mlbtv

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
As I've said in other threads, I'm thinking about ditching cable and going to apple TV or something like that. I'm wondering about mlbtv. If I get a subscription, do I have to get one separately for both my computer and my apple TV? Or will one subscription work for both devices?
 

Scott Cooper's Grand Slam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2008
4,410
New England
One subscription will work across multiple devices, although mobile devices require that you purchase the MLB At Bat apps. Last season, using one subscription and two apps I could access MLB.TV everywhere: iPad, Android phone, Windows laptop, iMac, PS3, and Roku.

MLB Advanced Media really nailed it with MLB.TV. The price, value (less than $1/game if you're only watching 162, and the price decreases exponentially with the more teams you follow), accessibility and ubiquity of its content should be a model for not only other sports leagues to follow, but other content providers too.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
Not sure if this belongs in this thread or the cutting the cord thread, or if I should just google it. If I cut cable, is there any way to prevent being blacked out of local games? In this case, my fiance is a MFY fan and we live in NYC. I'm fine w/ just getting the Sox on MLB.TV, but it seems she'd lose the MFY because we ditched cable.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,873
Not sure if this belongs in this thread or the cutting the cord thread, or if I should just google it. If I cut cable, is there any way to prevent being blacked out of local games? In this case, my fiance is a MFY fan and we live in NYC. I'm fine w/ just getting the Sox on MLB.TV, but it seems she'd lose the MFY because we ditched cable.
Not without finding a proxy server that would allow your IP to be shown as outside of the local area. Free proxies are not worth the hassle and a good proxy will cost $10-15 per month.
 

kneemoe

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2006
2,436
Glens Falls, NY
Not sure if this belongs in this thread or the cutting the cord thread, or if I should just google it. If I cut cable, is there any way to prevent being blacked out of local games? In this case, my fiance is a MFY fan and we live in NYC. I'm fine w/ just getting the Sox on MLB.TV, but it seems she'd lose the MFY because we ditched cable.
This belongs in P&G just so we can rag on you about the bolded section.
 

SoxScout

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2003
30,149
You can find a free proxy every night on hidemyass.com, but it's kind of a pain in the ass. I think I am going to buy cyberghostvpn.com next year and see how that works.
 

Mack

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
191
Bethesda, MD
You can find a free proxy every night on hidemyass.com, but it's kind of a pain in the ass. I think I am going to buy cyberghostvpn.com next year and see how that works.

Witopia (http://www.witopia.net/welcome.php) with the mlb.com package is a solid combination. There are of course various (free) proxy servers around, but my own experience has not been very good in that respect. Witopia is inexpensive and solid. I never miss a game due to any blackout restrictions. (I am in no way, shape, or form affiliated with Witopia, other than being a customer.)
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,578
Saskatchestan
Not sure if this belongs in this thread or the cutting the cord thread, or if I should just google it. If I cut cable, is there any way to prevent being blacked out of local games? In this case, my fiance is a MFY fan and we live in NYC. I'm fine w/ just getting the Sox on MLB.TV, but it seems she'd lose the MFY because we ditched cable.
I'm not seeing the issue here.
 

ccsubruce

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
1,015
West Hartford, CT
I haven't tried it myself but I thought I read somewhere that 'hidemyip' works in this regard?
Yep. Hide My Ip was a solid choice for me with my laptop last year; worked like a dream on my Windows based machine. I'm considering an iPad this year and I'm looking for a program similarly reliable. I'm wondering if hidemyass.com and their VPN package will do the trick. I'd like to be able to to get the iPad and iPhone apps this year.
 

Nomar813

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,859
what's the best way to view mlb tv - apple tv? roku?
As long as you have your router close to the Roku box, MLB.tv runs really well. Two things to note though:
1. If they're not close to each other or you don't have a stable connection, the signal drops out frequently.
2. When you're watching the game on Roku, it's about a minute behind the live broadcasts.
 

NY_Sox_Fan

New Member
Sep 14, 2005
12
Poughkeepsie, NY
As long as you have your router close to the Roku box, MLB.tv runs really well. Two things to note though:
1. If they're not close to each other or you don't have a stable connection, the signal drops out frequently.
2. When you're watching the game on Roku, it's about a minute behind the live broadcasts.
I got a roku for Christmas and have been playing with it. I have it directly plugged into my FIOS router with an ethernet cable and connected to my HDTV through HDMI. I've previously purchased extra innings through cable but I'm intrigued about switching to the MLBTV app. Is the quality going to be near equivalent to what I get through the cable? The flexibility it provides (iPad, iPhone, laptop, etc) would be nice if the picture quality is good enough.
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
I got a roku for Christmas and have been playing with it. I have it directly plugged into my FIOS router with an ethernet cable and connected to my HDTV through HDMI. I've previously purchased extra innings through cable but I'm intrigued about switching to the MLBTV app. Is the quality going to be near equivalent to what I get through the cable? The flexibility it provides (iPad, iPhone, laptop, etc) would be nice if the picture quality is good enough.
Through my Roku, it was nearly always in full HD, and our internet connection isn't anything special.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
17,158
If you buy mlbtv you are blacked out of the games played by your local team. This is done to protect the local broadcasts on TV, which makes sense, but also makes mlbtv useless to me as someone who lives in New England wants to mostly watch the Red Sox online.

What if there could be an agreement worked out where a fan could pay an extra charge, like $15 per month or whatever, on top of buying the mlbtv package, to get the local team's games too? The extra fee could be paid directly to the cable network who owns the TV rights to that game.

That way, the network (in New England, NESN) would get cash in exchange for "lost" viewers, who would still be watching their broadcast and still seeing the commercials during he broadcasts, MLB would sell more mlbtv subscriptions and would not have to prevent paying customers from watching the games they want to see, and the fans would have more choice about how they can watch their favorite teams.

That seems like it would be win-win-win, but obviously that isn't the case, or it would already have been done. What's the glitch with that concept? I assume it's that the TV networks would not want it to happen, but wouldn't it be worth it if they got paid a significant amount for every person who accessed the games online? It sounds like NESN gets something like a few dollars per month per subscriber from cable operators, so if they got $15 a month for everyone who watched online instead, wouldn't they come out ahead? Maybe I'm misunderstanding things here, so please fill me in.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
2,190
Central Florida
That seems like it would be win-win-win, but obviously that isn't the case, or it would already have been done. What's the glitch with that concept? I assume it's that the TV networks would not want it to happen, but wouldn't it be worth it if they got paid a significant amount for every person who accessed the games online? It sounds like NESN gets something like a few dollars per month per subscriber from cable operators, so if they got $15 a month for everyone who watched online instead, wouldn't they come out ahead? Maybe I'm misunderstanding things here, so please fill me in.
I think it comes down to eyeballs on the broadcast and how lowering them would affect their ad rates and attractiveness to potential advertisers. There's really no calculus to pre-measure how on-line accessibility would impact NESN broadcast viewership. I think it's likely a question of the uncertainty of this risk.

On another point raised earlier, I tried MLB-TV last year. I had a net top PC designed for internet video support hard wired to an internet connection which averaged 30Mb downstream, connected to my HDTV via HDMI. I thought the picture sucked, consistently sucked. There's really no other way to put it.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
If you buy mlbtv you are blacked out of the games played by your local team. This is done to protect the local broadcasts on TV, which makes sense, but also makes mlbtv useless to me as someone who lives in New England wants to mostly watch the Red Sox online.

What if there could be an agreement worked out where a fan could pay an extra charge, like $15 per month or whatever, on top of buying the mlbtv package, to get the local team's games too? The extra fee could be paid directly to the cable network who owns the TV rights to that game.

That way, the network (in New England, NESN) would get cash in exchange for "lost" viewers, who would still be watching their broadcast and still seeing the commercials during he broadcasts, MLB would sell more mlbtv subscriptions and would not have to prevent paying customers from watching the games they want to see, and the fans would have more choice about how they can watch their favorite teams.

That seems like it would be win-win-win, but obviously that isn't the case, or it would already have been done. What's the glitch with that concept? I assume it's that the TV networks would not want it to happen, but wouldn't it be worth it if they got paid a significant amount for every person who accessed the games online? It sounds like NESN gets something like a few dollars per month per subscriber from cable operators, so if they got $15 a month for everyone who watched online instead, wouldn't they come out ahead? Maybe I'm misunderstanding things here, so please fill me in.
I'm sure there are some legalities involved, but for the life of me, from a marketing and business standpoint, I cannot understand why networks don't offer streaming online. If NESN wants to stream its broadcasts online, charge $5-10 a month per person. That's probably (though I don't know for sure) more than it gets per cable subscriber from Charter, Comcast, whatever. And they would actually get viewers from across the country. I don't think a Sox fan living in Oregon is likely to have NESN as one of its cable offerings. But this way, NESN can reach that guy, and advertising dollars actually can go further (maybe not for local advertisers, but that can be worked out). Why every network doesn't do this, I have no idea.
 

manny25

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2003
992
CT
I think a big issue stopping content providers (networks) from going around the distributors (cable co's, etc.) is the fact that the distributors own a fair number of content providers as well. For example - Comcast owns NBC and its associated channels. The distributors can effectively weed out any competition if they wanted to - which is why the content providers are limited in what they can do.

I recently read this blog entry that discusses some of this (from a sports perspective): http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2012-01/tv-rights-and-the-sports-effect/#more-29368
 

Bucknahs Bum Ankle

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2003
8,487
Taintopolis
On another point raised earlier, I tried MLB-TV last year. I had a net top PC designed for internet video support hard wired to an internet connection which averaged 30Mb downstream, connected to my HDTV via HDMI. I thought the picture sucked, consistently sucked. There's really no other way to put it.
It's weird, the picture quality when streaming via my PC (even in "HD") generally sucks. When streaming via my PS3, the picture quality has always been excellent the past two season. By all accounts, the Roku does similarly well, but I haven't confirmed it yet (I will this season on our bedroom tv). There have been some occasional problems with drop outs, but that was mostly at the beginning of the season both of the past two years and was mostly cleared up by the A-S break. Not sure why, but they do tend to get it fixed.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
2,190
Central Florida
It's weird, the picture quality when streaming via my PC (even in "HD") generally sucks. When streaming via my PS3, the picture quality has always been excellent the past two season. By all accounts, the Roku does similarly well, but I haven't confirmed it yet (I will this season on our bedroom tv). There have been some occasional problems with drop outs, but that was mostly at the beginning of the season both of the past two years and was mostly cleared up by the A-S break. Not sure why, but they do tend to get it fixed.
Ok, when you say "excellent" do you mean as good as HD on cable or even close? I'd hate to buy yet another box for this and have it look like crap. I would be Roku if anything.
 

Bucknahs Bum Ankle

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2003
8,487
Taintopolis
Yeah, 720P excellent. Aside from the early season occasional choppiness and drop outs, but that seems to be coming from the provider side as they eventually get it fixed, not a limitation of download speed or the device. Plus, a basic Roku is only $50 and useful for a whole bunch of other purposes.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
41,168
Pioneer Valley
Yeah, 720P excellent. Aside from the early season occasional choppiness and drop outs, but that seems to be coming from the provider side as they eventually get it fixed, not a limitation of download speed or the device. Plus, a basic Roku is only $50 and useful for a whole bunch of other purposes.
Refurbished 1080p Rokus are selling for $60. today on Woot, but perhaps the higher p would be wasted on mlbtv?
 

Bucknahs Bum Ankle

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2003
8,487
Taintopolis
Refurbished 1080p Rokus are selling for $60. today on Woot, but perhaps the higher p would be wasted on mlbtv?
Yes, my PS3 is 1080P but MLB only streams at 720P. The basic Roku (720P) should be all you need if MLB.tv is your primary reason for having it. Plus on a 42" Plasma, I can barely tell the difference. I suppose if you've got an 80" screen it would be more noticeable.
 

FenwayFrenzy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,144
NYC
Bump - did anyone else receive a renewal notice from MLB.tv today, offering a whopping $5 discount for this year? Has anyone found any better deals/coupons out there for MLB.tv in 2012?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,878
Bump - did anyone else receive a renewal notice from MLB.tv today, offering a whopping $5 discount for this year? Has anyone found any better deals/coupons out there for MLB.tv in 2012?
I do not think MLB.tv has any coupons. The only deal I have seen is that you get MLBatBat for free with a MLB.tv purchase.
 

Barbara

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,126
Real Virginia
MLB at Bat ($14.95) comes free with the Premium purchase. I would imagine that MLB at Bat video is now available on most smart phones. (I couldn't get it on my smart phone junior last year and they weren't compatible with the Droid by the play-offs, but the Droid is on the list this year.)

They seem to have some features that I didn't notice last year.
-Audio Overlay: Overlay the home or away team's radio broadcast over the live video or use the "Park" option to include the ballpark's natural sounds.

-Clickable Linescores: Go directly to any at-bat or half inning of a game.

-In-Game Highlights: Real-time highlights and player stats automatically load in the media player. With one click, the clip instantly
launches in a picture-in-picture window.

-Player Tracker: Customize a list to feature entire fantasy rosters and receive on-deck notifications to watch live look-ins for each player. Simply click the alert and watch the at-bat live in a Picture in Picture window.

Yes, it may be considered pricey, but for those of us outside the NESN viewing area and with plain basic cable, being able to watch most of the games on a big HD TV with the NESN feed is worth the cost.
 

Scott Cooper's Grand Slam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2008
4,410
New England
but for those of us outside the NESN viewing area and with plain basic cable, being able to watch most of the games on a big HD TV with the NESN feed is worth the cost.
Agreed 100%. I say it every year, but MLB Advanced Media has really set the standard for what a digital streaming service should be. The blackout rules are terrible and archaic, but in terms of what MLB.TV Premium and the At Bat app provides, I honestly can't think of another feature that I'd want. At less than a dollar per game to follow 1 out of market team, it's a great value. FYI, the features you listed (besides the free At Bat app) were all available last year. The "park audio" option is fantastic, and for when I do want an announcer to go with the ambient park noise, I love the fact that the service automatically syncs up your video broadcast and the radio broadcast. I'm gushing at this point, but I'd rather watch MLB.TV than a network broadcast.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,288
New York City
It is an excellent service. It always works and without this App, I wouldn't be able to see most Sox games. It's beyond amazing to be able to pull up the Sox game on my computer or iPad no matter where I am. It is especially awesome coupled with a LTE mifi, because I can watch the games while I travel, too. For a hundred bucks, it's very cheap considering how many games one can watch.

Invaluable!
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,408
Yes, it may be considered pricey, but for those of us outside the NESN viewing area and with plain basic cable, being able to watch most of the games on a big HD TV with the NESN feed is worth the cost.
I can't see how anyone would consider it pricy. You end up paying <$1/game to have access to all Red Sox games, other than ones that are on Fox/ESPN (and those you can even get with creative proxy usage). Plus you can tune into any other game you might want to watch, whether it's rooting against the Yankees or tuning into a no-hitter in progress or anything else.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,515
Balboa Towers
The product has come so far since its inception. What used to be a crappy interface, low quality video, limited options, etc., is now the best representation for how good digital media can be and where we are going. I can't believe the NFL hasn't dumped a pile of money to develop a similar or better product. For three times the cost their service feels more than five years behind.
 

Scott Cooper's Grand Slam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2008
4,410
New England
I can't believe the NFL hasn't dumped a pile of money to develop a similar or better product.
I wonder how much of this has to do with how fans watch baseball vs. how they watch football. When it comes to the NFL, my favorite team only plays for 3 hours every week. For that, I don't mind going out to a bar. For $20, I can get some beer, food, and get out of the house and socialize. That, and the NFL is a near perfect TV spectacle, with its timeboxed contests and a pace of play that's conducive to commercial breaks. Doing that 162 nights a year to watch a more languid game? Forget about it.

Even if the NFL developed a comparable package, I'm not sure I'd be interested. Still, your point is a good one. Other organizations that sell entertainment should be looking at this and asking "why does this work and how can I apply it to my product?"
 

Orange Julia

kittens kitttens kittens kittens
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
13,828
NatsTown!
We used to get Extra Innings on cable, but for the past two years we've gotten the MLBTV and use the Roku to stream it to the TV (which does add a lag which is a drag when watching the game in chat with other people) or on our computers for day games and we're stuck at the office. Also, i pick up the At Bat app for my android phone and i can listen to any game while driving up the coast to CT. I haven't found At Bat to be a free add on, though, with a paid subscription...
 

steeplechase3k

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
3,015
Portland, OR
I just purchased a Roku specifically to be able to stream these games to my TV, I had always thought they were really expensive so I never got one, but saw that they are very reasonable. Being 3 time zones west of the Red Sox I also have always gotten the app so that I can listen to the game on my train ride home, (after watching the start of the game at work). I hated having to try to watch the game on my laptop and be in the game thread/look at other things online.
 

Barbara

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,126
Real Virginia
We used to get Extra Innings on cable, but for the past two years we've gotten the MLBTV and use the Roku to stream it to the TV (which does add a lag which is a drag when watching the game in chat with other people) or on our computers for day games and we're stuck at the office. Also, i pick up the At Bat app for my android phone and i can listen to any game while driving up the coast to CT. I haven't found At Bat to be a free add on, though, with a paid subscription...
OJ - they are touting it on the MLB.TV site. It is available Feb 29 and apparently you just login with your MLB.TV account rather than purchasing the app as we have done the last couple of years. Hoping it will be easy to "share" with the spouse person.

Did you get your auto renewal email? Mine came yesterday.

A minor complaint I have with MLB.TV is the way it goes silent during a commercial. In the early years, we got the straight NESN feed with commercials and all. Yes, commercials, but such a sense of home. Then we got a break of ukelele music showing bobble head dolls. They can do without the "in a commercial break" screen.
 

FenwayFrenzy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,144
NYC
I can't see how anyone would consider it pricy. You end up paying <$1/game to have access to all Red Sox games, other than ones that are on Fox/ESPN (and those you can even get with creative proxy usage). Plus you can tune into any other game you might want to watch, whether it's rooting against the Yankees or tuning into a no-hitter in progress or anything else.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was expensive or not worth the cost. I could have sworn that there were a few coupons/deals out there last year, but I'm more than willing to "settle" for my $119.95 for this year.

MLB has done an amazing job on the product -- they are clearly the leaders in the space, and the interactive features are top notch. The feed choice and park sound options are fantastic for avoiding road team announcers and NESN guests in the booth. When they are blacked out here in NYC, hidemyass.com always works to avoid the torture that is the YES network and Michael Kay.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
10,150
NOVA
One thing to consider for those who want to subscribe to MLB.tv and cut the cord - there is no access to the playoffs online except for something called postseason.tv, which I hear sucks.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,408
One thing to consider for those who want to subscribe to MLB.tv and cut the cord - there is no access to the playoffs online except for something called postseason.tv, which I hear sucks.
If you use an international proxy to trick them into thinking you're overseas you can just watch the Fox and TBS feeds.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,164
I can't believe the NFL hasn't dumped a pile of money to develop a similar or better product. For three times the cost their service feels more than five years behind.
I don't think they care too much considering the money they are getting from DirecTV. DirecTV prices it high intentionally.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,189
0-3 to 4-3
Does anybody know if you can view Sox games via Roku while living in Boston? In other words, do things like hidemyip work with Roku?

(null)
 

gtg807y

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 31, 2006
3,188
Atlanta, GA
How's the quality on MLB at Bat? I never bought it in the past since I doubt I'd use it enough to justify another $15 on MLB broadcasts, but it seems like a decent little perk for this year's package.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Does anybody know if you can view Sox games via Roku while living in Boston? In other words, do things like hidemyip work with Roku?

(null)
This might require router-side proxying - beyond my knowledge in terms of implementation or if it would work with hidemyip, but in theory rather easy.
 

Barbara

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,126
Real Virginia
How's the quality on MLB at Bat? I never bought it in the past since I doubt I'd use it enough to justify another $15 on MLB broadcasts, but it seems like a decent little perk for this year's package.
The radio feed during a game is great. This year I'll get video (new phone). But the quality of MLB.TV improves every year so I'm very hopeful.
 

FenwayFrenzy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,144
NYC
Not sure where to put this, but I received an invite for an the MLB.com "Fan Upfront 2012" event in NYC this Tuesday, February 28th. Anyone else going?

EDIT - so not to detract from the thread, PM me if you are going.
 
Sep 30, 2009
18
Could anybody with MLB.TV/Roku experience please let me know how it works in terms of DVR-ish controls? I have read you get stuck with dead air during commercials on live games, and even on archived if you don't FF at the right time. I expect to mostly watch archived games, or at least start 1st inning while game is further along. Do you have ability to FF/Rew? Is there an MLB.TV condensed game available with the package?

Thanks.
 

djhb20

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2004
1,887
10025
You can FF, but I find it unreliable to be able to ff and start again at the right point. On the computer it's a bit easier. But, each season brings things slightly different, so your mileage may vary in 2012.

That said, mlb.tv rules, and there's no reason not to get it over extra innings, especially if you have a Roku, PS3, etc. to watch on your tv.

Plus, every time someone buys a mlb.tv package, a Yankees angel gets hit in the groin.