Lawsuit over Future of Televised Baseball

[Duman]

Here is a good breakdown of the issues that are at stake.  It is slated for court next Tuesday. 

*realize that my definition of good breakdown comes from my perspective as a non lawyer. 

[homer]

Good thing HH isn't presiding over this.

[HudsonHawk]

Good thing HH isn't presiding over this.

Because it'd result in a fair hearing, using the rule of law, respecting the rights of the clubs and broadcasters instead of kowtowing to the whining of entitled kids who want everything for nothing?

[Bench]

Interesting that the antitrust exemption doesn't apply.  Maybe it's limited to the teams/league and not the broadcasts?

Antitrust cases are loads of fun.  Once it's past motions and into trial, I'd say MLB probably has an uphill battle.  In the modern technological market it's hard to see how preventing some consumers from purchasing easily accessible broadcasts helps consumers in general. 

[homer]

Because it'd result in a fair hearing, using the rule of law, respecting the rights of the clubs and broadcasters instead of kowtowing to the whining of entitled kids who want everything for nothing?

Obviously.

[HudsonHawk]

Interesting that the antitrust exemption doesn't apply.  Maybe it's limited to the teams/league and not the broadcasts?

Antitrust cases are loads of fun.  Once it's past motions and into trial, I'd say MLB probably has an uphill battle.  In the modern technological market it's hard to see how preventing some consumers from purchasing easily accessible broadcasts helps consumers in general.

We've been over this before.  MLB has, and I assume will continue to, argue that without granting some exclusivity to local networks, the networks will be less willing to produce the product.  Sure, granting rights to the Yankees to sell their broadcast in western Pennsylvania will be good for the Yankees, but it will be terrible for the Pirates.  That for the smaller markets, the only thing that provides incentive for local networks is the fact they have a built in market for their product.  Lose that, and you may very well find the local team without a network willing to televise their games.

[Bench]

We've been over this before.  MLB has, and I assume will continue to, argue that without granting some exclusivity to local networks, the networks will be less willing to produce the product.  Sure, granting rights to the Yankees to sell their broadcast in western Pennsylvania will be good for the Yankees, but it will be terrible for the Pirates.  That for the smaller markets, the only thing that provides incentive for local networks is the fact they have a built in market for their product.  Lose that, and you may very well find the local team without a network willing to televise their games.

Oh, I'm familiar with the arguments.  I think MLB no longer applying the same broadcast blackout rules to its online streaming service might be an easy middle ground for the court. 

[Noe]

Oh, I'm familiar with the arguments.  I think MLB no longer applying the same broadcast blackout rules to its online streaming service might be an easy middle ground for the court.

There are a number of opinions that the Judge could issue. One of which is to take a good hard look at "territory" while maintaining the integrity of the blackout rule. Meaning, perhaps the territorial rights is too outlandish for MLB broadcast (and blackout rules) that they lack any common sense or logic behind them. It would be hard for the MLB to win that argument:

Alternatively, Judge Scheindlin could determine that it is generally appropriate for MLB to provide its teams with some protection in their local markets, but that the league’s current broadcast territories are nevertheless much larger than necessary, and therefore should be reduced in size. Such an order would increase competition in areas outside of a team’s immediate metropolitan area, and would help to alleviate some of the current frustration over MLB’s blackout provisions by substantially reducing the number of fans that are subjected to blackouts on MLB.TV.

[HudsonHawk]

Oh, I'm familiar with the arguments.  I think MLB no longer applying the same broadcast blackout rules to its online streaming service might be an easy middle ground for the court.

Haven't they already done that, at least somewhat?  They've removed the restrictions for local streaming.

[Bench]

Haven't they already done that, at least somewhat?  They've removed the restrictions for local streaming.

Really?  So I could by MLB.TV and watch the Astros at home?  I didn't know that.  That totally changes my "cutting the cord" analysis.

[HudsonHawk]

Really?  So I could by MLB.TV and watch the Astros at home?  I didn't know that.  That totally changes my "cutting the cord" analysis.

I don't think it's that simple, and they don't have all the providers on board yet.  I think Fox is the only one so far, and as you know, the Astros are a Root network.  I don't think it's a matter of simply buying MLB.TV and watching local games.  But it does represent a step change in MLB's thinking about how folks can view the product locally. 

[homer]

You have to subscribe to the cable provider to stream. A la hbogo.

[Navin R Johnson]

You have to subscribe to the cable provider to stream. A la hbogo.

You dont have to subscribe to cable to stream HBO Now.

[homer]

You dont have to subscribe to cable to stream HBO Now.

Perhaps there is hope for the future.

[Duman]

It is settled -in a less than satisfying kind of way.

According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeffrey Dubner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, MLB will now offer MLB.tv’s full package at $109.99—a 35-percent discount—and single-team options for $84.99.

In a statement, Dubner said the agreement now calls for MLB.tv to be the “least-expensive, full-season package offering among all professional sports leagues in the United States.”

[Tralfaz]

So does this mean Austin, TX will not be blacked out by the MLB package? 

[Navin R Johnson]

This ruling doesn't change blackout rules, it only changes the prices for their existing model.

[WVastro]

This ruling doesn't change blackout rules, it only changes the prices for their existing model.

There is this:

"Another change will allow fans that subscribe to both cable and MLB.TV to pay an extra $10 to gain access to the visiting team feed for in-market games. That means if you’re a diehard Rockies fan living in New York, instead of having to watch the game on SportsNet New York, you can watch the Root Sports Rocky Mountain feed on MLB.TV."

http://deadspin.com/mlbs-blackout-rules-improved-by-class-action-lawsuit-se-1753945222

This certainly helps those of us outside of the Houston area. Progress?

[HudsonHawk]

There is this:

"Another change will allow fans that subscribe to both cable and MLB.TV to pay an extra $10 to gain access to the visiting team feed for in-market games. That means if you’re a diehard Rockies fan living in New York, instead of having to watch the game on SportsNet New York, you can watch the Root Sports Rocky Mountain feed on MLB.TV."

http://deadspin.com/mlbs-blackout-rules-improved-by-class-action-lawsuit-se-1753945222

This certainly helps those of us outside of the Houston area. Progress?

Considering that means you have to listen to Ashby, I'm not sure that's really a "benefit".

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Two questions: are these changes immediate, and does it change the necessity of having cable to over-ride the local blackouts?

[ValpoCory]

Still no love for Time Warner Cable customers who used to get the Astros. 

At least Root Sports Southwest is on the DirecTV choice package in Austin now.  I could have sworn that in August when I was deciding TWC vs. DirecTV, it was only listed under the expensive DirecTV Premier package with the other three Root Sports Stations.   I may have to switch now.

[HudsonHawk]

Two questions: are these changes immediate, and does it change the necessity of having cable to over-ride the local blackouts?

From what I've read, they are immediate, meaning will be in place for the start of the 2016 season.  Not sure if that includes Spring Training.

My understanding is they are not overriding the blackout exactly.  They are simply allowing you to view the visiting feed via MLB.TV, provided you already have access to the home team's feed via cable/satellite.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes", you will still need cable/satellite to experience the change. 

[BudGirl]

From what I've read, they are immediate, meaning will be in place for the start of the 2016 season.  Not sure if that includes Spring Training.

My understanding is they are not overriding the blackout exactly.  They are simply allowing you to view the visiting feed via MLB.TV, provided you already have access to the home team's feed via cable/satellite.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes", you will still need cable/satellite to experience the change. 

ugh, i was hoping that was not the case.

[94CougarGrad]

Considering that means you have to listen to Ashby, I'm not sure that's really a "benefit".

If it means that I get to watch the Astros on television more often than just the games they play against the Rangers, then I'll take the Ashby. Rangers announcers.... bleh.

[juliogotay]

If it means that I get to watch the Astros on television more often than just the games they play against the Rangers, then I'll take the Ashby. Rangers announcers.... bleh.

Couldn't agree more about the Rangers announcers. Unlistenable.

[BUWebguy]

Couldn't agree more about the Rangers announcers. Unlistenable.

+1

[HudsonHawk]

So I got an email from MLB today stating that because I'd purchased an MLB.com subscription in the last 7 years, I'm part of a class action settlement and may be entitled to a discount subscription. I haven't read through the entire thing, but I'm assuming some of you got the same.

[Nate in IA]

So I got an email from MLB today stating that because I'd purchased an MLB.com subscription in the last 7 years, I'm part of a class action settlement and may be entitled to a discount subscription. I haven't read through the entire thing, but I'm assuming some of you got the same.

Yes, I got the same email.   They are discounting mlb.tv to 109.99 for 2016.   In a new twist though they are allowing you to do a $10 add-on to follow a team.   Thus, you could get your team's broadcast  _with no blackout restrictions_ even if they are playing in your market.   I'm not sure I can do this if I do mlb.tv on a Roku box.

They also have a 84.99 package for a single team's out of market games.    It's not clear to me what this gets me

I think I would rather pay the $119.99 for Astros games.  We'll see if they let me.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, I got the same email.   They are discounting mlb.tv to 109.99 for 2016.   In a new twist though they are allowing you to do a $10 add-on to follow a team.   Thus, you could get your team's broadcast  _with no blackout restrictions_ even if they are playing in your market.   I'm not sure I can do this if I do mlb.tv on a Roku box.

Just to clarify, this extra $10 means for example if you live in Iowa, and the Astros are playing in Chicago, you can get the Astros road broadcast provided you already get the Cubs/Sox home broadcast on your home cable/satellite package.  That doesn't seem like much of a bargain, and I don't think it applies to Roku, unless you also have Comcast/DirecTV.   

[Nate in IA]

Just to clarify, this extra $10 means for example if you live in Iowa, and the Astros are playing in Chicago, you can get the Astros road broadcast provided you already get the Cubs/Sox home broadcast on your home cable/satellite package.  That doesn't seem like much of a bargain, and I don't think it applies to Roku, unless you also have Comcast/DirecTV.

Yes, I think that's the rub.   Since I ditched DirecTV for the Roku several years ago, I don't know if I am eligible for this "benefit".   It did say "certain other providers" so we'll see.   

The bigger question is the statement of "no blackouts" but then the caveat "if you receive the in-market game" via normal channels.
Being here in Iowa, we get blacked out for KC, Minnesota, Chicago, Cincinatti, and St Louis.   I don't think I can get all of those games via "over the air" so it remains to be seen whether this will be a benefit or not.

In the end, I think I will do it if I am allowed to.   $10 is cheap to maybe get a few more games than I got last year.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, I think that's the rub.   Since I ditched DirecTV for the Roku several years ago, I don't know if I am eligible for this "benefit".   It did say "certain other providers" so we'll see.   

The bigger question is the statement of "no blackouts" but then the caveat "if you receive the in-market game" via normal channels.
Being here in Iowa, we get blacked out for KC, Minnesota, Chicago, Cincinatti, and St Louis.   I don't think I can get all of those games via "over the air" so it remains to be seen whether this will be a benefit or not.

In the end, I think I will do it if I am allowed to.   $10 is cheap to maybe get a few more games than I got last year.

With this new deal, if you're in the territories of KC, Minn, Chi, Cin and STL, you would not be blacked out from those feeds via cable or satellite, so you should be eligible for the Astros home broadcasts in those cities via MLB.TV...except for the ditching DirecTV part.  I guess you'll just have to wait and see what you get. 

[Nate in IA]

Here's the web page for the 2016 version of mlb.tv

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index.jsp?c_id=mlb&partnerId=ed-10041935-873398093

By this page, it seems unlikely that I could purchase the $10 add-on.   Interestingly it seems to say you only have to have your local regional sports network subscription to have this.

[Nate in IA]

With this new deal, if you're in the territories of KC, Minn, Chi, Cin and STL, you would not be blacked out from those feeds via cable or satellite, so you should be eligible for the Astros home broadcasts in those cities via MLB.TV...except for the ditching DirecTV part.  I guess you'll just have to wait and see what you get.

It was quite interesting last year because I *would* be blacked out of many of those games, even the home feed, on mlb.tv.   The updates for this year seem to suggest that we will have the opportunity to see either the home or the away feed but doesn't specifically mention blackouts.

[HudsonHawk]

It was quite interesting last year because I *would* be blacked out of many of those games, even the home feed, on mlb.tv.   The updates for this year seem to suggest that we will have the opportunity to see either the home or the away feed but doesn't specifically mention blackouts.

Yes, you'd be blacked out on MLB.TV, because you're eligible to get those games via cable/satellite.  But you shouldn't be blacked out on cable/satellite.  My understanding is that this year you'll get both home and road feeds of those "local games" on MLB.TV, provided you also receive them via cable or satellite.  But if you don't have cable/satellite, you'll still be blacked out via MLB.TV.

[Nate in IA]

Yes, you'd be blacked out on MLB.TV, because you're eligible to get those games via cable/satellite.  But you shouldn't be blacked out on cable/satellite.  My understanding is that this year you'll get both home and road feeds of those "local games" on MLB.TV, provided you also receive them via cable or satellite.  But if you don't have cable/satellite, you'll still be blacked out via MLB.TV.

Yes, what really gets my goat though is that I would have to subscribe to 5 different "Regional Sports Networks" to receive these games. 
There is a "Blackout Checker" at the bottom of that mlb.tv page.   I'm officially blacked out of the following teams:
Kansas City Royals
St Louis Cardinals
Minnesota Twins
Milwaukee Brewers
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox

 I do get a "free" cable subscription with my business class internet I subscribe to from Mediacom.  I haven't paid attention to it to see if it includes a regional sports network.  If it does, perhaps I can pay the $10 to escape blackout hell.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, what really gets my goat though is that I would have to subscribe to 5 different "Regional Sports Networks" to receive these games. 
There is a "Blackout Checker" at the bottom of that mlb.tv page.   I'm officially blacked out of the following teams:
Kansas City Royals
St Louis Cardinals
Minnesota Twins
Milwaukee Brewers
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox

Well, you could get them all with the super-duper sports package on DirecTV.  Not that it's much of a bargain though. 

[Tralfaz]

Apparently no Astros on TWC in Austin again this year, so far, according to some very uniformed multi-levels of tech support. At least I like sports bars. Who benefits from this, the Rangers?

[HudsonHawk]

Apparently no Astros on TWC in Austin again this year, so far, according to some very uniformed multi-levels of tech support. At least I like sports bars. Who benefits from this, the Rangers?

TWC does not carry Root Sports Southwest anywhere, including Houston.  And yes, I suppose that benefits the Rangers, as they're the other territory in Austin. 

[juliogotay]

Apparently no Astros on TWC in Austin again this year, so far, according to some very uniformed multi-levels of tech support. At least I like sports bars. Who benefits from this, the Rangers?

I hate to see Austin becoming Ranger territory. Getting RR back would be a step forward but the Astros need to be on TV. Do they even have a radio affiliate there anymore?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I hate to see Austin becoming.... Do they even have a radio affiliate there anymore?

Yes,  but they get preempted by any UT sports program, including the women's volley ball coach's show.

[juliogotay]

Yes,  but they get preempted by any UT sports program, including the women's volley ball coach's show.

That was going on when I was in college. And I graduated in '77.

[JimR]

I hate to see Austin becoming Ranger territory. Getting RR back would be a step forward but the Astros need to be on TV. Do they even have a radio affiliate there anymore?

Austin gets the Astros on uVerse. don't know about the other cable providers.

[BlownRanger]

Yes,  but they get preempted by any UT sports program, including the women's volley ball coach's show.

I assume we're still talking about 1300 The Zone.  Unless they've changed, they also refuse to carry day games during the week (can't be preempting Jim Rome).  It seemed to me they just wanted to be able to market themselves as "your Astros home in Central Texas" when so often they actually weren't.

I quit worrying about it when DirecTV picked up Root.