Directv will charge $39 extra for 10 baseball in HD

[Paul Secic]

Would you pay an extra $39 for 10 baseball games per week on Directv?

1 YES

2 NO

[DCSholtis]

3 HELL YES and I WILL

[TMatt]

3 HELL YES and I WILL

Yeah, what Dan said :)

Tony M

[paulman182]

I'm not much of a baseball fan, but if I were going to watch the games, it sounds like a bargain to me.

[exorr]

I've been debating this. I already signed up for the MLB Package (Red Sox fan in NY!).

I would like to know how often the Red Sox games will be in HD and that will base my decision. I could care less about watching other games (except near the end of the season if another game matters for a pennant race).

I also checked the schedule at the link below.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIF.jsp?assetId=P1700157

Is this schedule accurate? It shows that the only Sox games that they will air from April 2 to April 10 are 2 of them (opening day and April 7). Basically I'd be missing 4 regular season games right at the beginning of the year. I had Extra Innings last year and every game was aired. WTF?!?

Ethan

[DawgLink]

Absolutely

I love HD games

[TMatt]

Would you pay an extra $39 for 10 baseball games per week on Directv?

1 YES

2 NO

Actually, the way I look at it is:

NFL Sunday Ticket + HD superfan + MLB Extra Innings + MLB Superfan is still $150 cheaper than my 1 Buffalo Bills season ticket was.

Tony M

[ScoBuck]

Well - it's gonna be announced soon that it is only $29 for renewal EI customers. But the way I figure it:

10 games a week for 26 weeks (yep the baseball season is 26 weeks) so a total of about 260 games:

$39 divided by 260 games = 15 cents a game
$29 divided by 260 games = about 11 cents a game

Both are a bargain IMO.

Compare to NFL SF:

17 weeks of 8-9 games for $99 bucks = about 150 games
$99 divided by 150 = 66 cents a game.

But also, since those games are really kind of ALL ON AT THE SAME TIME ON SUNDAYS - how many really can you watch?

The baseball games are 2-3 a day, they are at different times (each time zone starts at a different time), they are on EVERY day of the week, the season lasts 9 weeks longer. Please - its a great deal if you like baseball.

[heavyobjects]

I'm not thrilled about it, but I did anyway. Last year, as a Time Warner customer, I got EI at the same price and HD was free. They didn't air 10 games a week (will D* air that many - they say "up to 10..."), more like 4-5, but they were still free.

I switched to D* (not for EI, but many other reasons), and now I have what appears to be the only form of access to EI, ST, and so on. But the monopoly will be sticking it to me also... Oh well, I shouldn't expect the sports industry or the TV industry to have my best interests in mind. The price of being a fan....

[vollmey]

Already signed up, $40 is cheap. Heck, $159 for the package is cheap for what you get.

Dave

[islesfan]

I wouldn't pay anything for baseball (not trying to rile people up, just not a baseball fan), but I would gladly pay $39 extra for NHL in HD!

But, as it is, they air about 3 HD NHL games a week at no extra charge. Nevertheless, they almost never (once this year) show the Islanders in HD. In fact, HD Net has shown 2 Islanders games, whereas D* has only carried one on 95, so I have gotten more NHL HD for free than I have with NHL center Ice!

[DCSholtis]

I've been debating this. I already signed up for the MLB Package (Red Sox fan in NY!).

I would like to know how often the Red Sox games will be in HD and that will base my decision. I could care less about watching other games (except near the end of the season if another game matters for a pennant race).

I also checked the schedule at the link below.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIF.jsp?assetId=P1700157

Is this schedule accurate? It shows that the only Sox games that they will air from April 2 to April 10 are 2 of them (opening day and April 7). Basically I'd be missing 4 regular season games right at the beginning of the year. I had Extra Innings last year and every game was aired. WTF?!?

Ethan

No that isnt an accurate schedule yet on the website.

[exorr]

No that isnt an accurate schedule yet on the website.

Thank god...:)

[paco1986]

No that isnt an accurate schedule yet on the website.

Yep, not accurate at all.

[Bugs Bunny]

No that isnt an accurate schedule yet on the website.

Good since the schedule currently has ESPN, ESPN2 games as HD games. As long as the 10 games does not include the ESPN games, I'm happy paying.

[leww37334]

another "3" answer, already signed up

[bonscott87]

I wouldn't pay anything for baseball (not trying to rile people up, just not a baseball fan), but I would gladly pay $39 extra for NHL in HD!


+1 !! I hope the NHL gets the same treatment next season, I might actually sub to Center Ice again.

As for the question, *if* I liked baseball (which I don't) I find $39 for 10 HD games a week for the next 6 months a bargain by any definition. Wouldn't even be a second thought.

[ScoBuck]

I wouldn't pay anything for baseball (not trying to rile people up, just not a baseball fan), but I would gladly pay $39 extra for NHL in HD!

But, as it is, they air about 3 HD NHL games a week at no extra charge. Nevertheless, they almost never (once this year) show the Islanders in HD. In fact, HD Net has shown 2 Islanders games, whereas D* has only carried one on 95, so I have gotten more NHL HD for free than I have with NHL center Ice!

There aren't more Isles games (or Rangers games) shown in HD because the DOLANS control the HD versions of MSG and FSNY and haven't offered them to anyone but themselves (CABLEVISION). And they have the nerve to complain that MLB did an exclusive!!!!!

BTW, just like baseball the past couple of years - the few HD games available were offered 'gratis' - but you will be paying for them extra next year - you can bet your sweet A&&.

[raott]

Didn't some renewals report they were automatically upgraded to Superfan for free?

I'm really not sure why people consider it a "bargain" to pay $29 to get something I got for free last year. Is there going to be more HD games than last year?

Edit: Actually $39 more, the base package was also increased $10.

[shoeheel]

Will I get to watch my local team in HD, or will it be blacked out?

[LGM2007]

Most definitely.

[capecodsooner]

No for me.

Every Sox game should be in HD in my market.

But it is cheap if you get EXTRA games in HD.

By EXTRA I mean those that are not on FOX, ESPN, or ESPN2, and if you are lucky enough your local RSN -- if locals are available in HD from D* or OTA.

By taking a look at the "tentative" D* schedule vs. the HD sports schedule listed at http://www.hdsportsguide.com I could see that day 3 of the season (April 1st) I will get 6 games in HD already - the ESPN game (NY vs Tampa) an the NESN (Sox vs KC) and ESPN2 games (Balt. vs Min AND Rangers vs Angles) in HD. 6of the 8 games that afternoon/evening/late evening will probably be sufficient - along with squeezing in the NCAA Final.

If the tentative schedule is correct (and I would hope that at this late stage at least the first day is) why are there 9 games being broadcast in HD that day but only 3 being shown in total for EI package -- and none really EXTRA as they are already being broadcast? And those that are listed are showing on ESPN which anyone with ESPN in HD should recieve???????

I would have thought the EI-HD games would have been those not being shown on a national network already -- Indians vs White Sox, Cubbies vs Reds, and Seattle vs Oakland.

Or am I going to get a black screen and an extension to call when I try to watch ESPN that night? I assume that is what will happen during the Red Sox game but during the other ESPN broadasts I should be good to go.:confused:

An aditional conflict with that schedule is that Cubs/Reds game is shown as being on FSN - Ohio but DTV shows it on ESPN.


GO DTV......juggle that bandwidth!

[Satelliteracer]

Well - it's gonna be announced soon that it is only $29 for renewal EI customers. But the way I figure it:

10 games a week for 26 weeks (yep the baseball season is 26 weeks) so a total of about 260 games:

$39 divided by 260 games = 15 cents a game
$29 divided by 260 games = about 11 cents a game

Both are a bargain IMO.

Compare to NFL SF:

17 weeks of 8-9 games for $99 bucks = about 150 games
$99 divided by 150 = 66 cents a game.

But also, since those games are really kind of ALL ON AT THE SAME TIME ON SUNDAYS - how many really can you watch?

The baseball games are 2-3 a day, they are at different times (each time zone starts at a different time), they are on EVERY day of the week, the season lasts 9 weeks longer. Please - its a great deal if you like baseball.

Where are you hearing that it will be $29 announced soon? I don't think so.

:)

[Satelliteracer]

By the way, an HD schedule should be coming very soon for MLB. It is close to being ready, at least the early month(s) of games.

[DawgLink]

By the way, an HD schedule should be coming very soon for MLB. It is close to being ready, at least the early month(s) of games.

Is there a chance that as the year progresses, D* will show MORE games in HD?

[Satelliteracer]

Is there a chance that as the year progresses, D* will show MORE games in HD?

You mean MORE THAN 10 per week? That's an average number so some weeks early on you may be 6 per week and later during the Summer you might get 13. It's basically a total number divided by the number of weeks in the season.

The total number is based on what the various broadcasters deliver to us and then how the capacity on our end looks for a given week or day.

For example, the preliminary schedule (will be up online soon) has 9 HD games week one, then 14 games week two, then 10 games week three. It will ebb and flow based on the criteria above.

Hope that helps.

[DawgLink]

Ya, I was wondering if as the year goes on...D* may be showing 15+ or some HD games a week

[Satelliteracer]

Ya, I was wondering if as the year goes on...D* may be showing 15+ or some HD games a week

Yes, week 2 there are 14 games in HD preliminarily scheduled.

[heavyobjects]

Yes, week 2 there are 14 games in HD preliminarily scheduled.

According to what schedule? Official statement from D* is "up to 10 games" per week. And we know what that means. Although that would leave room to be pleasantly surprised. EI did offer more HD as the season went on last year, it seemed.

[Satelliteracer]

According to what schedule? Official statement from D* is "up to 10 games" per week. And we know what that means. Although that would leave room to be pleasantly surprised. EI did offer more HD as the season went on last year, it seemed.

According to the "PRELIMINARY" schedule which will be "ONLINE SOON"

:D

[exorr]

No for me.

Every Sox game should be in HD in my market.

But it is cheap if you get EXTRA games in HD.

By EXTRA I mean those that are not on FOX, ESPN, or ESPN2, and if you are lucky enough your local RSN -- if locals are available in HD from D* or OTA.

By taking a look at the "tentative" D* schedule vs. the HD sports schedule listed at http://www.hdsportsguide.com I could see that day 3 of the season (April 1st) I will get 6 games in HD already - the ESPN game (NY vs Tampa) an the NESN (Sox vs KC) and ESPN2 games (Balt. vs Min AND Rangers vs Angles) in HD. 6of the 8 games that afternoon/evening/late evening will probably be sufficient - along with squeezing in the NCAA Final.

If the tentative schedule is correct (and I would hope that at this late stage at least the first day is) why are there 9 games being broadcast in HD that day but only 3 being shown in total for EI package -- and none really EXTRA as they are already being broadcast? And those that are listed are showing on ESPN which anyone with ESPN in HD should recieve???????

I would have thought the EI-HD games would have been those not being shown on a national network already -- Indians vs White Sox, Cubbies vs Reds, and Seattle vs Oakland.

Or am I going to get a black screen and an extension to call when I try to watch ESPN that night? I assume that is what will happen during the Red Sox game but during the other ESPN broadasts I should be good to go.:confused:

An aditional conflict with that schedule is that Cubs/Reds game is shown as being on FSN - Ohio but DTV shows it on ESPN.


GO DTV......juggle that bandwidth!

In all my years I've NEVER seen an ESPN game blacked out. Sometimes they will have one game on in one market and another in another market, but they should never black out ESPN no matter what is being shown locally.

[Zeos]

Nope....

Any more I feel like I'm being 'nickel and dimed' to death for HD content...There's gotta be a breaking point, and I've personally reached mine.....

[capecodsooner]

Exorr: I agree.....I have not seen a game blacked out either.

That being said it would seem to me to be a bandwidth type decision at some level.

By that I mean D* using spotbeam bandwidth and my NESN natinoal bandwidth simultaneously to get me the game.

Similar to the situation where non-hd channels (VS or FSNE) sometimes are allotted bandwidth to show me a Celtics or Bruins game on CH 95/96

I'll definately be watcing though and won't be surprised if is blacked out on ESPN or NESN on my set --- or able to be viewed on both.

All I know is that I better be able to watch it on one of those two channels and my preference is Don Orsillo and Jerry Remmy on NESN-HD (623.1) over "back, back, back, back, Berman. Whaaaaaat!????

:lol:

Not to mention a little bit of Hazel Mae, Tina Cervasio, and Kathryn Tappen when the action gets a little slow.:eek2:

[saleen351]

I would give them 500 bucks a season to get 100% of the YES feed with HD... maybe some day..

[heavyobjects]

I would give them 500 bucks a season to get 100% of the YES feed with HD... maybe some day..

Careful what you wish for.

[L2BENGTREK]

OK, I've browsed this thread briefly so if the answer to this is in here...sorry!

With me being in Cincinnati and I want to watch a Reds game thats labeled on the schedule as "FSN - HD" and I have the HD package from Direct TV, will I be able to see it in HD...or do I have to sign up for something extra?

[bigpuma]

OK, I've browsed this thread briefly so if the answer to this is in here...sorry!

With me being in Cincinnati and I want to watch a Reds game thats labeled on the schedule as "FSN - HD" and I have the HD package from Direct TV, will I be able to see it in HD...or do I have to sign up for something extra?

Looking here, (http://www.dbstalk.com/hr20/html/DIRECTV_lil_list.html) it doesn't look like Cincinnati gets a local RSN in HD. So you might not be able to get the games in HD with or without the package.

Here in the Bay Area we get FSN BA in HD on channel 96 when games are on. We do not need to get MLB-EI to get local games in HD, only to get out of market games in HD.

[islesfan]

There aren't more Isles games (or Rangers games) shown in HD because the DOLANS control the HD versions of MSG and FSNY and haven't offered them to anyone but themselves (CABLEVISION). And they have the nerve to complain that MLB did an exclusive!!!!!

BTW, just like baseball the past couple of years - the few HD games available were offered 'gratis' - but you will be paying for them extra next year - you can bet your sweet A&&.

If you take out the 8 games v. the Rangers, and the 8 v. the Devils (then remove the 8 v. the Flyers, because the Flyers are not available on D*), that makes 24 games that are totally unavailable in HD to D* due to the cable restrictions. That leaves 58 games that they could have shown in HD. They showed NONE. The only HD broadcast was ONE of the several Isles games on Vs. I love listening to Howie and Billy, but I would take the away broadcast if it was in HD (even if it is a Sabres feed, I'll just turn the volume down...)

[PlanetBill]

If I watched more baseball on a regular basis, yeah I would.

[exorr]

Exorr: I agree.....I have not seen a game blacked out either.

That being said it would seem to me to be a bandwidth type decision at some level.

By that I mean D* using spotbeam bandwidth and my NESN natinoal bandwidth simultaneously to get me the game.

Similar to the situation where non-hd channels (VS or FSNE) sometimes are allotted bandwidth to show me a Celtics or Bruins game on CH 95/96

I'll definately be watcing though and won't be surprised if is blacked out on ESPN or NESN on my set --- or able to be viewed on both.

All I know is that I better be able to watch it on one of those two channels and my preference is Don Orsillo and Jerry Remmy on NESN-HD (623.1) over "back, back, back, back, Berman. Whaaaaaat!????

:lol:

Not to mention a little bit of Hazel Mae, Tina Cervasio, and Kathryn Tappen when the action gets a little slow.:eek2:

I agree, I wish I could watch Orsillo and Remy. Thankfully the MLB Package seems to play the NESN broadcast 75% of the time, which is nice for me :)

I don't expect either to be blacked out. You should have your choice. I don't know if they'll ever worry about that kind of bandwidth, it would be a bit difficult to manage something like that :)

[ScoBuck]

If you take out the 8 games v. the Rangers, and the 8 v. the Devils (then remove the 8 v. the Flyers, because the Flyers are not available on D*), that makes 24 games that are totally unavailable in HD to D* due to the cable restrictions. That leaves 58 games that they could have shown in HD. They showed NONE. The only HD broadcast was ONE of the several Isles games on Vs. I love listening to Howie and Billy, but I would take the away broadcast if it was in HD (even if it is a Sabres feed, I'll just turn the volume down...)

In fact, this point was brought up by DirecTV today in the Senate hearings regarding the MLB contract. They said that other providers (the cable companies) don't offer up their sports programming in Philly and San Diego, so unless you sub to the cable co you can't even watch the local teams play - and now the same companies are complaining because they may not be able to offer MLB package.

They want to have their cake and eat it too it seems. And this 'exclusivity' stuff is NOTHING new. Cablevision has a local news channel here - they won't let D* have it either. Cablevision won't give up the HD version of the RSN's it owns - and so on and so on.

BTW, DirecTV also mentioned in the hearings that E* refuses to put YES on their system, depriving NY sports fans access to the most highly rated RSN in the country.

[DCSholtis]

Were the hearings on TV?

[ScoBuck]

Were the hearings on TV?
Here is Chase Carey's statement to the Senate:

Chase Carey
President and Chief Executive Officer, DIRECTV, Inc.
Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 27, 2007
Chairman Inouye, Co-Chairman Stevens, and members of the Committee, my name is Chase Carey. I am the President and CEO of DIRECTV. Thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding DIRECTV’s recently announced agreement with Major League Baseball (“MLB”) to continue to carry MLB’s Extra Innings package of out-of-town baseball games. I would like to address four issues today. First, I’ll describe the fair, open, and arm’s length negotiation for carriage of Extra Innings – a negotiation resulting directly from the pro-competitive, pro-consumer policies Congress has put in place. DIRECTV has entered into a carriage agreement with MLB, while EchoStar and a consortium of the biggest cable operators remain free to match DIRECTV’s offer until Opening Day. So when our competitors complain that they don’t have rights to Extra Innings, what they’re really saying is that they’d like to pay less for those rights than DIRECTV – a lament common to many MVPDs in many circumstances.
Second, I will address another aspect of competition at work – DIRECTV’s plan to transform Extra Innings from a mere collection of games in low definition to a truly compelling, high definition experience for the most avid baseball fans. Regardless of whether our competitors step up to the plate, DIRECTV intends to make more baseball available to more fans in a more compelling format than ever before. This is a big win for baseball fans.
Third, I’ll explain how the competitive marketplace Congress created will ensure that fans of our Nation’s pastime will not be left behind. If EchoStar and the cable consortium step up and match DIRECTV’s offer, their subscribers will continue to have access to this programming from those providers. If they don’t, subscribers who want to switch to DIRECTV can do so seamlessly. The small number of subscribers who do not or cannot switch will be able to watch games over broadband – an increasingly viable alternative to traditional television.

Fourth, while DIRECTV’s agreement with MLB is entirely consistent with the policies Congress established to create a competitive marketplace, Congress can always change those policies. But I would respectfully suggest that, if this Committee is concerned about competition and access issues, these issues should be examined within the broader context of communications and competition policy. Such an examination might address topics such as the tying of video and broadband access services, the “slow-rolling” of access to Internet video, tying arrangements for programming imposed by competitors with market power, and home-team sports exclusives. DIRECTV would be happy to participate in such a discussion.


Written Testimony of
Chase Carey
President and Chief Executive Officer, DIRECTV, Inc.
Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 27, 2007

Chairman Inouye, Co-Chairman Stevens, and members of the Committee, my name is Chase Carey. I am the President and CEO of DIRECTV. Thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding DIRECTV’s recently announced agreement with Major League Baseball (“MLB”) to continue to carry MLB’s Extra Innings package of out-of-town baseball games.
I would like to address four issues today. First, I’ll describe the fair, open, and arm’s length negotiation for carriage of Extra Innings – a negotiation resulting directly from the pro-competitive, pro-consumer policies Congress has put in place. DIRECTV has entered into a carriage agreement with MLB, while EchoStar and a consortium of the biggest cable operators remain free to match DIRECTV’s offer until Opening Day. So when our competitors complain that they don’t have rights to Extra Innings, what they’re really saying is that they’d like to pay less for those rights than DIRECTV – a lament common to many MVPDs in many circumstances.[1]
Second, I will address another aspect of competition at work – DIRECTV’s plan to transform Extra Innings from a mere collection of games in low definition to a truly compelling, high definition experience for the most avid baseball fans. Regardless of whether our competitors step up to the plate, DIRECTV intends to make more baseball available to more fans in a more compelling format than ever before. This is a big win for baseball fans.
Third, I’ll explain how the competitive marketplace Congress created will ensure that fans of our Nation’s pastime will not be left behind. If EchoStar and the cable consortium step up and match DIRECTV’s offer, their subscribers will continue to have access to this programming from those providers. If they don’t, subscribers who want to switch to DIRECTV can do so seamlessly. The small number of subscribers who do not or cannot switch will be able to watch games over broadband – an increasingly viable alternative to traditional television.
Fourth, while DIRECTV’s agreement with MLB is entirely consistent with the policies Congress established to create a competitive marketplace, Congress can always change those policies. But I would respectfully suggest that, if this Committee is concerned about competition and access issues, these issues should be examined within the broader context of communications and competition policy. Such an examination might address topics such as the tying of video and broadband access services, the “slow-rolling” of access to Internet video, tying arrangements for programming imposed by competitors with market power, and home-team sports exclusives. DIRECTV would be happy to participate in such a discussion.

I. DIRECTV Negotiated a Fair and Arm’s Length Agreement With MLB; Cable and EchoStar Can Have the Same Deal if they Want It.
It is sometimes difficult to remember that, little more than a decade ago, Americans had only one choice of multichannel video provider – the cable monopoly. Today, nearly every American can choose among their cable operator, DIRECTV, and EchoStar. Verizon and AT&T now also offer service in many parts of the country.
These competitors have differentiated themselves in the marketplace. Cable, and now Verizon and AT&T, compete by offering a “triple play” of voice, video and data – a bundle that DIRECTV cannot yet offer on its own. EchoStar has carved out a niche as the low-cost provider, and offers a host of foreign language exclusives. And DIRECTV differentiates itself through an unparalleled selection of sports programming and unmatched technical innovation – including an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars on new satellites to offer consumers their local broadcast stations in HD and over 100 national HD programming services. These unique offerings helped DIRECTV to differentiate itself and begin to break the stranglehold of the cable monopolies. The cable industry, in turn, found itself forced to spend billions to innovate and become more responsive to consumers’ desires – today offering a competitive, attractive package that includes its own differentiated video-on-demand and bundled Internet offerings.
Cable, to be sure, still possesses an overwhelming market share, which distorts competition to this day. But the fact remains that today there is competition where before there was none. This is the success story Congress – and this Committee, in particular – helped write.
And this is the context in which DIRECTV negotiated its agreement to carry Extra Innings. Several months ago, MLB initiated discussions with a number of MVPDs and their affiliates – including DIRECTV, EchoStar, and iN DEMAND (owned by Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox) – regarding carriage of Extra Innings. These discussions concerned both exclusive and non-exclusive carriage. Each competitor was given the opportunity to compete for Extra Innings. And each did.
In the end, despite the fact that it has a modest nationwide market share, only DIRECTV showed an interest in carrying Extra Innings on terms acceptable to MLB, including helping to launch the MLB Channel and carrying it widely to our subscribers. So earlier this month, DIRECTV and MLB announced that they had reached agreement for carriage of Extra Innings and the MLB Channel.
That agreement gave DIRECTV’s competitors – all of whom had a seat at the table during the first round of negotiations – yet another turn at bat. Until Opening Day, MLB will allow incumbent MVPDs willing to agree to terms equivalent to DIRECTV’s carriage arrangement to offer their subscribers this programming. In other words, Comcast and Cox and Time Warner and EchoStar can provide out-of-town games to their subscribers if they want to. The agreement says only that they cannot do so on the cheap. So if they agree to pay the price DIRECTV pays, agree to carry the MLB Channel in the same manner as DIRECTV, and agree to comply with the other terms and conditions that apply to DIRECTV, they can carry Extra Innings. It’s their choice. This is why Time Warner’s top programming negotiator recently said she was not sure why people have criticized the deal as if it were “rigged” against competition, when the issue really boils down to the “evaluation of whether acquiring programming is too expensive or not.”[2]
Now that both iN DEMAND and EchoStar have access to Extra Innings on comparable terms and conditions as DIRECTV, we expected EchoStar and the cable industry to stop complaining and start competing. But they haven’t. Now they’re claiming that MLB’s offer to match DIRECTV’s terms isn’t fair.
They first contend that the agreement is unfair because DIRECTV will have an ownership interest in the MLB Channel (not in MLB or the Extra Innings package). But this isn’t unfair at all. To begin with, because of DIRECTV’s ownership, MLB cannot offer DIRECTV the MLB Channel on an exclusive basis. If DIRECTV’s competitors think DIRECTV’s ownership interest is inconsistent with this obligation, they already have an avenue for redress at the FCC.[3] Moreover, granting DIRECTV an ownership interest in exchange for its willingness to be the “first mover” in carrying this channel is a very common industry practice. The FCC reports that cable operators own dozens of channels, including many of the most important regional sports networks (“RSNs”) such as those in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego and Washington D.C.[4]
DIRECTV’s rivals also complain that the distribution requirements for the MLB Channel that DIRECTV agreed to are too onerous. This is nothing but a public relations ploy. If anything, the distribution requirement actually favors cable operators. Based on the distribution formula in the agreement, DIRECTV has to distribute the MLB Channel to roughly 80 percent of its total subscribers, while cable operators would have to distribute it to approximately 40 percent of their total subscribers. The very terms for distribution cable denounces as unfair are equivalent to, or in many instances less stringent than, the requirements cable operators demand for the programming they themselves own.
DIRECTV’s rivals may not like these terms. But parties who do not like terms of carriage cannot cry foul on that basis alone. This is how programming negotiations work. If an MVPD believes that programming is too expensive, it can choose not to carry the programming. This happens all the time. EchoStar, for example, doesn’t carry the YES network for this very reason, so EchoStar subscribers in New York can’t watch most Yankees games. MLB’s insistence that other MVPDs live by the same deal DIRECTV did isn’t unfair, it is simply the marketplace at work – and surely isn’t a subject worthy of Congressional intervention.
II. DIRECTV’s Carriage of Extra Innings Will Be a Big Win for Fans.
I do not know whether EchoStar and the cable industry will ultimately match DIRECTV’s offer to carry Extra Innings. I do know, however, that DIRECTV has big plans for Extra Innings – which is one reason why we have (so far) been willing to pay more than anybody else for it. DIRECTV will make more baseball available to more fans in a more compelling format than ever before.
For starters, DIRECTV will add a mosaic channel and a Strike Zone channel (similar to the NFL Sunday Ticket Red Zone Channel) that will deliver live cut-ins of games throughout the country. We will also provide great entertainment to fans with real-time scores, player and team stats and other innovations that complement the sport of baseball. Most importantly, DIRECTV expects to provide most, if not all, games in high definition for the 2008 baseball season – an innovation that most cable operators cannot match.
Moreover, as part of the Extra Innings agreement, DIRECTV will also make The MLB Channel widely available when the channel launches in 2009.
DIRECTV’s transformation of Extra Innings should come as no surprise. This, after all, is what DIRECTV has done for other programming. For example, DIRECTV recently completely revamped supplemental coverage of NASCAR races. The cable industry had the rights to NASCAR content for years, but did little with this programming and attracted only 30,000 customers in 2006. DIRECTV obtained the rights this year to what is now NASCAR Hotpass, and debuted a service at this year’s Daytona 500 that bears little resemblance to cable’s bare-bones offering. DIRECTV’s NASCAR Hotpass features five dedicated “Driver Channels,” each focusing on an individual driver and offering multiple camera angles, real-time stats, team audio communications and dedicated announcer teams. Although the NASCAR season started only recently, DIRECTV already has more than three times the subscribers to this programming than the cable industry had in 2006.
DIRECTV expects that once it adds interactive features, high-definition service, and the MLB Channel, many new subscribers will sign up for Extra Innings with DIRECTV. This will make DIRECTV’s service more attractive than our cable competitors. Those competitors, in turn, will have to improve their services to keep up. This, again, is the vibrant competitive marketplace that Congress envisioned at work.
III. The Competitive Marketplace Envisioned by Congress Will Provide Numerous Alternatives for Baseball Fans.
The same competitive marketplace that permitted DIRECTV to obtain the rights to Extra Innings in a fair and open manner will also ensure that baseball fans will continue to be able to watch their favorite teams. Right now, both EchoStar and iN DEMAND have the option to continue to provide this programming to their subscribers – if they are willing to pay the fair price negotiated at arm’s length between DIRECTV and MLB. Even if DIRECTV remains the only MVPD to carry Extra Innings, however, non-DIRECTV subscribers will not be harmed in any meaningful way.
First, consumers can switch to DIRECTV with no start-up costs, no equipment to buy, and no installation charges. When they do so, they will get a better service at a better value than is offered by cable. DIRECTV, unlike cable, is 100% digital. DIRECTV offers more programming than cable. On average, DIRECTV costs significantly less per channel than cable. And DIRECTV’s customer service is second to none – having surpassed the cable industry average in each of the last six years.[5] This, again, is how a competitive marketplace is supposed to work. Unfortunately, cable operators are doing their best to prevent this. Cable, for example, penalizes customers by dramatically increasing the price of Internet service if the customer drops cable’s video service. To overcome cable’s barriers, DIRECTV has chosen to offer customers who want to switch no upfront costs and more compelling content.
Second, every single game carried on Extra Innings will remain available online through MLB.com. Internet video is improving dramatically,[6] and MLB announced its intent to offer upgraded picture quality this season. Thus, subscribers who choose not to (or cannot) subscribe to DIRECTV will still be able to watch the games of their choice. Here again, however, cable operators are attempting to hinder the marketplace. If cable did not prohibit a direct connection between the Internet and the set top box, MLB.com could easily be viewed on television sets.
Third, the arrangement will not disrupt competition among MVPDs. To begin with, relatively few subscribers are affected at all. Only 230,000 non-DIRECTV customers subscribed to Extra Innings last year – less than one half of one percent of all television homes.[7] DIRECTV estimates that there are relatively few viewers – no more than three percent of the cable segment (approximately 180,000 Extra Innings subscribers) – who cannot receive DIRECTV service. This translates to roughly 5,000 subscribers – each of whom can access the games over the Internet. Moreover, this agreement does not deny a single fan the right to follow his or her home team. In all of its programming arrangements, DIRECTV has been respectful of fans’ rights to view their home team sports. Extra Innings is a premium package of out-of-town games – designed to serve baseball’s most avid fans without adversely affecting viewership of MLB’s national and local telecasts. By contrast, our cable competitors have withheld core home team sports programming from nearly half a million satellite customers in Philadelphia and San Diego.
Fourth, the marketplace will continue to provide subscribers without Extra Innings a wealth of options for watching their favorite sport. If Extra Innings were to disappear tomorrow, MLB would still offer more televised games by far than any other U.S. sport. Regardless of the MVPD to which they subscribe, fans throughout the country can watch their home team on broadcast television or RSNs – assuming that cable-affiliated RSNs continue to make their programming available to all MVPDs at non-discriminatory rates. In addition, fans without Extra Innings can still watch an impressive number of out-of-town games. On average, more than 400 games are televised in each market – on local broadcast television, RSNs, and MLB’s national partners FOX, TBS, and ESPN.
IV. A Broader Review of Competition Policy May Be Appropriate.
Members of this Committee are naturally concerned about consumer choice and access to content. So is DIRECTV. But Congress cannot examine these issues in a vacuum – and certainly should not start with this arm’s length, pro-competitive deal. If it truly seeks to ensure that every American has a choice among video providers and access to content, this Committee can choose among any number of issues that affect far more consumers.
If, for example, this Committee is concerned about the ability of subscribers to switch MVPDs, it might examine why cable operators dramatically increase the price for their broadband service to subscribers that switch from cable to satellite for video service. In Washington DC, for example, Comcast charges $33.99 for Internet service when bundled with video and voice, but $57.95 for stand-alone Internet – a 70 percent increase in price. Even though DIRECTV offers a lower price for a better video service, consumers with cable modems lose money by choosing DIRECTV. If Congress seeks to maximize consumer choice – as it should – cable’s tying of Internet and video services is worthy of review.
If this Committee is concerned that viewers might be denied access to content they wish to view, it might examine whether cable operators should be able to degrade the service their broadband subscribers receive when accessing video content from non-affiliated websites (or entities that do not pay to ensure access), or preclude such access altogether. As more and more video content migrates to the Internet, cable operators will increasingly have the incentive and ability to determine what their broadband subscribers can and cannot see. A cable operator could even, for example, prohibit a baseball fan from visiting MLB.com (or, more likely, could “slow-roll” communications to that site compared with communications from its own site).
If this Committee is concerned about bundling channels in contract negotiations, it might wish to focus more broadly on tying arrangements imposed by parties with market power. For example, Comcast recently required DIRECTV to distribute its “G4” gaming channel to 80 percent of its subscribers in order to continue to carry Comcast SportsNet Mid Atlantic at market rates. A broader examination of arrangements like this would consider the pros and cons of today’s programming marketplace and possible ideas for revising it.
And finally, if this Committee is concerned about sports programming, it should begin by examining the worst instances of sports withholding. Congress and the FCC have found repeatedly over the years that cable operators can abuse their formidable market power by arranging to withhold programming they own. And they do that today in Philadelphia and San Diego, where half a million satellite subscribers cannot watch their home teams. Surely that – and not an arm’s length, non-exclusive, pro-competitive deal such as that between DIRECTV and MLB for carriage of out-of-town games – is worthy of this Committee’s consideration.
* * *
The video marketplace continues to evolve as competition takes hold under the regime Congress has put in place. DIRECTV’s arrangement with MLB is part of that process – the result of fair and open competition for programming that even today remains available to DIRECTV’s rivals. DIRECTV intends to upgrade Extra Innings significantly, giving avid baseball fans more than they have ever had from this package before. We will also make the transition of any subscriber who wants this programming from DIRECTV as seamless as possible. In the end, then, DIRECTV’s agreement with MLB is an example of how the competitive marketplace created by this Committee is working – not how it needs to be changed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Time Warner’s top programming negotiator recently said as much – stating that she was not sure why people have criticized the deal as if it were “rigged” against competition, when the issue really boils down to the “evaluation of whether acquiring programming is too expensive or not.” SkyReport E-News, Mar. 13, 2007.
[2] SkyReport E-News, Mar. 13, 2007.
[3] General Motors Corp., Hughes Electronics Corp., and The News Corporation Limited, 19 FCC Rcd. 473 (2004) (“News-Hughes”).
[4] Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 21 FCC Rcd. 2503 App. C (2006)
[5] See Steve Donohue, “DirecTV Tops J.D. Power Survey,” Multichannel News, Aug. 16, 2006, available at http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6363083.html.
[6] See, e.g., Peter Grant, Plugging the Web Into the TV, Wall St. J., Aug. 4, 2006, at A11 (describing the rapid advances in online video, and stating that, with a TiVo device, one “can’t even tell whether it came from the TV or off the Internet.”).
[7] Not to minimize the inconvenience to these customers, but it is worth noting that that tens of millions of subscribers “churn,” switching video providers every year

[LGM2007]

Well that was a well written and powerful statement. I especially liked the advertising plugs for D* that he snuk in, as well as the statements about future advancements for D*.

I find it interesting that no other exclusive "broadcast" agreements ever come up. XM has exclusivity regarding baseball--yet some of their on air personalities have criticized this one, Sirius with the NFL and NBA, and of course D* with the NFL.

[Janney66]

In all my years I've NEVER seen an ESPN game blacked out. Sometimes they will have one game on in one market and another in another market, but they should never black out ESPN no matter what is being shown locally.

?? I'm in the Boston market, and there were times last year when ESPN HD was blacked out when the Sox were on. I distinctly remember this because before DirecTV carried NESN HD, I was forced to watch the game in NESN SD, instead of watching the game in HD on ESPN. The game was blacked out....no other game was broadcast in its place.

[gully_foyle]

I'd happily pay $39 for 10 HD games a week. Just as long as I don't have to pay for the SD games I won't watch first. But I bet it doesn't work that way. Pity.

[greenie95125]

I've been debating this. I already signed up for the MLB Package (Red Sox fan in NY!).

I would like to know how often the Red Sox games will be in HD and that will base my decision. I could care less about watching other games (except near the end of the season if another game matters for a pennant race).


Ethan

Ethan, I'm with you. Since NESN broadcasts *every* game in HD, I'd expect to see many Sox games in HD. I didn't renew my EI package this year since not *ONE* NESN broadcast was shown in HD last year. If it looks like there will be a lot of Sox games in HD, I'll probably pony up. If not, I'll live with MLB.TV at 1/2 the cost, and D*V gets nothing extra from me.

[The_Geyser]

I don't like it. We pay for HD access, but have to pay more to access the HD games.

Wife says she wants it to see her Yankees. Yes, I am a baseball widower.

[Steve Mehs]

I wouldn't pay anything for baseball (not trying to rile people up, just not a baseball fan), but I would gladly pay $39 extra for NHL in HD!

I'd gladly pay upwards of $150 just to see the Sabres in HD alone, on MSG, no national feed on Vs or HDNet. Rick Jenorett is God. Watching the Sabres Cup run last season in HD was great, but I turned down the sound and put on the Sabres home feed on Sirius. Unfortunately, MSG would rather cater to a big market teams like the Rangers, then to the #1 team in the NHL. MSG treats the Sabres like a red headed stepchild. Empire Sports Network may have been a shoe string budget operation, but it was better then MSG. As the official regional sports network of the Buffalo area, they sure don’t focus on us much.