SJK: Is this deal between MLB and DirectTV final? Is there a chance it doesn't happen?

RS: They are finalizing the agreement, and one imagines, like the pending Barry Bonds contract with the Giants, it might unravel for any number of reasons. It's only a done deal when it's announced, so until then, no one can be absolutely certain. But, in that MLB is looking for more money exclusively with DirecTV than it was able to get in non-exclusive deals with cable and satellite before, I doubt that it will be undone.
 

SJK: What is the financial advantage for MLB to do this? According to your article, DirectTV is only available to 15 million households, whereas now 75 million households can access the Extra Innings package. How do you reduce your audience by 60 million and make more money than you were before?

RS: Taking more cash to reach fewer people is not unknown. Versus, or OLN, as it was known, has fewer viewers than ESPN or ESPN2, yet the NHL went there because of the money. The NBA went for more money than NBC was willing to pay when it left NBC for the ESPN/ABC combination. I would be surprised if MLB hadn't calculated that some people will be upset. Make that a lot of people. But they're betting on the expansion of broadband access at home and work, and more than 50 million people have that through their cable companies and phone companies. The 28 million figure I gave in the story was only for cable; DSL connections were not calculated into the figure the National Cable Television Association has on its web site. If you get more money, as MLB would through this deal, you have more for salaries, and so on. Purely as a financial deal, I'm sure MLB is happy, and it would then seem willing to wait out the irate reaction that is sure to come when the deal is finally announced. That's my guess. But no one's gone on the record here about what they've anticipated from fans.
 

SJK: How long has this deal been in the works?

RS: I don't actually know how long they've been negotiating.
 

SJK: Not only is the picture quality of MLB.TV worse than that of cable or satellite, the feed last season at times would get choppy and out-of-sync during what were likely periods of high demand important games, big rivalries and the like. Is there any information about changes or upgrades to MLB.TV prior to the 2007 season given the likely increase in subscribers?

RS: As my friends at MLB.com point out, improvements have been made in the resolution of the streaming transmission. Still, I like my baseball on a TV screen; I don't watch TV on my computer as intently as I do on a big screen. How about you? I don't know about improvements about choppy pictures, but clearly in times of high demand in the Broadband world, things on-screen can get a little sticky. MLB.com does more streaming than anyone else, and I reckon they're working on making everything work better. We all hope for that, don't we?
 

SJK: Is this part of a continuing trend of exclusive deal-making, seen previously with the NFL, that can be expected to extended to the NBA, NHL, etc?

RS: Sunday Ticket is crucial to DirecTV, and that's why it's always been there; there's a reason that DirecTV is paying $700 million a year to keep it from the cable companies and Dish. But Sunday Ticket never "belonged" to cable customers, so the fact that it's on DirecTV may be vexing, but a cable customer can't feel aggrieved that it's been taken away. In the case of Extra Innings, though, I'm sure people will feel that something is being taken away that's belonged to them for, what, five years? To answer your question most broadly, it's a rare sports league that doesn't take the most money, but each one has to be careful about what they sell exclusively lest they tick off a lot of fans. I'm sure if there are antitrust questions pointed at MLB for the DIrecTV deal, it will talk about the wide availability of so many games, day after day, and how Extra Innings is a kind of conglomeration of what's already out there.