MLB 2020

[Ginger Yellow]

Don't know actually. It's never been presented as an option before, but that may have changed this year. Will have to check when I get home. Looks like I have a few days to cancel automatic renewal of the full service.

[danielmak]

In response to UA's comment above, YES was barebones and I can't remember how long it took them to expand, but I think they've been the only team-specific network to expand. The Lakers may or may not have added other content (I think the Galaxy were part of their network at one point). The Dodgers' network is a mess all the way around but the content seems to be Dodgers specific. Most of it wouldn't be very interesting to anyone except a diehard fan.

A friend of mine subs to the Mets only games through MLB but he only gets the games, no other SNY content. And the price for Mets only is not much less than doing the full MLB package (maybe $30 per year less) so he would be better off doing a full sub given that he also follows a few other teams peripherally. I don't know about the international stuff, but UA's link above might help. There's no way the Cubs new network will be available outside the Chicago rights territory during games but in the US a sub to the DirecTV sportspack will include that other content, just not live or delayed games. (DirecTV blacks out delayed games--even so-called classic games on various networks, except YES for some odd reason).

If you are willing to chance IPTV then you might find the right package that includes the new Cubs network. I just re-subbed yesterday to an IPTV package and I can report back later this week if Marquee is showing up on that IPTV package.

[Ginger Yellow]

Hmmm. I saw a single team option when I went to the mlb.tv home page from work, but I can't get it to show up at home, even though it's giving me pricing in dollars..

This suggests it was US only last year, at least.

[danielmak]

Here is the link I looked at last week:

https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe

And here is a screenshot of the site just in case you see something different outside the US:



I was wrong with my post above about the price difference between a single team and yearly. I can see why my friend might just want one team (esp. since he still has cable as well so can bounce around to watch other games if the Mets aren't playing).

BTW, I'm sure this would never happen outside the US but in the US, T-Mobile was offering a deal last year where any new subscribers got MLB yearly for free for one year. No data charges were applied when using a phone and that sub worked for set-top boxes as well like a Roku or Amazon Fire Stick.

[Hot Pepsi]

It’s all maddening. Everyone knows that what most fans want is to pay one, possibly high, price to see only the content, including all the games, of their favorite team (or, in the US, university).

We don’t want to pay for a lot of filler punditry bullshit or vaguely sports-related shows. We don’t want to pay for a lot of games with teams we don’t care about. And we don’t want to have to pay $100/month cable to get it. We are willing to pay a lot to just get what we want on our TV.

But that’s not offered and apparently never will be. Instead, we have to have cable and figure out week to week which channel will have the game. Even to watch things on something like the ESPN or Fox App requires cable and then there’s still a five to 10 second delay and it crashes a lot.

For example, the B1G Network will let you pay for BTN Plus that just includes one school’s games. But it’s only the games that aren’t on the actual network - a lot of stuff like field hockey from one static camera angle or baseball from one camera buried in center field. Anything broadcast in such a way that you can actually understand what you’re seeing requires cable.

[Ginger Yellow]

Here is the link I looked at last week:

https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe

And here is a screenshot of the site just in case you see something different outside the US:



I was wrong with my post above about the price difference between a single team and yearly. I can see why my friend might just want one team (esp. since he still has cable as well so can bounce around to watch other games if the Mets aren't playing).

BTW, I'm sure this would never happen outside the US but in the US, T-Mobile was offering a deal last year where any new subscribers got MLB yearly for free for one year. No data charges were applied when using a phone and that sub worked for set-top boxes as well like a Roku or Amazon Fire Stick.

Yeah, it looked like that at work (maybe because I was logged out?), but at home I only have the two leftmost options.

[ursus arctos]

I think that there is something that doesn't show that portion if one is already subscribed to the full package

[Ginger Yellow]

I cancelled the auto renew and it still didn't show up. Maybe if I'd let it fully lapse? But based on that post I linked, I suspect it's a regional thing.

[ursus arctos]

Yeah, that's my guess as well.

[danielmak]

I've never subscribed to MLB (been tempted every year since 2000) but I would assume that if you can sub yearly then you could sub to a single team. I read an article a couple years back that someone sued that requiring a sub for all teams wasn't fair (that's non-legal terminology, of course) and won. Can't remember if the suit was against MLB or the NHL. But such a scenario would only apply to US customers. Either way, it would seem to be to MLB's advantage to sell single team subs to whoever wants such subs. Any international sales would be better than not having the income. Although that kind of thinking has had no impact on a la carte programming with most companies.

[jefe]

If it were cheaper to get a team pass, I'd happily do the Giants or A's to have late night baseball to wind down to. Not at those prices.

[Flynnie]

I’d be more sympathetic to cord cutters if they understood economies of scale. The people getting screwed by sports broadcasting are non-sports fans with cable subscriptions, no one else. The whole system freeloads on those people.

[Hot Pepsi]

Non-sports fans with cable subscriptions are a dying group. Sports are really the only reason to have cable.

[Incandenza]

Non-sports fans with cable subscriptions are a dying group. Sports are really the only reason to have cable.

I would definitely cut the cord if it was up to me--our kids never watch anything on live TV, I hardly do any live TV watching except for sports, and I hardly watch any current broadcast TV except for Desus & Mero and John Oliver. But my wife's parents are used to cable, and I don't think trying something like YouTube TV would appeal to them even though all they ever watch is CNN, MSNBC, and PBS.

[caja-dglh]

I switched to AT&T TV. The stability of the platform has increased dramatically over the last six months. I should probably consider cutting some more of it - I basically added HBO for my wife and still saved money.

[ursus arctos]

If it were cheaper to get a team pass, I'd happily do the Giants or A's to have late night baseball to wind down to. Not at those prices.

ESPN+ may be an option here. They usually have a late game

[Hot Pepsi]

So are Direct TV and DISH no longer a thing?

[jefe]

ESPN+ may be an option here. They usually have a late game

Would that my internet connection makes that feasible.

[caja-dglh]

So are Direct TV and DISH no longer a thing?

DirectTV is part of AT&T.

[Hot Pepsi]

Right. But have they given up on the sattelite dish nonsense? I had that for a while. It sucked.

The only reason it had traction was because they offered the NFL Sunday Ticket, but I think I heard that wasn’t going to be true anymore.

[jefe]

No, I still have DirecTV/AT&T satellite service.

[Hot Pepsi]

I had to have mine in the front yard and it would routinely fall out of alignment.

[danielmak]

When I switched from Comcast internet to ATT Uverse for internet, I was told by the ATT tech that ATT purchased DirecTV in part because Uverse TV customers were complaining that their TV images were poor or their internet speeds were slow; they couldn't have both fast internet and clean images because both were pulling from the same stream. The idea was to push people to DTV for TV. Now everyone I know who pays attention to tech company stuff says ATT is trying to pull people back to streaming because the setup is easier.

I can say this: the amount of shit I subscribe to is ridiculous and most it looks like garbage. DirecTV looks great (except most of the Spanish language channels which I sub to for South American leagues), ESPN+ looks great. Sling, which is how I get BeIN to watch Libertadores and Sudamericana looks ok on the two main channels and horrible on the Connect channels. Fanatiz looks like garbage and they blame it on the providers, which is not true.

Then there's an issue with data caps. Subscribing to DTV means ATT Uverse does not charge overages, whereas Comcast was going to charge me for going over data limits. I asked if they were going to refund me during the months I was under the cap. We all know the response to that one.

Finally, if you start to add up different subs: Sling (which is owned by Dish Network) or Youtube TV or Fubo and then add-ons like ESPN+, MLB package, NHL package, sports packages that don't come with the main packages, you're probably right back where you started.

I think the trick is to limit one's televisual interests and that solves that. haha. I'm just not in that category until I can kick this football habit.

[Hot Pepsi]

That all sounds very expensive and challenging.

I’ve almost given up on sports since I gave up cable. I just can’t stand the commercials.

[danielmak]

I basically went from 1991 - 2000 without cable. I only used rabbit ear antenna for local channels and then rented video tapes to watch movies. I had three different stretches during that time where over the air, radio, and live baseball met my needs. My girlfriend in LA had great connections for free Dodgers tickets and then I listened on the radio. When I was in NYC, I listened to the Yankees on the radio or would watch the Yankees or Mets when either was on over the air TV and I went to a few games here and there to see both teams. The Mets obstructed view seats were the best deal and then I'd just move to non-obstructed view since there were always a lot of empty seats. And when I was in Tampa, I went to see mostly Tampa Yankees games but also some St Pete Rays and Clearwater Phillies games. The Yankees were on the radio as there as well, which drove the local sports talk people nuts since the Devil Rays were in their first season. I went to a few Devil Rays games. So, for baseball all of this did the trick. And if I was only looking for baseball, I think the best deal would be a combo of HD over the air and MLB package.

But during all of this time, no satellite or cable meant no football (soccer) so I had to go for satellite.