MLB On Cusp Of Ending Blackouts On Streaming Games Online And On Mobile Devices

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
 
The digital media company of Major League Baseball is close to relaxing blackout restrictions for games streamed to computers and mobile devices. Bob Bowman, CEO of MLB Advanced Media reiterated in an interview with The Assocoated Press that the gap continues to close in which those currently affected by blackouts of games in the local television market would be able to watch the streamed games. While it’s too early to speculate on the timing of when this might happen, it could come as early as next season. Bowman has said that having the blackouts relaxed would be a “nice retirement gift for Commissioner Selig.” Selig is set to retire in January of 2015 and the blackout policy is MLB’s #1 customer complaint.
“Everyone’s trying to solve it,” Bowman said to The AP. “If our hands were 4 feet apart three or four years ago, they are now 6 inches apart,” Bowman said. “We’re moving in the right way. We continue to talk. The dialogue is professional.”
Currently, the blackout of games on television via the out-of-market package MLB Extra Innings forces those in a team’s local broadcast territory to watch the game on the local or regional network that the team has an agreement with. For those watching online, that option is rarely available. Individual deals for team offerings in-market over the years which include the Yankees, Padres and now Blue Jays, follow an industry trend in which a user has to prove that they have access to the games locally via cable or satalitte television provider. MLB Advanced Media and FOX applied the model this year for the first time to allow fans to see the MLB All-Star Game and will do so again when the World Series is played.
When time arrives for the blackouts to be lifted, those wishing to see the games in-market will likely do the same in providing a method to prove that are subscribed to see the games on their television provider before being able to see the games streamed online or via mobile device.
The report that cites Bowman indicated that it’s not yet known whether streaming would be through MLB.TV or through the channel that has television rights. Bowman said those details are part of the “6 inches” still to be narrowed in talks.
As to those that wish this would happen sooner getting it put in place is very complex with many stakeholders that have varying areas of interest.
“If they were easy to resolve, then somebody would have done it, and if it didn’t matter, then it would have been resolved,” Bowman said. “In the end, we all want the same thing regardless of which side of the table you’re on. We all want somebody to be able to turn on a laptop or turn on a phone and see a live game in-market.”
What will be interesting is how this all plays out as more and more “cut the cord” moving away from broadcast television and getting all their content streamed online. And beyond those that have had television and are cutting, there are those that never have had television and have used the internet exclusively for streaming content. Those people will all be left out in the cold with the “prove you have this on television” model that affects not only MLB but streaming sports content as a whole. That appears to be a new problem replacing an old one as technology shifts.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2014/08/22/mlb-on-the-cusp-to-relaxing-blackouts-for-streaming-baseball-games-online-or-mobile-devices/
 

Curll

Guest
Jul 13, 2005
9,205
If true, I'll finally get MLB.tv -- provided it isn't the bullshit where you need a cable subscription.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,224
The quoted bit implies that it will require the cable subscription. But even so it's quite convenient for those who do have that and also have MLB.tv to be able to watch on mobile devices when they aren't sitting in front of the TV.
 
It's kind of ridiculous that an MLB.tv subscriber living in New England can watch any game on his phone EXCEPT for the Red Sox game.
 

Curll

Guest
Jul 13, 2005
9,205
Spacemans Bong said:
 
It is.
 
And the reason it will be is because unless you want to pay $500 for MLB.TV, you will never come close to making up the revenue MLB would lose by leaving the cable table.
$500 for MLB.TV would be a lot cheaper than a cable subscription. I'd gladly pay that per season.
 
Oh, well. Guess I'll just continue to stream the games in HD illegally for free. Shucks.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Curll said:
$500 for MLB.TV would be a lot cheaper than a cable subscription. I'd gladly pay that per season.
 
Oh, well. Guess I'll just continue to stream the games in HD illegally for free. Shucks.
 
Then why do you care? You wouldn't pay no matter what. MLB will gladly stream games in local areas if they could make more money doing it. The numbers don't even come close to adding up now, so they don't.
 

Curll

Guest
Jul 13, 2005
9,205
Spacemans Bong said:
 
Then why do you care? You wouldn't pay no matter what. MLB will gladly stream games in local areas if they could make more money doing it. The numbers don't even come close to adding up now, so they don't.
I'd rather pay MLB and/or the Red Sox than not. 
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,256
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
derekson said:
The quoted bit implies that it will require the cable subscription. But even so it's quite convenient for those who do have that and also have MLB.tv to be able to watch on mobile devices when they aren't sitting in front of the TV.
 
It's kind of ridiculous that an MLB.tv subscriber living in New England can watch any game on his phone EXCEPT for the Red Sox game.
For me (just outside of Greensboro, NC), I get blacked out anytime the Sox play Baltimore, Washington, or Atlanta.
 
I get it, MLB, you want to protect owners and have decided that blackouts do that.  Do me a favor, however, and pick one of these teams (none of which is closer than a 5 hour drive for me) rather than screwing me 3x as badly.  I have to assume that others have it even worse.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Yaz4Ever said:
For me (just outside of Greensboro, NC), I get blacked out anytime the Sox play Baltimore, Washington, or Atlanta.
 
I get it, MLB, you want to protect owners and have decided that blackouts do that.  Do me a favor, however, and pick one of these teams (none of which is closer than a 5 hour drive for me) rather than screwing me 3x as badly.  I have to assume that others have it even worse.
Las Vegas gets blacked out for LA, Anaheim, Oakland, San Fran, San Diego, and Arizona, none within 250 miles, though at least the majority of Anaheim San Diego and Arizona games are shown on cable stations we get here.  I think Hawaii and Iowa get screwed pretty bad too.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,256
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
jose melendez said:
And as I recall, the Braves are the only games on locally in NC--is that right?
Yup. The true locals here are Braves fans. I have yet to meet anyone who could give a shit less about the Orioles or Nationals.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,969
Geneva, Switzerland
The only legit Rays fans I've ever known were some folks in Durham.  I was there in 2008-2010, so they'd seen those entire good teams come up from the Bulls.
 

Flunky

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2009
1,918
CT
eh that map... we aren't blocked from Red Sox games in Fairfield county, just Yankees and Mets.
 
would be great to not have to call them every spring to remind them of this and stop blocking my games.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
Curll said:
$500 for MLB.TV would be a lot cheaper than a cable subscription. I'd gladly pay that per season.
 
Oh, well. Guess I'll just continue to stream the games in HD illegally for free. Shucks.
What he's saying is patently false, for what it's worth. They'd more than break even, and that doesn't even factor the added revenue from people like you that would rather pay to stream the local game that's blacked out than do so illegally, but also don't want to pay $80 a month to do so. MLB needs this to try to stay relevant, as it's a dying sport (and gate receipts are a trailing indicator because kids don't buy tickets...nor do they care about baseball).

Somehow Netflix has been able to generate revenues which dwarf MLBAM's without charging as much as the HBOs and Showtimes do, and not requiring cable subscriptions. Having access to 15 games a night doesn't mean MLB would need to pay out for each just as you don't pay for each of the thousands of movies you have access to.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter...

Seriously talk to me, because everything I read is that money is flooding into MLB through cable deals. How is it dying exactly?
 
Two things.  One, it's a long-term death; the thinking is that millennials and their younger siblings aren't particularly engaged with baseball but haven't reached buying power age yet.  Two, the river of money from cable to MLB today has nothing to do with baseball and everything to do with cable.  Cable is dying, and the only medical treatment that works is DVR-proof programming, and that means live events, of which MLB has approximately 8000 hours a year to sell.  Cable companies panic, demand spikes, supply stays basically consistent (there are only so many Premier Leagues to be imported).  Personally, I think it's a bubble and in ten years a lot of these rights deals will look like the broadcast equivalent of the Yankees re-signing A-Rod.  Even if I'm wrong, today's money glut just can't be considered evidence for baseball's popularity or long-term health - they're unrelated.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
407
JimBoSox9 said:
 
Two things.  One, it's a long-term death; the thinking is that millennials and their younger siblings aren't particularly engaged with baseball but haven't reached buying power age yet.  Two, the river of money from cable to MLB today has nothing to do with baseball and everything to do with cable.  Cable is dying, and the only medical treatment that works is DVR-proof programming, and that means live events, of which MLB has approximately 8000 hours a year to sell.  Cable companies panic, demand spikes, supply stays basically consistent (there are only so many Premier Leagues to be imported).  Personally, I think it's a bubble and in ten years a lot of these rights deals will look like the broadcast equivalent of the Yankees re-signing A-Rod.  Even if I'm wrong, today's money glut just can't be considered evidence for baseball's popularity or long-term health - they're unrelated.
 
Totally agree with this. There's always tons of attention given to "Baseball is making tons of money!", with little due consideration to where that money is coming from. The payments for content rights have reached ridiculous levels, with returns that are frankly terrible. There may always be somebody to pony up, but in this age of cord-cutting, etc. that business model depends on tons of people paying for content they're not watching, and is just not sustainable. Just follow what's been happening in LA with the Dodgers channel, where media companies have refused to pay (and pass on to the consumer, who then would likely refuse to pay) what the dodgers are asking for. It probably will happen slowly due to length of contract, but I'm convinced that bubble will blow. On the flip side, content rights have been going up pretty much everywhere for the past decade, so what do I know...