Is Angelos quietly shopping the Orioles?

[Birds of B'more]

Online streaming rights are owned by MLB Advanced Media; which is a corporation owned by MLB. MASN or the Orioles have no say in how their streaming rights are handled, other than via the usual owners controlling interest in MLB as a whole.

MASN/Whoever has to convince a majority of the owners to allow RSN's to control the online streaming rights instead of "selling" the whole of MLB streaming rights to a subsidiary of MLB. And quite frankly thats not going to happen, because the whole point of those blackouts is to prop up the RSN's to begin with; allowing "legal" online streaming in the same market as the RSN only further enhances cord-cutting and undercuts the main revenue stream of the RSN which is subscriptions. Lets face it, an RSN isn't going to get the same revenue by selling online subscriptions as they would via forced subscriptions. And they certainly wouldn't command as much money in forced subscriptions if the cable providers knew that users could pay $100 a year to view the games online. I'm sure RSN's already get a cut of the MLB.tv revenue anyway since they're the ones providing the footage. So basically they're getting forced subscription fees in the blacked out market, and usage fees in the rest of the country.

TLDR: There's no incentive for RSN's to handle online streaming.

Edit: Also.. because I've seen it mentioned elsewhere in this thread. NFL TV blackouts are meant to prop up attendance at games, not TV revenue. I think this is a pretty key difference as far as what people are pushing for on the NFL side of the house. Thank god the MLB doesn't operate in such a way, because we'd almost never see an O's game on tv.

YES, per agreement with MLB Advanced Media, has been streaming Yankee games in-market since 2009. I see no good reason why MASN couldn't, or shouldn't, work out he same arrangement to do so with O's/Nats games. If enough "cord-cutters" ditch cable/satellite (it's not as if every subscriber in the Mid-Atlantic wants to get O's games), I think they'll be glad they got the jump in online subscriptions.

[geschinger]

Online streaming rights are owned by MLB Advanced Media; which is a corporation owned by MLB. MASN or the Orioles have no say in how their streaming rights are handled, other than via the usual owners controlling interest in MLB as a whole.

This is good for the Orioles franchise in the long run but bad for MASN. For when (and it is when, not if) the majority of baseball content is consumed via IP we have full NFL'esque revenue sharing of media monies.

MASN/Whoever has to convince a majority of the owners to allow RSN's to control the online streaming rights instead of "selling" the whole of MLB streaming rights to a subsidiary of MLB. And quite frankly thats not going to happen, because the whole point of those blackouts is to prop up the RSN's to begin with; allowing "legal" online streaming in the same market as the RSN only further enhances cord-cutting and undercuts the main revenue stream of the RSN which is subscriptions. Lets face it, an RSN isn't going to get the same revenue by selling online subscriptions as they would via forced subscriptions. And they certainly wouldn't command as much money in forced subscriptions if the cable providers knew that users could pay $100 a year to view the games online. I'm sure RSN's already get a cut of the MLB.tv revenue anyway since they're the ones providing the footage. So basically they're getting forced subscription fees in the blacked out market, and usage fees in the rest of the country.

Cable companies will fight it tooth and nail and I'm sure MLB will try to prop it up w/blackout rules, etc... However we will at some point reach a tipping point where the number of cable subscribers drops enough that cable companies have to radically adjust their business model (goodbye bundling?) or watch their customer base continue to dissolve. At some point the revenues from offering MASN via IP in the areas where it is currently blacked out will outweigh the forced subscription revenue. It's only a matter of time. We got some more good news this week... Comcast has lot another 460,000 subscribers in 2011 after losing 750,000 in 2010. Previously we heard about half a million cable subscribers lost in 2011 by Time Warner. That is up to at least 1.7m fewer forced subscriptions that RSNs have been able to collect. Progress is being made, hopefully it doesn't take too long to reach that tipping point.

[geschinger]

YES' date=' per agreement with MLB Advanced Media, has been streaming Yankee games in-market since 2009. I see no good reason why MASN couldn't, or shouldn't, work out he same arrangement to do so with O's/Nats games. If enough "cord-cutters" ditch cable/satellite (it's not as if every subscriber in the Mid-Atlantic wants to get O's games), I think they'll be glad they got the jump in online subscriptions.

Problem is that this doesn't help cord cutters yet. YES network will only sell you YES streaming **if** you are a subscriber to cable/sat plan that includes YES. It's just an additional revenue source... If I subscribed to cable here in NY I'd be paying a buck or two per month for YES as part of my bill and that would give the ability to pay another $30-$40 for the season to access the games via MLB.TV. If I'm not a subscriber to a cable/sat provider plan that includes YES they will actively refuse to sell me the streaming product.

[Birds of B'more]

Problem is that this doesn't help cord cutters yet. YES network will only sell you YES streaming **if** you are a subscriber to cable/sat plan that includes YES. It's just an additional revenue source... If I subscribed to cable here in NY I'd be paying a buck or two per month for YES as part of my bill and that would give the ability to pay another $30-$40 for the season to access the games via MLB.TV. If I'm not a subscriber to a cable/sat provider plan that includes YES they will actively refuse to sell me the streaming product.

I missed that part. Clever move. Although I still think team-owned RSNs would be wise to begin offering online subscriptions (ones NOT tied to a cable/satellite package) sooner than later.

[waroriole]

I missed that part. Clever move. Although I still think team-owned RSNs would be wise to begin offering online subscriptions (ones NOT tied to a cable/satellite package) sooner than later.

I'm guessing mlbtv wouldn't allow that

[Birds of B'more]

I'm guessing mlbtv wouldn't allow that

I left out the "in-market" aspect, since I assumed it was implied based on the earlier posts. MLB Advanced Media wouldn't care, since those games are blacked out on MLBTV.com.

[BaltimoreTerp]

History teaches us a lot of things. One small part of those teachings is that when people want something:

1) If access is limited or eliminated, they will take actions of questionable legality (or outright illegality) in order to acquire it.

2) Even with illegal means available, if accessible they will go through legal (and thus paid) channels to acquire it.

I have a feeling this will be another place where the path has to go through both parts before everyone is happy.

[apollod]

This is good for the Orioles franchise in the long run but bad for MASN. For when (and it is when, not if) the majority of baseball content is consumed via IP we have full NFL'esque revenue sharing of media monies.

Cable companies will fight it tooth and nail and I'm sure MLB will try to prop it up w/blackout rules, etc... However we will at some point reach a tipping point where the number of cable subscribers drops enough that cable companies have to radically adjust their business model (goodbye bundling?) or watch their customer base continue to dissolve. At some point the revenues from offering MASN via IP in the areas where it is currently blacked out will outweigh the forced subscription revenue. It's only a matter of time. We got some more good news this week... Comcast has lot another 460,000 subscribers in 2011 after losing 750,000 in 2010. Previously we heard about half a million cable subscribers lost in 2011 by Time Warner. That is up to at least 1.7m fewer forced subscriptions that RSNs have been able to collect. Progress is being made, hopefully it doesn't take too long to reach that tipping point.

Bundling isn't going away anytime soon; not unless you want to see a drastic decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency. There's plenty of articles out there written from an independent/consumerist point of view detailing why "? la carte" programming will actually hurt consumers. "Cable cutters" are in reality just exchanging one expensive bundle (Cable TV) for a less expensive bundle (Hulu/Netflix); Hulu and Netflix are cheap now because their subscriber base at the time the streaming contracts were written were relatively small; Hulu and Netflix and the like are only going to get more expensive as time goes on, just look at the numbers Netflix is starting to deal with going from paying 180 million to studios in 2010 to somewhere around 1.98 billion in 2012; eventually that's going to trickle down to the subscriber, and in fact already started to last year when netflix hiked their fees. Remember during all this, netflix lost all the starz content because it was too expensive. Hulu right now has the benefit of being the child of CBS and FOX; which both are trying desperately to get out of; although they've shelved the plans to sell it off for now.

Basically if the RSN's were to take online streaming at the expense of their forced subscription base, the cost of that online streaming will probably be prohibitively expensive to a lot of the cord cutters who likely left cable tv due to the expense. Also, while cable companies are losing subscribers, both Dish (although they took a beating last year) and Directv have added subscribers, as have AT&T and Verizon; so the number of cable cutters is extremely overstated

Here's a good article detailing why bundling isn't going away:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki

[BaltimoreTerp]

Bundling isn't going away anytime soon; not unless you want to see a drastic decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency. There's plenty of articles out there written from an independent/consumerist point of view detailing why "? la carte" programming will actually hurt consumers. "Cable cutters" are in reality just exchanging one expensive bundle (Cable TV) for a less expensive bundle (Hulu/Netflix); Hulu and Netflix are cheap now because their subscriber base at the time the streaming contracts were written were relatively small; Hulu and Netflix and the like are only going to get more expensive as time goes on, just look at the numbers Netflix is starting to deal with going from paying 180 million to studios in 2010 to somewhere around 1.98 billion in 2012; eventually that's going to trickle down to the subscriber, and in fact already started to last year when netflix hiked their fees. Remember during all this, netflix lost all the starz content because it was too expensive. Hulu right now has the benefit of being the child of CBS and FOX; which both are trying desperately to get out of; although they've shelved the plans to sell it off for now.

Basically if the RSN's were to take online streaming at the expense of their forced subscription base, the cost of that online streaming will probably be prohibitively expensive to a lot of the cord cutters who likely left cable tv due to the expense. Also, while cable companies are losing subscribers, both Dish (although they took a beating last year) and Directv have added subscribers, as have AT&T and Verizon; so the number of cable cutters is extremely overstated

Here's a good article detailing why bundling isn't going away:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki

I doubt bundling goes away completely, but I can easily see it evolving into a much different form than that in place now. Groups of channels matched and bundled and sold together. So if you want Food Network, you have to buy a bundle with Cooking Channel, or one with Travel and HGTV. If you want Cartoon Network, you can buy a "kids" bundle with Nickelodeon and associated channels, or a "Turner" bundle with the superstations and TCM.

Maybe you can buy an "MLB" bundle with MLB Network and an associated RSN, with the option to purchase more individually or a Extra Innings-type package. Or if you just want MLB Network, you can get it associated with NFL and NHL Networks and NBA TV.

There are ways to do this that could keep smaller channels in business while giving the consumers more choices. Unfortunately I think we will see subscribers decline and a rise in illegal activity causing the death of some channels anyway before things change for the better.

[Birds of B'more]

Bundling isn't going away anytime soon; not unless you want to see a drastic decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency. There's plenty of articles out there written from an independent/consumerist point of view detailing why "? la carte" programming will actually hurt consumers. "Cable cutters" are in reality just exchanging one expensive bundle (Cable TV) for a less expensive bundle (Hulu/Netflix); Hulu and Netflix are cheap now because their subscriber base at the time the streaming contracts were written were relatively small; Hulu and Netflix and the like are only going to get more expensive as time goes on, just look at the numbers Netflix is starting to deal with going from paying 180 million to studios in 2010 to somewhere around 1.98 billion in 2012; eventually that's going to trickle down to the subscriber, and in fact already started to last year when netflix hiked their fees. Remember during all this, netflix lost all the starz content because it was too expensive. Hulu right now has the benefit of being the child of CBS and FOX; which both are trying desperately to get out of; although they've shelved the plans to sell it off for now.

Basically if the RSN's were to take online streaming at the expense of their forced subscription base, the cost of that online streaming will probably be prohibitively expensive to a lot of the cord cutters who likely left cable tv due to the expense. Also, while cable companies are losing subscribers, both Dish (although they took a beating last year) and Directv have added subscribers, as have AT&T and Verizon; so the number of cable cutters is extremely overstated

Here's a good article detailing why bundling isn't going away:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki

I don't really agree. HBO has been around for over 30 years and has never been a part of any basic package I've seen on cable or satellite. They survive because they offer premium programming that their viewers like and are willing to pay an extra 10-15 dollars a month to see.

Just my personal opinion, but I think a huge decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency would be a good thing. It would bring an end to these channels that are being subsidized by every subscriber, most of which probably never watch it, and through consolidation the ones that consistently offer programming that people want will thrive. Who knows, maybe it would bring an end to the crap that passes for entertainment these days and raise the bar for TV programming.....one can hope.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't really agree. HBO has been around for over 30 years and has never been a part of any basic package I've seen on cable or satellite. They survive because they offer premium programming that their viewers like and are willing to pay an extra 10-15 dollars a month to see.

Just my personal opinion' date=' but I think a huge decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency would be a good thing. It would bring an end to these channels that are being subsidized by every subscriber, most of which probably never watch it, and through consolidation the ones that consistently offer programming that people want will thrive. Who knows, maybe it would bring an end to the crap that passes for entertainment these days and raise the bar for TV programming.....one can hope.[/quote']

What is interesting is that HBO seems like a logical network to stream independently. Yet they say they aren't planning to do anything that isn't associated with a cable subscription.

[Rene88]

There goes that rumor...

Here

Somewhere the Stockstills breathed a sigh of relief and went back to washing Angelos' cars.

LOL-Hilarious:) You pissed a spot! Faster! Faster!

[apollod]

I doubt bundling goes away completely, but I can easily see it evolving into a much different form than that in place now. Groups of channels matched and bundled and sold together. So if you want Food Network, you have to buy a bundle with Cooking Channel, or one with Travel and HGTV. If you want Cartoon Network, you can buy a "kids" bundle with Nickelodeon and associated channels, or a "Turner" bundle with the superstations and TCM.

Maybe you can buy an "MLB" bundle with MLB Network and an associated RSN, with the option to purchase more individually or a Extra Innings-type package. Or if you just want MLB Network, you can get it associated with NFL and NHL Networks and NBA TV.

There are ways to do this that could keep smaller channels in business while giving the consumers more choices. Unfortunately I think we will see subscribers decline and a rise in illegal activity causing the death of some channels anyway before things change for the better.

To a degree this kinda already happens; especially depending on the provider. And really the providers want it this way; it's the networks that don't. I'd say 90% of the disputes between the networks and providers always come down to negotiating what "tier" or "bundle" the network falls in, and usually it's the networks that want to be in the tiers/bundles that have more subscribers, but they also want their money. The providers only want to pay so much money and they don't want to have to increase the cost of the tier/bundle which may offset how many subscribers that bundle has which harms their negotiating position. The other 10% tends to be disputes between ABC/NBC/FOX/etc that rely mostly on ad-revenue and the providers when the providers don't want to pay so much to carry those channels, but at the same time they're rarely in a strong negotiating position at the start because those channels can be received OTA for free, and they tend to serve as the backbone of the providers service.

But yeah, I think you're right in that it'd take something independent of the current setup to enact a change in how the networks do business; whether that's illegal streaming becoming more ubiquitous or stuff like original programming on Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube taking off. Netflix is going to get a great start on it with Arrested Development.

anyway, i'm afraid I might have derailed this thread from it's original purpose.

[Rene88]

I don't really agree. HBO has been around for over 30 years and has never been a part of any basic package I've seen on cable or satellite. They survive because they offer premium programming that their viewers like and are willing to pay an extra 10-15 dollars a month to see.

Just my personal opinion' date=' but I think a huge decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency would be a good thing. It would bring an end to these channels that are being subsidized by every subscriber, most of which probably never watch it, and through consolidation the ones that consistently offer programming that people want will thrive. Who knows, maybe it would bring an end to the crap that passes for entertainment these days and raise the bar for TV programming.....one can hope.[/quote']

What is good for the consumer or what the consumer wants is a LOT different than what Comcast, Cox and the Time Warners of the world want. Guess who has the real power.

[Birds of B'more]

I doubt bundling goes away completely, but I can easily see it evolving into a much different form than that in place now. Groups of channels matched and bundled and sold together. So if you want Food Network, you have to buy a bundle with Cooking Channel, or one with Travel and HGTV. If you want Cartoon Network, you can buy a "kids" bundle with Nickelodeon and associated channels, or a "Turner" bundle with the superstations and TCM.

Maybe you can buy an "MLB" bundle with MLB Network and an associated RSN, with the option to purchase more individually or a Extra Innings-type package. Or if you just want MLB Network, you can get it associated with NFL and NHL Networks and NBA TV.

There are ways to do this that could keep smaller channels in business while giving the consumers more choices. Unfortunately I think we will see subscribers decline and a rise in illegal activity causing the death of some channels anyway before things change for the better.

That's where I think these channels and cable companies need to take heed and learn a lesson from what happened to the music industry. Like someone said earlier, if someone doesn't feel like spending $15 for an album in which they only want 1 or 2 songs, they'll find a way to just get those songs. The producers/distributors can either figure out a way to offer consumers a means to buy those two songs (without charging $7.50 for each one) and still profit, or people will find "other means" to get them and they'll begin to hemorrhage revenues.