OT - UVerse

[rpntex]

Sort of baseball related, and specifically Astros-related...for you folks with AT&T U-Verse TV.

I am debating making the switch from DirecTV to U-verse.  Mainly because of the gigapower, and the advantaged it will hold for my wife's home-based business, but also because we'll save over $100/mo. over what I'm paying now for the combination of TV-phone-Internet.  That's a significant chunk of change for a retired school teacher.  Anyway, here's the real question. 

I've seen two different channel lineups for U-verse - one which includes Root Sports SW, and one that doesn't.  I've always assumed that it's available on all the major providers by now, but I have to make certain before I switch. 

It is available, right?  Any other comments (reliability, customer service, etc.) are welcome as well.  I don't mind being "too informed" when making this decision.  Thanks!

And oh, yeah...go Astros!

[Andyzipp]

I have it in HD on the u-Verse 450 tier, but I have no idea if it is part of the lower numbered tiers.

[HudsonHawk]

On a side note...DirecTV was just bought by AT&T.  I'm not sure if that will affect anything (DirecTV assures me it won't), but another piece of information. 

[rpntex]

I have it in HD on the u-Verse 450 tier, but I have no idea if it is part of the lower numbered tiers.

That's all I need to know, as the U-450 is the package I'll be getting, too. 

Thanks for moving to the proper forum, by the way.  I wasn't quite sure where to post it.

[ValpoCory]

I've always assumed that it's available on all the major providers by now, but I have to make certain before I switch. 

If only.   Time Warner Cable and DISH Network are the two largest ones yet to join the party.  So for Cable TV customers along the I-35 Texas corridor, new baseball fans are still being forced to become Rangers fans.    That, or watch the Astros opponents' team broadcasts on Stream2Watch.

[HudsonHawk]

If only.   Time Warner Cable and DISH Network are the two largest ones yet to join the party.  So for Cable TV customers along the I-35 Texas corridor, new baseball fans are still being forced to become Rangers fans

Or forced into the 21st Century by getting U-Verse or DirecTV.

[ValpoCory]

Or forced into the 21st Century by getting U-Verse or DirecTV.

Or for those of us that cut the cord on traditional providers, we must hope that Root Sports joins the growing trend to join an internet service like Sling TV.  But guess who owns Sling?    DISH Network.   So if Root Sports ever reaches a deal with DISH, then we may be able to stream the Astros via Sling.

[BudGirl]

I have the 300 level of U-Verse, and I chose that level because it was the one with Roots SW.

I do wish the Astros would get Roots in SA. I love going to visit the family but hate that only the Rangers are available.  And no, my parents are not going to get a Dish - so that is not an option.

[JJxvi]

Root is available on U200 and above. I have U200 and have it.

[Andyzipp]

On a side note...DirecTV was just bought by AT&T.  I'm not sure if that will affect anything (DirecTV assures me it won't), but another piece of information. 

Has the FCC (or whoever) signed off on this yet? 

[NeilT]

Sort of baseball related, and specifically Astros-related...for you folks with AT&T U-Verse TV.

I am debating making the switch from DirecTV to U-verse.  Mainly because of the gigapower, and the advantaged it will hold for my wife's home-based business, but also because we'll save over $100/mo. over what I'm paying now for the combination of TV-phone-Internet. 

No one has ever actually saved money on cable tv, ever.  This is a universal truth.

[jbm]

Has the FCC (or whoever) signed off on this yet?

According to my emails from DTV and the icon on the TV when it enters sleep mode, the deal is complete and official.

[Gizzmonic]

Has the FCC (or whoever) signed off on this yet?

Yes, it was allowed. I'm generally against any media consolidation, but I think the big satellite providers' days are numbered. There's just not enough bandwidth and too much latency compared to anything wired.

[HudsonHawk]

Or for those of us that cut the cord on traditional providers, we must hope that Root Sports joins the growing trend to join an internet service like Sling TV.  But guess who owns Sling?    DISH Network.   So if Root Sports ever reaches a deal with DISH, then we may be able to stream the Astros via Sling.

At some point, if you want to watch a network, you're going to have actually acquire some mechanism to do so.  This idea that it should just magically appear in front of your eyes anytime you wiggle your nose, and then complaining when it doesn't, just isn't going to get you where you want to go. 

[HudsonHawk]

Has the FCC (or whoever) signed off on this yet?

Yes, with a few stipulations, one of which is that AT&T expand their fiber optic something like ten fold.  They also agreed to the new net neutrality guidelines, something they fought fiercely previously, and agreed to offer discounted internet packages to low income families and schools.

[HudsonHawk]

No one has ever actually saved money on cable tv, ever.  This is a universal truth.

No kidding.  For me to save over $100/month from DirecTV would mean I'd almost have to get U-Verse for free. 

[Fredia]

i am at war with time warner for missing channels...they told me while i was on line with them that the wireless and phone where also down. my computer is on wireless provided by the a fore mentioned cable provider. auggg. time warner has the only cable back here where i am and my window and deck look out upon a canyon and have been assured a dish would do no good. talk about a rock and a hard place

[Andyzipp]

Yes, with a few stipulations, one of which is that AT&T expand their fiber optic something like ten fold.  They also agreed to the new net neutrality guidelines, something they fought fiercely previously, and agreed to offer discounted internet packages to low income families and schools.

Thanks.  I had to give up DirecTV when we moved in June (stupid trees), so I've paid little attention to it. 

Went to U-Verse, which has been okay, I guess.  I still don't know where half of "my" channels are, but I'm getting there.  About the only thing I'm not impressed with is until the Gigaburst service is available in my zip code, we can only have 4 (or 5) "streams" at a time, meaning if we're recording a couple of things at the same time, I have to placate children.

[HudsonHawk]

Thanks.  I had to give up DirecTV when we moved in June (stupid trees), so I've paid little attention to it. 

Went to U-Verse, which has been okay, I guess.  I still don't know where half of "my" channels are, but I'm getting there.  About the only thing I'm not impressed with is until the Gigaburst service is available in my zip code, we can only have 4 (or 5) "streams" at a time, meaning if we're recording a couple of things at the same time, I have to placate children.

The gigaburst thing is one of the expansion requirements, I think.  I don't even know what it is, so I don't know the details, only that it's something people want, so ATT had to agree to make it more available as a condition of the buyout. 

[Andyzipp]

The gigaburst thing is one of the expansion requirements, I think.  I don't even know what it is, so I don't know the details, only that it's something people want, so ATT had to agree to make it more available as a condition of the buyout. 

Gigapower (I can never keep it straight) is just increased bandwidth.  Internet speeds will increase from a top of 45mbps to 1Gbps.  Which will increase the ability for television watchers to watch/record more in higher quality (4k).

[loganck]

If only.   Time Warner Cable and DISH Network are the two largest ones yet to join the party.  So for Cable TV customers along the I-35 Texas corridor, new baseball fans are still being forced to become Rangers fans.    That, or watch the Astros opponents' team broadcasts on Stream2Watch.

Thanks for that link.  The sites I used to use haven't been working, so I've only been able to watch when they play the Rangers.  I've listened to a lot of games, but I'd much rather watch on the laptop.  Time Warner needs to get their shit together.

[Limey]

Gigapower (I can never keep it straight) is just increased bandwidth.  Internet speeds will increase from a top of 45mbps to 1Gbps.  Which will increase the ability for television watchers to watch/record more in higher quality (4k).

This is good news.  I like the U-Verse service, but I'm underwhelmed by the picture quality (HD is 1080i, not 1080p so it pixelates badly on a big screen) and internet speeds suffer badly at peak times.

[Noe]

This is good news.  I like the U-Verse service, but I'm underwhelmed by the picture quality (HD is 1080i, not 1080p so it pixelates badly on a big screen) and internet speeds suffer badly at peak times.

This is good to know (*if applicable in Austin, because only some areas are setup for Gigapower right now*). I have not made the switch to U-Verse because of the really bad service everyone I know gets from AT&T cable.  Many of them are in the IT world here in Austin so it doesn't help them any when no one likes how badly the service works that are technical folks who know it should be better (as advertised). Although I will say, I was told by one guy that he loves U-Verse now because he's figured out a way to add improvement on his own rather than relying on the out-of-the-box U-Verse and AT&T wireless (cable modem) package.

[Limey]

You can check the availability of GigaPower here.

I like the U-Verse DVR - especially the wireless boxes as it's rare to have a phone outlet where you want your TV.  The modem sucks as a router, but I have my own so I just have the AT&T box act as just the modem - although the wireless DVR box runs off a separate wifi network so I still have to have their wifi router running too.

[Waldo]

No kidding.  For me to save over $100/month from DirecTV would mean I'd almost have to get U-Verse for free.

I considered switching from TW to Uverse or DirecTV just to get Root.  The economics overwhelmingly came down in favor of staying with cable and signing up for MLB TV and an anonymizing service.  Part of that is because I use CableCARD and own my own DVRs, so I'm only paying $3/month for renting a CableCARD instead of $40+ for DVRs/tuners.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

signing up for MLB TV and an anonymizing service. 

That is what I do. I don't have a TV provider. I just use MLBtv (with Unotelly), Netflix, HULU, and Amazon Prime. Sometimes CBS.com, ABC.com, NBC.com or FOX.com. I do miss out on a lot of sports on the various ESPNs and such but fuck it, I can't watch everything.

[MusicMan]

Sorry, I just can't get on board with using anonymizers. The laws you're breaking may seem dumb but they are the laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subnuclear]

Sorry, I just can't get on board with using anonymizers. The laws you're breaking may seem dumb but they are the laws.

Are there actual laws against anonymizers?

[MusicMan]

Are there actual laws against anonymizers?

No, but it violates the MLB.tv terms of service at the very least.

[Bench]

I guess technically using an anonymizer could be fraud at the most, but that seems like a stretch.  But MLB's terms of service is just a contract, not a law. 

[HudsonHawk]

No, but it violates the MLB.tv terms of service at the very least.

What if we were to disseminate descriptions or accounts of a game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball?

[chuck]

I'm using a VPN to flagrantly violate the terms of service of both Netflix AND Amazon Prime. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

MLBtv still gets the full monthly rate out of me. They will continue to get money from me as long as I can watch the
Astros. If they think I spend time between Richmond Virginia and Boise Idaho, so be it.

[HudsonHawk]

MLBtv still gets the full monthly rate out of me. They will continue to get money from me as long as I can watch the
Astros. If they think I spend time between Richmond Virginia and Boise Idaho, so be it.

I know you know this, but it's not MLB from whom you're getting something for nothing, it's Root Sports.  They are the ones who have paid for the rights to show you the game.  MLB has already been paid.

[chuck]

I know you know this, but it's not MLB from whom you're getting something for nothing, it's Root Sports.  They are the ones who have paid for the rights to show you the game.  MLB has already been paid.

Who said anything about getting something for nothing? Sphinx pays for a service which he has to augment in order to receive thanks to MLB's fucked up and stupid broadcast rules. So he pays twice to get something that other people do indeed get for nothing, nothing more than subscribing to a Root-receiving TV service while enjoying the enormous privilege of living in Houston.

[HudsonHawk]

Who said anything about getting something for nothing? Sphinx pays for a service which he has to augment in order to receive thanks to MLB's fucked up and stupid broadcast rules. So he pays twice to get something that other people do indeed get for nothing, nothing more than subscribing to a Root-receiving TV service while enjoying the enormous privilege of living in Houston.

1.  He pays to get every game other than the Astros. He doesn't pay to get them. He takes them without paying.
2.  Some people will run through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify taking something without paying for it.
3.  Root sports ain't free, not by a long shot.

[chuck]

If there were a way for someone like Sphinx to pay for the service that he wants he would. There isn't because the league is run by technological dinosaurs so he buys additional services to get what he wants. I highly doubt he thinks he's getting something for free.

What sort of mental gymnastics did you perform in previous years when you were doing the same thing?

[HudsonHawk]

If there were a way for someone like Sphinx to pay for the service that he wants he would. There isn't because the league is run by technological dinosaurs so he buys additional services to get what he wants. I highly doubt he thinks he's getting something for free.

Don't be absurd. Root Sports is available all over Texas.

What sort of mental gymnastics did you perform in previous years when you were doing the same thing?

I wasn't. The only terms of service I'm violating are DirecTV's. But I have their permission.

[chuck]

Don't be absurd. Root Sports is available all over Texas.

Sure, if you also want to pay for America's Fattest Dancer. Sphinx apparently doesn't. Reasonably, I would say. Yet he cannot purchase what he wants. So he gets it in the way that he can. None of this applies to me but I applaud Sphinx and all others like him. Maybe sometime in the next 85 years someone at major sports leagues will be forced to wake up and join the 21st century.

Again, you're the one baselessly accusing people of applying rationale.

[HudsonHawk]

Yet he cannot purchase what he wants.

Yes he can. I do it. Millions of people do it.

So he gets it in the way that he can.

Yeah....taking it without paying for it.

None of this applies to me but I applaud Sphinx and all others like him. Maybe sometime in the next 85 years someone at major sports leagues will be forced to wake up and join the 21st century.

You're a regular civil disobedience champion.

Again, you're the one baselessly accusing people of applying rationale.

I'm pointing out facts. You're the one arguing "it's only fractions of a penny..."

[Ebby Calvin]

America's Fattest Dancer

I would totally watch this.

[chuck]

I'm pointing out facts. You're the one arguing "it's only fractions of a penny..."

You're out of your goddamn mind. You baselessly accuse someone of thinking they're getting something for free. You have no idea what he thinks. And I am in no way arguing the fractions of a penny thing. I am telling you that the current content distribution model is fucked up, stupid and unsustainable. And you obviously need to be told because you are the only person in the world who is not a cable or satellite executive who professes to think that the current model works great.

And, you're a fucking hypocrite.

[HudsonHawk]

You're out of your goddamn mind. You baselessly accuse someone of thinking they're getting something for free. You have no idea what he thinks.

And you've got a fucking reading comprehension disability.

And I am in no way arguing the fractions of a penny thing. I am telling you that the current content distribution model is fucked up, stupid and unsustainable. And you obviously need to be told because you are the only person in the world who is not a cable or satellite executive who professes to think that the current model works great.

You are trying to justify taking something without paying for it by claiming "I want it, but don't want to what you're asking. You leave me no other choice than to steal it". 

And, you're a fucking hypocrite.

And you accuse me of making baseless accusations....

[chuck]

I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply pointing out that the current distribution system - one that you have defended for years, of course - is idiotic and that people are going to continue to circumvent it because it makes no sense. People, for example, like Sphinx, who, according to you - for some bizarre and baseless reason - thinks that he's getting something for free. And, of course, people like you. But when you do it we're meant to believe that, well, hell, who knows what you think other than you like to accuse other people of social malfeasance for doing the same shit you do.

Hence Hypocrite. HH.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I'm pretty upset to find that I have compromised my morals. Oh well, too late now. I'm probably beyond redemption. At this point I might not signal when I change lanes on the way to work this morning, or worse, I might speed, or text while driving. I almost feel like I should just quit watching Astros games since I don't want to pay for 180 channels to get one (Root Sports).

Root Sports gets a dollar or two per month from  the various providers that subscribe to their network. I would gladly subscribe to Root Sports and pay more than they get from the providers if they offered a package for internet customers, but that is an opportunity the have chosen to not acknowledge, or worse aren't aware of. In part due to their own avarice, Root Sports and MLB (it's still MLB's blackout policy) have created the alternative market due to their inability to see an opportunity to expand their market reach. It's an ignorant business model and contributing to it makes me feel more like a chump than circumventing it makes me feel guilty for being a policy breaker.

So I pay for something and get what I want. Root Sports loses nothing because their providers haven't offered a plan which I would participate in so I'm not a potential customer through their providers. I'm not trying to justify my actions or influence anyone's decisions. I just want to watch my Astros and not be forced to buy a lot of stuff I'm not interested in for that luxury.

BTW, I never heard of Unotelly as a way to circumvent the blackout policy of MLBtv, until HH mentioned it on this fan forum. I don't blame him for my downfall, he merely provided a path, it was my choice to walk down that dark pathway.

[HudsonHawk]

People, for example, like Sphinx, who, according to you - for some bizarre and baseless reason - thinks that he's getting something for free.

You keep repeating this, but it doesn't make it any more true.  You are being either willfully deceitful or painfully stupid.  I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  That he thinks he's *not*  getting it for free (that he's paid for it by virtue of his MLB.TV subscription) is the whole point I'm making. 

[HudsonHawk]

I just want to watch my Astros and not be forced to buy a lot of stuff I'm not interested in for that luxury.

I think that covers exactly 100% of us. 

[JJxvi]

MLBtv's package that they sell is by definition all of the out of market games.  That's what you pay the subscription for. If you use it to get the in market games too, then you're obviously taking more than you're paying for. It really is pretty simple.

[Noe]

That is what I do. I don't have a TV provider. I just use MLBtv (with Unotelly), Netflix, HULU, and Amazon Prime. Sometimes CBS.com, ABC.com, NBC.com or FOX.com. I do miss out on a lot of sports on the various ESPNs and such but fuck it, I can't watch everything.

My wife has strongly suggested we get out of the cable subscription business and manage our own network (as it were). I am in the process of rounding up what we could do and my list looks pretty eeriely similar to yours.

Watching ESPN online would require a cable subscription though, so there is that. But like you said... can't watch everything!

[Noe]

MLBtv's package that they sell is by definition all of the out of market games.  That's what you pay the subscription for. If you use it to get the in market games too, then you're obviously taking more than you're paying for. It really is pretty simple.

When I could not get Comcast (like just about everyone else in Houston), MLBtv announced that they had made a proviso to all Houston Astro fans if they sign up for MLBtv that they can watch games live. This was supposedly something Jim Crane had worked out with the league and was happy to spread the word (even heard it from one media source of mine). So I signed up, happily paying for their product. And I summarily got blocked out of watching live games (not rebroadcast, you have always been able to watch in market games on a delayed basis). I spent two very unhappy weeks with the MLBtv folks trying to explain that I was an Astros fan in the Astros tv market and the deal had been made (even pointed them to some media tweets about the deal with Jim Crane). To no avail, even when I climbed the ladder to speak to management types. I just kept getting the same script, so I finally told them I wanted out and they released my subscription and paid me my money back. IOW - it wasn't the service they advertised to me, so no hard feelings.

Live in market broadcast are an old model to protect the gate for owners and nothing more. I can appreciate that. When cable networks already pay for the live broadcast in Houston, the owners don't mind because they are already well compensated for that (and the gate is less of a worry). But when you live in an area where gate is something of a luxury to have to spend money to attend and cable networks aren't available (there were times that because of the San Antonio Spurs and their constant march to the playoffs, early season live games were not available here in Austin when they were on FSSW), then you would think MLBtv would be a good alternative for a radius outside the greater Houston area.

Using a service like UnoTelly just means some folks are expanding their radius just a tad to make more sense out of the whole "protect the gate" rule by the "live" broadcast of games.

[NeilT]

The only thing we really need cable for anymore are Astros games, playoff games (theoretically), and recorded Austin City Limits (and I could probably find those if I looked hard enough).  I almost signed up for a sling service a couple of years ago, but didn't--it seemed hard and I didn't think I'd really like the results. But the only way MLB will ever give up on cable is if enough people simply decline or do what Sphinx is doing.  Power to the people, I say.

And I did end up pirating Brenham radio broadcasts last season, but I figure that was there fault that they left their internet link open.

[JJxvi]

I don't think that restricting MLBtv rights are to protect the owner's gate.  If protecting the gate were a concern they would not put it on live TV in market at all.  The concern is that MLB/The Astros have granted the in market media rights to a specific entity for cash (in this case to Root Sports).  MLB would be undercutting the media contract and violating any exclusivity that they signed for if they then sold those same rights to someone else or if they sold those rights directly to consumers on the side.

[Noe]

I don't think that restricting MLBtv rights are to protect the owner's gate.

Yes. It is.

If protecting the gate were a concern they would not put it on live TV in market at all.

Television contracts are similar to gate... it's called revenue streams for MLB owners. They get paid one way or another. The radius is that these gate protection mechanism come into play for the non-revenue stream MLBtv (for the said owner, but moreso for the league on the whole) is the only issue I would have. It's a bit unconventional and lacks any sort of logic. But hey, it's their product... they can run it any way they want.

The concern is that MLB/The Astros have granted the in market media rights to a specific entity for cash (in this case to Root Sports).  MLB would be undercutting the media contract and violating any exclusivity that they signed for if they then sold those same rights to someone else or if they sold those rights directly to consumers on the side.

Again, the radius is the problem for me, not the fact that Root sports paid for the rights to broadcast the games live (and generate revenue based on advertising dollars).  Digital services nowadays are making revenue streams for broadcasters different than the advertising model of old. I like using my TWC subscription to login into the re-broadcast of many of my favorite shows. It has no advertising to speak of, but then again, since many still want to turn on a television set to watch a program live (or as close to live as possible... they want to watch this week's episode as it's broadcast), then they have the conventional method to watch. What a broadcaster needs to do well is incorporate advertising into the show nowadays. The will tell the show producers how to do it and then when you watch in a non-commercial stream, you still get the "brought to you by Toyota" built into the show online. Broadcasting is changing and the MLB will change as well as they see the trends change in how people engage with digital products.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes. It is.

MLB blackout rules have nothing to do with the gate and everything to do with contractual obligations to the networks who purchase broadcast rights. Root Sports or whomever purchase broadcast rights from the clubs. In turn, they get exclusive rights to broadcast those games in a certain geographic  area.  It is basically the same as publishing rights for books or music.  You have to protect the exclusivity of the publishing rights or no company is going to go through the expense of acquiring them. 

[Ty in Tampa]

MLB blackout rules have nothing to do with the gate and everything to do with contractual obligations to the networks who purchase broadcast rights. Root Sports or whomever purchase broadcast rights from the clubs. In turn, they get exclusive rights to broadcast those games in a certain geographic  area.  It is basically the same as publishing rights for books or music.  You have to protect the exclusivity of the publishing rights or no company is going to go through the expense of acquiring them. 

And the geographic area seems widespread and arbitrary because the rights grantor and grantee hope to maximize the returns on that investment.

[JJxvi]

No matter how "broadcasting is changing" as long as there is still an exchange of rights to different entities, there will always be restrictions.

This same type of issue is why 790/iheartradio has to shut down their internet streams during games. They don't own the right to broadcast the Astros on the Internet. MLB reserves that to itself and grants limited rights to other broadcasters such as SiriusXM.  If there were a way to pirate an Internet feed from 790 somehow, you would be stealing those broadcast rights from MLB/Sirius the same as stealing the TV broadcast in market from mlbtv.  I don't have a huge issue with it, but it really is pretty much the same as filching a pack of gum and the rationalizing with "they can't stop me or find out, and it's only .25 cent gum, so who cares. Plus it's only really worth one cent at most anyway."

[Ebby Calvin]

The only thing we really need cable for anymore are Astros games, playoff games (theoretically), and recorded Austin City Limits (and I could probably find those if I looked hard enough). 

You'd be surprised - it's much more difficult than it should be.

I've been without cable for two years.  We have Netflix and Prime and I mooch a buddy's HBO Go from time to time (I know, I'm a heathen - I don't care).  I spent last week at a beach house in Bolivar that had DirecTv and I spent every single night watching the Astros, start to finish.  My wife saw this and, bless her soul, said fuck it - let's get cable again.
So once August 11 hits, I will be living proof of somebody who ponied up $100/mo for America's Fattest Dancers just to watch the Astros.  It pisses me off, and I held out as long as I could, but I'm over it. 
The wife, bless her soul, isn't down with the proxy for the same reasons many here have listed.  I just knew our shitty internet couldn't handle it so I didn't fight it too hard.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

MLBtv's package that they sell is by definition all of the out of market games.  That's what you pay the subscription for. If you use it to get the in market games too, then you're obviously taking more than you're paying for. It really is pretty simple.

It really is pretty simple if you understand modern technology and how markets change when one travels. I'm watching out of market games. What if I'm actually working in Phoenix next week and Miami the week after or what if I choose to make a virtual visit instead and work from home but have a VPN that is linked through Phoenix and then Miami the week after? It is simple, If I'm in an Astros market I can not watch the games. That is why I choose to travel outside the area to watch games. Is it deceptive? I don't know, I'll ask Blake in Mumbai.

[chuck]

All I know is I never can wait for the next iTunes update. Man, I tell you what, I get to read through 374 pages in order to make absolutely certain that I'm not in violation of the terms of service. And here I thought I was the only one.

[HudsonHawk]

All I know is I never can wait for the next iTunes update. Man, I tell you what, I get to read through 374 pages in order to make absolutely certain that I'm not in violation of the terms of service. And here I thought I was the only one.

Ask Apple about music distribution rights. They didn't pay the Beatles $500MM out of the goodness of Steve Jobs's black heart.

[chuck]

Ask Apple about music distribution rights. They didn't pay the Beatles $500MM out of the goodness of Steve Jobs's black heart.

So all the Beatles records I bought I actually got for free. Or I thought I got them for free but I really paid for them. Or I paid for something else and am listening to them much to the outrage of everyone else who's doing the same thing.

I wonder if Sir Paul habitually parks in the handicapped parking space.

[Nate in IA]

Seems to me the clubs ought to take back the distribution rights for their product and sell direct to the consumer.   I really don't care about the other teams available in the MLB.tv pantheon.  I would happily pay the Houston Astros to watch ALL of their games and only their games.   Make it a Roku channel and you've got a customer for life.   You can't tell me this isn't possible today with the technology we have.   

[HudsonHawk]

So all the Beatles records I bought I actually got for free. Or I thought I got them for free but I really paid for them. Or I paid for something else and am listening to them much to the outrage of everyone else who's doing the same thing.

I wonder if Sir Paul habitually parks in the handicapped parking space.

Do you just like practicing your typing? 

[austro]

Seems to me the clubs ought to take back the distribution rights for their product and sell direct to the consumer.   I really don't care about the other teams available in the MLB.tv pantheon.  I would happily pay the Houston Astros to watch ALL of their games and only their games.   Make it a Roku channel and you've got a customer for life.   You can't tell me this isn't possible today with the technology we have.   

I think the problem is this: today, with their distribution agreements, they get a per-head cut for all of the distributor's reach (even though maybe 90% of the distributor's customers don't watch baseball), and it's guaranteed for the life of the contract. I think they're afraid, and maybe for good reason, that their actual viewership is low enough that to get the same revenue they'd have to charge a per-head fee so high that nobody would actually pay it. Not to mention the year-to-year or month-to-month variability. I can understand why they stick to this model, even though I hate it.

[HudsonHawk]

Seems to me the clubs ought to take back the distribution rights for their product and sell direct to the consumer.

1.  Who produces the broadcast?
2.  Why would the clubs want to do that?  By would Indians give up their broadcast territory to the Yankees?

  I really don't care about the other teams available in the MLB.tv pantheon.  I would happily pay the Houston Astros to watch ALL of their games and only their games.   Make it a Roku channel and you've got a customer for life.   You can't tell me this isn't possible today with the technology we have.

The issue is not that the distribution isn't technologically feasible, it's that the Astros are not in the television production business.  That's not what they do.

[Nate in IA]

I think the problem is this: today, with their distribution agreements, they get a per-head cut for all of the distributor's reach (even though maybe 90% of the distributor's customers don't watch baseball), and it's guaranteed for the life of the contract. I think they're afraid, and maybe for good reason, that their actual viewership is low enough that to get the same revenue they'd have to charge a per-head fee so high that nobody would actually pay it. Not to mention the year-to-year or month-to-month variability. I can understand why they stick to this model, even though I hate it.

Too bad it's a monopoly and some startup club couldn't come in and clean up this mess..    All it would take is one maverick owner to spend a year educating it's fan base and they could get a pretty good idea of how much it would cost to replicate or even exceed the revenue they have now. 

I realize fans like me are few and far between and the bread and butter are the local fan base.   So you have to make it worth their while.   This was the problem with Root Sports.. the distribution wasn't what the team wanted and if what you say is true, it was all about how many households the distribution partners had.    Modern technology enables the teams to bypass the distribution channels.   Perhaps an aggregator would be a viable form of distributor where I pay a little bit more to see multiple teams.

I hope someone in the Astros org is thinking about this real hard...    these blackout restrictions are fairly ridiculous for me since there is no MLB team in Iowa.  Any team is 4 hours away minimum.  Thus, I am not likely to attend any game and a blackout just pisses me off.   

[HudsonHawk]

I think the problem is this: today, with their distribution agreements, they get a per-head cut for all of the distributor's reach (even though maybe 90% of the distributor's customers don't watch baseball), and it's guaranteed for the life of the contract. I think they're afraid, and maybe for good reason, that their actual viewership is low enough that to get the same revenue they'd have to charge a per-head fee so high that nobody would actually pay it. Not to mention the year-to-year or month-to-month variability. I can understand why they stick to this model, even though I hate it.

The Astros network went bankrupt in two seasons while partnering with an actual television network. They couldn't make it work. What do you think will happen if the Astros had to do everything from camera operators to sound mixing?  How much is the capital cost for all of the equipment to become a television production company?  Salaries for a network of production people?  Oh, and you're only allowed to charge a nickel a game. Yeah, how could that possibly not be economical?

[Nate in IA]

1.  Who produces the broadcast?
2.  Why would the clubs want to do that?  By would Indians give up their broadcast territory to the Yankees?

1. I believe the Houston Astros baseball club does.
2.  A valid concern.    I don't have an answer for that and it's too late at night to generate one.

The issue is not that the distribution isn't technologically feasible, it's that the Astros are not in the television production business.  That's not what they do.

They do it, it's just not their primary product.... the television production is marketing the main product and they do pay the on-air talent (and I presume the camera operators).   They have production capabilities.

[HudsonHawk]

Modern technology enables the teams to bypass the distribution channels.   Perhaps an aggregator would be a viable form of distributor where I pay a little bit more to see multiple teams.

Again, the issue is not the lack of distribution technology, it's the enormous cost and logistical effort to produce television. The Astros simply are not equipped to do that. It takes more than a go pro and a laptop.  It's different than posting a video on YouTube.

[chuck]

The Astros network went bankrupt in two seasons while partnering with an actual television network. They couldn't make it work. What do you think will happen if the Astros had to do everything from camera operators to sound mixing?  How much is the capital cost for all of the equipment to become a television production company?  Salaries for a network of production people?  Oh, and you're only allowed to charge a nickel a game. Yeah, how could that possibly not be economical?

Yep, we're now convinced. The current system is great and doesn't need any improvement. Funny, though, that you yourself sought to circumvent this most excellent system one short year ago.

[HudsonHawk]

1. I believe the Houston Astros baseball club does.

No, Root Sports does. The Astros don't have television production facilities and equipment on that kind of scale.



2.  A valid concern.    I don't have an answer for that and it's too late at night to generate one.

They do it, it's just not their primary product.... the television production is marketing the main product and they do pay the on-air talent (and I presume the camera operators).   They have production capabilities.

Creating and producing a telesion show is far more than marketing the product.  They pay the announcers, but the cameramen, directors, production people, etc work for the network.

[HudsonHawk]

Yep, we're now convinced. The current system is great and doesn't need any improvement. Funny, though, that you yourself sought to circumvent this most excellent system one short year ago.

That's the third time you've accused me of that. Don't do it again.

[chuck]

Any half-awake moron knows that there are people who for whatever reason won't buy a cable or satellite package under any circumstance, or that MLB.tv is untenable for them because they live in a place where 17 teams claim broadcast rights. Charge the fuckers in either camp who want to watch a certain team twice what MLB.tv costs or whatever the multiple is and distribute the additional revenue to the dumbasses who bought the rights to show the Diamondbacks in Poughkeepsie.

It's really not that fucking hard to find a solution where everyone wins.

Otherwise these brazen scofflaws will just keep getting something for nothing while paying (double) for it.

[Nate in IA]

No, Root Sports does. The Astros don't have television production facilities and equipment on that kind of scale.



2.  A valid concern.    I don't have an answer for that and it's too late at night to generate one.

Creating and producing a telesion show is far more than marketing the product.  They pay the announcers, but the cameramen, directors, production people, etc work for the network.

Let's put it this way.  The ballpark has the capability to produce a television broadcast of the game.   The Houston Astros Baseball club _could_ decide it was in their best interest to take over the marketing of their baseball team and in fact pay all of the production costs to do so.   The marketing department would then have to justify the cost of that by selling their product (the television production of the games) on the open market.  Heck, make it a subsidiary of the Houston Astros.   That's not much different than the agreements that are in place now.    I can see a couple ways of them making money doing so but I'm not a marketing guy (most of the time) so I don't know what they would come up with.   Just so long as I benefit, obviously.

[Noe]

MLB blackout rules have nothing to do with the gate and everything to do with contractual obligations to the networks who purchase broadcast rights. Root Sports or whomever purchase broadcast rights from the clubs. In turn, they get exclusive rights to broadcast those games in a certain geographic  area.  It is basically the same as publishing rights for books or music.  You have to protect the exclusivity of the publishing rights or no company is going to go through the expense of acquiring them.

Maybe if I use "revenue streams" for owners, it would be better. They have to protect what they sell to buyers like a broadcast networks by protecting those territories. It's fine, good business practice. If you cannot guarantee ROOT sports the ability to create their own revenue streams, they will not pay you (the team) the price you're asking. So the MLB package cannot be in direct competition with ROOT when it comes to live broadcast, still a favorite way to watch sports for most sports viewing audiences.

But the ability to watch events is starting to change little by little with the advent of the digital age. Early adopters or not, one day the model will change for all of the partners involved and the sports watching audience will drive how they will be sold to. Today, the radius used by the MLB to dictate how they will protect territories is a bit whack but accepted by fans who are driven to cable subscriptions to satisfy how they must buy their sports viewing packages. One day, that won't be the case any more. Already other entertainment avenues are being pushed a little by new digital markets. Sports will be no different.

[Noe]

And the geographic area seems widespread and arbitrary because the rights grantor and grantee hope to maximize the returns on that investment.

DING, DING, DING

[HudsonHawk]

Let's put it this way.  The ballpark has the capability to produce a television broadcast of the game.   The Houston Astros Baseball club _could_ decide it was in their best interest to take over the marketing of their baseball team and in fact pay all of the production costs to do so.   The marketing department would then have to justify the cost of that by selling their product (the television production of the games) on the open market.  Heck, make it a subsidiary of the Houston Astros.   That's not much different than the agreements that are in place now.    I can see a couple ways of them making money doing so but I'm not a marketing guy (most of the time) so I don't know what they would come up with.   Just so long as I benefit, obviously.

So the Astros should start their own television network?  Where have I heard that idea before...

[Nate in IA]

So the Astros should start their own television network?  Where have I heard that idea before...

No, the Astros should market their games to whoever wants them.  No network needed.

[HudsonHawk]

No, the Astros should market their games to whoever wants them.  No network needed.

Again...who produces the games if you don't sell rights to a network?

[Noe]

Seems to me the clubs ought to take back the distribution rights for their product and sell direct to the consumer.   I really don't care about the other teams available in the MLB.tv pantheon.  I would happily pay the Houston Astros to watch ALL of their games and only their games.   Make it a Roku channel and you've got a customer for life.   You can't tell me this isn't possible today with the technology we have.

As long as they still see cable network broadcast as a viable cow to milk, they don't care about you. And I'm not saying they hate you. I'm saying you don't pay them 500 million dollars so you can broadcast the games and sell advertising to others and you make back your money. But that cash cow called television revenue... it's only going to last for as long as the viewing audience says it viable. Lucky for sports entertainment folks, seeing it "live" is still the most effective seller for how they are going to get you to buy the subscription package as they currently sell it to you (through the cable network subscription).

But like I said, cable networks are starting to pull out of this business deals too because they see the writing on the wall with digital natives and sports viewing. Millennials are different buyers of digital products. They are transient, anywhere, anytime, can I see it on my tablet buyers and the digital markets for media are moving their systems towards those buyers. How that will effect the MLB is either it will  hurt them badly or the MLB will adapt soon enough. What is the market of today won't be the market of tomorrow. Not by a long shot.

[Navin R Johnson]

To piggyback on what Noe stated, the current distribution model is just way too valuable for teams to change.  The Astros are getting ~80 million a year from Root and another 30 million from MLBAM. 

The 80 million, is basically subsidized by 100s of thousands of Houston viewers who could care less about the Astros, but pay for it.  The Astros is to them, what Americas Fattest Dancer is to us.  And there is a lot more of them, than us. 

The Astros are now drawing about 100,000 viewers a night, for fun lets say that doubles.  To cut the cord the current cable model and just offer games a la carte, it would take $200 payment from everyone of those 200,000 viewers...to break even.   That ain't happening.

MLB.tv is not going to offer you the ability to buy in market games, that is Root's property.   

This current model is going nowhere anytime soon, it is just too profitable (thanks to millions of non-baseball fans subsidizing the cost) to change for the few who don't like it.

The one thing I think will happen is the local carriers will start offering streaming, probably at or near the $200 #.  That is the only way anyone is going to legally stream local game in the near future. 

[jbm]

To piggyback on what Noe stated, the current distribution model is just way too valuable for teams to change.  The Astros are getting ~80 million a year from Root and another 30 million from MLBAM. 

The 80 million, is basically subsidized by 100s of thousands of Houston viewers who could care less about the Astros, but pay for it.  The Astros is to them, what Americas Fattest Dancer is to us.  And there is a lot more of them, than us. 

The Astros are now drawing about 100,000 viewers a night, for fun lets say that doubles.  To cut the cord the current cable model and just offer games a la carte, it would take $200 payment from everyone of those 200,000 viewers...to break even.   That ain't happening.

MLB.tv is not going to offer you the ability to buy in market games, that is Root's property.   

This current model is going nowhere anytime soon, it is just too profitable (thanks to millions of non-baseball fans subsidizing the cost) to change for the few who don't like it.

The one thing I think will happen is the local carriers will start offering streaming, probably at or near the $200 #.  That is the only way anyone is going to legally stream local game in the near future.

I don't disagree with any of this, but I wonder if MLB worries about an extreme disruption to this model, one that could cause real havoc.  The "subsidies" provided by customers who don't give a shit about sports will eventually die off. 

[Navin R Johnson]

Agree with you on that, but the Astros are locked in through 2022.  Unless Root or the cable providers go bankrupt, I don't see many changes prior to that.  But when that deal runs out, I think the landscape of delivering content may have changed enough for them to change their model.

[HudsonHawk]

To piggyback on what Noe stated, the current distribution model is just way too valuable for teams to change.  The Astros are getting ~80 million a year from Root and another 30 million from MLBAM. 

The 80 million, is basically subsidized by 100s of thousands of Houston viewers who could care less about the Astros, but pay for it.  The Astros is to them, what Americas Fattest Dancer is to us.  And there is a lot more of them, than us. 

The Astros are now drawing about 100,000 viewers a night, for fun lets say that doubles.  To cut the cord the current cable model and just offer games a la carte, it would take $200 payment from everyone of those 200,000 viewers...to break even.   That ain't happening.

MLB.tv is not going to offer you the ability to buy in market games, that is Root's property.   
 
This current model is going nowhere anytime soon, it is just too profitable (thanks to millions of non-baseball fans subsidizing the cost) to change for the few who don't like it.

The one thing I think will happen is the local carriers will start offering streaming, probably at or near the $200 #.  That is the only way anyone is going to legally stream local game in the near future.

Good points.  People keep attacking the current model as if the issue is the availability of distribution technology.  That's not what's holding back a change in the model.  It's the enormous production costs that the hard-core fans alone could never cover, and the fierce territorial protection of the teams. 

[Noe]

To piggyback on what Noe stated, the current distribution model is just way too valuable for teams to change.  The Astros are getting ~80 million a year from Root and another 30 million from MLBAM. 

The 80 million, is basically subsidized by 100s of thousands of Houston viewers who could care less about the Astros, but pay for it.  The Astros is to them, what Americas Fattest Dancer is to us.  And there is a lot more of them, than us. 

The Astros are now drawing about 100,000 viewers a night, for fun lets say that doubles.  To cut the cord the current cable model and just offer games a la carte, it would take $200 payment from everyone of those 200,000 viewers...to break even.   That ain't happening.

MLB.tv is not going to offer you the ability to buy in market games, that is Root's property.   

This current model is going nowhere anytime soon, it is just too profitable (thanks to millions of non-baseball fans subsidizing the cost) to change for the few who don't like it.

The one thing I think will happen is the local carriers will start offering streaming, probably at or near the $200 #.  That is the only way anyone is going to legally stream local game in the near future.

What is interesting to me is that the MLBtv guys are actually seen as the innovators of "live" video streaming technology and the ones who pushed the envelope. Again, I have no problem with their service as it is right now... it is excellent other than one thing... live, in-market streaming. Basically, the way they've cut up the territorial rights. But since things are changing in the world of digital and consumers, here is a little article that speaks to that change and how the gang at MLBtv (the technologist, not the MLB higher ups) are actually involve in driving that change:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/4/9090897/mlb-bam-live-streaming-internet-tv-nhl-hbo-now-espn

Six months earlier, HBO had announced it was cutting the cord, finally offering consumers access to their programming without signing up for cable or satellite television. But the in-house streaming service it had previously built, HBO Go, had experienced high-profile outages during the season four finale of Game of Thrones and the premiere of True Detective. HBO Now was set to launch alongside the newest season of GoT, and it had to be perfect. "Game of Thrones is our World Cup," says Bernadette Aulestia, who runs HBO’s digital distribution.

And so HBO went to the company that set new records for online streaming during the 2014 World Cup, a strange tech startup hidden inside of a sports league, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, or BAM for short. BAM began as the in-house IT department for the league’s 30 teams, a small handful of employees originally tasked with building websites for teams and clubs. But over the last 15 years, BAM has emerged as the most talented and reliable name in streaming video, a skill set suddenly in very high demand.

and

"When you have HBO going over the top and Bob Iger’s talking about ESPN going over the top, Viacom’s networks are being kicked off cable, we had a real gut check," says John Collins, the NHL’s chief operating officer. "BAM can help us dictate what happens to our content in a time when this media landscape is going through a lot of change."

Like the deal with HBO, BAM will power the league’s streaming services. But the deal goes even further — BAM will be a rights holder of NHL content they can package and sell to an online audience. "It’s groundbreaking to have two leagues doing a rights deal," says Collins. BAM recently forged a similar arrangement with the PGA. The new approach moves BAM beyond just a white label service provider, putting them in position to become an ESPN of the internet age, competing against the likes of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon with the one thing all those services lack: live sports.

There’s just one catch. To make it all work, BAM has to grow beyond baseball.

BTW - ESPN is going to let Keith Oberman go and a lot of other folks are getting laid off. One news source is reporting that the reason is  that the American viewing audience for cable is going through the simple act of cord-cutting — where the American consumer cancels the overpriced cable or satellite package and move to streaming television services like Netflix. Another bit of that report says this:

"You see, most cable networks don’t have enough viewers to survive on advertising rates alone. Without forcing you to pay for dozens of channels you never watch, other than a handful of networks, the whole house of cards comes down.

According to the most recent information available, whether you watch ESPN or not, if it is included on your cable package (and it is on most), you are personally forking over more than a $1.00 a month to the sports outlet."

Times, they are a changing.

[subnuclear]

One of the Astros-Angels games was broadcast on ESPN and being able to see on full-screen HD TV in real time without having to re-sync it every twenty minutes was a real pleasure, so cable still has its advantages.

[NeilT]

One of the Astros-Angels games was broadcast on ESPN and being able to see on full-screen HD TV in real time without having to re-sync it every twenty minutes was a real pleasure, so cable still has its advantages.

No doubt about it.  Streaming sucks.

[Nate in IA]

I find it telling that my local cable company is now leading their advertising with the network speed.  The actual tv channels are almost an afterthought now in their advertising.  Heck, I have basically free cable now for signing up for a business class internet package.   It's not the greatest and I watch far more on my roku than on my cable but I think it shows what the cable company is pushing now...

[Noe]

Agree with you on that, but the Astros are locked in through 2022.  Unless Root or the cable providers go bankrupt, I don't see many changes prior to that.  But when that deal runs out, I think the landscape of delivering content may have changed enough for them to change their model.

Yup. I find the whole fiasco with Comcast and the Astros interesting because there were accusations of how the deal had morphed so much from the original intent. But when you see how the trend was going for Sports Club owned networks (as in they were actually taking a downturn) right about the time TeamCrane was trying to get the dotted line signed, you know that Comcast and NBC Sports feared a loss in revenue from a locked in proposition. The fact that Root Sports was willing to jump in, not as a partner to a Sports Club owned network, but as a simple provider for a cable network, tells you that this was one of the last options available for the Houston Astros. Ironically enough, NBC Sports is pushing a bit on the digital distribution model and providing live sports programming for lesser sports to test out this model. http://stream.nbcsports.com/liveextra/ You still need a viable cable subscription for the "anytime, anywhere" digital online model right now, but it's not territorial. But in some cases, they tend to get a bit hazy as well as they try to navigate through World (not just US) territorial rights. I love to watch International Volleyball (FIVB) and can generally count on the online streaming to watch great matches played at the very high level. There is a symbiotic relationship with FIVB and both NBC Sports live and Universe (the World version of NBC Sports Live) and of course, of all people, YouTube. YouTube is a good streaming partner to have because of their infrastructure and very good media streaming technology.

[HudsonHawk]

Agree with you on that, but the Astros are locked in through 2022.  Unless Root or the cable providers go bankrupt, I don't see many changes prior to that.  But when that deal runs out, I think the landscape of delivering content may have changed enough for them to change their model.

Just for reference...the Cardinals just signed a 15-year/$1 billion deal from 2018-2033 with Fox Sports.  I don't think other teams are expecting a change any time soon. 

[Noe]

One of the Astros-Angels games was broadcast on ESPN and being able to see on full-screen HD TV in real time without having to re-sync it every twenty minutes was a real pleasure, so cable still has its advantages.

Two words: RIck Sutcliffe (sp?) My ears were bleeding that night.

[Noe]

I find it telling that my local cable company is now leading their advertising with the network speed.  The actual tv channels are almost an afterthought now in their advertising.  Heck, I have basically free cable now for signing up for a business class internet package.   It's not the greatest and I watch far more on my roku than on my cable but I think it shows what the cable company is pushing now...

What my cable subscription buys me is a credential to watch streamed media from sources such as AMC (for Hells on Wheels... I'm addicted), NBC (for the Voice... and I hate all the peripherals involved in that show, I just want to watch the performances, which I can on NBC online without a cable subscription), and various other online providers including TWC own "on demand" functionality. I find myself using the prime time hours for other things in my life that I originally had let go... such as going out and exercising and meeting with friends and being active in sports again. If I'm going to watch something, it's on my time, it's what I want to watch, and it's online (Smart TVs are the best thing!).

BTW - my wife (and accountant) doesn't think it is wise to pay so much for "credentials". EIther we buy because we need the entire service or we get out. Right now, the only thing that keeps me in the cable game is the package deal I have for business sake... re: home based office modem speeds necessary for me to be a satellite office for my company. It is justifiable to pay because we're ahead of the game based on my revenue streams garnered by the products and services I provided by being online all the time for any of the World Markets I service. U-Verse has a bad reputation (and I tried them at a non-profit center I volunteered at for many years as an IT admin) for bad internet service. Although recently some friends in the Round Rock area swear by UVerse as the best thing to come along with their gigapower service. But if I made the investment to go to UVerse just for the Astros, it would not be justifiable if UVerse continued to suck as internet/modem capabilities.

[Noe]

Just for reference...the Cardinals just signed a 15-year/$1 billion deal from 2018-2033 with Fox Sports.  I don't think other teams are expecting a change any time soon.

The other major league clubs better not compare themselves to the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox, and Cardinals. The way those clubs operate, including with television revenue, is vastly different because of their loyal, over 100 years and mult-generations, fan base. Just saying.

[jbm]

Agree with you on that, but the Astros are locked in through 2022.  Unless Root or the cable providers go bankrupt, I don't see many changes prior to that.  But when that deal runs out, I think the landscape of delivering content may have changed enough for them to change their model.

I was thinking more industry wide.  Let's assume a team needs to negotiate a new TV deal in three years, and they get offered half of the current rate by broadcasters who know the old model is done.  That team is now effectively a have not.  Play this scenario out again and again and pretty soon MLB has a new issue with haves and have nots, and these haves and haves might not be the traditional ones MLB is willing to tolerate.   Then it becomes and issue that would be best to be in front rather than behind.

[HudsonHawk]

The other major league clubs better not compare themselves to the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox, and Cardinals. The way those clubs operate, including with television revenue, is vastly different because of their loyal, over 100 years and mult-generations, fan base. Just saying.

But the Astros and other clubs can't simply change the Major League Constitution and the model for territorial rights.  It's not like each club has a choice to do what they want.  They're all bound by the same model, which is set in stone without a "constitutional amendment". 

[Noe]

No doubt about it.  Streaming sucks.

What's funny to me is that most cable providers are digital... so they are basically "streaming" as well, and buffering can happen even in a cable network. Basically, they are the infrastructure side to avoid you having to do your own setup (even though every once and a while, I need to reset my Samsung boxes and allow the firmware updates on my end). If you stream online venues, you need to be the one to provide some of the infrastructure... such as turbo boosting, or gigapower connections, N series wireless, better modems than what the provider gives you (they go cheap, you need to avoid those), et. al.

Online streaming to me is just as viable with just a few more of an infrastructure investment right now. But what the future will bring is cloud-based offerings soon enough. PaaS (Platform as a Service) is already happening in computing, some day that will be the norm for consumer markets as well... the cloud will carry the load for infrastructure, the consumer will only worry about the connection. But until they know their is a market ready for consumer-based PaaS, the investment will wait until the right time. But it's not going to lag (pun intended) too long.

[Navin R Johnson]

Just for reference...the Cardinals just signed a 15-year/$1 billion deal from 2018-2033 with Fox Sports.  I don't think other teams are expecting a change any time soon. 

Wow.  So almost 70 million a year.   That is bonkers.   There is no way The Cards could get that type of money any other way but the current model.   

But if people start cutting the cord and there are fewer and fewer people subscribing to cable packages that carry Fox Sports, at some point Fox Sports can't afford to be paying that much and stay in business.

But thinking about it,lots of people want to buy stations a la carte, I have a feeling that would be more expensive than the current bundled model.   If I pay $120 to DirecTV the main reason is for all the ESPNs (for live programing) All the Fox Sports, NBC Sports, MLB, NFL, TGC, Root, HBO, TNT, FX, TBS, news channels....   All of those I can stream from my iPad or Laptop, except Root.

If there was the ability to buy each of those a la carte, I'd bet they would be close to $15 a month each, so I am right back at 120-150 a month.    But without all the additional 200 channels, that I do watch on occasion.

It is the sports viewer that is keeping this model afloat, if I didn't care about live sports I would have ditched cable years ago.

[Noe]

But the Astros and other clubs can't simply change the Major League Constitution and the model for territorial rights.  It's not like each club has a choice to do what they want.  They're all bound by the same model, which is set in stone without a "constitutional amendment".

Not saying they should, just saying that if they read the tea leafs and say "Hey, the Yankees have this sweet deal" and expect it for themselves, then they're diluted. For most MLB markets, the teams better be open for good ideas to continue to generate revenue to continue to exist as a sports entertainment market. I can understand the NFL model because they are more social minded in their approach to how to market themselves as a league (and not just teams... right Jerry Jones?), but the MLB has some leeway for markets to explore revenue streams. Mind you, to an extent, but it's not a pressing issue today, but will be something they face in next decade or so.

I find it ironic that the NHL is now exploring digital on-demand for their league and asking the MLB guys to help them (with the MLB guys holding rights over the distribution... WOW!). The NHL has resurfaced from almost going away as a league to a vibrant major sports entertainment vehicle again. The MLB is still lagging well behind the NFL and NBA, but they (the owners) still had great success generating revenue because of the emergence of the cable network deals they were all working. That cash cow is not trending upwards... it's trending downward for consumers. Better pay attention to this MLB.

[Noe]

Wow.  So almost 70 million a year.   That is bonkers.   There is no way The Cards could get that type of money any other way but the current model.   

But if people start cutting the cord and there are fewer and fewer people subscribing to cable packages that carry Fox Sports, at some point Fox Sports can't afford to be paying that much and stay in business.

But thinking about it,lots of people want to buy stations a la carte, I have a feeling that would be more expensive than the current bundled model.   If I pay $120 to DirecTV the main reason is for all the ESPNs (for live programing) All the Fox Sports, NBC Sports, MLB, NFL, TGC, Root, HBO, TNT, FX, TBS, news channels....   All of those I can stream from my iPad or Laptop, except Root.

If there was the ability to buy each of those a la carte, I'd bet they would be close to $15 a month each, so I am right back at 120-150 a month.    But without all the additional 200 channels, that I do watch on occasion.

It is the sports viewer that is keeping this model afloat, if I didn't care about live sports I would have ditched cable years ago.

I think FoxSports is banking on the intense loyalty of Co-Ard fans to keep that cable network model afloat for those years. Co-ard fans will willing shell out the big bucks to pay for a cable subscription whereas, lets say, a Oakland A's fan base will balk at having to continue to support a sinking ship of a cable network just to continue watching A's baseball. The A's are victims of a failed sports networks already in the NoCal area.

[HudsonHawk]

Not saying they should, just saying that if they read the tea leafs and say "Hey, the Yankees have this sweet deal" and expect it for themselves, then they're diluted.

Well, the Astros tried that and you see where it got them.

For most MLB markets, the teams better be open for good ideas to continue to generate revenue to continue to exist as a sports entertainment market. I can understand the NFL model because they are more social minded in their approach to how to market themselves as a league (and not just teams... right Jerry Jones?), but the MLB has some leeway for markets to explore revenue streams. Mind you, to an extent, but it's not a pressing issue today, but will be something they face in next decade or so.

The big difference between the NFL and MLB is that the NLF's broadcast revenue is shared equally among all teams.  There is no territorial component and all games are shown on the three networks (Fox, CBS and ESPN) and their own.  They can do this because they play so few games and all teams are limited to one day per week.  I don't see how that model can be sustainable to MLB with so many games and such a disparity between fan bases, such as say the Yankees and the Padres. 

[NeilT]

I think FoxSports is banking on the intense loyalty of Co-Ard fans to keep that cable network model afloat for those years. Co-ard fans will willing shell out the big bucks to pay for a cable subscription whereas, lets say, a Oakland A's fan base will balk at having to continue to support a sinking ship of a cable network just to continue watching A's baseball. The A's are victims of a failed sports networks already in the NoCal area.

Are you sure that the Cards didn't hack Fox News' computers to change the numbers in their offer?

[Noe]

Well, the Astros tried that and you see where it got them.

Yup.

The big difference between the NFL and MLB is that the NLF's broadcast revenue is shared equally among all teams.  There is no territorial component and all games are shown on the three networks (Fox, CBS and ESPN) and their own.  They can do this because they play so few games and all teams are limited to one day per week.  I don't see how that model can be sustainable to MLB with so many games and such a disparity between fan bases, such as say the Yankees and the Padres.

Time will tell, but the cable networks aren't in this to lose money either. ESPN is laying off folks as we speak because of the trending towards consumers cutting ties with cable subscriptions. I'm sure there are smarter people than I (in fact, I can bank on it) to figure out how to make the consumer market for sports entertainment, live broadcast, and subscription models work in concert to continue making it a revenue stream for the individual MLB owners (and/or markets). Hopefully it doesn't mean some markets shutting down their doors, but that may be an option too. You can't build new stadiums any more, you can't really rely on the cable network model to sustain itself without  passing on cost to consumers (who are different buyers than you and me... have you seen what Millennials are doing to the marketplace nowadays?)... so they better think of something viable for the near future. We are going to see a different world in sports entertainment... we already are in some cases (re: online providers like NBC Sports Live, the World Cup, et. al.). It will be interesting to follow, but suffice it to say what is current and today isn't what consumers really swear by. Consumers are getting smart with their spending dollars and just writing a check to the local cable providers is getting harder and harder to justify every day.

Maybe it will mean a reemergence of radio. Junerberno!

[Noe]

Are you sure that the Cards didn't hack Fox News' computers to change the numbers in their offer?

I'll get back to you on that.. have to call a friend who knows this guy who knows this other guy. A few key strokes here and there and I'll have your answer right away. Wait... I have to go answer the door... looks like some guys in black suits are pulling into my drive way. BRB.

[chuck]

As an aside the NFL's streaming product is light years better than MLB's. Although the At Bat app itself is pretty damn nice.

[Navin R Johnson]

I stream lots of sports, well mostly soccer ,thru either ESPN, or Fox Sports or NBC Sports, you can even stream BEIN through the DirecTV ap now.  Stream obviously isn't prefect, but 95% of the time is close enough.  I'd love to be able to stream root, especially since I travel lots for work.   Having to find a sports bar that has MLB package isn't always an option.

I was thinking about getting a sling box but havent really got around to researching it.  For all I know MLB has some sort of block on using that device to watch the programming I paid for.

[HudsonHawk]

I'd love to be able to stream root, especially since I travel lots for work.   Having to find a sports bar that has MLB package isn't always an option.

If you're outside of the Astros home territory, you can watch the games on MLB.TV.  I don't know where you travel, but I do this all the time on trips to California and internationally.  MLB.TV works in most countries I travel to.  Unfortunately, NFL games do not, at least not through Sunday Ticket. 

[Navin R Johnson]

I thought MLB looked at your billing address when determining if you were eligible to watch?  I travel everywhere from Florida to Seattle.  All domestic stuff. 

[NeilT]

I thought MLB looked at your billing address when determining if you were eligible to watch?  I travel everywhere from Florida to Seattle.  All domestic stuff.

No, they look at where you are.  I've watched games on my iphone when traveling.

[HudsonHawk]

I thought MLB looked at your billing address when determining if you were eligible to watch?  I travel everywhere from Florida to Seattle.  All domestic stuff.

It's based on your IP address.  So if you're say in a hotel in Seattle and logged into a hotel's wifi, you can watch any game not in the Mariner's territory. 

[mrpink]

It's based on your IP address.  So if you're say in a hotel in Seattle and logged into a hotel's wifi, you can watch any game not in the Mariner's territory.

Unless they can't determine your location because of the hotel's wifi or your company's aircard, in which case they ask for your billing info again.  Sometimes this works, usually they tell me to go fuck myself.

[HudsonHawk]

Unless they can't determine your location because of the hotel's wifi or your company's aircard, in which case they ask for your billing info again.  Sometimes this works, usually they tell me to go fuck myself.

I've never had that problem, so I don't know.  I know I use it all the time.  I was in Memphis this past weekend, and watched the games on my iPad and iPhone. 

[Navin R Johnson]

Thanks!  I am glad to know that it is a viable option.    Of course it depends on the hotel having reliable internet, which thankfully most the places I stay at now do.  A couple years ago, not so much.

[HudsonHawk]

Thanks!  I am glad to know that it is a viable option.    Of course it depends on the hotel having reliable internet, which thankfully most the places I stay at now do.  A couple years ago, not so much.

It also helps to have an iPhone with an unlimited LTE data plan.  It streams seamlessly most of the time. 

[mrpink]

I've never had a problem streaming it straight to my iphone, but I have been SOL several times when trying to view it from my laptop that's connected with my phone's hotspot or my company's verizon aircard.

[austro]

It's based on your IP address.  So if you're say in a hotel in Seattle and logged into a hotel's wifi, you can watch any game not in the Mariner's territory. 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "any game not involving a team that claims Seattle as part of its territory"? That may only be Seattle for all I know, but based on some of the other craziness I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if San Francisco, Oakland, and/or Denver didn't claim Seattle.

[HudsonHawk]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "any game not involving a team that claims Seattle as part of its territory"? That may only be Seattle for all I know, but based on some of the other craziness I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if San Francisco, Oakland, and/or Denver didn't claim Seattle.

True. Any game not involving a team in that particular territory. In Seattle, it's only the Mariners, but if you were in Oregon, it would be the Mariners, Giants and A's.

[Limey]

Major league sports being wrapped up in a bundle with a giant pile of shit is not a bug, it's a feature.  It lets production companies churn out endless hours of dross during which the broadcasters can run cheap advertising to the limited audiences these shows carry. 

The only limits are bandwidth, which is growing, and the ability to maintain a stranglehold on the very few things that people really give a fuck about watching.  I.e. sports. 

I'm not a lawbreaker by nature, but I have no problem with people who work their way around this clear and obvious case of gouging.  I have Root Sports in my U-Verse package but, ironically, over the last few years I would have opted out if possible   

[HudsonHawk]

The only limits are bandwidth, which is growing, and the ability to maintain a stranglehold on the very few things that people really give a fuck about watching.  I.e. sports. 

Again, you keep bringing this back to distribution technology.  No one is disputing that it's available and viable.  The issue is the production costs.  If you don't grant exclusivity and publication rights, no company is going to go through the expense of actually filming and producing the show. 

[Limey]

Again, you keep bringing this back to distribution technology.  No one is disputing that it's available and viable.  The issue is the production costs.  If you don't grant exclusivity and publication rights, no company is going to go through the expense of actually filming and producing the show.

They're going to cover the games regardless, the teams are selling the rights to the highest bidder - to the detriment of actual fans - because the high bidders are always cable companies.  Those companies need something that people want to watch to bundle with all the other shit they show - basically for free because of their infrastructure and the near-zero cost to them of these filler shows/channels - to eke out incremental advertising revenue.  It's why they sell packages in bands and clusters, to force you to buy more than you want in order to be able to see what you want to see.

If MLB or the Astros retained the right to stream their games live over the web for a fee, then the only people hurt would be the Kardashians, the Real Housewives, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast and a whole host of similarly worthy and deserving causes.

It's the old adage: if something is free to you, then you're the product (see Book, Face).  You buy your cable package based on what you want to watch; the cable companies are adding a whole world of unwanted shit on top of that because they're selling you as a statistic to production companies and advertisers when all you want to do is watch the Astros.

Feel dirty?  I do.

[Limey]

The Astros network went bankrupt in two seasons while partnering with an actual television network. They couldn't make it work. What do you think will happen if the Astros had to do everything from camera operators to sound mixing?  How much is the capital cost for all of the equipment to become a television production company?  Salaries for a network of production people?  Oh, and you're only allowed to charge a nickel a game. Yeah, how could that possibly not be economical?

The Astros network went bankrupt because they were trying to sell a 5lb bag of shit for the price of a 10b bag of gold.  Weirdly, no one was buying.

[Limey]

Again...who produces the games if you don't sell rights to a network?

The contract production company that the club hires to do the job.  In the same way that they sell food at the stadium, while not being caterers.

[subnuclear]

The Astros need the cable money as much as ROOT. If the Astros streamed the games for free they wouldn't be able pay for Neshek and Gregerson and Rasmus or upkeep of the stadium. The production costs for ROOT are small compared to the cost of buying the rights to broadcast and the Astros can only sell those rights at that price because of cable bundling.

[Limey]

The Astros are now drawing about 100,000 viewers a night, for fun lets say that doubles.  To cut the cord the current cable model and just offer games a la carte, it would take $200 payment from everyone of those 200,000 viewers...to break even.   That ain't happening.

I'm not sure that your numbers are right, but not to worry.  You're also forgetting that they can charge more to businesses and also get revenue from ESPN etc. for highlights.

Regardless, $200/season vs. $100/month to have a cable package you don't want?  Sign me up!!!!

[Limey]

Just for reference...the Cardinals just signed a 15-year/$1 billion deal from 2018-2033 with Fox Sports.  I don't think other teams are expecting a change any time soon.

Meanwhile, in the 21st century, HBO just cut out the cable companies and offered an unbundled subscription to its network.

Which organization do you think has a better handle on the way things are going in TV land?  HBO or MLB?

[subnuclear]

HBO has to deal with piracy in a way that live sports does not.

[Limey]

The Astros need the cable money as much as ROOT. If the Astros streamed the games for free they wouldn't be able pay for Neshek and Gregerson and Rasmus or upkeep of the stadium. The production costs for ROOT are small compared to the cost of buying the rights to broadcast and the Astros can only sell those rights at that price because of cable bundling.

Or...they could pay those players less, because the going price for such players will be lower because the revenue stream for clubs is lower.  Or didn't you realize that the money that the teams get from the cable companies is actually money that comes out of your pocket?

[Limey]

HBO has to deal with piracy in a way that live sports does not.

Exactly.  This whole thread started because it's impossible to get around MLB's subscription rules.  Eh?  Oh.

Grocery stores have to deal with "grazing" - people eating stuff on the way round and then not paying for it.  The (fucked up ) market in my business requires that I put out in public my intellectual capital, for free, in order to attract new customers.  There's bleed in almost ever industry; it's built-in to the pricing structure.

[subnuclear]

I'm pretty sure the number of people getting torrents for HBO shows is four to six orders of magnitude higher than people using anonymizers to get MLB broadcasts.

[chuck]

I'm pretty sure the number of people getting torrents for HBO shows is four to six orders of magnitude higher than people using anonymizers to get MLB broadcasts.

The scale may be different but the concept is the same. Content owners are best served delivering their content in a multiplicity of ways.

[HudsonHawk]

They're going to cover the games regardless, the teams are selling the rights to the highest bidder

No, they're not going to cover the games unless they can sell the showing of such games. This idea that every game is televised is a fairly recent invention, and it's only because there is a network willing to pay for it.

[HudsonHawk]

The contract production company that the club hires to do the job.  In the same way that they sell food at the stadium, while not being caterers.

And the catering contract includes exclusive rights to a particular catering company. You can't just show up and start selling hotdogs on the concourse from Limey's Metre-long.

[austro]

You can't just show up and start selling hotdogs on the concourse from Limey's Metre-long.

NTTAWWT.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

And the catering contract includes exclusive rights to a particular catering company. You can't just show up and start selling hotdogs on the concourse from Limey's Metre-long.

I think it's really more like if Limey was sneaking his own fish and chips or beef pies into the ballpark for his consumption, so he wouldn't be compelled to pay for shitty hotdogs, nachos, and burgers from the caterer.

[HudsonHawk]

I think it's really more like if Limey was sneaking his own fish and chips or beef pies into the ballpark for his consumption, so he wouldn't be compelled to pay for shitty hotdogs, nachos, and burgers from the caterer.

I understands that's what he does. I'm speaking to promoting a free for as a strategy.  No network is going to produce the show without the rights to broadcast.

[chuck]

No one is talking about getting the games for free. People want to buy the broadcasts but are forced to buy a bunch of shit they don't want or are always blacked out because they live in a place that 11 teams claim.

Let people buy a seasonal sports broadcast at a premium and kick some of that back to whoever owns the cable broadcast rights. Done. The NFL could do the same thing for people who can't or won't get DirecTV. HBO gets this, others apparently don't.

The alternative is that people are going to find the content in places where none of the revenue goes to the people who own or broadcast the content.

[HudsonHawk]

No one is talking about getting the games for free. People want to buy the broadcasts but are forced to buy a bunch of shit they don't want or are always blacked out because they live in a place that 11 teams claim.

Not enough of them though. Without a network charging the non-wanters, it would be prohibitively expensive for those who do.

Let people buy a seasonal sports broadcast at a premium and kick some of that back to whoever owns the cable broadcast rights. Done. The NFL could do the same thing for people who can't or won't get DirecTV. HBO gets this, others apparently don't.

HBO is also a television network. The Astros and other teams are not.  They have to farm it out.

 The only way this would work is if MLB took back the broadcast rights and had even revenue sharing, like the NFL.  But that's a more fundamental change in the way MLB has operated, it has anti-trust implications, a whole bunch of "no way" from the owners.

[chuck]

Most people are going to subscribe to cable or satellite or whatever because that's what they do. If a major sports league offered a la carte options to people who are currently blocked out by geography or their own preferences as consumers I expect that the number of new subscribers to that new service would outweigh the people fleeing the yoke of cable television or whatever they have and don't like.

It makes no difference to me either way. But it has long struck me as very strange that people that make a lot of money to work at these sort of jobs don't try harder to maximize their revenue rather than say, Hey, fuckwit, get DirecTV or get fucked.

As you note, that works out great for DirecTV and Comcast and whoever else but for the owners of the content, the teams and the league, they are leaving easy money on the table. And there is an obvious solution.

[Limey]

No, they're not going to cover the games unless they can sell the showing of such games. This idea that every game is televised is a fairly recent invention, and it's only because there is a network willing to pay for it.

They can choose to retain streaming rights from their cable deals, and sell it that way.  Currently, they sell exclusive rights to cable broadcasters, for which they get plenty of coin and the cable broadcasters in turn gouge fans - all of which hurts the brand.

The reason STL is such a big team coming out of such a small market is because they used to be one of the few teams whose games you could hear on the radio back in the days when Jim R was merely middle-aged.  The Cubs and Braves garnered widespread fandom by blasting moving pictures of their shitty teams on their, then, new-fangled cable superstations.  Getting your brand out there - making it accessible - matters.

Cable / satellite TV is going the way of the 8-track, Betamax, VHS, CD and DVD.  The future is internet streaming.  Netflix doesn't bother putting out one new show a week of a new season; they dump the whole thing on the web and you get to watch it in your own time.  That is the future, and any sports franchise locking itself into a cable deal that runs beyond the end of this decade is going to regret it.

[Limey]

And the catering contract includes exclusive rights to a particular catering company. You can't just show up and start selling hotdogs on the concourse from Limey's Metre-long.

Correct.  And when that deal is over they have the right to sign another exclusive deal with the same or a different caterer.  What's the point?

Meanwhile, once their broadcast deal is up, the Astros can sign an exclusive, long-term contract with a production company to "produce" the game feed, which they can then sell to individuals over the interwebs AND to broadcasters who are now relieved of the job of producing the game themselves.

[Limey]

I think it's really more like if Limey was sneaking his own fish and chips or beef pies into the ballpark for his consumption, so he wouldn't be compelled to pay for shitty hotdogs, nachos, and burgers from the caterer.

Exactly.

[HudsonHawk]

The reason STL is such a big team coming out of such a small market is because they used to be one of the few teams whose games you could hear on the radio back in the days when Jim R was merely middle-aged.  The Cubs and Braves garnered widespread fandom by blasting moving pictures of their shitty teams on their, then, new-fangled cable superstations.  Getting your brand out there - making it accessible - matters.

The Cubs and Braves were on TV because they were owned by the television networks that broadcast them.  The Astros are not.  I agree exposure is good.  Where I disagree is that you can negotiate a cost effective deal to get someone to produce your show without giving them exclusive rights to broadcast it in your home market. 

[Limey]

The Cubs and Braves were on TV because they were owned by the television networks that broadcast them.  The Astros are not.  I agree exposure is good.  Where I disagree is that you can negotiate a cost effective deal to get someone to produce your show without giving them exclusive rights to broadcast it in your home market.

Maybe not today, but it's coming.  Whoever embraces it first is going to steal a march on the rest of sports.

[Bench]

Philosophically, I believe that the responsibility should be on the institution to solve inefficiencies in the system it created and manages rather than on the individual customer to patiently wait for the institution to sort its shit out when there are ample harmless workarounds to solve the problem.     

[Limey]

Philosophically, I believe that the responsibility should be on the institution to solve inefficiencies in the system it created and manages rather than on the individual customer to patiently wait for the institution to sort its shit out when there are ample harmless workarounds to solve the problem.   

Tire tracks from a freeway's main lanes to its feeder road is simply our way of telling the city where it needs to put an off ramp.

[subnuclear]

They are perfectly aware that people don't want to buy a cable bundle.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

As best as I can tell, MLBtv has the sole right to stream MLB baseball games and has an agreement with all the MLB teams to not stream games within the various clubs broadcast regions or markets, However, MLB has not relinquished the rights for the teams to offer the opportunity to stream games within their territories through their distributor. And this prohibits Root Sports Houston from offering a streaming option on their web page.

[Limey]

As best as I can tell, MLBtv has the sole right to stream MLB baseball games and has an agreement with all the MLB teams to not stream games within the various clubs broadcast regions or markets, However, MLB has not relinquished the rights for the teams to offer the opportunity to stream games within their territories through their distributor. And this prohibits Root Sports Houston from offering a streaming option on their web page.

Yep

[Navin R Johnson]

Here are a few reasons the current system isn't likely to change.

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2015/08/12/will-mlb-see-revenues-top-10-billion-this-year/

[jbm]

I'm not predicting anything, but you could find similar articles on every bubble before it crashed. 

[Navin R Johnson]

In-Market Streaming Of MLB Games Coming To Some Markets In 2016

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/08/17/in-market-streaming-of-mlb-games-coming-to-some-markets-in-2016/

[Nate Colbert]

Among all professional sports owners, Steve Ballmer may be showing the way as to the new model as he plans to have Clippers games solely available via streaming:

Clippers games are now aired to roughly 5 million Los Angeles-area homes through Fox Sports’ Prime Ticket regional sports network in a deal that runs through the 2015-16 season. Prime Ticket currently pays the team a rights fee of $25 million a year — and offered a 140 percent increase, to $60 million, but the billionaire Ballmer turned it aside.

Link

From another article:

An industry analyst told the Post that the deal could be worth the risk for Ballmer:

“If it costs $12 per month, multiply that by 12 months in 500,000 homes, it would add up to $72 million — but then you’d have to produce the games and market the product.”

Note also this all may be a negotiating tactic for Ballmer as tries to extract a higher price from Prime Ticket.