cost of most cable-TV packages

Is this still a thing in the USA? Do people actually buy cable packages?

I don't know of anyone in Sydney who has a cable package. Everyone just pays like $10 per month to 3-5 different streaming services and watches those.

That’s the way it’s headed in the US too, but if you hadn’t noticed, our boomers seem to be a bit more stubborn than the rest of the world’s boomers. And not for nothing, a lot of people are getting annoyed (justifiably so, IMO) at the endless proliferation of streaming services and ever-fragmenting content market. Having to keep track of which 12 services you subscribe to and which 27 you don’t is a pain.

Currently, I'm watching the Dodgers - AND EVERY OTHER SPORTING EVENT, FROM THE WNBA FINALS TO EURO SOCCER - through a pirated stream. I'd love to take the legal route, with money being exchanged for a good I value, but there simply is no way for me to do so without feeling gouged.

Pre-pirating, I was paying about $100/month for cable, which was watched almost solely for sports. That went away about a month before the pandemic struck, and I've never looked back.

In a related note:

Many Sinclair local broadcast affiliates were affected by a reported ransomware attack, impacting NFL broadcasts

Cable companies are the worst, but a streaming service that includes SNY for Mets games would cost me $65 a month, which probably isn't that much less than what I pay for cable (I get internet, cable and phone bundled so I don't know the price of just cable here).

Cable packages or streaming services (e.g. YouTube TV, Sling, Fubo) because those are the only ways to get local stations and local sports. I wouldn't begin to know how to pirate a broadcast Gold Star style so it's my only option.

Like Inge in #5 the cost of the streaming service isn't much less than a cable service but the convenience of it makes it worthwhile to me. It's so nice not to have to drag wires all around my house and the big clunky box.

Cable ap0arently never bothered to try the a la carte option...

The headline says only home games, but the article doesn't quite say that. Why would they only broadcast home games?

Cable companies are the worst, but a streaming service that includes SNY for Mets games would cost me $65 a mont

This would be $10-20 per month, according to the article.

Re 6. You literally just Google MLB streaming or so I here.

I'd love to take the legal route, with money being exchanged for a good I value, but there simply is no way for me to do so without feeling gouged.

You're welcome for subsidizing your sports viewing.

Yeah, I don't think that feeling gouged is a reason to do something illegal.

The ones I feel bad for are people in places like Nevada and Iowa. There is actually no way for them to legally watch a good percentage of games. Des Moines TV stations don't carry any of the 6 blacked out teams. So if you're a Cardinals fan there is no way to watch your team. And on any given day, 6 games could be blacked out, which means that you could have as many as 12 teams not be available to you that day. So if you're a Giants fan, you'll miss out on a good chunk of their games, too. And you can't pay to get them.

The ones I feel bad for are people in places like Nevada and Iowa. There is actually no way for them to legally watch a good percentage of games.

Those are the ones I don't get. If MLB wants to enforce a blackout in a place where I can watch a game legally well fair enough. It's their product and while I think it's a bit harsh I get it. But why someone in Iowa is blacked out on a game he literally can't acquire any other way is nonsense.

You're welcome for subsidizing your sports viewing.

Yeah, a big part of this is sports fans losing the free ride we've had for a long time.

The ones I feel bad for are people in places like Nevada and Iowa. There is actually no way for them to legally watch a good percentage of games. Des Moines TV stations don't carry any of the 6 blacked out teams.

That's not strictly true. I don't know about cable, but as far as I can tell, DirecTV Stream (formerly AT&T TV etc.) carries 3 RSNs in Des Moines, covering 4 of the 6 MLBTV blackout teams: Cardinals, Royals, White Sox, and Cubs. $85/month but no contract, no equipment. Of course, that varies by location around the state -- I think northern Iowa can get the Twins or Brewers but maybe loses Cardinals and Royals, etc. With DirecTV via satellite, Des Moines gets all 6 of the MLBTV blackout teams, although then you have equipment and a contract.

Could definitely stand to be easier and cheaper but there are still legal ways, even in Iowa.

Could this fuel expansion? The Carolinas and Tennessee have NBA/NHL but no MLB. Montreal would be a lucrative place to sell hockey streaming rights but has no MLB team.

The Spurs and Blazers have no direct summer MLB counterpart but the Astros/Rangers could work for San Antonio and the Mariners have a following in Portland.

Likewise, in Las Vegas, DirecTV Stream carries all 5 of the California MLB teams. DirecTV via satellite would add the Diamondbacks too.

Edit: and in Honolulu, DirecTV stream carries all 5 of the California MLB teams too.

Could definitely stand to be easier and cheaper but there are still legal ways, even in Iowa.

OK, I'm out of date then.

The big question is -- is this team, locally-generated revenue or is this shared, nationally-generated revenue? The Cubs, Yankees, Dodgers, etc. would not be happy to have even more of their broadcast revenue taken away.

Surely the easiest way to run/market it is to run it through MLBtv but that's not where the revenue should be going (beyond a service fee or whatever). I've never understood how MLBtv could generate so much revenue -- how many people want out-of-market baseball? If you're a Cub fan in LA (or better, Australia), it's fine value ... without Cub games, there's no way I'd subscribe. So a package of MLBtv for one home-market team of your choice costs $100 a year; adding a second in-market team costs $50; adding out-of-market costs an extra $20-30. (Hopefully re-define "market" so Iowa doesn't have 6 teams ... I intend that mainly for NY, LA, Chi area subscribers.) In places where there's no market (i.e. me, maybe a few other places), $100 for everything.

There’s always the Blue Sox, Walt. Such a shame that Manny didn’t work out.

If they're smart they don't take any revenue out of the operation for several years until it gets bought out by Disney/ESPN.

I'd love to take the legal route, with money being exchanged for a good I value, but there simply is no way for me to do so without feeling gouged.

Yeah, I don't think that feeling gouged is a reason to do something illegal.

Thank you Mr. Pope. I don't understand peoples attitude towards stealing content. I don't feel like I get good value by spending $75,000 for a Mercedes, but my response is to drive a Jeep, not steal a Mercedes.

The big question is -- is this team, locally-generated revenue or is this shared, nationally-generated revenue?

From TFA:

As for the teams, MLB’s streaming service would pay them based on viewership in their local markets.