DODGERS SPORTSNET LA CHANNEL? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-11-2014, 10:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

Well, the "selling" point (other than the billions of dollars in cash smile.gif ) for both the Lakers deal and the Dodgers deal by TWC was that each team would get their own channel with 24/7 about that team!

Will it work... time will tell!

but at least the Lakers channel has other sports on it like college football and basketball.
I'm looking at the Dodgers channel they are reshowing the same game up to 3 times a day after its been played and some days even more
unclehonkey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-11-2014, 11:03 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclehonkey View Post

I have seen a few games during the freeview that were the Dodgers feed.
The SportsNet LA feed for MLB EI is just that....for MLB EI only. The fact that Directv doesnt carry it 24/7 is a moot point when it comes out the out of market packages. They do have the right to carry the feed only for EI subs. The reason they are not carrying it (the feed) every day goes back to not enough bandwidth.
as of right now the next Dodgers game feed showing in MLB EI is Tuesday's game (the 15th).
Correct.

Tues -- Yes
Wed -- Yes, but doesn't say whose broadcast
Thur -- No

Fri -- 2 listed but no indicator has to whose broadcasts they are
Sat -- See above
Sun -- See above

Now, as far as those MLB-EI guide listings, I don't trust them at all until the day of the game. That said, it stands to reason that there's no guarantee that the Sports Net LA broadcast will always be there as the channel does not have local carriage and DIRECTV will preserve bandwidth for full time channels over channels they don't even carry locally.

But, what has been pointed out previously and by unclehonkey again here is that DIRECTV doesn't need a contract with TWC to carry the feed for it's MLB-EI package as the broadcast of the game is owned ultimately by MLB with local rights granted by MLB to TWC for the LA market and the LA market only. TWC does not have any broadcast rights outside of that market as designated by MLB. TWC does not grant MLB rights to the broadcast, it's exactly the opposite, without the blessing of MLB TWC would not have any broadcast rights to Dodger games.
unclehonkey likes this.
Keenan is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 11:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I mispoke; only the SportsNet LA Dodgers channel is exclusive to the Dodgers at this time...
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 11:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

But, what has been pointed out previously and by unclehonkey again here is that DIRECTV doesn't need a contract with TWC to carry the feed for it's MLB-EI package as the broadcast of the game is owned ultimately by MLB with local rights granted by MLB to TWC for the LA market and the LA market only. TWC does not have any broadcast rights outside of that market as designated by MLB. TWC does not grant MLB rights to the broadcast, it's exactly the opposite, without the blessing of MLB TWC would not have any broadcast rights to Dodger games.
Yes, but that is contrary to my information, as follows: The "pull-down" fee that DirecTV must pay to SportsNet LA for carriage of its Dodgers coverage in the MLB-EI package is much larger when DirecTV does not also carry (and pay) for the same games on its RSN coverage of that channel to Southern California.

From a negotiations point of view, if I were DirecTV, I would not take any steps that shows TWC that these games have any greater value; until such time as an RSN deal can be completed.

That being said, DirecTV has not called, asking for my consulting advice on this issue biggrin.gif ... YET! smile.gif
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
humdinger70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 55
On the other side of the country....

Yankees were OTA on WPIX (11), Mets were OTA on WOR (9). Of course that's ancient history (1970s when I was living there).

What's the story now for OTA baseball in NYC?
humdinger70 is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 12:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
The "greedy" New York Yankees, even with their YES channel, licensed 21 OTA games this year to WWOR, channel 9.

Wikipedia suggests that the NY Mets have OTA on WPIX, channel 11, but I do not know the full details.
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 12:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
afrogt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 23,414
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 418
The A's don't have any games on local TV. They're all on Comcast Sportsnet California.

They have one game on FOX June 7 vs the Orioles.

Afro GT
afrogt is online now  
Old 04-11-2014, 01:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
You've already established that you are just an interloper who is not a Dodgers fan, so why do you continue to waste our time?

When Congress takes up this issue, be sure to let them know that you are satisfied with only one A's OTA game a year...
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 01:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
afrogt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 23,414
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 418
You're the only one that seems to be bothered by it. No one else has complained about my comments.

I"m just providing info about other teams and they're OTA broadcast or lack thereof.

I'm still curious as to why you think taking away MLB's antitrust exemption will get your Dodgers back on free TV in some capacity? Then it would make MLB like the NBA and NHL and I'm not seeing a whole lot of Lakers, Kings and Sharks games on OTA stations.
Quote:
You are correct: antitrust laws do not generally apply to individual baseball teams' licensing of their tv rights.

My point is that their are more voters who watch major league baseball games, then there are owners of baseball teams. While the owners can afford expensive lobbyists, at the end of the day, Congress is going to listen to the general viewing public's demand, when considering whether or not MLB continues to have its valuable antitrust exemption.

What does antitrust have to do with steriods: NOTHING! But when Congress held hearings on the steriods issue, MLB understood that the 3,000 pound gorilla in the room was the antitrust exemption.

For example, when the owners start discussing moving baseball's World Series to pay/cable: they will hear from Congress.

MY POINT: it is time for Congress to hear what baseball is doing in the 2nd largest TV market in the country, where 30% of viewers cannot afford basic cable and 2 games out of 162 will be on Saturday FOX OTA...
unclehonkey likes this.

Afro GT
afrogt is online now  
Old 04-11-2014, 01:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I think this is all the answer you deserve:
Quote:
Originally Posted by afrogt View Post

To be honest I don't really care if you get the Dodger games OTA or not. I don't live there and I'm not a Dodger fan.
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 01:31 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

Yes, but that is contrary to my information, as follows: The "pull-down" fee that DirecTV must pay to SportsNet LA for carriage of its Dodgers coverage in the MLB-EI package is much larger when DirecTV does not also carry (and pay) for the same games on its RSN coverage of that channel to Southern California.

From a negotiations point of view, if I were DirecTV, I would not take any steps that shows TWC that these games have any greater value; until such time as an RSN deal can be completed.

That being said, DirecTV has not called, asking for my consulting advice on this issue biggrin.gif ... YET! smile.gif

Are you sure it's SportsNet LA that DIRECTV would pay for the MLB-EI feed? The Swann article has the MLB spokesman saying that MLB will make the feed available,
Quote:
After some double-checking, MLB spokesman Matt Bourne told me that if a TV provider decides not to carry SportsNet LA (or any regional channel that airs MLB games), the league will "make the feed available...for out-of-market carriage in MLB Extra Innings."

Yes, they'll have some expense which appears to be primarily allocating the resources(bandwidth)to pull the feed down but I don't see anything in that article that says SportsNet LA is receiving any revenue from that. They could be, I just haven't seen anything that says they do though. DIRECTV is probably paying somebody for the feed, maybe even as part of the MLBEI package with the league, but as far as paying SportsNet LA for that EI feed, I haven't seen anything to confirm that.
Keenan is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 01:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
What's the link to the Swann article?

Update: oh, Swanni! I got it...

He answers it later in the same article:

Quote:
"It's unknown whether they (the TV provider) would allocate the resources to pull (the SportsNet LA) signal down if they don't carry it on an in-market basis," Bourne said.

In other words, DIRECTV (or Dish, in the case of the missing regional channels In New York), would have to spend something to download the SportsNet LA signal to include it in their version of the Extra Innings package. That could get expensive and lead to the TV provider [DirecTV, DISH, etc.] deciding to pass altogether on SportsNet LA. (For Dish, it would be very expensive to download the missing NY-based regional channels.)
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 01:37 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclehonkey View Post

I have seen a few games during the freeview that were the Dodgers feed.
The SportsNet LA feed for MLB EI is just that....for MLB EI only. The fact that Directv doesnt carry it 24/7 is a moot point when it comes out the out of market packages. They do have the right to carry the feed only for EI subs. The reason they are not carrying it (the feed) every day goes back to not enough bandwidth.
as of right now the next Dodgers game feed showing in MLB EI is Tuesday's game (the 15th).
Some of the posters over at sister site DBSTalk noted that this week and weekend is heavy with sports with late season NBA, NHL and The Masters which is very likely chewing up a lot of DIRECTV's bandwidth capacity. Not having the Dodger channel under a carriage contract makes it a logical choice to dump during periods of heavy bandwidth loads. The thought is with both the NHL and the NBA seasons ending next week bandwidth will open up to resume carrying the SportsNet LA feed on a more regular basis for MLBEI purposes.
Keenan is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

The "greedy" New York Yankees, even with their YES channel, licensed 21 OTA games this year to WWOR, channel 9.

Wikipedia suggests that the NY Mets have OTA on WPIX, channel 11, but I do not know the full details.

29 games on WPIX as of today. All you have to do is go to the teams site and go under "broadcast schedule" wink.gif
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Yes, that is how I got the Yankees data. I just didn't see any point in doing the work for the Mets, since it is the Yankees that clearly have the history and reputation of being "greedy!" Hence the new Dodgers TV deal shows they are even more greedy?!
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by afrogt View Post

You're the only one that seems to be bothered by it. No one else has complained about my comments.

I"m just providing info about other teams and they're OTA broadcast or lack thereof.
which I also showed in post 75 how 6 teams who have no OTA games have a higher OTA concentration than LA does (per the link posted)
Quote:
I'm still curious as to why you think taking away MLB's antitrust exemption will get your Dodgers back on free TV in some capacity? Then it would make MLB like the NBA and NHL and I'm not seeing a whole lot of Lakers, Kings and Sharks games on OTA stations.

I question the same thing too.
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

What's the link to the Swann article?

Update: oh, Swanni! I got it...

He answers it later in the same article:

Swanni is a joke. He has no clue what he's talking about. Half the stuff he posts he gets the info from sites like dbtalk and satelliteguys
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Some of the posters over at sister site DBSTalk noted that this week and weekend is heavy with sports with late season NBA, NHL and The Masters which is very likely chewing up a lot of DIRECTV's bandwidth capacity. Not having the Dodger channel under a carriage contract makes it a logical choice to dump during periods of heavy bandwidth loads. The thought is with both the NHL and the NBA seasons ending next week bandwidth will open up to resume carrying the SportsNet LA feed on a more regular basis for MLBEI purposes.

Thats what I posted previously in post 84. Tonight there are 27 "feeds" that are on the alternate regional sports channels. Those HAVE to be carried as Directv has agreements with the RSN's in question. Thats why in APril we see very few Astros, Phillies and Jays feeds (and this year Dodgers)
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclehonkey View Post

Swanni is a joke. He has no clue what he's talking about. Half the stuff he posts he gets the info from sites like dbtalk and satelliteguys
I agree, he's basically just a blowhard that parrots stuff others have talked about. The only reason that particular article interested me was the focus of it and the fact that he had a named MLB spokesperson commenting on the subject.
Keenan is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclehonkey View Post

... I also showed in post 75 how 6 teams who have no OTA games have a higher OTA concentration than LA does (per the link posted)
Quote:
I'm still curious as to why you think taking away MLB's antitrust exemption will get your Dodgers back on free TV in some capacity? Then it would make MLB like the NBA and NHL and I'm not seeing a whole lot of Lakers, Kings and Sharks games on OTA stations.

I question the same thing too.
Even though you are 2,000 miles away, since you take a more civil tone in these discussions, I am happy to answer your inquiries:

I will not bother to show you the maps of the 6 cities you cite in post 75, but as I pointed out earlier, you are getting your data from these cities' DMA (Designated Market Areas). These are defined terms used by the FCC and advertisers to carve the country into the relevant TV markets.

Los Angeles, as a city, is much smaller than the Los Angeles DMA (as noted in the map I included in post 71). TV homes in rural Kern, San Bernadino, Riverside, and Ventura Counties cannot receive OTA TV; they must either pay for cable/satellite/telco or get no TV at all. Hence their "wired" percentage is much higher than urban Los Angeles and brings the total to a much higher number.

I also restated my point which is that the economically disadvantaged living in Los Angeles live in areas with a line-of-sight view to Mt. Wilson, where all of the TV transmitting antennas are located and most of these homes easily watch TV with an antenna pointed there (many using an inexpensive indoor antenna).

These factors cause the city of Los Angeles to have a much higher percentage of OTA TV households than the DMA of Los Angeles. I already apologized earlier for using the ambiguous term "the 2nd largest TV market in the country" which caused the confusion.

My point still holds: Los Angeles is still the 2nd largest metropolitan TV market in the country and holds much financial and political sway. We tend to care about the economically disadvantaged in our city and look for ways to protect their interests; especially since they do not have the economic or political power to protect their own interests. How that plays out in other cities, I do not know.

But the political power to rezone Dodger Stadium to allow for the current owners' stated desire for future development of shopping malls, etc. is clearly held by the City Council of the City of Los Angeles!

Lastly, and again repeated here, it is not the repeal of the antitrust exemption that will protect OTA games, it is the threat of the repeal of their antitrust exemption. If Congress weighs in here on the lack of OTA telecasts, MLB will do everything in its power to keep that antitrust exemption!

We saw it with the Congressional steroids hearings; we'll see it here too!
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 03:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

I will not bother to show you the maps of the 6 cities you cite in post 75, but as I pointed out earlier, you are getting your data from these cities' DMA (Designated Market Areas). These are defined terms used by the FCC and advertisers to carve the country into the relevant TV markets.
I know how DMA maps work so I dont need the lesson wink.gif
Quote:
Los Angeles, as a city, is much smaller than the Los Angeles DMA (as noted in the map I included in post 71). TV homes in rural Kern, San Bernadino, Riverside, and Ventura Counties cannot receive OTA TV; they must either pay for cable/satellite/telco or get no TV at all. Hence their "wired" percentage is much higher than urban Los Angeles and brings the total to a much higher number.

I also restated my point which is that the economically disadvantaged living in Los Angeles live in areas with a line-of-sight view to Mt. Wilson, where all of the TV transmitting antennas are located and most of these homes easily watch TV with an antenna pointed there (many using an inexpensive indoor antenna).

These factors cause the city of Los Angeles to have a much higher percentage of OTA TV households than the DMA of Los Angeles. I already apologized earlier for using the ambiguous term "the 2nd largest TV market in the country" which caused the confusion.

There are large markets that are the same example. I'll use my market of Minneapolis, MN
The market runs from the Iowa border almost to Canada. The circle I drew is what would be considered OTA with a medium antenna. Outside of that you're looking monster antenna and pre-amp and it **might** work.
As you can see there are 3 black dots in the market. Those are areas where there are full powered stations.
In the SW (Redwood County) is ABC and thats it for full powered station. There are some areas around there that the local electrical co-op has some translator stations set up. Some areas are free (well they take donations) and some areas you need to rent a box as its scrambled but it does give you the Minneapolis stations
The dot in the central middle (by Douglas and Stearns county) is CBS & ABC. Again there is a low powered translator system that does have the other locals but they are low powered and only get out maybe 25-30 miles with an outdoor antenna way less with an indoor antenna
The dot in Beltrami is CBS, PBS and My. There is a low powered Fox and ABC there that covers the main city of Bemidji.

So unless you're in Minneapolis area or near one of those low powered translator systems OTA is pretty much minimal or non existent yet the number for OTA only is higher than Los Angeles

minnesota.jpg 178k .jpg file
Attached Images
File Type: jpg minnesota.jpg (178.0 KB, 13 views)
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 03:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
This is getting pretty far afield from my point, as I suspected it would, but:

Are you suggesting that there is no benefit to economically disadvantaged fans of the Minnesota Twins living in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to have OTA games each year?

Coincidentally in my letter to Senator Boxer, I wrote:

MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 03:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

Are you suggesting that there is no benefit to economically disadvantaged fans of the Minnesota Twins in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to have OTA games each year?

We haven't had OTA games (other than the Fox games) in I think 3 or 4 years now. It was either 2010 or 2011 that was the last year of OTA games (other than the Fox games). There use to be 25 games on "My29" (mainly the season opener and Sundays) but FS North bought the rights to those (they use to produce the games for My29) so now all the games are on FS North.

If you're saying that teams should put games on OTA for the poor people (there are folks who have OTA only not because they are "poor but refuse to pay outrageous prices for cable or satellite due to the constant repeats and honestly crap on there) I'm sure the sports teams see no or little value to putting them on OTA. There is more money in the RSN game.
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 04:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Yes, that is my point exactly! Hence time for Congressional intervention.
MichaelLAX is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 08:48 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Correct.

Tues -- Yes
Wed -- Yes, but doesn't say whose broadcast
Thur -- No

Fri -- 2 listed but no indicator has to whose broadcasts they are
Sat -- See above
Sun -- See above
An example why I don't pay too much attention the guide listings, at least until 4-6 hours hours before the game start.

Saturday now shows a Dodger broadcast on 742 and a Sunday Dodger broadcast on 744. Of course those may change yet again.
unclehonkey likes this.
Keenan is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 10:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
looking at the directv site this is what they show for the next week

Saturday 742
Sunday 744
Tuesday 748
Wednesday none (it says 745 but that is probably the Giants feed)
Thursday 728
Friday 748

so lets see how close that is to being true smile.gif
Here is where I got that info
http://www.directv.com/sports/mlb_schedules
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 10:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
One thing I see (and mentioned it before) is after Sunday when NHL reg season ends you see Jays, Astros and Phillies feeds listed
unclehonkey is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 10:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,618
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Liked: 274
Don't care about the Dodgers. I'm watching the Giants play Colorado OTA in crystal clear 1080i. Granted , we only get a few games OTA but it beats the hell out of paying unreal prices for the games. Sports have become way too expensive to either watch them live or on pay tv.
unclehonkey likes this.
Otto Pylot is online now  
Old 04-12-2014, 05:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
I see the other "Los Angeles" baseball team only has 3 OTA games on FOX in somewhat clear 720p, which is still a lot better than the days of upconverted composite widescreen SD.
TVOD is offline  
Old 04-12-2014, 07:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
joed32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

Yes, that is my point exactly! Hence time for Congressional intervention.

They would be deadlocked on the issue just like everything else.
unclehonkey likes this.
joed32 is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off