MLB.tv question

by Double06 on Feb 29, 2008 12:44 AM PST

So I don't have cable anymore and I'm probably gonna give MLB.tv a shot. I'm under the assumption that MLB.tv covers all the games of all the teams. But does it cover all the ST games too? I was looking over the Mariners ST schedule on the main site and some of the games listed say MLB.tv on them and some don't. Furthermore, when I look at the regular season schedule, very few or none actually say MLB.tv on them. Now I'm sure that MLB.tv covers the unmarked games on the regular season schedule I'm reading, so will it cover all the ST games it doesn't say it's covering too?

Also, is the premium service worth the extra few bucks?

Thanks guys.

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Value

Season training last year we got to see two or three games, and I think the same applies this time around, plus audio from most games.

In the regular season you get every game (subject to blackout restrictions that don't affect some of us).

For the sake of $30 over the course of a full season you get better quality video if your connection will support it plus (supposedly) better Mosaic options. I can't vouch for them as I don't have a good enough connection to use Mosaic frequently enough (yet). I'd say for the better quality when full-screen it's worth $30, but only if your connection will support it. Let's face it, that's the equivalent of gas, parking, a cheap ticket and concessions for one game in a season. Value-rama!

Accidental Mariner - P3 W1 L2 (.333)
Sponsor of Jamie Burke's baseball-reference page

by MarkE on Feb 29, 2008 1:51 AM PST reply actions

Make sure your not in the blackout area

I basically couldn't watch any Mariners game because I live in the NW

Shop smart......Shop s-mart...... YOU GOT THAT!!!!

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 29, 2008 6:38 AM PST reply actions

Yeah..

..last year I was living in deep Southern Oregon and could watch M's games that weren't on Foxsports Northwest.

Two Teams, Two Coasts - One Obsession

by Rain Delay on Feb 29, 2008 8:48 AM PST up reply actions

I think it's worth it

but then I still have cable. What I usually do is have the M's game on TV, and keep an eye on another game with MLB.tv. If you live in MLB's Mariners blackout area (OR/WA/ID/AK/NoCal) you don't get M's games unless you set up some sort of anonymous proxy, so consider that before you dump cable.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 7:07 AM PST reply actions

Now...

..I was under the understanding that a proxy doesn't work since the Zip Code they use is the one on your bill address.

Two Teams, Two Coasts - One Obsession

by Rain Delay on Feb 29, 2008 8:49 AM PST up reply actions

Nope, it's IP based

it's easy to fake a zip code, not so easy to fake an IP address. Thus, proxy.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 9:01 AM PST up reply actions

Yup

I routinely got around the blackouts by using proxies last year.

I used foreign proxies to get around the Saturday afternoon blackouts. Thailand and India had some nice, fast ones.

It was really fast on Saturday afternoons, probably because everyone else was blocked out.

IME, it's the MLB server that's the chokepoint. Even if you have a very speedy connection, it's often quite slow on their end.

But it's worth the money. I like the archives. It's nice to be able watch games you missed (or games you just want to see again).

by BubbaFan on Feb 29, 2008 2:52 PM PST up reply actions

I rarely get to watch entire games as they happen

so the archives are invaluable, because I can watch them later that night or the next day if I want. It's money well spent.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions

The archives are the best part.

If you can't take the time to watch a game, you can let it happen, find out if it was worth watching, and then skip the bad parts.

by Llewdor on Feb 29, 2008 4:04 PM PST up reply actions

Two questions...

I'm currently in college in Southern California, but my billing address is in Washington. Does that mean I get screwed over with the blackout restrictions? Does MLB.tv use the billing or some other address to decide blackouts?
How much does using an anonymous proxy slow down the MLB.tv feed?

by HARRYP09 on Feb 29, 2008 8:07 AM PST reply actions

One answer

1. Won't make a difference. I had the same thing the last couple of years, wasn't a problem at all. I think they're tracking IPs somehow... because my billing address was in Seattle, and when I was in LA I could never get the Dodgers or Angels. Strangely, when I had my laptop in SD, I couldn't get the Padres either.

Anyway, in answer to your question, no, it shouldn't be a big deal.

by seattlebruin on Feb 29, 2008 8:22 AM PST up reply actions

It's IP based

and when you travel you're blacked out of the games mlb.tv deems "local" to that area. MLB's blackout map can be found here.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 8:46 AM PST up reply actions

OK cool, that's what I figured

otherwise how the hell would they know where I was traveling =(

by seattlebruin on Feb 29, 2008 8:57 AM PST up reply actions

GOVERNMENT SPIES

by Jordan of Boise on Feb 29, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions

Not shown on the map

All of Canada is somehow Toronto territory, so folks like me can see all the M's games except when we're playing the Jays.

Everything outside Canada and the US has no blackouts.

Nationwide blackouts (for those Saturday games on FOX) only apply in the US.

by Llewdor on Feb 29, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions

That's awesome lol

You live two hours from Seattle and get games that people who live five times as far away are blacked out of. Way to go MLB!

by seattlebruin on Feb 29, 2008 9:55 AM PST up reply actions

It makes some sense

Every Jays game is available on basic cable pretty much Canada-wide, so MLB.TV would be competing with that. And, Canadian cable isn't allowed to carry FSN (stupid federal regulations), so the only M's games I can see on TV are the ones on broadcast TV (because basic cable does carry US broadcast stations).

So MLB.TV is really my only option if I don't want to drive the 2.5 hours from my front door to Safeco.

You know, someone might be able to open a successful sports bar in Point Roberts taking advantage of the cable situation (though the higher drinking age might be a problem, and a lot of Canadian bars already have grey-market satellite TV).

by Llewdor on Feb 29, 2008 10:13 AM PST up reply actions

As someone who went to school in SoCal

MLB.tv was a god send. The only time I had black out problems was during Angels games, Dodgers games and Saturdays.

Saturdays are the worst because if they're not playing the Angels chances are you won't see the game.

Where you going to school at?

Free Adam Jones

by bluemax on Feb 29, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

Wait, so Washington is a blackout area?

I live in Seattle.

Refuse to progress!!

by Double06 on Feb 29, 2008 10:23 AM PST reply actions

Yup.

If you live in Seattle or the NW, MLB wants you to watch on TV, not on the internet. So they black out games online.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 10:36 AM PST up reply actions

That blows fucking ass.

Comcast already has a stranglehold on my for cable internet. I don't wanna funnel them more money to rip me off for cable.

I'm gonna have to get satellite just to stiff arm Comcast, even though I really don't want it. I JUST WANT BASEBALL DAMMIT!

Refuse to progress!!

by Double06 on Feb 29, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions

yeah, Comcast'll be pretty upset that you do that

And it's not like the satellite providers are any different/better; if you live in Seattle, your choice to watch Mariners games is on TV. That choice is FSN, and the only way to get FSN is by paying for it. Satellite's not really cheaper, either, so it's not like you're "winning" or anything.

Comcast already has a stranglehold on my for cable internet.

It's not like there's a gun to your head forcing you to have high-speed internet. Nor is high-speed internet a basic human right. It's a premium service. Comcast is providing you a service you want; there's DSL if you're not interested in paying Comcast, or there's (gasp) dialup.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Double06, I just get irritated when people start blaming Comcast for having a "stranglehold" on something that is, essentially, a voluntary purchase.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions

How very American of you

High-speed internet is cheaply available in every other civilized country, only in America do you have to bend over for the privileged of transmitting data over networks which are already heavily subsidized to make the process cheap for telecom businesses. If our tax dollars pay for the construction and maintenance of internet infrastructure, then we absolutely have a right to access without undue additional cost. Moreover, we should not be subject to regional monopolies for access to internet infrastructure that those regional companies do not exclusively own.

by Jordan of Boise on Feb 29, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

BTW

Where's our damn game thread?

by Jordan of Boise on Feb 29, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

Competition is good.

Though some of the best service in those other countries are government-run ISPs. Saskatchewan, for example.

by Llewdor on Feb 29, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions

In the US we have the worst of both

Government-funded, corporate-run services with no real competition.

by Jordan of Boise on Feb 29, 2008 12:28 PM PST up reply actions

Hmmmm.

I'm glad high-speed internet is available cheaply everywhere else, but since I don't live everywhere else, I can only really care about what happens here.

But, just doing one real quick Google search for "UK high speed internet access", the first HS internet provider I found has a $20 introductory rate for the first month, and then every subsequent month is $40 - which is not much different than Comcast (I pay $48 a month).

If our tax dollars pay for the construction and maintenance of internet infrastructure,

Huh? Since when? That may have been true in the 50's-70's/DARPA days, but most of the infrastructure of the Internet as we know it today was built up in the mid-90's by private companies trying desperately to 'cash in' on the coming fiber-optic boom. Those companies then collapsed, leaving miles and miles of high-speed fiberoptic cables, over which most US internet traffic travels today. Your cable bill pays for the construction and maintenance of the network.

Companies like Comcast and Qwest then stepped in and bought the unused capacity, and have effectively taken ownership of it in the same way that TV companies have taken ownership of the airwaves, which are supposed to be free.

I do wish I had a choice of cable internet provider at my house, but given that I do not, though, I gotta say, I have no major problem with Comcast. They give me what I need, there's no downtime, and it's effortless. And if I ever don't want it, I can opt to not have it any more.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 12:37 PM PST up reply actions

Errrrr.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) collects billions of dollars via the fees that customers pay for all telecommunication products - landline phones, cell phones, long distance calls, broadband internet. Those fees are distributed through individual states to telecommunication companies for several initiatives, including providing 'high cost' services to rural areas. High cost rural areas, by USF considerations, often include areas that are well-populated suburbs and areas where the customer base and existing facilities do not result in a high cost to the company to provide service. In addition to direct subsidies from the USF and the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA), telecom providers also receive subsidized low-interest loans through the Rural Electrification Fund and the Rural Telephone Bank (which as it would happen, was eliminated a couple weeks ago).

So yes, we do indeed continue to pay for government subsidizing of telecommunication infrastructure without receiving any of the benefits of government regulation. Programs that were intended to defray costs for consumers in high-cost and high-need areas do not trickle down to customers, but make the rich folks on the telecom supply-side even richer.

PS thank you for giving me something to do besides my job. FRIDAY

by Jordan of Boise on Feb 29, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions

Clearly these poor teleco's

suffered so much as this tremendous cost burden they shoulder that they had to start spying on customers and selling the results to the US Gov't. We should pity them and grant them all immunity.

(FWIW, Cngr. Jim McDermott is against this.)

by Matthew on Feb 29, 2008 3:37 PM PST up reply actions

Really?

Cheaply available? When I lived in Germany I paid $70 a month for DSL. Here in Pakistan it is almost $100. When I lived in Arizona in 2006 I paid $40. Looks likes the good ol' USA is the cheapest of those 3.

by coolguyrob on Mar 4, 2008 2:28 AM PST up reply actions

What I mean

is that no one else offers cable around here, so they can take advantage of you. For example, I just moved to a new apartment with cable already in the walls, and they sent a guy here to connect a couple cables to the computer and charged me over a hundred bucks. We told them ahead of time that we could take care of that ourselves but they said it was mandatory. I've had friends and family members with similar issues like these with their phone and TV so I wasn't surprised when they tried to pull this bullshit over me.

I have no problem paying for FSN. I have a problem having to pay for a bunch of other channels I don't want, but that's true for every provider so I don't have a grudge against Comcast for that, or any provider for that matter since it's unreasonable for them to accommodate one person. That's why I wanted MLB.tv.

And depending on your situation, like mine, satellite is the better deal. I like Comcast's bundle deal but I have no need for a landline phone anymore so it just doesn't work for me.

Refuse to progress!!

by Double06 on Feb 29, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions

I actually priced satellite a while ago

and found it to be more expensive, and also a bit bewildering - every single thing that wasn't basic was an extra fee. I've been with Comcast so long I still have a "grandfathered" package where I don't pay for the movie tier or sports tier, so I get a decent deal.

I can't wait for the day - and it is coming - when your cable bill will be paid based on the number of channels you have. The massive expansion of cable TV channels in the last decade or two was made possible by deals requiring a cable company that carried Channel X to also carry channels A through W that nobody watches. Once those deals start to expire, the ala carte model will start to become more prevalent, and we'll start to see a day where X dollars gets you 20 channels of your choosing, X+whatever gets you 40, and so on. And I can't wait.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 29, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions

Ditto

I cannot wait until I get can get FoxSoccerChannel without also having to the Outdoor Life Cycling Channel as part of the "other sports" package for $15/mo.

Also, I have access to ~150 TV channels. I've watched less than 25 and regularly watch less than 10.

by Matthew on Feb 29, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions

Expanded

it's all going to be one service soon enough. TV + Internet will be combined into one service and you'll be able to pay for what you watch iTunes style or via Ad-Supported Hulu style

by Matthew on Feb 29, 2008 1:24 PM PST up reply actions

Love MLB.TV

There was a thread on this about a month ago. The quality is good enough for fans deprived of living outside the Northwest. It's a better package than Extra Innings because you can watch every game of the season and not be tied to your TV at home. I love carrying around my laptop on campus and watching games while in class.

The quality improves every year and the price is worth it, especially if you are keeping track of multiple fantasy teams on the side.

by Wilder83 on Feb 29, 2008 10:36 AM PST reply actions

The new steaming format (Silverlight)

I'm not happy with. So far I'm still able to use the old MLB.TV player, which makes the service better, because the new Silverlight format isn't good. I find it doesn't show enough contrast.

Maybe it's tuned for LCD displays (like IE7). I don't know, but I don't like it.

by Llewdor on Feb 29, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions