October 26, 2002

7:36 PM

Want to listen to the World Series on the Web? Pay $9.95. I know, it's a sports post, so (most) everyone will hate it, but I see a disturbing trend of no more free media lunches on the Web. CNN went subscription months ago, and most other places I've gone for free video/audio are drying up. All I wanted was to listen to the game. But I can't find it anywhere. All the regular stations I listen to that carry the game are silent. And how will the Angels make a valiant comeback if I can't cheer them on? (sigh)
posted by TheManWhoKnowsMostThings (25 comments total)

Tying run just came to the plate...[Courtesy of ESPN]
posted by jaronson at 8:00 PM on October 26, 2002

There are all kinds of great sports.
posted by four panels at 8:04 PM on October 26, 2002

I'm surprised you don't have a local channel that's covering the game, TMWKMT, but I don't think web video was going to stay free for long.

CNN is a great example... the fact is, you see all the current content and recent video stories for free.... on CNN. The benefit of web video is in the archival qualities, which though I hate the idea of, can at least understand the need/desire to make as a pay service.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, basic competition will keep the basic services of CNN's website for free, including news, current stories, and maybe the most recent un-archived videos.

Your need for sports content is even more understandable. I can't think of anything that would take up more costly bandwidth than a three-hour live video/audio feed for one of the most popular media events of the year.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:05 PM on October 26, 2002

This is a sports post! I hate it!

And that goddamn rally monkey too
posted by Stan Chin at 8:06 PM on October 26, 2002

I should clarify:

I'm stuck in a room with no TV and no good radio reception. All I wanted was a way to listen to the game, but I have to live with ESPN's Java GameCast.

And I know, I'm whining about free content. But I pay for broadband; I want good, free media!

Oh, and world peace, too.
posted by TheManWhoKnowsMostThings at 8:21 PM on October 26, 2002

And ponies. Jesus, man, buy a longer cable wire and drag the goddamn TV into the room.

Next on Metafilter: I hate dryer lint!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:25 PM on October 26, 2002

The benefit of web video is in the archival qualities, which though I hate the idea of, can at least understand the need/desire to make as a pay service.

But is that necessary if you're CNN? I'm not into sports, but just look for CNN's competitor coverage. I don't know if the footage is what you're after, but it's free footage nevertheless.

Oh my God, dryer lint. You know what I do? My recycle can is next to the clothes dryer. Yes, I take up my lint and throw it right in there with the empty two-litres and soup cans. Consider THAT the next time you have a pepsi.
posted by Modem Ovary at 8:33 PM on October 26, 2002

I'm stuck in a room with no TV and no good radio reception. All I wanted was a way to listen to the game, but I have to live with ESPN's Java GameCast.

Where there's a will, there's a way. To that, I'd like to boast that I prowled the side of the house equipped with staple gun and a million-foot-long Radio Shack antenna wire and now I get all the kick ass college stations which are a billion miles away.
posted by Modem Ovary at 8:40 PM on October 26, 2002

And how will the Angels make a valiant comeback if I can't cheer them on?

By judicious use of extra base hits and clutch defense, apparently.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:48 PM on October 26, 2002

Considering the amount of money I've spent on beers watching baseball at bars, $10 isn't much. I'm far from the biggest baseball fan, but I got the whole deal much earlier in the season for $15. For that you get to listen to any game, any broadcast any time all season.

I'm actually really into the idea of broadband AV content that's moderately priced ($15 for every game all season?!?) and then it's actually there, consistently and comprehensive. Who would pay for the tiny and crappy and sporadic videos that I used to occasionally watch on CNN I have no idea. The free stuff tends to be a bit spotty. Something like adcritic was a pretty impressive package but before they died their first death they had become de facto not available.
posted by Wood at 9:07 PM on October 26, 2002

It would be one thing if you had to pay to access cnn.com at all, but as long as 100% of the information is free I simply can't imagine who would pay to see 30sec CNN video spots online, or why. I don't know what their numbers look like, but I'd be very surprised if this pay-to-see-our-lowest-common-denominator-report model is highly successful. Add to that the fact that a large slice of the broadband audience is online via cable to begin with...
posted by subpixel at 9:58 PM on October 26, 2002

And how will the Angels make a valiant comeback if I can't cheer them on?

By judicious use of extra base hits and clutch defense, apparently.


No... it's definitely the monkey.
posted by John Smallberries at 10:19 PM on October 26, 2002

I like the way NHL.com does things: they have every game radio broadcast available for free. It has saved me during those late night work sessions where, without it, I'd be Maple Leaf-less (not that there's much to cheer about now, anyway.)
posted by mkn at 10:50 PM on October 26, 2002

mkn: 2 years ago MLB.com linked to every single baseball game for free as well. Then they startged charging for it. Though I still think it's reasonable, and it's allowed me to follow the expos all year despite no TV coverage to speak of.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:18 PM on October 26, 2002

...and that's a good thing too, Space Coyote, because to follow the Expos next year will require an atlas.

/hangover from grumbling about Bud Selig's no-talking-during-the-world-series policy
posted by Dick Paris at 12:03 AM on October 27, 2002

Yes, I happily pay the fee as well, to avoid being redsoxless here in NYC. It seems like a great deal to me, especially considering NFL direct ticket for satelite is like what? $150? True, you don't get video from MLB.com, but baseball is the one sport that is pretty much just as good on the radio as it is on T.V.

Football and hockey are probably still free because listening to them on the radio totally sucks -- too much happening all at once.
posted by boltman at 12:11 AM on October 27, 2002

the mlb broadcasts used to be free yes, but now they are almost free. 9.95 for every game for the whole regular season, and 9.95 for every game in the playoffs, including the world series. i happen to think is a reasonable price for the service. i haven't bought it because i live in an area with lots of radio options, but i would if i were in manwhoknowsmostthings' situation.

supporting the endoffree as lost as it stays sanelypriced...
posted by complex at 1:15 AM on October 27, 2002

Shouldn't that read: baseball is the one sport that is better on the radio than it is on T.V.

I would have paid to hear baseball this year but time zones and travel made it impractical.
posted by Dick Paris at 1:15 AM on October 27, 2002

I hate this post's soul.
posted by internook at 2:03 AM on October 27, 2002

I love the service on mlb.com, and I don't think it's too much to pay $10 for the whole season. Since I'm stuck in Europe, this is the only way to follow baseball.

Now, if only the Cubs were in the World Series I would happily pay much more than 10 bucks to listen to them.
posted by einarorn at 3:50 AM on October 27, 2002

I take up my lint and throw it right in there with the empty two-litres and soup cans.

You know the squirrels and birds would be v. happy to get that lint. It is amazing what the birds around here weave into their nests-- pieces of garbage bags, string, weed-whacker line, candy wrappers, wire twist-ties. Talk about recycling!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:41 AM on October 27, 2002

It's hard to cheer on a moving dot on your MLB java cast (I prefer the ESPN version, but it's about the same quality) but when all else fails, it's still better than nothing, which is where you'd have been what, five, six years ago? Still, given all the scrutinty MLB gets these days for being unfriendly to fans, you'd think they'd do all they could to embrace their followers instead of driving them away.

I honestly don't see much appeal to watching this World Series though. I'm not a Barry Bonds fan, but rooting against him isn't nearly as fun as rooting against the Yankees... but that's another tangent.
posted by cedly at 7:06 AM on October 27, 2002

They're not losers anymore, Matt!
posted by shoos at 8:26 PM on October 27, 2002

Angels win! Angels win!
Daddy Languagehat, happy at last...
posted by languagehat at 8:45 PM on October 27, 2002

Damn, that was great. It's good to see this team finally have their day.
posted by shoos at 9:01 PM on October 27, 2002