MLB TV settlement

[craigharmann]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/01/19/mlb-tv-settlement-is-big-win-for-baseball-fans/?tid=sm_fb

 

I'm happy that there's progress....but, in reading the details, for folks like me who have cut the cord, this doesn't help. I don't have a cable subscription. Sure, I could borrow someone else's login info, but that's still another cheat around the system. Why can't it just be, here's the flat cost to buy all your team's games for a season as a separate subscription, no cable subscription, no nothing. But again....it's progress.

[And That]

I assume that because most (all?) cable networks are not owned by MLB, that it would take a lot of wrangling to allow in-market access for non-subscribers. And by wrangling, I mostly mean MLB giving the networks a bunch of dough. MLB clearly hasn't come to the conclusion that it's on the wrong side of the cost-benefit curve for this yet, and I'm not sure what kind of legal pressure could be brought since MLB doesn't control the cable companies. I imagine in-market non-subscriber access will be years down the road.

 

The upshot for me is, I save $45. Yay.

[jerichoholicninja]

So basically nothing has changed, right?

[502 to Right]

Cord cutters should not expect to receive all the content they would get with cable. There's a cost to cutting the cord and this is one of those costs.

[And That]

So basically nothing has changed, right?

 

Subscription prices have been cut, among other things mentioned in the article.

[jjgott]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/01/19/mlb-tv-settlement-is-big-win-for-baseball-fans/?tid=sm_fb

 

Why can't it just be, here's the flat cost to buy all your team's games for a season as a separate subscription, no cable subscription, no nothing. But again....it's progress.

 

Well if you live out of market, it seems the new single-team package does just that. For in market, I would assume because the RSNs pay a lot of money to broadcast those games in the home market, they are within their rights to limit access to the broadcast to people who pay for the RSN.

 

Now what is/isn't a "home market" is absolutely still a point of contention.

[pacopete4]

So it'll cost be $85 to watch all Brewers games with no blackout restrictions no matter where I live? Or am I wrong?

[Outlander]

So it'll cost be $85 to watch all Brewers games with no blackout restrictions no matter where I live? Or am I wrong?

Incorrect, which is why many will complain it doesn't go far enough. The people that mainly want to watch Brewers games live in Milwaukee or Wisconsin, the Brewers games are still blacked out there among other places.

[And That]

It will be $85 to get a Brewers-only subscription for out-of-market customers. Within the blackout zone, you'd still need a subscription to a cable company that carries FSW. Then you could get a Brewers-only subscription for $95, if I read it correctly.

[BallFour]

Can't you use a VPN app to get the games in market? I do it with College Basketball...for whatever reason the black out UWM games

[pacopete4]

It will be $85 to get a Brewers-only subscription for out-of-market customers. Within the blackout zone, you'd still need a subscription to a cable company that carries FSW. Then you could get a Brewers-only subscription for $95, if I read it correctly.

 

 

Okay so I have DirecTV and I live in Iowa City, Iowa. I can buy a Brewers only subscription for $95?

[And That]

MLB will offer single-team packages for $84.99, the lawyers for the fans said, which is a 23 percent drop from the previously cheapest option available. Previously, fans were only offered the option of purchasing access to every televised MLB game.

 

The price of the full television package was reduced to $110 annually.

 

“We believe this settlement brings significant change to the sports broadcasting landscape,” said one of the plaintiff lawyers, Ned Diver, to the Associated Press. “It is a big win for baseball fans.”

 

Also, the settlement allows fans to watch the visiting team’s television feed when they play “in-market” teams, as long as that fan is an authorized cable subscriber to the Regional Sports Network that carries the “in-market” team’s games. That option, which would be a first across all major professional sporting leagues, will be available by July for an extra $10 and will be a breakthrough to current blackouts.

[JohnBriggs12]

I live in Chicago and I'm a Directv customer. My reading of it is that it would cost me $85 for a single team subscription to watch Brewers only. If I had Comcast cable as my provider, I could pay the extra $10 to get the Brewer broadcast of Brewer/Cub games, as Comcast is the Cub cable provider, but as a Directv subscriber that option would not be available and I would get those games only through the Cub feed.

 

That's a pretty significant savings though I got to say I'll miss watching Brewer games with the out of town perspectives and to get away from Brian and Bill, that I often used so I may opt to pay the $110 for the full package which is still down significantly.

 

On the other hand, I want to see the single team subscription succeed wildly as I'd love for the NFL to adopt it too.

[jerichoholicninja]

So basically nothing has changed, right?

 

Subscription prices have been cut, among other things mentioned in the article.

 

I understand fees have been cut. But people like me who live in the Milwaukee market still can't watch the Brewers without a cable subscription. So really, nothing has changed.

[Paul77]

Can't you use a VPN app to get the games in market? I do it with College Basketball...for whatever reason the black out UWM games

 

Yes. I used a $5/month VPN to watch in market games (on top of my $paid for MLB.tv subscription).

[pitchleague]

Woot for me! $110 for an Arizonan Directv subscriber is about $90 off the regular price.

 

Of course, they'll probably boost Sunday Ticket to $600 next season to off-set the savings.

[502 to Right]

So basically nothing has changed, right?

 

Subscription prices have been cut, among other things mentioned in the article.

 

I understand fees have been cut. But people like me who live in the Milwaukee market still can't watch the Brewers without a cable subscription. So really, nothing has changed.

 

Get cable or DirecTV. Problem solved.

[owbc]

Get cable or DirecTV. Problem solved.

 

Not everyone wants to pay nearly $1,000 per year to watch sports on TV.

 

I watch sports on my laptop using free streaming websites. The quality of the free sites has gotten considerably better in the past few years. I'll be happy to start paying again when sports packages are offered at a reasonable cost. But for now, the alternatives are a much better option than going through the expense of buying a TV and cable package.

[craigharmann]

Get cable or DirecTV. Problem solved.

 

Not everyone wants to pay nearly $1,000 per year to watch sports on TV.

 

I watch sports on my laptop using free streaming websites. The quality of the free sites has gotten considerably better in the past few years. I'll be happy to start paying again when sports packages are offered at a reasonable cost. But for now, the alternatives are a much better option than going through the expense of buying a TV and cable package.

 

That's exactly it. People are moving toward on demand programming, and less toward the standard cable/satellite. I did it because I didn't feel I was getting good value.

[RobDeer 45]

Ok, I know MLB wants to make sure all the regional sports offer a similar product before they allow in market fans to purchase streaming options of their teams. To me the problem is that when you stream games out of market now, they don't show the commercials. Regional sports channels pay a lot of money to broadcast a team's games. They get that money back by getting advertising, and a lot of that is local. Wouldn't MLB solve the problem if they just showed the commercials? Then came up with a payment option that gave the needed amount to the regional sports channel and kept what they needed?

[jerichoholicninja]

Ok, I know MLB wants to make sure all the regional sports offer a similar product before they allow in market fans to purchase streaming options of their teams. To me the problem is that when you stream games out of market now, they don't show the commercials. Regional sports channels pay a lot of money to broadcast a team's games. They get that money back by getting advertising, and a lot of that is local. Wouldn't MLB solve the problem if they just showed the commercials? Then came up with a payment option that gave the needed amount to the regional sports channel and kept what they needed?

 

If Joe's Used Car Emporium in Zalienople on Riverview Road right next to the airport is getting advertisement on MLB.tv in it's current format, it's not reaching anyone that is remotely close to his business. Joe's getting huge exposure to people that aren't in his market and he's paying for that. I don't see why he would want to.

[RobDeer 45]

Agreed. But i'm saying that they just show the commercials on the "in market" feeds and allow those people to have a separate streaming plan with MLB. Instead of trying to have the regional stations figure out their own streaming, just run it through mlb.tv. Maybe it costs a little more so that the regionals get what they want and don't lose out on advertising dollars from the local market.

[Funketown]

My biggest issue with the blackout rules is that there are areas where teams are blacked out on MLB.tv and also quite difficult to find on local cable plans. This may have changed in the past 5 years, but when I lived in Iowa, I could not watch Milwaukee, Minnesota, the Cubs, White Sox, Kansas City, or St. Louis. However, I'm not sure FS Wisconsin was available on any cable packages (they may have been on specialty tiers).

 

But this is all a bit silly; I would much rather be a true 'out-of-market' fan following the Brewers than a fan in Wisconsin. I may not sign up this year simply because the team won't compete, but I'll certainly return to MLBtv if they become competitive in the next 2-3 years.

[Surhoff5]

I live in Madison and do not have cable. However, if I used my buddy's login information for Charter, could I purchase the MLB package and be able to stream Brewer games with this new settlement? I was a little unsure on that.

[502 to Right]

My biggest issue with the blackout rules is that there are areas where teams are blacked out on MLB.tv and also quite difficult to find on local cable plans. This may have changed in the past 5 years, but when I lived in Iowa, I could not watch Milwaukee, Minnesota, the Cubs, White Sox, Kansas City, or St. Louis. However, I'm not sure FS Wisconsin was available on any cable packages (they may have been on specialty tiers).

 

But this is all a bit silly; I would much rather be a true 'out-of-market' fan following the Brewers than a fan in Wisconsin. I may not sign up this year simply because the team won't compete, but I'll certainly return to MLBtv if they become competitive in the next 2-3 years.

 

This is where the current rules are broken. I don't have any sympathy for someone who is truly in market and complains about not getting Brewer games when they choose to stream their content online and not get cable or DirecTV. You made your bed...

 

But for people in Iowa to be considered "in market" for Milwaukee is completely stupid. There are many examples of this stupidity.