Front Page: No MLB Network? Then No Game for You!

[FlauerPauer]

I don't have any of that except very good internet. I will be watching every game wherever I am in HD. The internet is easy boys and girls.

[boomerb5]

To everyone saying "all you need is YouTubeTV and Hulu and Blahblahblah". You also need high speed internet. Not everyone has the ability to do that at home. Why in the snot are these games not on free over-the-air TV? With digital subchannels that should be easy.

 

And repeating for those who have a tough time comprehending....mlb.tv is NOT an option. They black out 100% of the local team's games (the only ones I care about).

[#1ShaneMackFan]

 

For seven days. That doesn't cover the playoffs. Unless only the two wild card games are on that network, you couldn't watch a wild card team that wins play without buying YouTube TV. Which I'm told breaks down during sports quite often.

I'm not "looking for any reason to criticize", I've been consistent on this. The playoffs should be on broadcast tv locally. The locals pay for that stadium. I don't expect you to agree, I'm cool with that.

Also, what Brock says. It isn't one channel....

I've had YTTV for almost 2 years. It has never once "broken down." It was the best decision I ever made as far as entertainment. People who haven't cut the cord need to take a breath and look into it. It is so easy, and it is as good or even better than when I had DirecTV.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've had YTTV for almost 2 years. It has never once "broken down." It was the best decision I ever made as far as entertainment. People who haven't cut the cord need to take a breath and look into it. It is so easy, and it is as good or even better than when I had DirecTV.

It doesn’t make sense that YouTube would go down under pressure.

 

There are literally zero server setups more reliable than Google.

 

Zero.

 

With that said, I generally avoid giving Google money whenever possible because I so strongly disagree with how they treat user data.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm just reporting what two different people told me. Could have been internet issues locally.....

 

But that's such a nit, in the real discussion....

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm just reporting what two different people told me. Could have been internet issues locally.....

 

But that's such a nit, in the real discussion....

The average person has almost no ability to tell the difference between server failure, local network failure, or ISP failure. Pretty much never believe anyone’s report about the reliability of a service unless they’re a sysadmin.

 

But your argument at large on is on point, in my opinion.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

To everyone saying "all you need is YouTubeTV and Hulu and Blahblahblah". You also need high speed internet. Not everyone has the ability to do that at home. Why in the snot are these games not on free over-the-air TV? With digital subchannels that should be easy.

It's not a matter of OTA space. Have you seen what's on most digital subchannels? It's not a place where networks want to place any content of value (either MLB baseball or the primetime programming it would displace).

 

I love OTA TV, but baseball (and basketball, and hockey -- basically everything but the NFL) are cable sports, and have been for a very long time. Most anyone with any interest in the Twins or baseball already knows that, so they're already prepared. The biggest bandwagon jumpers probably won't get on until the World Series anyway, which will still be OTA. (Some ALCS games might be OTA too.)

 

Edit to add: also, internet doesn't have to be too "high speed". I've got a pretty limited connection, but I've been able to stream MLB.TV and other services just fine (albeit not usually at max quality).

Edited October 3, 2019 by spycake

[nokomismod]

 

It doesn’t make sense that YouTube would go down under pressure.

There are literally zero server setups more reliable than Google.

Zero.

With that said, I generally avoid giving Google money whenever possible because I so strongly disagree with how they treat user data.

Brock who in this large media business isn't taking liberties with your data? 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here's an old article on the MLB Network strategy:

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mlb-network-playoff-gamble-pays-off-aids-viewers/

 

They've done free previews for each of the last 4 postseasons. I don't think they are being particularly unreasonable or fan unfriendly in this instance.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock who in this large media business isn't taking liberties with your data? 

Apple.

 

But most are pretty bad. Google and Facebook are terrible because of the comprehensive data they accumulate across multiple platforms. It's actually impossible to avoid them if you use the internet, even if you never sign up for a single service from either of them.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's not a matter of OTA space. Have you seen what's on most digital subchannels? It's not a place where networks want to place any content of value (either MLB baseball or the primetime programming it would displace).

 

I love OTA TV, but baseball (and basketball, and hockey -- basically everything but the NFL) are cable sports, and have been for a very long time. Most anyone with any interest in the Twins or baseball already knows that, so they're already prepared. The biggest bandwagon jumpers probably won't get on until the World Series anyway, which will still be OTA. (Some ALCS games might be OTA too.)

 

Edit to add: also, internet doesn't have to be too "high speed". I've got a pretty limited connection, but I've been able to stream MLB.TV and other services just fine (albeit not usually at max quality).

While I disagree with the general stance taken by sports leagues and conferences, I will quickly admit that OTA isn't an option and hasn't been for years.

 

I've voiced my complaints about individual networks and leveraging them into large provider packages and that's my major issue with this particular situation.

 

If this is the ball we want to play with consumers, give consumers a direct choice. I will pay MLB $5/mo for MLB Network separately and stream it through MLB.tv. Easy-peasy, no muss, no fuss.

 

If you want to get my money, I'll give it to you directly. But that's not what these networks want, they want to be bundled into massive packages and they ALL want their cut.

[nokomismod]

 

Apple.

 

But most are pretty bad. Google and Facebook are terrible because of the comprehensive data they accumulate across multiple platforms. It's actually impossible to avoid them if you use the internet, even if you never sign up for a single service from either of them.

I agree, but I think cutting the cord and streaming makes sense (both financially and for quality of service) and do I really care that Google knows that I watch mostly sports along with knowing what I email and search?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I agree, but I think cutting the cord and streaming makes sense (both financially and for quality of service) and do I really care that Google knows that I watch mostly sports along with knowing what I email and search?

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. I simply won't give Google money, though I use several of their free services because why bother NOT using their services? They know everything anyway.

 

But if you actually realized the sheer amount of data Google knows about you, you'd probably crap yourself.

 

For example, Google almost certainly knows 90% of the websites you've visited in the past year and almost everything you've done on your phone. It doesn't matter if you use Chrome or not, they know. And how they do it is super ****ty. 

 

The same goes for Facebook.

[nokomismod]

 

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. I simply won't give Google money, though I use several of their free services because why bother NOT using their services? They know everything anyway.

 

But if you actually realized the sheer amount of data Google knows about you, you'd probably crap yourself.

 

For example, Google almost certainly knows 90% of the websites you've visited in the past year and almost everything you've done on your phone. It doesn't matter if you use Chrome or not, they know. And how they do it is super ****ty. 

 

The same goes for Facebook.

yes, I agree they created a product that we cannot do without and I can see why you do not want to give them more $. Still for some reason I would rather pay less for their better product vs paying comcast.

Edited October 3, 2019 by nokomismod

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

yes, I agree they created a product that we cannot do without and I can see why you do not want to give them more $. Still for some reason I would rather pay less for their better product vs paying comcast.

Don't even get me started on Comcast. I mean, they're not Verizon, but they're the second-biggest villain in ISP/cell service going today.

 

Consolidation has absolutely crippled consumers in tech choices. All of them are bad. The only real option is to pay Apple but they also have their own issues, namely that they're Apple and jerks about most things (sometimes in a good way, such as privacy, but often in a bad way, such as "the only way you can do this is to give us money because we're Apple").

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If this is the ball we want to play with consumers, give consumers a direct choice. I will pay MLB $5/mo for MLB Network separately and stream it through MLB.tv. Easy-peasy, no muss, no fuss.

That's not realistic. Relatively few people would sign up for that, compared to the number that already get it through their TV provider, and a direct offering would diminish the value of the network so those providers would drop it and MLB would lose their revenue.

 

And even if your $5 per head could make up the subscriber revenue, in the end it would put MLB in front of a vastly smaller audience.

 

This argument reminds me of the "MLB.TV should have no blackouts!" crowd. Networks currently pay BILLIONS for the exclusive rights that lead to those blackouts -- and there's no way MLB.TV subscribers would ever be numerous enough, and/or pay enough, to replace those billions.

Edited October 3, 2019 by spycake

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's not realistic. Relatively few people would sign up for that, compared to the number that already get it through their TV provider, and a direct offering would diminish the value of the network so those providers would drop it and MLB would lose their revenue.

 

And even if your $5 per head could make up the subscriber revenue, in the end it would put MLB in front of a vastly smaller audience.

 

This argument reminds me of the "MLB.TV should have no blackouts!" crowd. Networks currently pay BILLIONS for the exclusive rights that lead to those blackouts -- and there's no way MLB.TV subscribers would ever be numerous enough, and/or pay enough, to replace those billions.

Do you realize how powerful the MLBAM tech has become? Disney literally bought them to power the coming behemoth that is Disney+. That's how good the tech is and if you look at what it powers, you'll realize that MLB created something pretty special when they decided to go down this road almost 20 years ago.

 

I'm not saying they need to eliminate the package push, I'm saying they could slot in the $5/mo package with so little difficulty that it's a no-brainer. Add a simple package into MLB.tv and it's done. That's it. The entire infrastructure exists to do this and it's more than flipping a switch, but not a lot more.

 

But no, let's not break the mold. Let's just keep pushing this same system that has made more and more viewers leave over the past decade and abandon sports as a whole.

 

It's a bad system. Offer an alternative. 

 

This is why I was soooo hopeful that Amazon - despite me hating them quite a bit - would buy Fox's sports division. They would have absolutely destroyed this mold that is begging to be destroyed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Do you realize how powerful the MLBAM tech has become? Disney literally bought them to power the coming behemoth that is Disney+. That's how good the tech is and if you look at what it powers, you'll realize that MLB created something pretty special when they decided to go down this road almost 20 years ago.

 

I'm not saying they need to eliminate the package push, I'm saying they could slot in the $5/mo package with so little difficulty that it's a no-brainer. Add a simple package into MLB.tv and it's done. That's it. The entire infrastructure exists to do this and it's more than flipping a switch, but not a lot more.

 

But no, let's not break the mold. Let's just keep pushing this same system that has made more and more viewers leave over the past decade and abandon sports as a whole.

 

It's a bad system. Offer an alternative. 

 

This is why I was soooo hopeful that Amazon - despite me hating them quite a bit - would buy Fox's sports division. They would have absolutely destroyed this mold that is begging to be destroyed.

 

It's not an infrastructure issue at all. I agree it would be easy, technology-wise, for MLB to offer MLB Network for streaming. (Just like it would be easy, technology-wise, for Fox to put an MLB game on an OTA digital subchannel.)

 

But it's not a practical business decision right now. Providers would drop MLB Network if MLB was selling it to customers directly (after all, they're not going to pay X cents per subscriber when the people who really care about the channel are already getting it elsewhere), and it doesn't matter how powerful MLBAM is -- there's no way that the niche audience of us diehards would make up the lost revenue *and* the lost eyeballs/exposure/accessibility/etc. MLB already has most diehards hooked, one way or another -- with MLB Network, they want to get their channel in front of lots of non-fans too. Look at the free previews they've done in the postseason -- four years in a row.

 

TV ratings are down, but I don't think that many people are "abandoning sports as a whole." Sports are still huge. The landscape is evolving, and competition is growing, but they're still huge, and MLB would be pretty much alone in abandoning major TV providers to sell direct to the consumer right now, and would likely suffer for it.

 

I do agree about Amazon -- I too was hoping they'd get the Fox RSNs, and at least offer them in something close to Sling's base package price. Maybe it wouldn't have made financial sense, but it would have been fun, with much greater importance than however MLB chooses to distribute their MLB Network.

Edited October 3, 2019 by spycake

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's not an infrastructure issue at all. I agree it would be easy, technology-wise, for MLB to offer MLB Network for streaming. (Just like it would be easy, technology-wise, for Fox to put an MLB game on an OTA digital subchannel.)

 

But it's not a practical business decision right now. Providers would drop MLB Network if MLB was selling it to customers directly (after all, they're not going to pay X cents per subscriber when the people who really care about the channel are already getting it elsewhere), and it doesn't matter how powerful MLBAM is -- there's no way that the niche audience of us diehards would make up the lost revenue *and* the lost eyeballs/exposure/accessibility/etc. MLB already has most diehards hooked, one way or another -- with MLB Network, they want to get their channel in front of lots of non-fans too. Look at the free previews they've done in the postseason -- four years in a row.

 

TV ratings are down, but I don't think that many people are "abandoning sports as a whole." Sports are still huge. The landscape is evolving, and competition is growing, but they're still huge, and MLB would be pretty much alone in abandoning major TV providers to sell direct to the consumer right now, and would likely suffer for it.

 

I do agree about Amazon -- I too was hoping they'd get the Fox RSNs, and at least offer them in something close to Sling's base package price. Maybe it wouldn't have made financial sense, but it would have been fun, with much greater importance than however MLB chooses to distribute their MLB Network.

See, I disagree.

 

First, MLB giving users the ability to pay them directly is not the same as OTA using a sub-channel to get users to not-pay.

 

Second, I'm not sure providers will care if a channel is offering a streaming service to users at an inflated price. The crossover there is limited. If a provider is charging $10/mo for ten channels and MLB is charging $5/mo to stream, where is the real crossover there? Cord-cutters are already operating under a different demographic so the overlap is small. It's not as if Comcast is going to lose much by not selling to a demographic that isn't using their service in the first place.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Second, I'm not sure providers will care if a channel is offering a streaming service to users at an inflated price. The crossover there is limited. If a provider is charging $10/mo for ten channels and MLB is charging $5/mo to stream, where is the real crossover there? Cord-cutters are already operating under a different demographic so the overlap is small. It's not as if Comcast is going to lose much by not selling to a demographic that isn't using their service in the first place.

$5 is an inflated price?

 

How many networks sell their channels directly to the consumer, as well as have wide cable carriage? It doesn't happen, and it's not because all networks are dumb. It's a tight business and Comcast and others aren't going to pay any carriage fees they don't have to.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

$5 is an inflated price?

How many networks sell their channels directly to the consumer, as well as have wide cable carriage? It doesn't happen, and it's not because all networks are dumb. It's a tight business and Comcast and others aren't going to pay any carriage fees they don't have to.

$5/mo is not an inflated price if you already have the infrastructure built and in place, which is why I brought up MLBAM and MLB.tv in the first place.

 

Or maybe you think MLBN gets more money than that by bundling into a $10/mo package with 12 other stations?

 

Again, I don't think you appreciate how easy it is to pull in something like this to the MLBAM tech. They don't do it because they don't want to, not because it's not feasible or, god forbid, easy. They are sticking themselves in playing the existing game, which is a game of diminishing returns and user refusal.

 

At some point in the near future, this is all going to implode. They could have gotten out in front of that but they're not. They continue to play this losing game of forcing users into doing things they don't want to do.

 

Remember that MLBAM actually *broke* this idea in the early going with streaming tech in the first place (which is why they're a LEADER now), yet they're not pushing forward with it.

 

Without MLBAM, where would we even be with sports streaming? And how many "bridges did they burn" by doing that? Do you think that networks just laid down and accepted that MLB would stream baseball games over the internet in 2002, completely circumventing the entire cable subscription network in the process?

 

Yet MLBAM is doing just fine today, don't you think?

[Number3]

I was looking forward to watching the game but if I can't, frankly, who cares. Especially Game 1 at  Yankee Band Box which, if the Twins don't win no big deal. Formula is win both home games and 1 of 3 at the other place. TV used to be simple and any televised game in any sport was a big deal. Technology has made things more complicated instead of easier which is kind of ironic. I'll just follow the score and maybe Game 2 will be more available but I am not jumping through hoops credit card in hand just to see home runs and strike outs live. The highlights will be available everywhere.

[bighat]

News is that Comcast will broadcast game 1.

[USAFChief]

1. Don't blame MLB for the game not being on broadcast, OTA TV. None of Fox, CBS, or NBC want the game, they get way better ratings for their regularly scheduled programming than they would for an ALDS game. Baseball is still relatively local in nature. Be thankful MLB found someone willing to pay for the broadcast rights, and you have an avenue to watch it.

 

2. If you are one of the people who "cut the cord," it seems a bit of a stretch to now turn around and complain you can't get channels provided by "the cord."

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

$5/mo is not an inflated price if you already have the infrastructure built and in place, which is why I brought up MLBAM and MLB.tv in the first place.

 

Or maybe you think MLBN gets more money than that by bundling into a $10/mo package with 12 other stations?

 

Again, I don't think you appreciate how easy it is to pull in something like this to the MLBAM tech. They don't do it because they don't want to, not because it's not feasible or, god forbid, easy. They are sticking themselves in playing the existing game, which is a game of diminishing returns and user refusal.

 

At some point in the near future, this is all going to implode. They could have gotten out in front of that but they're not. They continue to play this losing game of forcing users into doing things they don't want to do.

 

Remember that MLBAM actually *broke* this idea in the early going with streaming tech in the first place (which is why they're a LEADER now), yet they're not pushing forward with it.

 

Without MLBAM, where would we even be with sports streaming? And how many "bridges did they burn" by doing that? Do you think that networks just laid down and accepted that MLB would stream baseball games over the internet in 2002, completely circumventing the entire cable subscription network in the process?

 

Yet MLBAM is doing just fine today, don't you think?

 

Brock, I've repeatedly said there is no *technical* issue preventing this. I know it would be easy for MLB to flip a switch and stream it from their servers. I appreciate that! But that's not the issue at all. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought that was the issue.

 

First off, Wikipedia says cable and satellite companies were offered a minority share in the network, so it may not be exclusively MLB's decision to make. I guess MLB could buy them out, but that's just going to risk it getting dropped by providers.

 

Here's an article that had MLB Network in 67 million households, at $0.28 each:

https://sportstvratings.com/how-much-more-does-espn-make-in-affiliate-revenue-than-the-other-sports-networks/5737/

 

If providers decided to offer just 8 cents less for MLB Network, it would take a million standalone subscribers at $5 per month to make up the lost revenue.

 

(And most of those subscribers would only subscribe for October, or at best April through October, so you'd probably need a lot more than 1 million of them. And if you made the single-month price higher, like $20, or $60 for the year, you can imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the folks on this thread.)

 

And I suspect it wouldn't just be an 8 cents across the board cut -- some providers would simply drop it, or for providers who don't already have it, they would be less likely to add it in the future, or even go along with MLB on this "free preview" thing.

 

MLB Network (and MLB.TV) are not big revenue generators, they are primarily promotional tools. Look at the free previews, the low carriage rates, the numerous free and discounted MLB.TV subscriptions, the limited number of unique MLB.TV commercials. Selling MLB Network directly to superfans has minimal revenue potential, and a lot of risk that it would constrict their promotional reach.

Edited October 3, 2019 by spycake

[Otto von Ballpark]

Look at what happened here -- with this game on MLB Network, there were news articles about MLB Network, and lots of folks petitioned Comcast about it and even got them to reverse a decision (albeit just about the free preview.) The same might happen in Houston and Tampa for their upcoming ALDS game on MLB Network.

 

That's what MLB wants to happen, rather than essentially selling this single game's stream for a couple bucks to us cordcutters. And it makes sense in the current environment. No one in their position is selling a la carte or bypassing providers and going direct to the consumer with that level of content. Someday it might make sense, but at this point, the criticism seems more like wishing than any kind of questionable decision on MLB's part.

[laloesch]

 

Same here, our local cable company doesn't even carry MLB tv. But this isn't about cable companies, it's about the greedy pigs that own MLB itself. They expect their fans to follow the team all year, celebrate wins, new players, a new baseball, and the chase for WC status. But, oh by the way, when it comes to watching the first playoff game, they take the bucks and run. It wraps up all the bad things about major sports in one neat little package! Ps: I hope my cynicism isn't too evident!

 

Commenting on the cable aspect of your comment.

 

It's not just MLB that's doing this the NHL has been like this for YEARS! They nickle and dime you every step of the way just to gain the privilege of watching their regular season and playoff games. Every time i open a cable bill that's almost $300 I keep thinking what the heck am i paying for here? Seriously! If you can't get the game on a local station you are going to pay out the wazoo to see it. If i didn't have to carry highspeed internet at home for work (i work from home often) and did give two hoots about sports and some tv stations i would have cut these bums (cable) off a long time ago.

Edited October 3, 2019 by laloesch

[meknowsalot]

I love baseball. I love the MN Twins. I loved MLB network when I could get it. I now support my small local cable company. I contacted them yesterday about getting MLB Network. They said MLB Network will NOT ALLOW them to even get it. The exact words were "MLB doesn't care about small markets and cable companies so they won't even allow us to get it." If this is true it's very sad. MLB has lost a great deal of viewership over the years. One would think you wouldn't want to lose more. 

 

Sent the above letter to MLB today.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I love baseball. I love the MN Twins. I loved MLB network when I could get it. I now support my small local cable company. I contacted them yesterday about getting MLB Network. They said MLB Network will NOT ALLOW them to even get it. The exact words were "MLB doesn't care about small markets and cable companies so they won't even allow us to get it." If this is true it's very sad. MLB has lost a great deal of viewership over the years. One would think you wouldn't want to lose more. 

 

Sent the above letter to MLB today.

 

I understand your frustration, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. I know MLB Network is available on some smaller cable companies -- they even have a web site where you can check:

 

https://www.mlb.com/network/get-mlb-network

 

Was this in reference to the free preview? I could see logistical problems with trying to offer that to lots of small providers. As for regular carriage, MLB and cable providers might disagree about what tier to offer the channel on too, aside from cost.

 

Out of curiosity, what is your cable company?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, to those saying "MLB is bad for spreading their postseason games across too many networks" -- the only two MLB Network games are on the only two days of the postseason when there are FOUR games going on. By comparison, the NFL playoffs never have more than 2 games in a day, and the length of those games is mostly fixed.

 

Given the variable lengths of these MLB games, those are probably the best days to spread them out across networks as much as possible. I remember 1995, when MLB tried overlapping postseason broadcasts, and they were pilloried for it!