TV Sports
In Demand Plays Ball
MultiChannel News 3/21/2007

The dugout for Major League Baseball’s Extra Innings out-of-market package just got a little more crowded.

In Demand said Wednesday that it will match the terms of DirecTV’s $700 million, seven-year deal with Major League Baseball, including carriage of The Baseball Channel when it launches in 2009 to at least the same number of subscribers who will get the channel via the direct-broadcast satellite service.

The programmer added that its offer includes the use of a most-favored-nations provision in order to ensure that all terms are compatible.

Cable operators Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Cox Communications are In Demand affiliates. The service is owned by Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Comcast In Demand Holdings and Cox Communications Holdings.

“As the current home for Extra Innings for more than 200,000 cable subscribers, we have extended ourselves to do our best to be able to continue to provide this package to baseball fans and our customers," In Demand president Robert Jacobson said in a prepared statement.

"This offer meets all of the conditions set forth by MLB last week,” he added. “Throughout this entire process, our goal has always been to respect the wishes of baseball fans who currently subscribe to Extra Innings through their local cable provider, and we stand ready to execute an agreement before the beginning of the baseball season.”

The first pitch of the 2007 MLB season is scheduled for Sunday night, April 1, when the New York Mets take on the St. Louis Cardinals on ESPN.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6426516

Cable Ready to Play Ball on Extra Innings Package
By Jon Lafayette Television Week March 21, 2007

The cable industry said it offered to meet DirecTV's terms in order to continue to carry Major League Baseball's Extra Innings out-of-market game package.

DirecTV had hoped to carry Extra Innings exclusively, but after a flurry of protest, it agreed to a two-pronged agreement with MLB, paying $100 million a year for the exclusive and about half that for a non-exclusive package.

As part of the deal, DirecTV agreed to carry a new MLB cable channel to all of its subscribers. DirecTV also will own part of the channel.

In Demand Networks, which is owned by Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox and buys pay-per-view and on-demand programming for cable, said it will pay the same terms as DirecTV for Extra Innings. It also will put the Baseball Channel in the same number of homes as DirecTV does at launch in 2009.

There may be a question about whether the same number of subscribers is the same as the same proportion of subscribers. But with Congress set to look at this and other sports issues at a hearing next week, it may be a rather esoteric point on which to turn down the cable offer, especially since it would mean the Baseball Channel would launch with a record number of subscribers.

"This offer meets all the conditions set forth by MLB last week," Robert Jacobson, president and CEO of In Demand, said in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this entire process, our goal has always been to respect the wishes of baseball fans who currently subscribe to Extra Innings through their local cable provider, and we stand ready to execute an agreement before the beginning of the baseball season," which is April 2.

EchoStar, which also carried Extra Innings, had no comment.

Officials from Major League Baseball and DirecTV could not be reached for comment.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11747

Wow that is amazing I never thought they would step up to the plate on this one.

The first pitch of the 2007 MLB season is scheduled for Sunday night, April 1, when the New York Mets take on the St. Louis Cardinals on ESPN.

This will actually be carried on the deuce since ESPN has to carry women's basketball. I'll be at the game though!! :D

Wow that is amazing I never thought they would step up to the plate on this one.

Don't get your hopes up. This doesn't look like a sincere offer - seems to just be a PR move. Matching the "same number of homes" as D* isn't going to cut it and doesn't actually meet the terms set forth by MLB. If D* provides MLBTV to all its subs, InDemand would only need to provide it to less than a third of their subs to be in the same number of homes.

Don't get your hopes up. This doesn't look like a sincere offer - seems to just be a PR move. Matching the "same number of homes" as D* isn't going to cut it and doesn't actually meet the terms set forth by MLB. If D* provides MLBTV to all its subs, InDemand would only need to provide it to less than a third of their subs to be in the same number of homes.

Those are good points and I think you may in fact be on tosomething here. Boy would InDemand look stupid if in fact this is the case. I wonder what D* is thinking right now.

Just saw this on DBS Talk It came from ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2806948

Latest news: Bob DuPuy says offer falls short.

IN Demand's pitch to keep "Extra Innings" on cable apparently was out of Major League Baseball's strike zone.

IN Demand said Wednesday it will offer to match the terms of DirecTV's $700 million, seven-year deal with Major League Baseball on behalf its owners, who are affiliates of the companies that own Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems. As part of the offer, iN Demand also said it would carry The Baseball Channel when it launches in 2009 to at least the same number of subscribers who will get the channel on DirecTV.

However, Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said in a statement Wednesday that iN Demand's offer wasn't adequate.

"The communication sent to our office today by iN Demand is not responsive to that offer," DuPuy said. "In spite of their public comments, the response falls short of nearly all of the material conditions (among them requirements for carriage of The Baseball Channel and their share of the rights fees for Extra Innings) set forth in the Major League Baseball offer made to them on March 9."
__________________
Coming this fall: CNN-HD, TBS-HD, FX-HD, USA-HD, TWC-HD - Stay Tuned!

More MLB-EI Details

According to Eric Fisher and John Ourand in Sports Business Daily’s “Closing Bell”,

“…The dispute centers on two areas. DirecTV has agreed to place MLB’s new channel in 80% of its homes, according to a letter MLB President & COO Bob DuPuy sent to the FCC on Wednesday.

For a deal to happen, MLB is demanding that InDemand commit to make the channel available in 80% of cable's digital basic homes, which is about 40% of the overall subscriber base. Additionally, MLB is balking at InDemand's offer to pay for Extra Innings on an actual sub basis, rather than an upfront guarantee.

‘[They] will need to commit to a fair allocation of the total rights fees for Extra Innings, ... based on the number of digital households that they and DirecTV serve,’ MLB said in its FCC filing.

InDemand countered that it was willing to guarantee a license fee structure based on the aggregate number of Extra Innings subscribers it has. "This is not the proposal of a company that has sour grapes," said InDemand's Rob Jacobson. ‘This is the proposal of a company that wants to be a partner.’…”

If Direct TV were to have its way on everything, ALL NFL football in HD would be aDuirect TV EXCLUSIVE

Direct TV SUCKS! IMHO!

Why wouldn't they want exclusives if they could get it? I don't see Comcast in Philadelphia relinquishing their hold on Philly sports.

And Cox in San Diego. Same thing.

Baseball Lays Off Cable Operators’ Pitch
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times March 22, 2007

Major League Baseball spurned a revised offer by leading cable operators yesterday to retain the Extra Innings package of out-of-market games, which may now become the exclusive satellite domain of DirecTV.

The rejection sets up two showdowns: one on Tuesday, when M.L.B. and DirecTV officials are to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee about their seven-year, $700 million agreement; and another March 31, the deadline for cable and the Dish Network to meet baseball’s terms.

InDemand — the cable consortium owned by Comcast, Time Warner and Cox — said yesterday that it had offered to renew Extra Innings on the same financial terms promised by DirecTV, and to guarantee the same number of subscribers for the MLB Channel, which is to make its debut in 2009, that have been assured to baseball by DirecTV.

In rejecting InDemand’s offer in less than an hour, Bob DuPuy, M.L.B.’s president, said in a statement that it “falls short in nearly all of the material conditions” laid out in baseball’s deal with DirecTV.

Tim Brosnan, baseball’s executive vice president for business, said in a telephone interview that “the correspondence they sent us amounts to a misleading press release and a failed strategy if their intention is to make a deal and to truly deliver this package to their customers.”

Robert D. Jacobson, the president of InDemand, said by telephone that he was surprised by baseball’s quick rejection of his proposal because “we understood that if we matched the terms of the DirecTV offer, we’d have a deal. We feel we’ve done that.” He added, however, that he was never shown the contract between baseball and DirecTV.

With opening day looming, the sides appear locked into different definitions of how to make a deal. Jacobson used as his guide baseball’s announcement of its agreement with DirecTV, in which InDemand and Dish were invited to make deals “at consistent rates and carriage requirements” as those met by DirecTV. Jacobson interpreted that earlier this month as a requirement to match the 15 million subscribers guaranteed by DirecTV.

But Brosnan said that InDemand and Dish had to guarantee that the channel would be made available to 80 percent of all their digital customers, because that was the terms of the deal with DirecTV, which as a satellite network is all digital. Cable operators have about 32 million digital customers in total.

“We laid all this out in painstaking detail to them in our meeting on March 9,” Brosnan said. “We could not have been any clearer.”

In its offer to baseball yesterday, InDemand said it would match DirecTV’s total subscribers for the channel in 2009, however much it increases from 15 million.

The parties were also split on how to count Extra Innings subscribers and, thus, how to calculate what baseball would be paid for those digital cable customers.

Later in the day, Jacobson issued a statement that said, “By rejecting this matching offer, M.L.B. has proven it never intended for InDemand to have a fair and equal opportunity to bid for Extra Innings.”

Baseball and DirecTV officials were headed to an exclusive deal on Extra Innings when fans who watched out-of-market games on cable voiced their outrage in e-mail messages, chat rooms and petitions. The fans’ anger prompted baseball to give InDemand and Dish 23 days to make a deal. (Dish is still in talks with M.L.B.) But one thing they would not get is a stake in the channel; DirecTV owns 20 percent of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/sports/baseball/22base.html?pagewanted=print

If Direct TV were to have its way on everything, ALL NFL football in HD would be aDuirect TV EXCLUSIVE

Direct TV SUCKS! IMHO!

Why because you don't have them?

Sorry, I read this thread today before reading the Latest news one. There I noticed what frefa posted :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10093371&&#post10093371

Anyway, MLB/Directv could have done a better PR job by clearly saying "InDemand hasn't matched the offer due to the fact that InDemand is unwilling to allow Directv to carry CSN Philly and Cox/San Diego RSN"



IMHO, this was a great PR move by InDemand/the cable cos. They threw a perfect curveball to MLB/Directv. By rejecting the offer, MLB/Directv are giving Washington all the reasons to grill them.

If they were playing smart ball, they would throw back to InDemand/cable something saying that they would accept the offer provided that:

1- ALL HD RSN feeds were made available to Directv.
2- MLB would be carried on basic digital tier.

But now, by rejecting the offer, plain and simple, MLB and Directv should be ready to pack their bags for a couple of days in D.C...

This is just a repeat of Cable game plan used in regard to the NFL:ST and the NFL Network.

Duiring that little discussion, many of the Pro Cable bunch pointed to the MLB as an example of a good sport vs. the NFL as Bad. Give the current situation a year and this discussion will be as heated as that one became.

Anyway, MLB/Directv could have done a better PR job by clearly saying "InDemand hasn't matched the offer due to the fact that InDemand is unwilling to allow Directv to carry CSN Philly and Cox/San Diego RSN"However, this request is not within the power of InDemand to fulfill.

I assume that the MLB and In Demand are going to wait until tomorrow's government get together before attempting any more talks? I don't see where there can be any government ruling that could change what has happened so far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't any kind of arbitration, is it?

No, there's no arbitration involved. Even when it was a potential 100% exclusive deal, the guys in Washington probably couldn't accomplish much more than sending the message that they are as outraged as their constituents. Now that the cablecos have been given the opportunity to match the terms to avoid it being exclusive and they've refused, I doubt that the meeting in Washington will even result in a strong statement of disapproval.

I have cable. Should I wait for EI and see if it will be offered, or should I order the MLB.TV package online now?

I have cable. Should I wait for EI and see if it will be offered, or should I order the MLB.TV package online now?
what is the harm in waiting. it seems very unlikely cable will get it, but what's lost if you wait?

I'm waiting to see how this shakes out this week before getting MLB.tv. I don't hold out much hope for getting it on cable but if the hearings are difficult enough for MLB they may broker some compromise. I've already decided not to go to Directv just to get extra baseball games but I do not look forward to watching them on a computer screen.

I also don't think that the stream quality is going to be very good with everyone loading on the servers to watch say, a Mets game. I've heard reviews of the service that go from god-awful to good. The toughest thing is that watching video over a wireless connection rarely goes well and unless I want to sit in the computer room at the desktop for 2.5 hours I have to try and make the laptop video work.

Tomorrow's Senate Commerce Committee hearing will be streamed at the Committee's site, and carried, I assume (although the Tuesday schedule isn't online yet) by C-SPAN.

I should note a Committee spokesperson just told me that the hearing "should be streamed, but lately some of our hearings have been getting bumped".

And C-SPAN says its lineup for tomorrow won't be finalized until late this afternoon ET.

This is the phone number of MLB. Ask for the Commissioners Office. They will listen to your concerns if you are polite and respectful. It may be too late but "Never give up, don't ever give up"

212-931-7800

I'm waiting to see how this shakes out this week before getting MLB.tv. I don't hold out much hope for getting it on cable but if the hearings are difficult enough for MLB they may broker some compromise. I've already decided not to go to Directv just to get extra baseball games but I do not look forward to watching them on a computer screen.

I also don't think that the stream quality is going to be very good with everyone loading on the servers to watch say, a Mets game. I've heard reviews of the service that go from god-awful to good. The toughest thing is that watching video over a wireless connection rarely goes well and unless I want to sit in the computer room at the desktop for 2.5 hours I have to try and make the laptop video work.

I have both a laptop and desktop PC and choppy video on MLB.TV during fast motion has been the plague for the last 2 years. But I need MLB.TV because MLB Extra Innings does not use CSN-philadelphia and channel 57 philadelphia tv feeds like MLB.TV does. Which is why MLB is retarded why one package has more games than the other. MLB.TV also gets OTA feeds and Channel 4 Padres games. MLB Extra Innings only carries games from the RSN sports networks.

This is the phone number of MLB. Ask for the Commissioners Office. They will listen to your concerns if you are polite and respectful. It may be too late but "Never give up, don't ever give up"

212-931-7800

I don't think that will do a thing. the MLB only cares about making a buck. They have a deal with D* that gets The Baseball Channel going and to over 15 Million subs. They have a good chunk of guaranteed money every year and the only way they will budge is if the CableCos give them the 80% of digital subs that D* has agreed to.

MLB wins no matter what here, if this deal stands, the die hard fans will switch to D* or subscribe to MLB.tv and The Baseball Channel goes. If the CableCos make the deal, then the MLB gets a ton more subs for the Baseball Channel, plus guaranteed money from InDemand and D* (less from D*, but prolly an equal amount total) and prolly more total subs.

MLB may not care about the fans, but they do care about the all mighty buck.

The fans won't stay pissed, look at the strike...

Programming note:

C-SPAN/C-SPAN2 will not be covering the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the MLB-EI/DirecTV deal because both the House and the Senate will be in session at the same time.

BTW Freda - another reason why this will be hard for D* and not Comcast or Cox -The Cable Companies are not trying to go through a change of ownership that requires approval.

And as of the last time I checked the list, no one from a Cable Company is scheduled to speak - even though D* and E* people are there.

I'm pretty sure that tomorrow's hearing will have no effect on the eventual outcome.

As for MLB, since it's obvious that the cable companies won't budge, why don't they just agree to let the cable companies carry MLB EI. They could even use the excuse of the scolding they get at the congressional hearing as a reason for caving.

At least they be guaranteed a sizable chunk of basic-cable customers who'd be receiving the Baseball Channel--which is better than none.

By the way, the MLB Extra Innings home page on InDemand's website was changed a couple of days ago from the one they've had for as long as I can remember.

At the top of the page, there's a headline that says "Please check back soon for information about MLB Extra Innings on Digital Cable." (Of course, that information will be: sorry, no can do.) Then there are some comments, allegedly from disappointed cable customers, and, at the bottom a form to fill out to send them your own personal comments about how badly you want MLB EI on your cable system.

Damn MLB! No MLB EI HD games for me this year.

As for MLB, since it's obvious that the cable companies won't budge, why don't they just agree to let the cable companies carry MLB EI. They could even use the excuse of the scolding they get at the congressional hearing as a reason for caving.


That would be a breach of contract with D*

But iN Demand's CEO will be there. And his company is owned, if I am not mistaken, by Cox, TCW and Comcast.

I would bet serious $$$ that either of both Dupuy and Carey will bring up the Philadelphia and San Diego RSNs.

And while obviously DirecTV has a sale which needs approval, cable is also (and like other major industries, always) asking for many things from Congress: retransmission relief, help fighting telcos, telephony rules, and dozens of others.

And of course Sen. Kerry has already mentioend the phrase "anti trust" and, in fact, has invited a leading anti trust professor to speak at today's hearing, so MLB could feel a bit threatened, too.

But iN Demand's CEO will be there. And his company is owned, if I am not mistaken, by Cox, TCW and Comcast.


Great. And ABC is owned by Disney. You think that ABC's Bob Iger can speak for Disney about the price of admission to Disneyland or how much revenue the next Disney movie will bring in? And it gets even murkier when its owned by multiple entities as inDemand is - unlike Disney owning ABC 100%.


I would bet serious $$$ that either of both Dupuy and Carey will bring up the Philadelphia and San Diego RSNs.


While I have no doubt it will be brought up, it is, nothing different than a local TV affiliation - where D* and MLB is the entire league from sea to shining sea.


And while obviously DirecTV has a sale which needs approval, cable is also (and like other major industries, always) asking for many things from Congress: retransmission relief, help fighting telcos, telephony rules, and dozens of others.

And of course Sen. Kerry has already mentioend the phrase "anti trust" and, in fact, has invited a leading anti trust professor to speak at today's hearing, so MLB could feel a bit threatened, too.

And again, as I have stated multiple times - MLB's antitrust is what is at stake as it and the D* sale are the only sticks that Congress can really threaten anyone here with. Cable knows they aren't getting any of that relief even though they can try and wish. I can wish Stan54 was a monkey, but unlike the old Our Gang series, it won't happen either.

EVERY SINGLE TEAM has a local affiliation agreement - all but 2 are with OTA TV Stations I suppose. If you throw that out, aren't you effectively saying that every local TV Station can broadcast a team when they want???????

Tribune and WGN owns the Cubs. Are you saying that any local TV station in Chicago can broadcast Cubs games???

If a cable system has the typical penetration in a market, does it really matter if it is OTA or only on cable. Compare that with 10% penetration of D* Nationwide.

Big difference.

What you are talking about with D*and MLB is the entire nation - and if allowed - this will clearly speed the transition of NFL from OTA to the NFL Network and all PPV games in the future.

I don't think that will do a thing. the MLB only cares about making a buck.

and members of Congress are any different???? I have not looked, but I would bet that Kerry is in the pocket of the cable cos? Why else would he give a s$$t??? Have you not learned by now that you and I are commodities to members of Congress? They do not care what you and I want, only what their "contributors" (read "puppetmasters") want. Do you really think that Kerry is interested in the fans? C'mon.

Despite the musings of the Supreme Court, baseball is a business! The only thing about us that the owners care about is our pockets!

The worst part about this whole thing is that with all of the injustices and other issues surrounding our country, Congress is wasting their time getting involved in a business dispute. The parties are sophisticated (albeit greedy) parties who should be permitted to contract on their own.

To me it seems that because the cable cos (read "MONOPOLIES") did not like the deal that D* signed with MLB, they have run to mommy to ask for help.

Isn't it in fact the cable cos that do not care about their fans b/c they are not willing to make room for a single channel so they can sell EI?

Isn't it in fact the cable cos that do not care about their fans b/c they are not willing to make room for a single channel so they can sell EI?
It's not about just one channel, it's about MLB-TV, NFL-TV, NBA-TV, NCAA-TV, NASCAR-TV, UnderwaterBasketWeaving-TV, etc. It's about major sports and their attempts to get the largest amount of viewers(ad dollars). It's about you being forced to subsidize paying for NFL-TV even though you may hate football, just like ESPN.

It's about you being forced to subsidize paying for NFL-TV even though you may hate football, just like ESPN.
You only subsidize it if you buy NFL Sunday Ticket.

Paying the base or package price for any service (sat or cable) partially subsidizes all their channels. That's nothing new.

There's alot of sour grapes going on because the competition was sitting on its hands to match the offer and/or beat D*TV to the punch. :rolleyes:

Very interesting:

E*'s Vogel says that E* is ready to match D*'s offer, as long as it gets an ownership stake in the Baseball Channel, as D* has. MLB is apparently saying no to that - and Vogel says that the deal will therefore likely be exclusive to D*.

The rest from Vogel is just sour grapes about exclusivity.

InDemand's Jacobson says that they have offered to match all D* terms, but put off the terms on the Baseball Channel until 2009. "A compromise," he says.

Is there a live feed (even just audio) somewhere?

yes: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/

Thanks.

Sen. Lautenberg said that his S. NJ constituents need Comcast to watch their Phillies games and now they'll need both Comcast and D* if they want to get other baseball games - and that's not fair.

If you plan to order MLB.TV when your MLB EI is no longer available on your carrier, be careful if you have upgraded to the Vista operating system.

I recently purchased a new laptop with Vista. Under that operating system, when I try to view a game using MLB.TV, there is audio, but no video.

Everything still works fine on my old laptop, which uses XP.

Sen Kerry says why not accept InDemand's offer of EI carriage, then in 2009 if they don't offer adequate carriage of MLBTV, just yank EI at that point.

Kerry also questions the parity of MLB's demands if they don't offer part ownership of MLBTV to INHD or E*.

Kerry also questions the parity of MLB's demands if they don't offer part ownership of MLBTV to INHD or E*.

That is awesome, if you want us to give it to 80% of our customers, then give us part ownership like you did with D*

Kerry also suggests that 15 million is parity. 80% of 65 million (cable subs) is not equal terms to D*'s 15 million subs that they'll deliver.

Prof. Ross suggests binding commercial arbitration as a solution.

What Dupay is trying to say - but keeps getting interrupted - is that D* is getting rewarded for committing to The Baseball Channel. Why should InDemand get two years of EI subscribers when they might not meet The Baseball Channel carriage requirements in 2009?

Specter brings up the fact that legislators aren't "entirely powerless" since there is a deal on the table for a sale of D* to Liberty that requires their approval.

"If fans react, Congress will react", and you may want to settle this before Congress reacts.

[Note that Comcast is HQ'd in Philly and Specter generally pushes their viewpoint]

Carey says roughly 5000 existing EI cable subs may have line-of-sight issues picking up D*. Those will have MLB.TV as an option.

Jacobson says he live in an apartment, can't get D*, and MLB.TV via a 4" computer screen is not an adequate substitute.

Prof. Ross brings up deals with apartment buildings that are exclusive to a single cable provider, and other reasons could increase that 5000 figure mentioned by Carey.

Jacobson needs to get a new computer monitor. My Palm has a bigger screen than his monitor!

Carey says this negotiation for programming is no different than the negotiations for all their programming. They made the offer, they are taking the risk, and they're on the hook if it doesn't pan out.

Caray says his 5000 number is based on customers who order DirecTv and can't get it. There have to be a lot of people who realize they don't have line of sight to the satellite and don't even try. That number, 1 or 2 percent, seems low to me and the explanation of where he gets that number enforces that to me.

Lautenberg brings up the rising cost of TV viewing and is afraid that this might be the first step in killing the "golden goose".

Brings up YES and the fact that people wanted the channel, but when told that it would be accompanied by a small fee, the interest dropped to the single digits. Warns MLB that asking for too much money for baseball could result in a drop in their fanbase.

Thanks CPanther for providing these updates -- I really appreciate seeing what is going on in the hearing.

Dupay says that MLB.TV has been upgraded this year, broadband is available to more homes than digital TV, and the vast majority of homes will be able to view it much larger than on a 4" screen.

Thank CCMOO. He started the updates and provided the link. I'm just trying to fill in anything not already posted.

you're doing a great job, cpanther - and you're saving me from annoying my boss.

Prof. Ross says that the NFL ST settlement requiring availability of a single week only purchase didn't really benefit consumers except a small handful. The attorneys involved in the settlement were the only real winners.

Unknown Female Senator says the computer monitor won't cut it in her household for sports viewing.

Questions if down the road, some of these parties will use the exclusivity argument to justify a merger and claim that it will open up some of this exclusive programming to more subscribers.

Dupay says that MLB.TV has been upgraded this year, broadband is available to more homes than digital TV, and the vast majority of homes will be able to view it much larger than on a 4" screen.


I'd still rather watch the games on my TV (sitting on my couch in the Family Room) and not on my computer (in my office).

Try and get this verbatim cause it was pretty humorous:
[Responding to question about getting exclusives just so a few years down the road they can be used as justification of a merger]

Carey: I'll respond to that.

Vogel: Yeah, since he's the one with all the exclusive rights, he should comment. I'll comment later.

UFS: BTW - I went with you (pointing to Vogel) and that's why I'm in so much trouble (in her household)

Vogel: I'm trying to solve that problem.

UFS: I made a choice (E*) and boy, have I regretted it, every Sunday I have to hear it. They keep wanting me to switch and I had to explain how expensive it would be.

Vogel: I would agree - 33% increase.

Carey: I just want to say, I hope you're (eventually) a D* customer and we'll try to take care of that.

Vogel: No, a value customer Chase.

Chase: Actually switching is pretty seamless usually with no upfront charge. Right now, about 20% of our customers, and E*'s and cable's switch services each year.

UFS: If you think it's seamless, I need to talk to you.

Carey: ....that's about 20 million homes a year switching services, it isn't uncommon at all.

UFS: You don't envision using this as an excuse to merger?

Carey: We're not having any conversations today about a merger.

That is to funny

The female senator was Claire McCaskill. She asked some very good questions as did the Senator from Florida. These Senators are not happy with the answers they are getting from DirectTV and MLB.

Sen. Nelson: Mr. Carey, are exclusive sports rights the answer to cable's Triple Play deals?

Carey: Well, MLB isn't exclusive yet, that's up to the other providers. But we do look to programming to make our service stand out.

The female senator was Claire McCaskill. She asked some very good questions as did the Senator from Florida. These Senators are not happy with the answers they are getting from DirectTV and MLB.

McCaskill......thanks.

I'm watching this via broadband in about a 4" window and can't make out the nameplates of the Senators. Shame MLB isn't streaming this. :D

Has the question been asked about E* or the CableCos getting a part ownership in The Baseball channel?

MLB wants everyone else to sign the same deal, then they should get that option too.

Nelson: What am I supposed to tell a constituent that moves from Boston to Ft. Lauderdale, FL and wants to watch the Red Sox?

Carey: One solution is to get their internet and telephony from the local cableco, and subscribe to D* for their television programming and hopefully not get financially penalized. That's a much more friendly solution to the consumer than to say that you must bundle all three services together or get severly penalized financially for wanting a make a different choice in your video provider.

Nelson: Could that person watch on their computer? If so, how much would that cost?

Carey: Yes they could. I believe it would be just under a hundred bucks.

Nelson: Mr. Jacobson, what's wrong with that?

Jacobson: I don't think most people would consider that a satisfactory solution. You might not have been here earlier when I explained my situation...........live in an apartment, etc........... and I want to watch on my big screen TV, not on my laptop.

Nelson: Can you hook up your laptop to your television screen?

Jacobson: (chuckles) You know Senator, I can barely turn my TV on, I mean trying to figure out how to wire that setup would be possible for me and I don't think the broadband solution is a substitute. Maybe if I was on the road, in a hotel room, that might work, but certainly not as an every night proposition.

Has the question been asked about E* or the CableCos getting a part ownership in The Baseball channel?

MLB wants everyone else to sign the same deal, then they should get that option too.


Yup Many times. It's being danced around and nothing has been said that ownership has been offered.

Nelson: Some of the cablecos have exclusive programming of their own. Comcast has an exclusive for the Phillies and Cox has the Padres games. Many cable operators also have local news channels that they don't make available to D* or E*. So not withstanding the FCC's terrestrial exception that apparently allows you to not share that programming - how is that fair to consumers?

Jacobson: I run a programming company, not a cable system. As far as the terrestrial thing you refer to, I'm not at all familiar with it. It's not the business that I'm in. I'm not trying to duck your question, it's just an area in which I have no expertise.

Nelson: Some of the cablecos have exclusive programming of their own. Comcast has an exclusive for the Phillies and Cox has the Padres games. Many cable operators also have local news channels that they don't make available to D* or E*. So not withstanding the FCC's terrestrial exception that apparently allows you to not share that programming - how is that fair to consumers?


wooo here it goes...
Thanks cpanther

Kerry: Senator (Nelson), InDemand is sort of the middleman representing a number of cablecos here, marketing for them, so I understand his answer there. Are you completed Senator?

Nelson: No, I'm not. I want to pick that up. If you are a Phillies fan or Padres fan. You have an exclusive deal. Can people in Philly watch the Phillies if they aren't tuned into that cableco's channel? Mr. Ross, you're shaking your head, do you want to add something?

Prof. Ross: These are Mr. Jacobson's employers, but not who he works for, so that is the difficulty he has with answering your question. These are exclusive deals, you can only get them on cable, and you can only get them if you buy a $35-$40 basic premium package. I must confess that some of the testimony here reminds me of Claude Raines in Casablanca - who is shocked, shocked! that there is bundling going on here. Mr. Carey is outraged that cablecos would bundle telephony, TV programming and the internet and yet this whole problem would be mitigated if you could only subscribe to sports programming. So, Sen. McCaskill could solve her problem by putting up a 2nd dish even if she didn't like that aesthetically. Then keep her E* service she wanted and just get D* for the NFL ST and pay whatever price her husband was willing to pay for that - probably alot.

Ross: The problem is you can't do that sort of thing with any of the people sitting here. You cannot get the sports programming without some subscription to a basic premium package that runs from $25 - $45 a month.

CRAP....feed timed out with about 15-20 minutes left in my buffer.

I'll pick up from here if the web site archives the hearing. Or if someone heard the rest - particulary with this line of questioning - please summarize.

What I saw in between actually doing work from that point on was that Kerry was trying to broker something of a compromise and MLB was not budging. It's pretty clear MLB cares nothing about the affected fans.

It was also clear that MLB's viewpoint that "maximizing the Baseball Channel distribution maximizes the availability of our product" was not fooling anyone. Making a dedicated 24 hour MLB channel available to 15 million on Directv is not the same as offering live out of market games to 50 million total (or somewhere thereabouts).

This is a fairly minor issue in the overall scheme of things but I think if this goes exclusive, you will see more and more cable-only exclusive deals in the future to fight back. I know that Directv has enough subs that they must be considered but for some types of programming I see it going to cable-only if they think it will help them retain and maybe steal cusomters.

Nelson: Can you hook up your laptop to your television screen?

Jacobson: (chuckles) You know Senator, I can barely turn my TV on, I mean trying to figure out how to wire that setup would be possible for me and I don't think the broadband solution is a substitute. Maybe if I was on the road, in a hotel room, that might work, but certainly not as an every night proposition.
I laughed so hard at that, I cried. LOL :D

MLB: We’ll Meet Face-to-Face with Cable
By Steve Donohue MultiChannel News 3/27/2007

Under pressure from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Major League Baseball president and chief operating officer Bob DuPuy agreed to meet with In Demand Networks to discuss a possible deal that could provide the cable-backed program supplier with the league’s Extra Innings package.

The chances of the league cutting a deal with cable operators before Monday -- opening day of the 2007 season -- are slim. But MLB and DirecTV are facing heat from regulators for their seven-year, $700 million deal that will restrict the league’s Extra Inning’s package to DirecTV customers.

When MLB struck the controversial deal with DirecTV earlier this month, it set a deadline of March 31 for operators to match DirecTV’s offer. But in order for Comcast, Time Warner Cable and other operators to secure Extra Innings for their customers, they’d have to agree to match DirecTV’s terms and distribute MLB’s Baseball Channel, set to debut in 2009, on their most widely distributed tiers.

Customers who previously subscribed to Extra Innings when it was available on cable will not have access to the games unless they switch to DirecTV or order a $100 Internet package that would allow them to watch the games on a PC via a high-speed-Internet connection.

Kerry scolded MLB’s DuPuy and DirecTV CEO Chase Carey Tuesday, arguing that the league and DirecTV are more focused on making money than ensuring that America’s pastime is available widely.

“You’re driving for the best deal that you can get -- that may not be the best deal for baseball, frankly, or the fans,” Kerry told DuPuy.

“This was not about maximizing profits for us,” DuPuy countered, insisting that what drove the league to cut the DirecTV deal was a guarantee that it would launch Baseball Channel to its entire subscriber base of more than 15 million customers.

“What this was about was serving the maximum number of fans with the maximum amount of programming,” DuPuy added.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6428250.html?display=Breaking+News

What I saw in between actually doing work from that point on was that Kerry was trying to broker something of a compromise and MLB was not budging. It's pretty clear MLB cares nothing about the affected fans.

It was also clear that MLB's viewpoint that "maximizing the Baseball Channel distribution maximizes the availability of our product" was not fooling anyone. Making a dedicated 24 hour MLB channel available to 15 million on Directv is not the same as offering live out of market games to 50 million total (or somewhere thereabouts).

This is a fairly minor issue in the overall scheme of things but I think if this goes exclusive, you will see more and more cable-only exclusive deals in the future to fight back. I know that Directv has enough subs that they must be considered but for some types of programming I see it going to cable-only if they think it will help them retain and maybe steal cusomters.

Well, more people are affected now by cable's exclusive carriage of Channel 4 San Diego and CSN Philadelphia than would be affected by DirecTV exclusively carrying Extra Innings. Programming access is a two-way street and at least Sunday Ticket and Extra Innings are up for bid; the cable-only RSNs can't be had for any price.

The major item which didn't compute to me was Dupuy's insistence that the 15,000,000 homes guaranteed by DirecTV for the startup of baseball 24/7 channel is better than an additional 15,000,000 offered by iNDemand.

Uhhh, how does that compute?

Similarly, iNDemand's Jacobson complained that his firm would have to pay (assuming Dish didn't participate) 61 or 62% of the total package price under the MLB proposal, with DirecTV paying the rest. Yet if InDemand was passing close to 50 million subs, and DirecTV only 16 million, what is the problem with that? Give that split, a 75%-25% ratio would actually seem more equitable.

These guys all have their positions, and no matter the facts, they don't seem willing to move. It is very strange.

For some reason, I'm getting a page error trying to open up any of the archived webcasts.

It is now listed in the archives though.

The major item which didn't compute to me was Dupuy's insistence that the 15,000,000 homes guaranteed by DirecTV for the startup of baseball 24/7 channel is better than an additional 15,000,000 offered by iNDemand.

Uhhh, how does that compute?

Similarly, iNDemand's Jacobson complained that his firm would have to pay (assuming Dish didn't participate) 61 or 62% of the total package price under the MLB proposal, with DirecTV paying the rest. Yet if InDemand was passing close to 50 million dubs, and DirecTV only 16 million, what is the problem with that?

These guys all have their positions, and no matter the facts, they don't seem willing to move.

That doesn't compute either. Doesn't DirecTV already have the vast majority of EI subs so wouldn't they'd be remitting the most back to the MLB in any case?

GeorgeLV's very valid point was made several times during the hearing: the NFL and MLB packages were open for bids. Cable declined to satisfy either the NFL or MLB.

But Padres and Phillies games have never been available at any price to satellite subs, even though Cox and Comcast sell them to other cable companies in their regions.

Well, more people are affected now by cable's exclusive carriage of Channel 4 San Diego and CSN Philadelphia than would be affected by DirecTV exclusively carrying Extra Innings. Programming access is a two-way street and at least Sunday Ticket and Extra Innings are up for bid; the cable-only RSNs can't be had for any price.

I'm not sure Sunday Ticket is up for a bid in any fair sense of the term "up for bid". A big difference between San Diego/CSN Philly & Extra Innings is that EI is brokered-bargained-sold for by MLB itself and not each individual team. In this case (and w/the NFL), the league is the one that is restricting the rights to an exclusive distribution channel. MLB has also availed itself of government regulation by being granted a anti-trust exemption. I don't think the cable companies have that. Nothing prevents an individual team from doing a DTV pay-per-view deal or not televising games at all (FYI, I believe MLB home teams are the only ones with rights to televise games and extend those rights to visiting teams - this was brought up years ago when someone suggested that to force revenue sharing they could prevent YES or the Yankees from televising road games)

Do Cox & Comcast get by under some antiquated loopholes to keep them? Sure, but the teams agreed to those deals and terms individually, not within a collective cartel like MLB. A cartel that enjoys a special privilege not accorded most businesses in this country.

I think this is all silly. I was one who already made the switch to D* because watching on my pc won't cut it for me. MLB is truly looking out for how much money they can make and not looking at what the fans want. MLBTV offers every game right? While EI only offers 60 games per week. Being in the west coast I can't watch the Yankees on Saturdays. I also miss out on most Friday games because those are MY9. With D* I can get the YES network except for games and for some reason Yankee magazine. I get Nets Magazine. During spring training I get the live feed of the games but never the replays.
I say scrap the whole EI package and let people buy what ever team they want no matter where they live. Help out the smaller markets and level the playing field. Give me the YES network full time during baseball season for a fee. The fee I pay goes to the home market. In this case the D'Backs would get my money. How is this not a win/win? Teams like KC, Tampa, and other smaller markets make more money other than their local tv contracts. The Yanks, Mets, and the team in Boston can make more money because they can start selling national tv spots.
The Fox and ESPN deals won't be as big of a money maker for MLB but wouldn't they make more over all? Why wouldn't this work?

John Kerry talking about someone doing something for a buck

What a hypocrite

I'm not sure Sunday Ticket is up for a bid in any fair sense of the term "up for bid".

Why are you not sure?

The stories about cable saying the package was too expensive were posted here at the time and at numerous times since.

Ticket too high: Cable Punts On Pricey NFL Slate
By Steve Donohue & Mike Reynolds MultiChannel News 11/15/2004

Cable operators have complained for years about losing customers who jumped to satellite for DirecTV Inc.'s exclusive “NFL Sunday Ticket” package. But when cable recently had an opportunity to buy the National Football League's out-of-market pay-per-view offering, Comcast Corp. and other operators took a pass.

“It's no secret cable was interested in Sunday Ticket, but the price was too high,” said Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing CEO Char Beales, referring to the five-year, $3.5 billion contract extension DirecTV cut with the NFL last week, giving it rights to 14 live games each Sunday through the 2010 season.

At $700 million per annum, DirecTV's new contract represents a 75% hike over the $400 million it is paying per season under the pact signed two years ago that was slated to extend through the 2007 campaign….

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA480250.html

The #s I've been hearing, these 700Mi/year will be dwarfed next time the package is for bid. Vz wants this package at almost any cost. And, by then, with hopefully all the bandwidth from the 2 new sats available, D* will want to hold its title of king of out-of-market sports.

Why are you not sure?

The stories about cable saying the package was too expensive were posted here at the time and at numerous times since.

I don't believe the NFL had any intention of putting Sunday Ticket on digital cable because pressure from the broadcast rightsholders and their local affiliates would have been too great. Put Sunday Ticket on digital cable and local ratings would drop by 25 to 33% and the NFL knew that going in and weren't going to jeopardize the big cash cow. How many lousy games has everyone been stuck with due to blackouts and doubleheader rules? The best leverage they have to jack fees up with broadcast networks is the exclusive window on Sundays and the territorial protection rules.

It's one thing to physically negotiate with multiple parties, its another to actually negotiate in good faith with them. I'm sure the rights were technically "up for bid" but that seems more a matter of semantics.

The #s I've been hearing, these 700Mi/year will be dwarfed next time the package is for bid. Vz wants this package at almost any cost. And, by then, with hopefully all the bandwidth from the 2 new sats available, D* will want to hold its title of king of out-of-market sports.

Verizon doesn't have anything close to national distribution. There's no way it would make economic sense for them.

I say scrap the whole EI package and let people buy what ever team they want no matter where they live. Help out the smaller markets and level the playing field. Give me the YES network full time during baseball season for a fee. The fee I pay goes to the home market. In this case the D'Backs would get my money. How is this not a win/win? Teams like KC, Tampa, and other smaller markets make more money other than their local tv contracts. The Yanks, Mets, and the team in Boston can make more money because they can start selling national tv spots.
The Fox and ESPN deals won't be as big of a money maker for MLB but wouldn't they make more over all? Why wouldn't this work?

What about those of us that live in our home market who buy EI to get all the games. I have to now pay 26 fees set by 26 teams so that my home team gets even richer?

It may be a joint Vz/AT&T bid.

Also, remember, by then FIOS shall be available in many more markets that's currently available. For instance, according to plans filed with NJ BPU, it should be available in over 60% of the NJ residences by end of 2009.

It may be a joint Vz/AT&T bid.

Also, remember, by then FIOS shall be available in many more markets that's currently available. For instance, according to plans filed with NJ BPU, it should be available in over 60% of the NJ residences by end of 2009.

Verizon or AT&T aren't the local phone companies in many places.

Does anyone watch the NFL Network, unless a game is on or maybe a replay? I rarely touch that channel and I love Football. What makes MLB think that people will watch their little network in the offseason. Sure they will be on a lower tier to get maximum coverage and that will bring in the money. Will it get the maximum amount of exposure? Nope. Why? Because they gave D* an exclusive contract. So, how can they say they want to provide the most exposure and then exclude the majority?
I may have been born at night, but not last night. It's about money and that is all. They can spin it anyway they want. I will NOT buy their little Internet package nor will I move to D* to watch the games. Besides, moving to D* is not an option as my Condo is not situated to receive D*'s signal...

I will say this, at least MLB offers a broadband package. The NFL only offers it outside the US. That said, there are other services out there that will stream the game for a fee, although I don't believe they are rightsholders and the quality and consistency of the services is somewhat questionable.

GeorgeLV, that's true, but think of the major DMAs and one of them are usually the local provider: NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston....

GeorgeLV, that's true, but think of the major DMAs and one of them are usually the local provider: NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston....

So I guess the folks living in Qwest or Embarq markets would be out of luck. No Sunday Ticket for Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, etc.

I don't believe the NFL had any intention of putting Sunday Ticket on digital cable.....Sure they did. It all came down to money.

See the comments at the time from cable executives, Comcast in particular, saying the NFL simply wanted too much.

This "cable never had a chance" belief has taken on the same aura as other urban myths, Ken H. :)

Verizon doesn't have anything close to national distribution. There's no way it would make economic sense for them.

And who knows if Verizon and AT&T will even be players when the ST package is up for bids in another four years? It seesm to me to make far more sense for them to buy DirecTV or Dish. UIt would be far sheaper and far more efficiuent.

In that vein, I posted this story a while ago in the Hot Off The Press sticky:

Fading picture: TV via telephone lines?
A few years back fiber optic was the hot thing
By Kevin Downey MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Mar 27, 2007

America's cable and satellite operators are feeling challenged wherever they turn from new competitors anxious to offer cheaper ways to deliver media services into the home.

One of the biggest looming threats has been the telephone companies, with their ambitions to deliver competing TV programming over phone lines.

Except it's really not such a big threat after all.

For all the talk of telephone companies like Verizon and AT&T laying fiber optic cable capable of delivering TV, with the aim of stealing away subscribers and advertising, it's not nearly the threat it once seemed.

Indeed, while Verizon began signing up subscribers in 2005, it doesn't have much to show for it, and now most analysts say a projection for 10 million teleco TV subscribers by the end of the decade is looking downright bullish. (And even) that would be (well) under 10 percent of the estimated 106 million homes subscribing to all forms of TV service by 2010....

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_11033.asp

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=10140479

George, I think it's too early to tell whether by then these companies would remain independent or if, say, Qwest would have been bought by VZ or AT&T.

You only subsidize it if you buy NFL Sunday Ticket.

Paying the base or package price for any service (sat or cable) partially subsidizes all their channels. That's nothing new.

There's alot of sour grapes going on because the competition was sitting on its hands to match the offer and/or beat D*TV to the punch. :rolleyes:
That may be true for DirecTV and the NFL channel, but the NFL has been trying to get the channel on the lowest tier on provider's systems, the tier everyone buys just to get basic service to start with. They all want what ESPN has, they get their subscribers numbers even though less than a 3rd of those forced to subscribe even watch the channel.

Caray says his 5000 number is based on customers who order DirecTv and can't get it. There have to be a lot of people who realize they don't have line of sight to the satellite and don't even try. That number, 1 or 2 percent, seems low to me and the explanation of where he gets that number enforces that to me.

If it does nothing else, at least the hearing got them to explain that ridiculous 5,000 number. It just seemed WAY too small when I heard it. (Seems to me there should be that number in every metropolitan area in no line of sight condos or with blocking tree coverage who can't get D*). What a bogus number. Basically, it's the number of people with marginal situations - - i.e., they thought they might be able to have line of site, but it turned out they didn't. For some reason, that just really steams me.

And for the millionth time, watching an internet stream, whether on my laptop or horribly blown up on my plasma, is not a substitute for getting the games on digital cable.

I understood him to say that the 5000 number represented the total past EI cable subscribers that would not be able to switch to DirecTV. That sounds about right since the claim is that there was only about 230,000 non-DirecTV subscribers to the EI package. If you take the generally accepted number of 65 million cable subscribers, then only about 7 of every 2000 cable subscribers bought the EI package. Based on that, this would mean about 1.5 million homes do not have DirecTV access.

Yep - Carey was talking about the number of existing EI subs via cable that would be prevented from switching to D* - not the total number of cable subs.

For those wanting to see the hearing on TV, C-SPAN will replay the hearing overnight at 2:21 AM Eastern.