[dirtynine]

MLB.tv is fantastic, unless you happen to want to, say, watch the Sox online from somewhere inside New England. Obviously the future of TV is moving towards an online streaming model, and MLB Advanced Media knows this, because they've been trying to ink deals with teams to allow local streaming since at least 2008. Last summer, they announced that the Yankees, YES and Cablevision had agreed to a deal that allowed local streaming to customers who could verify that they already had the proper tier of Cablevision service to be paying for the programming anyway. While this defeats the purpose of those who'd like to cut the cable cord and buy in-market sports a la carte, it's a step in the right direction. John Henry is on record as being both positive about local streaming and protective of NESN and the Red Sox as a local cable property.

Personally, I'd love to cut out cable TV and pay the Sox / NESN directly (and handsomely) for the right to stream Sox games in-market. Right now, it's not a possibility - not even a glimmer of one. So: what does the future hold for MLB media? For the Sox specifically? And, if not yet Boston, for the most forward-thinking teams? Although I view progress towards online and mobile streaming as a positive and inevitable alternative, does everyone?

Or to put it more bluntly: I'd pay something like $200 a season to be able to watch the Sox live on my PC and iPhone, in-market. The technology is there today. Will NESN or the Sox ever put a price on that reality? If so, what is a reasonable dollar amount?

[BellhornsBiatch]

MLB.tv is fantastic, unless you happen to want to, say, watch the Sox online from somewhere inside New England. Obviously the future of TV is moving towards an online streaming model, and MLB Advanced Media knows this, because they've been trying to ink deals with teams to allow local streaming since at least 2008. Last summer, they announced that the Yankees, YES and Cablevision had agreed to a deal that allowed local streaming to customers who could verify that they already had the proper tier of Cablevision service to be paying for the programming anyway. While this defeats the purpose of those who'd like to cut the cable cord and buy in-market sports a la carte, it's a step in the right direction. John Henry is on record as being both positive about local streaming and protective of NESN and the Red Sox as a local cable property.

Personally, I'd love to cut out cable TV and pay the Sox / NESN directly (and handsomely) for the right to stream Sox games in-market. Right now, it's not a possibility - not even a glimmer of one. So: what does the future hold for MLB media? For the Sox specifically? And, if not yet Boston, for the most forward-thinking teams? Although I view progress towards online and mobile streaming as a positive and inevitable alternative, does everyone?

Or to put it more bluntly: I'd pay something like $200 a season to be able to watch the Sox live on my PC and iPhone, in-market. The technology is there today. Will NESN or the Sox ever put a price on that reality? If so, what is a reasonable dollar amount?

I don't know if everyone here saw the iPad presentation yesterday (awesome and awful at the same time), but the rep from MLB was there explaining that with the newly designed package you can pick home or away announcers. Also, the version of Gamecast built specifically for the iPad will have pitch fx and spray charts with trajectories. Aside from it's drawbacks in gen 1, I'd have to believe we'll be seeing a superior product to the first run within a year. You absolutely have to be able to multitask and you definitely would want a traditional USB port (not a 30 pin USB) for jump drives and such, but for 500-600 bucks, they certainly aren't pricing themselves out of a market.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=53220&st=51

This post has been edited by BellhornsBiatch: 28 January 2010 - 01:44 PM

[gcapalbo]

You'll note that MLB TV does not normally run commercials during the breaks (or some generic mlb-type PSA spot).

Why is that?

It might seem like the solution to this problem would be to let the local broadcaster run their ads on the internet, in addition to you and I paying extra for access to a local broadcast-- generating extra internet revenue.

The real problem might be more complicated.

I believe that the issue has to do with union contracts, and the difference in revenue from ads run on the internet stream.

Union contracts for utilizing the talent in the broadcast TV ads and delivering them over another form of media delivery (i.e. internet) require an additional fee to the talent who created the ad (actors, voiceover, production, etc.) for an internet stream.

This issue has existed with internet radio, and likely exists for the tv broadcasts as well. An internet ad was considered a 'national' ad, with chargable royalties for talent at a much higher rate (5x) than one just broadcast locally.

SO-- if those of us watching locally are watching the internet feed, instead of the local TV-- and all the ads are removed-- we're NOT watching local commercials, and therefore NESN is losing that revenue from our absence.

Therefore, the simplest thing to do-- the host broadcasters just axe streaming locally to preserve their local ad revenue. When you're outside New England, you have no possibility of watching those local ads, so streaming (sans commercials) is allowed.

Same reason that all the Saturday afternoon games are axed from MLB TV, because Fox has a national broadcast contract, and therefore doesn't want to lose their ad revenue to MLB TV.

I think that's the problem that needs to be solved.

Legal engineering, not software engineering.

This post has been edited by gcapalbo: 28 January 2010 - 01:43 PM

[Meff Nelton]

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but from what I understand, all MLBAM revenues are split even through revenue sharing. Furthermore, when MLB moved to website consolidation, I also thought they mandated that all internet media revenues were to be under the purview of MLBAM. Now, if this is the case, I see it being a very difficult proposition for either the Red Sox or Yankees (large-market teams that own their own RSNs) to accept giving up the greatest asset that has yet to be co-opted by revenue sharing rules, the local cable market.

Now, even if I'm wrong about MLBAM having sole authority to stream internet media, teams having to circumvent MLB.tv in order to maintain control of their own market would destroy much of the convenience of having a consolidated online baseball package. I imagine this is going to end up as a huge squabble. Because I can't see either team silently accepting back-door NFLization of MLB media, and with a majority vote, the other owners might try to force the issue on them.