Slashdot Mirror
Major League Baseball Releases Webcasting Plans
TopShelf writes "With spring in the air, it's time to discuss the (US) national pastime. According to this story at CNN, Major League Baseball is planning to webcast 1,000 games this season. The interesting part is that in order not to violate TV blackout rules, they'll try to deny service to viewers who instead have local broadcasts available, using Quova's user-location service. At last, an opportunity to see my hometown Detroit Tigers more than once a year!"
I wonder how they will deal with viewers via proxy?
I like to build things and wire stuff together.
Bart: "See, I told you Major League Baseball was spying on me!"
McGuire:"Do you people want answers, or do you want to see me hit some zingers?"
Crowd: "Zingers!"
Unless they break away to commercials between innings, I'm not interested.
Being bombarded by ads (either at home or at the game) has become as much a part of the beloved pasttime as the game itself.
If they're not gonna let me be a part of that, then NO THANKS!
Years ago, the individual radio stations apparently owned the rights to the audio of baseball games, and I listened to them directly from their web site, for free (and heard the local commercials, too...) Then, I think it was about two or three years ago, MLB "found" the Internet and decided it should control all audio broadcasts. Of course, by "control", I mean "Charge $10/yr for what used to be free.".
Last year, they raised the subscription fee to $12/yr. This year, they are apparently raising it to $19.95/yr. And after all that, they still have the local commercials! The commercials are supposedly paying for the broadcast, can't they have them pay for the Internet broadcast too?
I understand that if they provided the service for free, there would be a lot more people using it, and bandwidth isn't free. But did bandwidth costs really go up 100% in the past two or three years? If not, I think a more likely explanation is that Baseball (indeed, all sports) are filled with greedy owners, spoiled players, and weak executives, and that the cost of being a fan will shortly get prohibitive for most people.
The first radio broadcasts were essentially faked...the announcer was not at the park. He had someone relay him the bare facts over the phone, and he would add color commentary according to his imagination and experience with the game. Radio listeners thought he was at the game, and followed every word. This proved to be a hit, and broadcasters were eventually allowed to be inside the park for live action commentary.
What does this have to do with broadbandcasts? Wait and see what content actually shows up on the net... Is it real, or is it Memorex?
Modern baseball tends to get boring. Over expansion has dilluted the talent pool so badly that (for example) pitchers who *might* have made the big leagues twenty years ago as part time relievers are now full time, middle rotation starters. Boring, home-run derby ball.
If they really wanted to churn up a buck they could make available radio broadcasts of 'old time' games. Even better, make them freely available as a move to generate interest in the sport. Think of the benefits and possibilities.
One, you've got MASSIVE amounts of content. IF you got back to the pre-WW2 era you're looking at 20+ clubs playing over 144 games per year. You've games from hall of famers like mickey mantle, ted williams, or jackie robinson playing. This could introduce a younger audience to people they've only heard stories about.
Two, Niche markets and fan base expansion. I live in michigan and have been stuck with the piss poor tigers. Yet, I'm a big fan of the cubs thanks to having WGN tv. Image being able to equally expose all 32 teams in all markets. Long term you could see an overall rise in attendance (fans going to their local park to see their favorite out of state team).
As for niche markets, I'm also brooklyn dodgers fan. The team moved out of new york around the time my father was born. Yet I'd love to sit back on a summer day, and listen to a brooklyn dodgers game. I can't be the only one like this.
Third, and finally, Color. Listening to a game today sounds boring. Most teams have radio annoucers with communications degrees. They call baseball games until they can get a job as news casters. In the 'good old days' you had guys like Harry Carey, or Ernie Harwall who made the most boring baseball game a work of art. There's a great oral history and tradition in baseball. Most of it is lost on guys now. Those intersting, non sequitor stories than a broadcaster can tell during a dull game are what separate the good color men from the bad. think of the stories that are sitting in a vault rusting away right now.
An added benefit of making the old school games available is that you'd have to transfer them off of whatever media they're stored on now (probably steel wire or even wax in some cases, certainly magentic tape for the majority of games) is that you preserve the games for the ages.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
So, between fall 2000 and fall 2001, this American was living in Ireland. As a NY Mets fan, I was addicted to watching the game on espn.com and listening via webcasts.
Then the trouble began. About a month into the season, it just stopped working. I talked with the SysAdmin at the Irish University I was at (DCU), and nothing had changed with the ports/firewalls/whatever.
Clearly something changed at MLB. I emailed all the different addresses I could come up with, and didn't get a single human reply. They had no problem charging me $10 (advertised $9.95, but they threw in a nickel for "shipping" -- don't get me started on that one), but they never fixed the problem, addressed it, or offered me a refund.
So, I wouldn't buy the service. They screwed me over by (a) not fixing the service when it stopped working, (b) overcharging me for their service, and (c) having the balls to charge for shipping a streamed audio over the Internet.
Screw them.
Support a few technologists in Washington.