MLB & Fox Reportedly Agree on (Partial) In-Market Streaming
Major League Baseball’s arcane – and many would say horribly outdated – television blackout policy has long been a source of frustration for baseball fans. As most readers are by now well aware, under MLB’s existing rules, fans residing within each team’s designated “local” broadcasting territory are currently unable to view that team’s games over the Internet via the MLB.tv streaming service. Instead, fans must subscribe to whichever regional sports network (RSN) owns the rights to the team’s games in order to watch their local team play.
These restrictions impact fans in a variety of ways. For starters, the existing rules prevent fans from watching their local team play on mobile devices, instead only allowing fans to view their local team’s games on a traditional television set. So anyone hoping to watch their local team’s broadcast via cell phone, for instance, is out of luck under the league’s existing rules.
Perhaps more frustrating, though, is the impact that MLB’s blackout policy has on fans who are either currently unable – or simply unwilling – to subscribe to whichever RSN owns the rights to their designated local team’s games. Under MLB’s policy, even if these fans shell out $110-130 per year to subscribe to MLB.tv, they will still be blacked out from watching any game involving their local team, even if they cannot watch the game on their local cable system.
So when news broke on Monday that MLB and Fox are nearing a deal to allow in-market streaming for 15 teams’ games, some fans were undoubtedly excited to learn that baseball was apparently, at long last, fully embracing the new digital age.
Unfortunately, in reality, the MLB-Fox agreement will do little to solve the most frequent criticisms of MLB’s blackout policy, as the scope of the new deal appears to be much more modest than some initial headlines suggested.
Let’s start by looking at what the pending deal between MLB and Fox will actually do. As reported, subscribers to Fox-owned RSNs will now be allowed to digitally stream in-market games to authenticated computers and mobile devices. Under the terms of the deal, MLB has reportedly agreed to allow Fox to authenticate whether a user currently subscribes to one of its RSN through its FoxSportsGo app. This had been a major sticking point in previous negotiations, as MLB had reportedly insisted up until now on using its own MLB.tv service to facilitate the authentication for any in-market streaming.
In exchange, Fox has agreed to allow MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM) — the subsidiary that runs MLB.tv — to provide the actual digital stream that its subscribers will use to watch in-market games. Fox has also reportedly agreed to pay MLBAM somewhere in the “mid-to-high seven figures per team” in new broadcast rights fees for the right to offer its subscribers in-market streaming.
So fans who currently subscribe to a Fox-owned RSN and want to watch their local team’s games via the Internet will now be in luck — at least beginning in 2016. In particular, as Maury Brown has noted, the pending agreement will create an in-market streaming option for local fans of the following teams (assuming they subscribe to the applicable Fox RSN): the Braves, Reds, Indians, Rangers, Tigers, Royals, Angels, Marlins, Brewers, Twins, Yankees, Diamondbacks, Padres, Cardinals, and Rays.
Fans living in the designated home broadcast territory of any of the other 14 U.S.-based teams, however, will still be unable to digitally stream their team’s games in-market. (The Toronto Blue Jays currently permit in-market streaming throughout Canada for their RSN subscribers.) That having been said, negotiations between MLB and many of the non-Fox-owned RSNs reportedly remain on-going, so it is possible that the league will eventually be able to reach a deal on similar terms with those networks as well.
While Monday’s news is great for fans who already subscribe to a Fox RSN, the MLB-Fox deal unfortunately will do nothing to help those fans who currently find themselves completely unable to watch their favorite team play. As illustrated by the map below, many MLB teams’ local broadcast territory extend to areas well beyond those in which the applicable RSN is actually carried on local cable systems.
Fans in Iowa, for example, have famously found themselves blacked out from watching as many as six of the 15 MLB games on any given day, even though few cable systems in the state allow fans to subscribe to the RSNs carrying the games of the six teams that claim the state as their territory. Because these fans are not currently subscribing to these teams’ RSNs, they still will not be able to digitally stream their “local” teams’ games anywhere within the teams’ designated home broadcasting market.
For this same reason, the new MLB-Fox deal also does nothing to help local fans who have voluntarily chosen to “cut-the-cord” and forego subscribing to cable entirely. With cable subscription rates dropping, this is an issue that is only likely to become more pronounced in the future.
Ultimately, then, the new MLB-Fox agreement does nothing to resolve many of the most common criticisms of MLB’s blackout policy. While many current Fox RSN subscribers will undoubtedly enjoy being able to stream games in-market, there will still be a countless number of fans who would love to be able to watch their favorite MLB team’s games via the Internet, but yet who will nevertheless continue to be unable to do so under the league’s existing broadcast rules.
Unfortunately, given the extent to which MLB remains economically tied to its existing broadcast model, any substantial modification of these more frustrating aspects of the league’s blackout policy are unlikely to come anytime soon. Instead, fans’ best hope for significant change in this area remains the on-going Garber v. Office of the Commissioner litigation. As both Wendy Thurm and I have discussed on a number of occasions, the Garber case alleges, in part, that MLB’s television blackout polices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. If successful, the suit could potentially result in the court striking down MLB’s in-market streaming restrictions in their entirety.
As I noted in June, however, there are reasons to doubt whether the lawsuit will ever proceed that far. The same plaintiffs attorneys who are challenging MLB’s blackout policy in the Garber case recently settled a similar lawsuit against the NHL, without requiring that the league change its blackout policy in any significant respect. If MLB were to cut a similar deal with the plaintiffs, then the best short-term hope for any significant change to MLB’s blackout policy would be lost.
All in all, then, while Monday’s news of a pending deal between MLB and Fox is certainly a step in the right direction for fans, it by no means signals an end to fans’ consternation over MLB’s blackout rules.
Nathaniel Grow is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics and the Yormark Family Director of the Sports Industry Workshop at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Baseball on Trial: The Origin of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, as well as a number of sports-related law review articles. You can follow him on Twitter @NathanielGrow. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not express the views or opinions of Indiana University.
The solution to MLBs blackout policy is apparently to live in mid west Canada. No blackouts ever, not even for Jays games.
Its the bizzaro illinios.
Also, according to this map, the southwest corner of Florida is blackout free as well.
They still get blacked out for national blackouts though, don’t they? Nobody in Canada gets blacked out for any regular season game at all. MLB.tv has been an absolute dream for the past two years because of this.
US anti-trust exemption does not extend to Canada. I suspect blackouts would not fly there
Actually, that particular swath of Florida is the Everglades and, to my knowledge, alligators are not big cable fans.
There might be a couple thousand people there, max, and most of it is a mix of jungle and swamp (the “river of grass”).
Source: lived in Ft Myers for 2 years.
Collier County alone has over 340,000 people, so I have no idea where you are getting ‘a couple thousand’ from, but your sourcing is clearly outdated.
Source: United States Census Bureau.
The largest and fourth-largest growing economies of 2016, according to Bloomberg reports, are both located in ‘that particular swath of Florida.’ (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-19/these-18-cities-will-see-the-most-economic-growth-next-year)
I’m actually not sure why Collier County is whited out on that map. I was there recently and was unable to stream a local Rays game.
I live in Fort Myers, Rays and Marlins games are blacked-out.
I don’t know why I’m still so surprised at how little it takes to offend people….
I’m not offended. I’m supplying correct information. When you put incorrect info up, expect to have it corrected by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
I wonder if it is possible for an American to use to IP work around that many Canadian’s use to be able to watch American netflix as a way to watch “canadian” MLBtv?
Yes, its possible.
It’s possible on a computer, but I’m not aware of a way on mobile devices.
You used to be able to on a mobile device when you were connected to wifi, but they changed the apps for all iOS and Androids to use GPS at all times this year. You can still avoid blackouts using a laptop, apple TV, roku, ps4, or other streaming devices though that’s what I do, it’s definitely more cost-effective than paying for package to get the RSN.
Just a quick correction, in Canada you need not have cable or an RSN subscription to watch Blue Jays games on mlb.tv. The blackout restriction was lifted some 2 years ago. I’m not sure what the Blue Jays’ rational is, but I currently benefit from it so am not complaining.
I don’t believe it’s a particularly advertised feature and last I checked the mlb.tv website still states that Jays’ games are blacked out nationwide. But it’s not true.
Never found an actual answer but my guess has always been that Rogers Sportsnet is regarded as a national network, not a regional one (even though its essentialy just a propaganda arm for Rogers owned teams) so therefore the blackout terms dont apply?
Thats the best i got.
Rogers lifted the blackouts when they renewed their deal with MLB two years ago. The reason is likely because Rogers pretty much owns the media in Canada. It not only provides wireless and internet connectivity as well as cable TV services, but it also owns several channels, including Sportsnet (now the most watched sports channel in Canada). What’s more, they also own the Blue Jays and the stadium in which they play. No matter how you pay for media consumption, it ends up in the pocket of Rogers.
To me it doesn’t make sense. The whole reason networks are paying huge rights fees are so that people are tied to cable. As the owner of cable and the team, you’d think they’d want to leverage this.
That said, I’m not complaining.
The difference is Rogers also owns your wireless plan and your internet connectivity, so, if you choose to stream the video, they make money off of that too. Because Rogers is so diversified, the customer is captive, regardless of how they consume content.
That makes sense for Rogers but several other teams have territorial claims in Canada (i believe my province is Twins territory) but none of those games are blacked out either.
Maybe its because i cant actually subscribe to the Twins RSN.
Chances are the U.S. teams with Canadian rights have decided not to exercise their blackout privilege (just as the Jays have done) because they do not actually sell the rights north of the border.
Like I said, thats my assumption as well. But that begs the question, why bother having territorial rights in the first place then?
It also seems far too logical for MLB. It seems exactly like MLB to blackout games even though the people being blacked out cant actually subscribe to the RSN that is showing the game.
Just because a right exists doesn’t mean a team has to exercise it. There may not be a market for Mariners games in Alberta now, for example, but maybe one day there will be.
How about us who pay $259 a year for the MLB ticket to watch every game & every one of my local team’s games are blacked out from it. It only ticks me off when they play Toronto every season or when something important is going on during that game…
This isn’t a minor development…the ability to stream games in market on mobile devices is a major benefit for fans who currently have an RSN subscription. The heretofore inability to do so was one of the few legitimate arguments against the blackouts, which, contrary to the conventional wisdom, are beneficial to fans (see link below if interested in my reasoning). Most of the other arguments decrying blackouts are either exaggerated or ignore the very model that has vastly increased access to the game. This is a good development for baseball fans.
http://www.captainsblog.info/2015/02/04/shedding-light-on-blackouts-nothing-wrong-with-mlbs-territorial-rights/22492/
Why in the world are using this “revenue replacement” model? I think you should reconnect with your econ professor.
Lemme guess… You were rooting for Goldman Sachs back in 2009, right?
It would be tragic to see someone with such intellect and critical thinking squander his ability on defending the economic status quo… if you weren’t so damned smug about it. Enjoy the rest of your sad time here on earth, pandering to the 1% in the vain, clutching hope of sniffing a little approval.
Can we sue to get the Bay Area blackouts the same as the team’s designated areas? So the A’s wouldn’t be blacked out in San Jose or SF.
Half-joking, but it is weird that they designate areas when its convenient.
I’m glad you treated those of us who refuse to get cable packages with some grace because I really think that from the the perspective of a lot of (often young) people who have switched over entirely to the digital age, TV is a really archaic medium. Coming from that internet a la carte perspective, the idea of subscribing to a service that forces you to buy way more than what you actually intend and then still has the audacity to advertise to bombard you ads at every stop along the way is straight offensive. How can that compete with the digital model of being able to watch anywhere, for way cheaper, with essentially no advertising?
The most annoying thing is how unnecessary the TV/cable companies are in this whole process and how the whole process would be way more cost efficient without having to give a cut to a middle man who really has nothing offer anymore. MLB can easily make the product, pay the studio production costs, and distribute it all by themselves, which would make them way more money, cost us less money, and best of all get the product out to way more fans way more conveniently. I guess some people still prefer TV but for the rest of us, the cable companies are just Don Fanucci needing to wet his beak and get in the way of future.
The TV/cable networks already have a strong infrastructure in place that contributes to a good televised baseball experience. Modern sports networks do an excellent job with all the camera angles, advanced slow mo, and other things associated with production. Televising live sporting events is no simple feat and I doubt Major League Baseball could step in immediately and provide the experience we are accustomed to.
MLB gets money from the advertisements. In fact, the Phillies made a deal with Comcast that stated they would get all the ad revenue for their station. Ads are a feature and not a bug for MLB.
The problem is that MLB can’t distribute the product all by itself without cable companies. At the moment, cable companies broadcast games to all of their customers regardless of their interest. If MLB did it themselves then they would only be able to convince viewers with interest in baseball to pay for their service and would lose millions of subscribers.
The problem is MLB has to also consider the non-cord cutters, especially those that are not hip to streaming (or can’t). I’d imagine they’d lose more than they gained if they switched to a full-on streaming model.
Sorry Greg, that just isn’t the world we live in yet. Cable tv is MLB’s meal ticket, and it’s also it’s key into the homes of millions of people who would never pay to watch the sport.
Cutting cable out of the equation puts MLB on par with things like Major League Gaming. In other words it is probably the stupidest thing they could ever do.
Eh, the Internet isn’t really a la carte. It’s not like MLB.tv allows you to buy just your favorite team’s game and nothing else. The most popular streaming services, like Netflix and Amazon Instant Video, are also bundles of lots of content, most of which you don’t care about. It is possible to buy shows a la carte on Amazon or iTunes, but most people prefer a bundle of streaming content.
It’s still more bandwidth efficient to broadcast. The digital model is cheaper mostly because the other model is subsidizing it. That’s no reason not to cord cut now, but once everyone switches to digital either there will be less money in TV (and less entertainment produced) or the average price will increase for the total digital streaming services bought by the average household to be similar to cable now.
There will certainly be individual winners and losers, though.
This must be from 2011 or earlier based on “Florida” territory
Is there a 14th amendment Equal Protection argument here? Fans of certain teams are treated discriminatorily compared to fans of other teams. Since fandom is highly correlated to where someone grew up, could you make an argument that this policy discriminates in an unconstitutional manner against people who grew up in certain parts of the country?
For example, if two people live in New York and one grew up in Queens and was raised as a Mets fan and the other grew up in Los Angeles and was raised as a Dodgers fan, then this policy unfairly discriminates against the person who grew up in Queens.
One could also say that it unfairly discriminates against everyone living in Iowa.
IANAL and this argument is probably terribly flawed but it just popped into my head so I figured I’d share it.
I don’t see why not.
The Supreme Court makes up all kinds of crazy crap these days.
14th amendment applies only to the government, not to private entities. The constitution allows private discrimination for any reason whatsoever. All anti-discrimination rules are either statutory, regulatory, or contractual
I would imagine there is some sort of anti-discriminatory verbiage in the contracts that are signed with the cable companies… no?
It is truly great living in Southern Oregon. 5 hours from the Bay Area, 8 hours from Seattle, but still in both those territories.
Even more than 5 hours to the Bay, right? I recently drove up from the Bay to the Lava Beds National Monument, which is virtually on the California-Oregon border, and that took me 6 hours with basically zero traffic.
If you insist on driving in the left lane, please (at least) achieve the speed limit.
I was excited when I clicked on this article. Much less so now. Those of us who do not even have the option of buying the RSN subscription are still screwed. I’m willing to throw money at MLB to let me watch every Cubs game and they won’t take it. Seems dumb.
It’s actually quite easy to work around local blackouts of MLB.TV. All you have to do id purchase one of these services that throws off your IP address. I use one called “Hide My Ass” (yes, that’s it’s name). I think it’s about $10 a month. You pick a different city from a scroll-down menu, it routes your signal through there, and you can watch your local team (the Astros in my case). It’s not perfect because I have to airplay my laptop onto my Apple TV and the picture isn’t as consistent as it is straight through the Apple TV, but it’s better than paying for evil local cable, or missing my Astros’ miraculous season!
It’s funny, when you hear a story about Whole Foods prices being too high, there isn’t usually a comment that says “I just solve this problem by stealing half the stuff I get at Whole Foods.”
Except he is in fact still paying full price. Your metaphor doesn’t work.
Full price is buying cable or direct TV and getting MLB Extra Innings. It’s much better than MLB.tv, but it also costs more. I guess maybe a better analogy would be if I said I bought everything, but I switched the labels on a bunch of stuff so I would pay less.
What about those people who can’t even buy the Channel to watch their local team?
That really sucks. I’m not being sarcastic. It does.
Using a VPN to watch a service you already pay for = stealing half of the food you’d buy from a supermarket? What?
Intellectual property is still property and this is piracy, which is stealing.
A)I have no idea how this classifies as intellectual property. Its a streaming service.
B) Even if it did HE IS STILL PAYING FOR SAID IP. He is just circumventing the location lock. At worst its violating the ToS.
You analogy is terrible. Give it up.
The Hola browser extension works quite well. I usually ping from the UK and have not had any issues. Occasionally the quality takes a hit though and you have to ping from somewhere else or face annoying digital hiccups.
I’m actually willing to admit that using a VPN to get around a local blackout is in fact stealing, or piracy. I “should” be paying for local cable if I want to watch the Astros in Houston – those are the rules. Thing is, I just don’t care. Cable companies have been screwing us all over with their local monopolies for plenty long enough, forcing us to buy 200 channels to watch the 3 we actually like, writing their bills in such a way as to be all but inscrutable, etc. I am enjoying seeing their model crumble day by day and I am happy to contribute, in my own small way, to their downfall. Am I a thief? Perhaps. Do I feel guilty about it? Not a bit.
That’s fine. I don’t really care if you do. I also wouldn’t care if you stole produce from Whole Foods – they are kind of shitheads too. I’m not here to cry for cable companies. I just think people should know that it is piracy, which is stealing.
Shirtless George Brett: you walked into a conversation where someone was making an analogy in Mandarin. You don’t speak Mandarin. You assume and say the analogy is terrible.
Paul, think of it a bit like Napster and pirating music. At first it was more or less illegal to get music off the internet in any way, shape or form. But then everyone started breaking the law and now we can buy a single song for $1 or stream a custom radio station for free with ads or for a small monthly fee with no ads.
TV will eventually go the same route, with some modifications of course (like I doubt you’ll ever be able to buy the right to stream a SINGLE baseball game). If demand for a particular kind of service is so high that most everyone is willing to break the law, usually the market and the laws change to accommodate that demand. Its only a matter of time, though in this case it might be a few decades as its a bit of a generational thing. We’ll need people currently in their early 30’s to be in there 50’s before most of the TV market is willing and able to do things like VPN to a different city to get around a practice that exploits customers.
Sad thing is, people just don’t seem to understand very simple truths like the one TKDC is saying. There is this idea that all things digital should be free; that because the marginal cost to the producers is effectively $0 we should all pay $0.
Look at how hard it is to make money in the music business these days, or the dearth of original movies. Sure the cable companies are assholes, and MLB is making money hand over fist but that doesn’t mean that we won’t be missing out when it all comes crashing down.
Ah those simple truths, like no original movies. The MPAA from 2002 called, they need you stat.
This in reply to something Walter Says said: actually the NBA is pursuing the idea of offering single game streams. I’d pay 5=10$ to watch a single game if my friends were coming over and there was a game we all wanted to see. There are tons of people who don’t want to watch a season of games but wouldn’t mind having a single game on their TV when friends come over for a bbq. MLB is missing the boat on this revenue source.
Its what they call victimless crime. Fox, Comcast and Time Warner are losing money. Cry me a river.
The only way to beat the system is to live a lightyears away from your team’s area. I’m a Phillies fan in ABQ and I can get everygame that’s not Dbacks or Rocks, which is only at most maybe 12 games a year. 12 games against out of division opponents too.
That doesn’t always work though. As a Mets fan in Charlotte, I’m blacked out of 19 games against the Braves, 19 games against the Nats, 4 games against the Orioles and about 6 games against the Reds. That’s about 30% of the season, including plenty of upcoming games in the middle of a pennant race.
And I don’t think that MASN (O’s/Nats) is available via Time Warner, so even if I got cable I wouldn’t be able to see them. My only choice would be DirecTV or Dish. I might be able to justify that if I was actually an O’s/Nats fan, but I can’t lock into their service to watch 19 games a year.
Jeez that is rough. Maybe just quit being a Mets fan.
MLB.tv: Use a VPN and login from “Europe”. The end.
You wouldn’t steal a car, why would you steal baseball?
He’s not stealing anything. You still have to pay for MLB.TV, you’re just not getting blacked out from any games.
Yeah, its like when I buy a ticket in the 400 section and I sneak down to behind the dugout. I mean, I bought a ticket, amirite?
Except your 400 level tickets cost way less then tickets behind the dugout. So its not really the same thing at all.
MLB.tv costs way less than cable + Extra Innings.
Seems like a lot of people on Fangraphs steal baseball.
i bet that whoever came up with that analogy regrets it.,, has not worked at all, people apparently are not swayed by it or have realized it is ridiculous
Same goes for anyone who criticizes me for cheating on my taxes.
Bingo. Although I log in from Brazil. Unblock-us is $4-5/month. Well worth it.
MLBs problem is that a handful of teams have an ownership stake in their RSNs. Anything MLB does that could remotely undercut an RSN has a direct impact on those teams themselves.
If that lawsuit ends up eliminating blackouts, it would actually erode some teams’ ability to compete. Putting all broadcast rights under one roof may be the more anti-competitive act.
The true win-win scenario would be to offer two MLB.tv tiers:
1) As is right now, the fee is based on local blackouts.
2) There is a higher tier that has no blackouts, and the marginal fee on top of 1) goes directly to the local RSN, even if the (MLB.tv) subscriber has cut the cord.
There would have to be some form of revenue sharing in those areas covered by multiple RSNs, but for the most part, the viewer wins since they can safely cut the cord, saving money, and still watch all their games. The RSN wins since there would undoubtedly still be plenty of people who pay for both, so they get to double-dip on some percentage of the fanbase. The biggest losers are the cable companies and the other national stations, but if MLB can make gains at the expense of rival entertainment competition, they should.
The only real hurdle is that each RSN would have to be negotiated at the same rate so the potential subscribers wouldn’t be scared off. Can you imagine: Chicago area blackout-free zone is a different charge than the LA area blackout-free zone, which is different than all the other zones? Blech. One rate, or it’s not feasible. If anything, introducing this partial “solution” makes it harder to offer a unified blackout-free subscription, since now they’ve got an existing contract to work around.
Speculation but I would guess that the cable companies might threaten to remove the channel from basic cable packages
Cable company position would be they would lose a decent chunk of total cable subscribers so they are going to try to make up for it by making RSN’s part of an additional add on package to make up for lost income.
One could argue that would then cause even more people to cancel their cable subscription but it is the only real leverage left for cable companies
Yes, I was going to ask this same thing. Why can’t there be a surcharge if you want “in-market” games? And for places like Iowa, you can choose which “in-market games” you want. Clearly there’s pricing to be worked out, and because of the way ads are sold, you’d have to supply the RSN’s ads instead of MLB’s. Is that really so hard to make happen?
If google can put adds in email browser based on my last amazon search…..I’m gonna say no, that’s not hard.
The RSN contracts all have different end dates too, so it is even harder to buy out existing contracts, especially when some teams have much better deals than others.
It’s hard to imagine the blackout rules negatively affecting any location more than Hawaii. I’m 3000+ miles from the nearest ballpark, but every team on the west coast claims us in their territory. I’d be happy to pay for MLB.TV if it weren’t for the absurd rules. Until then, I’ll be happy to continue to find ways around them.
In Las Vegas, I’m blacked out from every left coast team but Seattle, plus Arizona. Even though the team I watch is not left coast, they are blacked out when they play on the left coast, or when the left coast is on the road playing them.
THIS! I would seriously consider MLB.tv if not for the fact that Hawaii is part of the “territory” for Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, LA (both), and San Diego. Assuming none of these teams are playing each other that’s upwards of 6 of 15 games on any given day blacked out here via MLB.tv. Sure most people subscribe to the local TWC franchise and get HD feeds of both LA teams and SD broadcasts of San Diego and the ocasional San Francisco game. IIRC there is no way to get access to the OAK and SEA RSN’s.
Would love to see Hawaii and Alaska represented on the map used in the original post.
Easy solution if using Google Chrome to watch baseball games: download free app Hola. Change country you are browsing from at any besides US and Canada.
Voila!
It doesn’t look like much thought was given to territory rights in Montana. Eastern Montana is 8 hours from Denver, 10 hours from Minneapolis and 14 hours from Seattle. But the whole state is just tossed into Seattle’s territory.
Everybody hates cable, (god knows I do, I have Charter).
But what keeps the cost of these RSN’s down is that everyone that has cable in a market has them. Think 1 million subscribers $5 each a month, $5 million dollars.
If you go to a subscriber based concept, a huge amount won’t pay for it, say 90%.
So to keep the same profit, 100,000 subscribers would pay $10 each.
This is why ESPN is talking about setting up a streaming only service, and that it might cost $30-$40 a month.
So, I am much happier paying $7 a month for ESPN (that is what it costs now) and $5 for my RSN, and not being able to stream a game on a 5 inch screen.
Sorry-100,000 subscribers would pay $50 each.
“This is why ESPN is talking about setting up a streaming only service, and that it might cost $30-$40 a month.”
And it will fall on its face at that price.
Is there a reason someone couldn’t technically subscribe to a cable provider out of town? This would give you the access code you needed to stream the games through the FoxSportsGo app.
Obviously this isn’t ideal, but it would mean that people can no longer complain about literally having 0 options for watching, just 0 options they prefer for watching.
I don’t think you can subscribe to a cable provider without a physical cable installation. Although I supppse if there are no IP address based restrictions, someone could host a bunch of physical subscriptions at a warehouse or something, and the actual subscribers could just stream remotely direct from Fox Sports Go and never see or use the physical cable subscription.
Or you could just get satellite at your house. 🙂 Although depending on your location, you may have to pay extra to get the RSN you want, so a remote subscription as described above could still have benefits.
So the streaming will go through Fox Sports Go? Any idea when Fox Sports Go will work for Dish Network?
Probably never knowing fox
So now they want me to pay for cable and MLB.tv, what a waste. Might as well stick to VPN fix or using my old ipad with location services turned off.
You know what’s TOTALLY awesome? How where I live (central IL) is deemed local territory for the Cubs, so when they are on MLB Network broadcasts, the game is blacked out, meaning I have to watch on the local channel. However, some of the local broadcasts are on the regular WGN station. That’s basically a northern Illinois-only station, we only get WGN America down here. So, we get the double-whammy of being told we’re too local for the national broadcast and too national for the local broadcast.
This, MLB, is why folks have to resort to illegal streams. I’d buy MLB.TV in a heartbeat if I got Cubs games away from the home TV. Without them, it’s just not worth the $100+.
Next time can someone please just post the PDF that Fox Sports and MLB gives their paid internet “commenters” so that I don’t have to wade through their horrible analogies while reading the comments.
Never good enough… This is a horribly convoluted way to prop up the dinosaur that is cable TV. Quite simply, I’m paying some level of taxes in order to build the facility my local team plays in (also incredibly convoluted, but the DDA does not raise its own money) so I should be able to get a stream of my team’s local games via an arrangement between that team and me. (IP is assumed) No RSN nonsense.
I’d also gladly pay MLB directly for access to any stream I want but this stipulation that I have to be paying multiple people just to stream a broadcast is absurd. Like, “yeah, you pay me for the cut of meat, but you also have to pay someone else to take it out the door and then pay a 3rd person to let you put it in your car…. ”
Gotta maintain the status quo!
Doing stuff like this just drives potential viewers to other methods.
I live in Southern Oregon and I couldn’t watch the LA/Oak game last night because of the blackout rules.. even though you can’t watch Oakland games here
thanks MLB!
That is sad. You unnecessarily missed a very good game.