey, and there is a limited overlap between MLB and the NFL. People do, on the average, separate the sports into their own compartments.
Let me ask you:
I assume that you craft a budget for your family's expenses. So when you craft your budget, do you have a category for "entertainment," or do you have a category for each individual entertainment expense: MLB, minor league baseball, NFL, NBA, Broadway shows, movies, DVDs, CDs, etc?
I'd be willing to bet that you, and the vast majority of people, budget according to one large category: entertainment. Whether or not you like NASCAR or basketball or hockey is precisely my point: MLB and NASCAR and the NBA and everything else are all competing for that little slice of pie in your budget that is labeled "entertainment." The fact that you choose MLB over NASCAR doesn't mean that other people don't choose NASCAR over MLB.
I think your perception of how people spend their money is incorrect. Maybe people break sports into their own compartments when talking about likes and dislikes, but I bet very few go so far as to compartmentalize them when it comes to their spending habits. In fact, I'd bet that the only people who would do such a thing are people who have season tickets--and even then, I bet they only break out the cost of the tickets themselves, with any ancillary expenses falling into the "entertainment" section.
TBS is an interesting example. I'm a Braves fan, and I have been for years. There was a time when TBS showed around 150 Braves games a year. WGN was the same way.
That all changed, though, when MLB entered into its current agreement with Fox, which gave the Fox channels exclusive rights to almost every MLB team's games. Braves games were sent to Fox cable channels and now TBS shows maybe 30-35 games a year, with a few more on Sports South. WGN shows around the same, though I haven't seen the schedule for this year.
MLB's contract with Fox also gives Fox the rights to exclusive broadcasts of Saturday afternoon games after July 1 each year. If the Braves are playing on Saturday afternoon, I can't see them unless they are on Fox.
But hey, that's how things go. There are thousands of Braves fans around the country that had Braves games yanked from TBS in an effort for MLB to force folks to buy the Extra Innings package. Does it suck? Sure, but if that's how MLB chooses to distribute its product, well, that's its choice.
A lot of baseball teams have their games exclusively on cable, and no one complains about that. The Yankees games are exclusively on YES, and you might remember the stink with Cablevision a few years back. The Indians' games are available exclusively on cable, even in the home market. Tens of thousands of Indians fans in NE Ohio are being denied the ability to watch the Indians because they don't have cable. Hundreds of thousands of Yankees fans in the metro NY area are denied the Yankees because they don't have YES. Fair?
Solution:
Well, then, don't get DirecTV, John.
Um...they do.
Although, they aren't on par with cable.
I disagree with your assessment.
Satellite has a superior picture quality, and IS available to a majority of people. In fact, places that don't get cable can often still get DirecTV or DISH network.
I think it depends largely on your market. Here where I am now, the satellite providers save a net of about $8 a month over comparable cable.
For what it's worth, the cost of watching baseball games (I've been subscribing online for two years) is a completely separate expense. "Entertainment" is far too broad and too subjective.
That said, what you're saying seems to be both for and against your viewpoint. If people have to choose between MLB and NASCAR (I personally can't imagine this scenario) this move would make the decision for them in many cases. I don't understand the move for many reasons:
1) DirecTV is a niche market, and even the extremely popular NFL has not caused DirecTV to become a mainstream commodity. MLB exclusivity would add something, of course, but I cannot fathom it would more than offset the loss of the multitude of cable subscribers.
2) MLB does not reach more people this way. They reach significantly less. DirecTV already offers the baseball package. I don't see the point of this.
3) I would imagine that MLB would consider this for the lump-sum payment DirecTV would have to give them for this exclusivity. Thus they would both encourage more people to sign up for MLB.TV and get a hefty bonus for this. (MLB wins because DirecTV would probably overpay considerably for this, as they do with the NFL TV package).
Why? Too far? Hills? Trees?
Just curious.
My understanding of the law is that it only applies to renters to the extent that they have exclusive control over an area--like a balcony or a patio. Also, a landlord can forbid you from damaging the property, which means no bolting the dish to the side of the building.
Picture quality is debatable as it depends on way too many things to be a simple black-and-white answer. Price depends on a lot of things as well - not only your local market (and your cable choices) but what you get as well. Getting a stripped-down package might be cheaper on one and a more comprehensive package might be cheaper on the other.
I do agree that satellite TV is an excellent option for people who can't get cable.
The dishes can be ground-mounted. Assuming you still get a clear southern view.
As far as the "niche market" comments...I see a LOT of these dishes as I drive around, a lot of people have them. They're not niche.
In any case, MLB does nationally televise many games. That's not good enough for you, apparently. Not only do you want to force a private business to put some of their product in whatever venue you choose, you want them to put all of their products in whatever venue you choose. Why not go all out and have John Kerry make MLB buy you a television as well? Forcing a private business to cater to you is simply fascist. (And before you get all bent out of shape over my use of that word, I'll list the definition as fascism=public/government control of private enterprise--which is exactly what you and Mr. Kerry are promoting.)
Why's it ok for the NFL to do this years ago, but not MLB? It's their business, and they have a right to do whatever it wants in terms of broadcasting. There's not an amendment about access to televised baseball out of market.
Most Mets games are on SportsNet New York, but a lot of the weekend games are on channel 11 (WPIX), so EI customers don't get them anyway, unless the other team is on their local cable system.
There used to be a time when NESN had all Red Sox games, but some were shown on free TV (channel 38, can't remember the call letters). That's gone by the wayside now too, and if you don't get NESN you don't get the Sox.
All I know is that, while I do recognize that we are a capitalist country and that a business has a right to do what it wants to make a profit, I also know that this is cutting off their nose to spite their face. I am a long-time customer, and they are telling me to take a hike. You can't piss off good customers like this and not suffer at some point.
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.