Have you ever gone to a Jays game and wished you could get wifi access? I mean, it IS called the Rogers Centre; the MLB logoleast they could do is give fans free access to the Interwebs.

I was watching the news last night and  saw an ABC piece by Becky Worley that just so happened to talk about wifi access at a Major League ball park – what a coincidence, yes?

San Francisco’s AT&T park offers fans access to free wifi and based on a little research, I found they’ve offered it since 2004, when it was then known as SBC park. So, since it’s been offered to fans for about five years, why do a story on it now? When I was searching to see if other ball parks offered wifi, I found the answer.

Recently, a streaming video update to the iPhone/iPod Touch app, MLB.com At Bat 2009 was released. If you watch the news piece you’ll cleverly see the Apple devices in a few of the shots with people using the new app.

If I didn’t think the wifi story would make a cool blog post, I wouldn’t have thought twice about searching for the new app. I wonder if the public relations people at MLB.com  got the coverage they desired? Sure it was completely positive, and it showed people using the app on their iPhones, but the name of the app wasn’t mentioned once.

Is that lack of a mention irrelevant given the other positives of the story? Am I just splitting hairs between good coverage and great coverage? What do you think?