|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
The MLB Network is being dropped by YouTube TV after the two parties failed to reach a contract renewal agreement, according to an email sent to YouTube TV subscribers on Tuesday.
Though subscribers to YouTube TV’s base plan will still be able to watch select national Major League Baseball Games on Fox, ESPN and TBS, any saved recordings of content from the MLB Network will be lost as the result of the failed negotiations.(Before Tuesday, the MLB Network was available as part of YouTube’s $64.99 monthly base plan.)
“We apologize for the news and will continue conversations with the MLB to advocate on your behalf, in the hope of restoring their content on YouTube TV,” the email to subscribers said. A representative for the MLB Network, the league’s 24/7 channel with live games and studio programming, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to 1k5v3L for his generous support.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Rangers ace Jacob deGrom needs Tommy John surgery, will miss rest of 2023 season (32 - 1:32am, Jun 09)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for June 2023 (276 - 12:51am, Jun 09)Last:  Addie JossNewsblog: Economic boost or big business hand-out? Nevada lawmakers consider A’s stadium financing (16 - 12:48am, Jun 09)Last: Doug Jones threw harder than meNewsblog: Jays pitcher Anthony Bass sorry for posting video endorsing anti-LGBTQ boycotts (172 - 11:43pm, Jun 08)Last:  You Cannot Transcribe ZonkNewsblog: The Official Mets Fan Self-Immolation Thread (995 - 11:32pm, Jun 08)Last:  cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JESox Therapy: Lining Up The Minors (39 - 11:08pm, Jun 08)Last: DarrenNewsblog: 2023 NBA Playoffs Thread (2656 - 11:06pm, Jun 08)Last:  tshipman (The Viscount of Variance)Newsblog: Beloved ex-Met Bartolo Colon finally retires from baseball at 50 (26 - 10:22pm, Jun 08)Last: A triple short of the cycleHall of Merit: Reranking Shortstops: Results (2 - 9:25pm, Jun 08)Last: JaackNewsblog: MLB postpones Yankees, Phillies games as Canadian wildfire smoke harms air quality (34 - 7:34pm, Jun 08)Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)Newsblog: Bobby Bolin, former Giants pitcher, dead at 84 (19 - 4:18pm, Jun 08)Last: sanny manguillen Newsblog: Brewers' Jon Singleton back in majors for 1st time since '15 (2 - 4:07pm, Jun 08)Last: PetuniaNewsblog: Arraez and Let Us Swing (42 - 12:01pm, Jun 08)Last: Tom and Shivs couples counselorNewsblog: Reds call up top prospect Elly De La Cruz, put Nick Senzel on IL (11 - 2:36am, Jun 08)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: Blue Jays demote Alek Manoah to rookie-level Florida Complex League (17 - 8:12pm, Jun 07)Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. jimfurtadoI will get used to not watching MLB Network.
Screw them both.
It's YouTube *TV*. It's basically cable except over the internet, and it only costs $65/mo - a favorite of people who were tired of paying 2-3x that for cable every month and want to get the same thing for way cheaper.
From a cursory view it appears to have basic TV and like two channels I'd ever watch (TNT and cable news). Doesn't seem like a bargain for $65.
If you're interested in getting live sports, and the comparison is cable or satellite, it's a huge bargain. If you're not interested in getting live sports then there are several cheaper options.
This seems like exactly what most people would want to have in the US - a streaming service that lets them watch their favorite local sports teams for $15-20 a month.
If only there were a way to put a different program on instead, like a sports highlights show or even a different sport altogether like a basketball or hockey game. Hmmm...
I understand there's a number below which it probably doesn't make sense for MLB to offer out their network to various tv providers (I'm sure tv production isn't cheap!), but isn't there some logic in seeing the network as something of a loss leader? The big money is in the national deals with ESPN/Fox/Turner and the local deals, so isn't MLB Network the perfect vehicle to lure in some new fans? Don't you want those spring training games on when kids get home from school, or a random 4pm out of market game?
It's sort of coming, it just depends on the local market. The Red Sox and Bruins, as an example, are both on NESN, which is now available as a stand alone streaming service. The problem (for omnivorous sports fans) is you don't get the Celtics, who are on a different channel.
If, by chance, we were to stumble across a major gambling scandal in one of the big three sports, the house of cards could come tumbling very quickly.
NESN (Red Sox Pravda) is $30/month. I have ditched cable completely in recent months and now have the following;
Peacock - $3.50/month
Paramount - $4.99/month
HBO - $15.99/month
NESN - $30.00/month
Hulu - $7.99/month
This gives me everything I want for $62 a month. If I were to do the same thing with Verizon it would be about $110 a month plus an additional $10 per TV in the house. I recently dropped $30 on a digital TV antenna which is amazing so I can really ditch the Peacock/Paramount/Hulu combo. The other great thing is that all of these things are monthly services. So one thing I do is cancel my services as soon as I get them. Then they are active for the whole month and I just reactivate when I want to watch something on them. I saved about $400 on TV last year versus having a cable subscription.
The NBA had one about 15-20 years ago that incredibly didn't seem to move the needle at all.
I always thought that with YES when the Yankees started it - set up camera crews and pipe in the local announcers for each of their minor league home games and air these during the morning and afternoon before the big league game...I'd much rather watch that than find out what kind of Italian food Michael Kay likes.
Yeah this is way too much, as I think we've discussed in other threads, but since I don't care about hockey I only have to do it during the baseball season.
Caring about basketball/soccer/baseball (plus movies, some tv, etc.) makes things quite a bit more complicated, but I'm mostly content with YouTube TV and the million streaming services I currently pay for. It all adds up but is still less, all things considered, than I was paying for just cable previously.
Yeah, the $30 a month is higher than I'd like particularly since one of the teams carried on said network looks like they are going to be less than stellar. But there is a money savings there. If I could get everything for $125 a month like Votto that included NESN and a bunch of other stuff but I can't. Worst case I sign up for Sling ($40 a month) if there is a time where I want to see something that is being carried on a station I don't have.
The antenna is a shocker. I wasn't expecting the selection or picture quality.
This is what I do, but with the added benefit of paying about $100/mo more. I'm in an area that is only serviced by one ISP so I get all the perks and benefits of being a customer of a monopoly provider. Including their award winning lack of customer service.
And Sinclair rolled one out for their Bally's RSNs at about $20 per month. People balked at that price, but it was a godsend for me since it allowed me to drop Directv streaming, something I was paying $65 per month for to basically only watch Royals games.
Every new round of broadcast contracts is going to include streaming services bidding on, and winning, at least part of the package. There is no reason at all for MLB to give Youtube.TV any sort of discount now.
I'm not sure I'm following your argument- I'm a YTTV subscriber and watch sports on ESPN, Fox, Turner, (before now) the MLB Network, etc., on YTTV, they operate the same way a cable company operates, pay carriage fees to the networks, etc., they just stream it over the internet and don't lock you into contracts.
I did a fairly good job of ignoring Thursday night NFL games when they were on real TV. Now, the only way I see them is if I happen to be on my Amazon page.
Those absolutely inescapable "Switchta Vryzin!" spots make my hair hurt and my teeth itch. Every televised game...every sport...every commercial break.
Al Michaels approves this message.
Or y'know, if you're gonna be on my lawn, at least you could read books instead of stealing my cable!
A lot of streamers have premium packages or elevated tiers that for additional money will add more channels. Usually sports and live TV.
Which is why MLB should be focused on getting the largest possible audience and selling advertising.
The recaps each morning with breakfast. And I watch a bunch of other games when the mood strikes me. I don't mind paying my 99 or 120 or whatever it is because I get a ton of value. Of course one thing that works for me is that I live out of the Cardinals blackout market so they only get blacked out about 9 games a year for me.
Also, this seems like it is conflating broadcast rights to games for channels like ESPN/Fox/TBS with MLB Network, which is its own channel.
I’m sure that’s technically true but I certainly don’t know how to do it nor do I particularly care too.
Broadcast TV is one of those sneaky technologies like snail mail or pencils that never quite went away and is still very useful. Of course I haven't watched regular-season baseball on TV in forever. But that is why I voted for an air-conditioned baseball dome a few miles from my house.
Compression's a beast. Not only is your cable company probably taking what comes over the air and compacting it further so that they've got the bandwidth for however much they are often trying to send through actual copper, but streaming services can be even worse (Apple and Disney look pretty good, at least until you watch the same thing on a 4K disc, and there's a pretty sharp drop-off after that). OTA has so much bandwidth that they've got room for a bunch of sub-channels.
I'm still paying a stupid amount for cable, because I am used to it and lazy, but don't know if I've turned my cable box on since the last out of the World Series. I'll probably happily replace that with NESN360 and the big studio streamers and not worry too much about the cost, as I probably watch enough hours of Red Sox coverage in-season that the price is proportional (like, if I watch 4 hours of Star Trek and 4 hours of Evil on Paramount+ for $10 and 15 3-hour baseball games on NESN for $30, it doesn't looks so bad).
This, to me, is the biggest problem with YouTube TV specifically - it genuinely looks like sh*t. The resolution is fine, per se - it's full HD, of course, but the compression is extremely noticeable and frequently downright bothersome with lots of motion on the screen. Think Planet Earth when flocks of birds are flying, or championship celebrations with lots of confetti. The picture just falls apart. Less noticeable during, say, a typical baseball game.
In my early days with HD, though - we're talking 2006-2007 - I had an antenna and had the same problem with some networks, living in Dallas at the time. NBC was particularly noticeable at the time, don't know if it still is, obviously that was a long time ago. But I'm in a fairly remote location now so an antenna isn't an option for me either way.
Maybe because they're losing subscribers by the bucketful. Maybe because they're tired of dealing with the monthly churn. Maybe because consumers would prefer a one-stop shop as opposed to managing their own monthly churn.
I think it depends very highly on the market you live in. I have a very good deal for a full premium package that would probably cost twice as much were I renting rather than living in an apartment complex that negotiates with the strength of nearly three thousand units.
All these streamers offer some form of free trial as well so you'll get people popping in and out because of that. For instance with my Verizon agreement I get 3 months free of Disney+.
HBOMax is free with AT&T cell service
My feelings exactly. The older I get the more I like to read. Getting by with reading accounts of the games isn't as good as watching games, but I'm adjusting.
I'd definitely rather be able to watch, but I don't need to be the pawn in this pissing match.
My kids keep telling me this after years of criticism for spending thousands of dollars annually for all the cable services and then finally ratcheting down to YouTube TV. But I'm not an advocate of stealing services. I'll eventually get an MLB package or MiLB internet package and that will be that.
I guess I'll just keep more of my money.
The Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle takes care of a lot (and certainly almost all of the live sports that I watch). We already have Amazon due to having Prime. And we get Apple through our Apple TV (which was a one time purchase). We have kept with Netflix, but don't pay for any of the other streaming services.
Pros: Unlimited DVR, ability to watch on any and all devices, several streams at once.
Cons: the live guide was terrible, but they updated that recently, the compression of the video quality.
Also, if you play your cards right you can usually get peacock and paramamount for a buck a month each.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main