INDemand reaches deal for MLB Extra Innings Package!

[gerby23]

What kills me is that I had DirectTV for 4 years. I asked for an HD box and DVR equipment, they told me I would have to pay an outrageous amount. So I switched to DISH who gave me all of that with the switch. Problem for me know is that I have DISH for two years and no EI. I'll be back in the golden era of baseball--listening on the radio. Except I don't think they had XM in the 40s, but anyway. When my contract is up, I will go back to DirectTV if they are the sole providers, Live and learn.

[BigbadB]

Brilliant posting, gentlemen.

 

It's too bad we can't say the same for you.

 

Ah, the sound of Luddites in spring. It's thrilling.

 

A post that nearly contained substance. I can tell that you are really trying. Keep it up. Eventually you too will be able to join in on mature discussions.

[oldcubsfan]

If MLB really doesn't want me to watch their product, who am I to argue with them?

I totally agree with you. I'll spend the $180 on something else.

[J.R.]

Brilliant posting, gentlemen.

 

It's too bad we can't say the same for you.

 

Ah, the sound of Luddites in spring. It's thrilling.

 

A post that nearly contained substance. I can tell that you are really trying. Keep it up. Eventually you too will be able to join in on mature discussions.

 

BRB gonna rant to my neighbors about DirecTV and "NO TAILGATING" at Petco

[BigbadB]

BRB gonna rant to my neighbors about DirecTV and "NO TAILGATING" at Petco

 

K, hurry back.

[thedaymen]

If MLB really doesn't want me to watch their product, who am I to argue with them?

I totally agree with you. I'll spend the $180 on something else.

 

Like tickets to some playoff NHL.

[oldcubsfan]

If MLB really doesn't want me to watch their product, who am I to argue with them?

I totally agree with you. I'll spend the $180 on something else.

 

Like tickets to some playoff NHL.

 

Not here in Chicago!!! LOL!

[MustangMike]

Life is full of choices. You can't always have your cake and eat it too.

 

I still don't like the exclusivity, but individual inconvenience isn't why.

 

This is true. And if you read through my posts, you'll see that I have given in to the fact this is probably going to happen. I'll go the MLB.TV route, but not DirecTV.

 

But, I have every intention of continuing to complain about it.

 

Bigbadb...

 

I've had DirectTV for 6 months now. I had Dishnetwork for about 5 years and really loved it. I changed for a lower price and I like DirectTV just as much. At least by me, cable is more money so that's why I went the dish route...plus I do the big dish, dsl, phone, cell package that helps. Anyway, I do think its crap you don't have the choice, that you HAVE to pick DirectTV to watch it, although that's gotta be MLB's fault right? Also, these monopoly type rights aren't exclusive to tv watching. I do agree its not fair though....thank god I live in chicago again!

[Jehrico]

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV

 

That's code for

 

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]I'm a douchebag

 

From your article: DirecTV uses statistics that only 5,000 of the 500,000 subscriptions would not have access to DirecTV. That's all well and good. Did they factor in the number of people prohibited by lease agreements , neighborhood associations, or simply access to the proper direction in the sky from installing a dish and/or utilizing it? Just for the sake of argument let's assume that 45,000 of those households fall into at least 1 of those 3 categories. According to their published statements DirecTV claimed to have 230,000 of the 500,000 subscribers already.

 

At $100mil/year assuming they get ALL of the previous subscribers, that comes down to $222 per household in fees and advertising revenue, just to break even. Not factoring in their costs in installing systems in each home who switches, their custom programming on the extra innings package, etc. And they are convinced that by their exclusivity and content they're going to get more subscribers than when the package was available from all 3 sources. That's sheer arrogance. Yes they'll likely convert more of their own previously existing subscribers into the package, but they're not likely to see a huge boom of new subscribers switching from alternate sources. In today's day and age of package deals, not many people have the money, let alone the desire to disrupt the package pricing to switch their TV to something else and pay full price for what's left behind.

 

DirecTV isn't the bad guy here. Sure, they'll take advantage of their monopoly and jack up their rates, as well as ridiculous surcharges for HD content. But that is capitalism. MLB, is looking out for it's interests, namely profits. And that to, isn't against the law. Saying a big old screw you to those who can't/don't want their service, that's no different than any other business. I don't fault them for what they're doing. Just think it's gonna backfire pretty good for baseball and directv in the long run.

I hope Congress revokes MLBs anti-trust exemption as a result of this.

[3Dog]

Revoking the anti-trust exemption would be mighty interesting, to say the least.

 

I have this vision of the Pirates, Royals, D-Rays, and other teams suffering from poor attendance suddenly relocating to New York City.

[beer_man]

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV

 

That's code for

 

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]I'm a douchebag

 

From your article: DirecTV uses statistics that only 5,000 of the 500,000 subscriptions would not have access to DirecTV. That's all well and good. Did they factor in the number of people prohibited by lease agreements , neighborhood associations, or simply access to the proper direction in the sky from installing a dish and/or utilizing it? Just for the sake of argument let's assume that 45,000 of those households fall into at least 1 of those 3 categories. According to their published statements DirecTV claimed to have 230,000 of the 500,000 subscribers already.

 

At $100mil/year assuming they get ALL of the previous subscribers, that comes down to $222 per household in fees and advertising revenue, just to break even. Not factoring in their costs in installing systems in each home who switches, their custom programming on the extra innings package, etc. And they are convinced that by their exclusivity and content they're going to get more subscribers than when the package was available from all 3 sources. That's sheer arrogance. Yes they'll likely convert more of their own previously existing subscribers into the package, but they're not likely to see a huge boom of new subscribers switching from alternate sources. In today's day and age of package deals, not many people have the money, let alone the desire to disrupt the package pricing to switch their TV to something else and pay full price for what's left behind.

 

DirecTV isn't the bad guy here. Sure, they'll take advantage of their monopoly and jack up their rates, as well as ridiculous surcharges for HD content. But that is capitalism. MLB, is looking out for it's interests, namely profits. And that to, isn't against the law. Saying a big old screw you to those who can't/don't want their service, that's no different than any other business. I don't fault them for what they're doing. Just think it's gonna backfire pretty good for baseball and directv in the long run.

I hope Congress revokes MLBs anti-trust exemption as a result of this.

 

I think they solved that problem by giving cable and Dish the right to match the offer...If they decide not to pay then it is their choice not to...

[BigbadB]

Bigbadb...

 

I've had DirectTV for 6 months now. I had Dishnetwork for about 5 years and really loved it. I changed for a lower price and I like DirectTV just as much. At least by me, cable is more money so that's why I went the dish route...plus I do the big dish, dsl, phone, cell package that helps. Anyway, I do think its crap you don't have the choice, that you HAVE to pick DirectTV to watch it, although that's gotta be MLB's fault right? Also, these monopoly type rights aren't exclusive to tv watching. I do agree its not fair though....thank god I live in chicago again!

 

My reasons for not switching to DirecTV don't really have anything to do with DirecTV. And it was MLB's decision to go exclusive with DirecTV.

 

I'm sure DirecTV is a good product for those people who receive it. I just don't want it. How good or bad of HD service on cable provider or another offers doesn't concern me because I haven't bothered to go out and by an HD tv yet. That time is coming soon though.

 

Because I have internet, phone and tv all through the same company, I need something more than MLB EI to make me go through the hassles of switching to DirecTV. Especially since it would likely cost me more to have DirecTV.

 

At this juncture, DirecTV has ponied up the cash, but their exclusivity only comes into play if Dish and In Demand elect to play MLB's game.

[Jehrico]

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV

 

That's code for

 

J.R.[/url]"]I'm a douchebag

 

From your article: DirecTV uses statistics that only 5,000 of the 500,000 subscriptions would not have access to DirecTV. That's all well and good. Did they factor in the number of people prohibited by lease agreements , neighborhood associations, or simply access to the proper direction in the sky from installing a dish and/or utilizing it? Just for the sake of argument let's assume that 45,000 of those households fall into at least 1 of those 3 categories. According to their published statements DirecTV claimed to have 230,000 of the 500,000 subscribers already.

 

At $100mil/year assuming they get ALL of the previous subscribers, that comes down to $222 per household in fees and advertising revenue, just to break even. Not factoring in their costs in installing systems in each home who switches, their custom programming on the extra innings package, etc. And they are convinced that by their exclusivity and content they're going to get more subscribers than when the package was available from all 3 sources. That's sheer arrogance. Yes they'll likely convert more of their own previously existing subscribers into the package, but they're not likely to see a huge boom of new subscribers switching from alternate sources. In today's day and age of package deals, not many people have the money, let alone the desire to disrupt the package pricing to switch their TV to something else and pay full price for what's left behind.

 

DirecTV isn't the bad guy here. Sure, they'll take advantage of their monopoly and jack up their rates, as well as ridiculous surcharges for HD content. But that is capitalism. MLB, is looking out for it's interests, namely profits. And that to, isn't against the law. Saying a big old screw you to those who can't/don't want their service, that's no different than any other business. I don't fault them for what they're doing. Just think it's gonna backfire pretty good for baseball and directv in the long run.

I hope Congress revokes MLBs anti-trust exemption as a result of this.

 

I think they solved that problem by giving cable and Dish the right to match the offer...If they decide not to pay then it is their choice not to...

I think that was just some legal language aimed to get around the issue. Pretty sleazy if you ask me. I can't recall the legal term for it, but I don't think the fact that they added that clause would hold any weight in court or in front of congress. The intent is very clear, and that will override the writing if it does go before Congress and the SEC. They obviously do not expect anyone to match the offer. Even the larger companies like Cox, Comcast, or Adelphia couldn't afford to match that. Of course, DirecTV likely loses a ton of money as well if one of the majors were willing to committ suicide, since they wouldn't get the additional subscribers they were expecting to cover the cost.

 

I wonder what exactly a broadcast company gets rights to for $100 million. If it's pretty much unfettered rights to rebroadcast and distribute live MLB footage as they wish, what would stop one cable company from selling a feed to the other cable outlets to help diffuse the cost? They could all chip in. If Comcast, for example, buys it, they should have the rights to sell the package through all of their affiliates. If they owned 1% of Adelphia, or something like that, would all Adelphia cities be fair game? This of course could also raise some eyebrows as well. If DirecTV can get away with their shady deal with MLB, I don't see why one of the major cable outlets couldn't get away with a shady deal either.

[Jehrico]

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV

 

That's code for

 

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]I'm a douchebag

 

I thought this needed revisiting. Jacobson's whole quote was:

 

Jacobson said the deal contained "conditions for carriage that MLB and DirecTV designed to be impossible for cable and DISH to meet." He said the agreement will "disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV" and "represents the height of disrespect and disregard for their loyal baseball fans."

 

I see no reason to call him a douchebag, unless you're just too narrow minded to see why this isn't' a good thing for everybody. Either that, or you somehow feel that being in the directtv circle somehow makes you more 'elite' than non-directtv subscribers, and you just don't care about them. Anyways, as far as Jacobsen goes, I'm sure he has other motives, but he's looking out more for the general fan base in this case than either DirecTV or MLB. This is anti-competitive. Competition is always good in any market. There won't be any competition for directtv for EI, which is incredibly bad for consumers. You may not notice it too much for the first year or two, but I guarantee everyone will by the end of the deal.

[BigbadB]

Of course, DirecTV likely loses a ton of money as well if one of the majors were willing to committ suicide, since they wouldn't get the additional subscribers they were expecting to cover the cost.

 

I don't remember where I read it, but I don't think DirecTV loses a ton of money if one of the majors buys into this MLB EI deal with MLB.

 

What I read says that DirecTV only pays that amount if they have exclusivity.

 

Which begs the question, is there REALLY an offer on the table to the cable companies and Dish, or is it a smokescreen? It certainly sounds like a smokescreen because the cable companies would have to match what DirecTV is offering to pay, but if someone does match it, DirecTV doesn't have to pay that amount because they no longer have exclusivity.

 

Which is it? Hmmm.

[Careless]

Federally funded monopolies should work in the interest of the people, not the company. MLB has special privileges granted it by the feds. Go congress, threaten them.

[RonCey]

Those who assume everyone has a choice between DirectTV and Cable are mistaken. I live in NYC. We live in these things called "apartments." So it's virtually impossible for anyone in NYC to have satellite. Trust me, I would've done it years ago in order to get the NFL package. Assuming this deal goes through, I will have to go to a bar to watch the Bears or Cubs unless it's a national game.

 

Simple point: both MLB and NFL put more value in exclusivity arrangements than making the product available to as many consumers as possible. It's the correct business move, but it sucks for me.

[BigbadB]

Those who assume everyone has a choice between DirectTV and Cable are mistaken. I live in NYC. We live in these things called "apartments." So it's virtually impossible for anyone in NYC to have satellite. Trust me, I would've done it years ago in order to get the NFL package. Assuming this deal goes through, I will have to go to a bar to watch the Bears or Cubs unless it's a national game.

 

Simple point: both MLB and NFL put more value in exclusivity arrangements than making the product available to as many consumers as possible. It's the correct business move, but it sucks for me.

 

Have you been to bars that carry MLB EI? I have never been in one that has it. Of course, I live in a baseball market, so most bars show the Padres games which they can get on cable.

[RonCey]

Those who assume everyone has a choice between DirectTV and Cable are mistaken. I live in NYC. We live in these things called "apartments." So it's virtually impossible for anyone in NYC to have satellite. Trust me, I would've done it years ago in order to get the NFL package. Assuming this deal goes through, I will have to go to a bar to watch the Bears or Cubs unless it's a national game.

 

Simple point: both MLB and NFL put more value in exclusivity arrangements than making the product available to as many consumers as possible. It's the correct business move, but it sucks for me.

 

Have you been to bars that carry MLB EI? I have never been in one that has it. Of course, I live in a baseball market, so most bars show the Padres games which they can get on cable.

 

 

I don't know. Unitl this year, I got EI through cable (TimeWarner), si I watched Cubs games from the couch. I guess I'll find out this year how many bars are going to subscribe to the DirectTV package and will play the game. There's a few Cubs-friendly bars in NYC.

[BigbadB]

I don't know. Unitl this year, I got EI through cable (TimeWarner), si I watched Cubs games from the couch. I guess I'll find out this year how many bars are going to subscribe to the DirectTV package and will play the game. There's a few Cubs-friendly bars in NYC.

 

Well, I hope you find one. But, bars have to pay a pretty large price to show games on MLB EI in their location. Sunday Ticket works quite well because Sunday afternoon is typically a slow day in a bar anyway and it draws people in. Baseball is played everyday at all times of the day.

 

But, between ESPN, FOX, WGN and TBS (and local channels like YES), bars may feel that they get enough games to satisfy the customers with a basic cable package.

 

The bar owner has to make a business decision on whether purchasing a package like MLB EI would net a profit. We're talking thousands of dollars, by the way, not $179.00.

 

I don't know. There might be bar owners who feel like they could make a profit knowing that all those apartments in NY can't get DirecTV. And all the games shown in a bar now are games most people can get at home on their own cable network and games shown on MLB EI could potentially attract new customers. But, I wouldn't bet on it.

[Soul]

Bigbadb...

 

I've had DirectTV for 6 months now. I had Dishnetwork for about 5 years and really loved it. I changed for a lower price and I like DirectTV just as much. At least by me, cable is more money so that's why I went the dish route...plus I do the big dish, dsl, phone, cell package that helps. Anyway, I do think its crap you don't have the choice, that you HAVE to pick DirectTV to watch it, although that's gotta be MLB's fault right? Also, these monopoly type rights aren't exclusive to tv watching. I do agree its not fair though....thank god I live in chicago again!

 

My reasons for not switching to DirecTV don't really have anything to do with DirecTV. And it was MLB's decision to go exclusive with DirecTV.

 

I'm sure DirecTV is a good product for those people who receive it. I just don't want it. How good or bad of HD service on cable provider or another offers doesn't concern me because I haven't bothered to go out and by an HD tv yet. That time is coming soon though.

 

Because I have internet, phone and tv all through the same company, I need something more than MLB EI to make me go through the hassles of switching to DirecTV. Especially since it would likely cost me more to have DirecTV.

 

At this juncture, DirecTV has ponied up the cash, but their exclusivity only comes into play if Dish and In Demand elect to play MLB's game.

 

Well, I hope they do then and you get the package through cable. Just as long as it doesn't stop DirecTV from offering all the extras (which, IMO, are the *real* innovation behind Sunday Ticket). Bringing a scoring-threat channel, quick highlights, more HD, and selection channels to MLB would just be the bomb.

[Garwilly]

Pricing was put up online today

 

Get MLB EXTRA INNINGS now for just 4 payments of $39.99 — a savings of $40 off the regular season price!

(Must order DIRECTV service by 4/7/07 and activate by 4/15/07)

 

[J.R.]

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV

 

That's code for

 

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]I'm a douchebag

 

I thought this needed revisiting. Jacobson's whole quote was:

 

Jacobson said the deal contained "conditions for carriage that MLB and DirecTV designed to be impossible for cable and DISH to meet." He said the agreement will "disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV" and "represents the height of disrespect and disregard for their loyal baseball fans."

 

I see no reason to call him a douchebag

 

He said "disenfranchise." That's a term reserved almost exclusively for whining douchebags.

[Chocolate Milk]

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV

 

That's code for

 

iN Demand's Robert Jacobson[/url]"]I'm a douchebag

 

I thought this needed revisiting. Jacobson's whole quote was:

 

Jacobson said the deal contained "conditions for carriage that MLB and DirecTV designed to be impossible for cable and DISH to meet." He said the agreement will "disenfranchise baseball fans in the 75 million multichannel households who do not subscribe to DirecTV" and "represents the height of disrespect and disregard for their loyal baseball fans."

I see no reason to call him a douchebag, unless you're just too narrow minded to see why this isn't' a good thing for everybody. Either that, or you somehow feel that being in the directtv circle somehow makes you more 'elite' than non-directtv subscribers, and you just don't care about them. Anyways, as far as Jacobsen goes, I'm sure he has other motives, but he's looking out more for the general fan base in this case than either DirecTV or MLB. This is anti-competitive. Competition is always good in any market. There won't be any competition for directtv for EI, which is incredibly bad for consumers. You may not notice it too much for the first year or two, but I guarantee everyone will by the end of the deal.

 

It's all part of J.R.'s Macho Man shtick. It doesn't have to make sense.

[Abe Frohman]

Pricing was put up online today

 

Get MLB EXTRA INNINGS now for just 4 payments of $39.99 — a savings of $40 off the regular season price!

(Must order DIRECTV service by 4/7/07 and activate by 4/15/07)

 

 

Over the last two seasons, I have paid $120 and $150 for the MLB EI package. It's nice to see it getting jacked up to $200. I can't wait to see the immense improvements to the program that warrant that incredible raise in price.

 

I'll still pay.