If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Time Warner CEO offers a deal to get CBS back to the 11.9 million subscribers. Both sides still waiting to see when customers actually notice the channel is gone   (reuters.com) divider line 140
    More: Unlikely, CEO, CBS, Time Warner Cable, media market, Craig Moffett, Verizon FiOS, subscribers, RBC Capital Markets  
•       •       •

2980 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2013 at 8:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-06 08:04:41 AM  
I think it will become pretty apparent when football begins.
 
2013-08-06 08:12:15 AM  
The thing is, if cable companies and dish companies keep pulling this kind of thing they're going to just speed up their demise and force Showtime and AMC and whoever happens to be next to start offering online subscriptions without going through a TV provider.

And that will be a win/win/lose (win for consumers, win for the networks, lose for TWC, Dish, et al.)
 
2013-08-06 08:15:45 AM  
That's funny, I have Time Warner Cable internet and I still am able to get all of the CBS shows I care to watch.
 
2013-08-06 08:15:58 AM  
I wouldn't have even known about losing CBS had I not lost Showtime too.
 
2013-08-06 08:17:28 AM  
FTFA: "A la carte is never going to happen," BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield said. CBS added that "anyone familiar with the entertainment business knows the economics and structure of the cable industry doesn't work that way and isn't likely to for some time."

Time-Warner ought to be careful here.  This is a nasty can of worms they are offering to open.  I currently pay about $15 dollars a month for the basic cable package that includes the major networks, C-SPAN, 2 PBS, and a bunch of garbage channels.  I only really carry this for football, and I'm just too lazy to cancel it the other 7 months of the year.  If they want to start a conversation about a la carte channels, they are gonna find a lot of people who start offering to pay for exactly 5 channels, no more and no less.

Also:

gfid: he thing is, if cable companies and dish companies keep pulling this kind of thing they're going to just speed up their demise and force Showtime and AMC and whoever happens to be next to start offering online subscriptions without going through a TV provider.

And that will be a win/win/lose (win for consumers, win for the networks, lose for TWC, Dish, et al.)


I think you might not realize that Time Warner Cable is a massive internet provider, and they would probably start charging for data nationwide (I still pay a flat fee for unlimited broadband in my area).
 
2013-08-06 08:20:29 AM  
My local channel in Lex, KY has CBS and Under the Dome was on last night although I could no doubt watch it online tonight if it wasn't on television.

Showtime and The Movie Channel hurts though. That credit from TW better be pretty damn big.
 
2013-08-06 08:21:44 AM  

gfid: The thing is, if cable companies and dish companies keep pulling this kind of thing they're going to just speed up their demise and force Showtime and AMC and whoever happens to be next to start offering online subscriptions without going through a TV provider.

And that will be a win/win/lose (win for consumers, win for the networks, lose for TWC, Dish, et al.)


If you don't hold the line somewhere, it's a dollar more every. single. year. until the stratosphere is breached.

Going a-la-carte could be a win for consumers maybe.  It's very little win for the networks.  The number of people willing to pay for the a-la-carte is much smaller.  Right now, lets say AMC gets 40 cents for every single cable subscriber (whether they watch AMC or not).  In the a-la-carte model, they have to charge more than 40 cents, since not everyone wants AMC.  If they charge $4 a month, they have to sign up 1/10th of the current cable households.  Even that is a  massive challenge.  Virtually no other model is going to provide as much cash as getting 40 cents from every cable-sub household.
 
2013-08-06 08:30:46 AM  

Lawnchair: If they charge $4 a month, they have to sign up 1/10th of the current cable households.  Even that is a  massive challenge.  Virtually no other model is going to provide as much cash as getting 40 cents from every cable-sub household.


Also, I should point out that the people the  do get to pay them $4 a month aren't going to put up with 15 commercials per hour.  People, joy of psychology, put up with tons of commercials on their "free" (even though they're paying $60+/month) stations.

There goes another major revenue stream.
 
2013-08-06 08:33:34 AM  
"unable to watch the summer hit "Under the Dome" and live sports that airs on CBS such as golf."

The children, someone think of them.
 
2013-08-06 08:37:29 AM  
Why would anyone in a major pay for the broadcast networks? You can get them free in HD with a small antenna.
 
GBB
2013-08-06 08:38:25 AM  

Blue_Blazer:  If they want to start a conversation about a la carte channels, they are gonna find a lot of people who start offering to pay for exactly 5 channels, no more and no less.


Until we find out that those 5 channels will be more expensive a al carte than just subscribing to "basic" service.  That's the payback cable providers gave out for being forced to provide a la carte by the FCC: make it inconvenient to the customer to hand pick which channels they want.  And that's exactly what they are doing to CBS.

CBS isn't so innocent in this mess either.  Per FCC rules, TWC must continue to carry the channels during negotiation.  When the screens went black, it's because CBS turned it off, not TWC.  Ever since the Viacom threat a few years ago, TWC predicted that if they gave in to those demands, everyone else will follow suit when the contracts are up for renewal.  Lo and behold, just about every content provider has demanded higher fees when the contract has come up for renewal.
 
2013-08-06 08:38:33 AM  

Lawnchair: Lawnchair: If they charge $4 a month, they have to sign up 1/10th of the current cable households.  Even that is a  massive challenge.  Virtually no other model is going to provide as much cash as getting 40 cents from every cable-sub household.

Also, I should point out that the people the  do get to pay them $4 a month aren't going to put up with 15 commercials per hour.  People, joy of psychology, put up with tons of commercials on their "free" (even though they're paying $60+/month) stations.

There goes another major revenue stream.


When a compelling program is on a particularly commercial laden channel (wait, thats all of them) I'll tune to that channel, hit pause and go do some mundane task around the house for 45 minutes or so. I come back to the TV and rocket through the commercials. Win/win but a pita nonetheless.
 
2013-08-06 08:40:46 AM  

Lawnchair: gfid: The thing is, if cable companies and dish companies keep pulling this kind of thing they're going to just speed up their demise and force Showtime and AMC and whoever happens to be next to start offering online subscriptions without going through a TV provider.

And that will be a win/win/lose (win for consumers, win for the networks, lose for TWC, Dish, et al.)

If you don't hold the line somewhere, it's a dollar more every. single. year. until the stratosphere is breached.

Going a-la-carte could be a win for consumers maybe.  It's very little win for the networks.  The number of people willing to pay for the a-la-carte is much smaller.  Right now, lets say AMC gets 40 cents for every single cable subscriber (whether they watch AMC or not).  In the a-la-carte model, they have to charge more than 40 cents, since not everyone wants AMC.  If they charge $4 a month, they have to sign up 1/10th of the current cable households.  Even that is a  massive challenge.  Virtually no other model is going to provide as much cash as getting 40 cents from every cable-sub household.


If the contracts don't forbid it the channels should sell a-la-cart live access via their website. I won't pay $60-100 a month for cable ever but I would pay for accesses to the 5-6 channels I like. Let me buy a live pass and make an App I can watch on roku, appletv, whatever.
 
2013-08-06 08:43:58 AM  

Carth: Why would anyone in a major pay for the broadcast networks? You can get them free in HD with a small antenna.


Because if you want any cable channels, having one set of programming come in via the cable box and the other via antenna will obligate you to switch the video source on your TV. There are a lot of people in this world who are not smart enough to figure out how to do that.

Besides, the cable company provides a nice program guide for the broadcast stations, and you won't get anything that nice over the air. And how would you record those channels if you wanted to?
 
2013-08-06 08:46:52 AM  

pdieten: Carth: Why would anyone in a major pay for the broadcast networks? You can get them free in HD with a small antenna.

Because if you want any cable channels, having one set of programming come in via the cable box and the other via antenna will obligate you to switch the video source on your TV. There are a lot of people in this world who are not smart enough to figure out how to do that.

Besides, the cable company provides a nice program guide for the broadcast stations, and you won't get anything that nice over the air. And how would you record those channels if you wanted to?


www.picshag.com
 
2013-08-06 08:48:38 AM  

pdieten: Carth: Why would anyone in a major pay for the broadcast networks? You can get them free in HD with a small antenna.

Because if you want any cable channels, having one set of programming come in via the cable box and the other via antenna will obligate you to switch the video source on your TV. There are a lot of people in this world who are not smart enough to figure out how to do that.

Besides, the cable company provides a nice program guide for the broadcast stations, and you won't get anything that nice over the air. And how would you record those channels if you wanted to?


the programming guide would still be allowed to show what is airing on CBS/showtime. But does anyone actually use that anymore? The internet is so much quicker to look up what is on and when.

Switching sources would be more of a pain if there were 5-6 channels on antenna you needed to watch but with only one you hit the source button and CBS is on. Much easier than entering '854' or whatever arbitrary number they make it now. I never bothered recording anything since it is all available on demand (except sports) but sports most people watch live.

People would have to decide for themselves if switching the source to watch CBS is worth $25 a year. Hell assuming NBC, ABC and FOX want the same amount of money you could save $100 a year watching the networks over antenna if you really need cable.
 
2013-08-06 08:48:59 AM  
I missed Dexter not being on...
 
2013-08-06 08:49:44 AM  

pdieten: And how would you record those channels if you wanted to

 
2013-08-06 08:49:49 AM  

pdieten: Because if you want any cable channels, having one set of programming come in via the cable box and the other via antenna will obligate you to switch the video source on your TV. There are a lot of people in this world who are not smart enough to figure out how to do that.

Besides, the cable company provides a nice program guide for the broadcast stations, and you won't get anything that nice over the air. And how would you record those channels if you wanted to?


Not to mention you can't exactly pay for just the cable networks and grab the broadcast stations over the air for free.
 
2013-08-06 08:50:49 AM  

Blue_Blazer: pdieten: And how would you record those channels if you wanted to


I love when my picture appears and then Fark throws it away anyway

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-06 08:52:13 AM  

Blue_Blazer: FTFA: "A la carte is never going to happen," BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield said. CBS added that "anyone familiar with the entertainment business knows the economics and structure of the cable industry doesn't work that way and isn't likely to for some time."

Time-Warner ought to be careful here.  This is a nasty can of worms they are offering to open.  I currently pay about $15 dollars a month for the basic cable package that includes the major networks, C-SPAN, 2 PBS, and a bunch of garbage channels.  I only really carry this for football, and I'm just too lazy to cancel it the other 7 months of the year.  If they want to start a conversation about a la carte channels, they are gonna find a lot of people who start offering to pay for exactly 5 channels, no more and no less.

Also:

gfid: he thing is, if cable companies and dish companies keep pulling this kind of thing they're going to just speed up their demise and force Showtime and AMC and whoever happens to be next to start offering online subscriptions without going through a TV provider.

And that will be a win/win/lose (win for consumers, win for the networks, lose for TWC, Dish, et al.)

I think you might not realize that Time Warner Cable is a massive internet provider, and they would probably start charging for data nationwide (I still pay a flat fee for unlimited broadband in my area).


The religious channels and sex channels will never alllow it and will lobby like last time to get it banned.

Fear the power of the whore channels that do anything for money on tv. Also the channels that show porn too.
 
2013-08-06 08:54:24 AM  

pdieten: Besides, the cable company provides a nice program guide for the broadcast stations, and you won't get anything that nice over the air. And how would you record those channels if you wanted to?


They do actually make DVRs for OTA antenna TV.   That said, I'm not sure I'd bother at this point.  The four main commercial networks + Univision have all made noise that they're planning to get out of the transmitting-by-antenna business sooner rather than later.  Especially if they can get paid to vacate the 470-700 MHz band to phone providers (which is also happening).  It's a tad complicated with the affiliate model over much of the country and contracts like the NFL, but it's coming.  People who are poor/cheapskates enough to use antennas (raises hand) are a crappy target demographic anyway.
 
2013-08-06 08:55:32 AM  

GBB: Blue_Blazer:  If they want to start a conversation about a la carte channels, they are gonna find a lot of people who start offering to pay for exactly 5 channels, no more and no less.

Until we find out that those 5 channels will be more expensive a al carte than just subscribing to "basic" service.  That's the payback cable providers gave out for being forced to provide a la carte by the FCC: make it inconvenient to the customer to hand pick which channels they want.  And that's exactly what they are doing to CBS.



Then I'll just give up and go back to streaming/pirating 100% of the time.  Doesn't really matter to me I guess, but I'll pay for my TV while it's a reasonable price.Although I live in a mixed market for NFL games, so it's a crap shoot whether I actually get the games I want to see on my TV.  Half the time I have to pirate stream them anyway.
 
2013-08-06 08:59:35 AM  

GBB: CBS isn't so innocent in this mess either. Per FCC rules, TWC must continue to carry the channels during negotiation. When the screens went black, it's because CBS turned it off, not TWC. Ever since the Viacom threat a few years ago, TWC predicted that if they gave in to those demands, everyone else will follow suit when the contracts are up for renewal. Lo and behold, just about every content provider has demanded higher fees when the contract has come up for renewal.


This isn't quite true.  TWC pulled the channels.  "Must Carry" only applies to broadcast channels that are offering the service free (usually PBS and religious channels).  As soon as a network tries to charge a carriage fee, they forfeit their "Must Carry" rights.
 
2013-08-06 09:03:22 AM  
I have TW and get all my channels, so...meh.

/wait until SEC football starts, then it's a major problem
 
2013-08-06 09:05:21 AM  
WHAR is Matlock?! WHAR!?
 
2013-08-06 09:07:19 AM  
Is it a sham because cable subscribers will know exactly what they are paying for?
 
2013-08-06 09:10:53 AM  

Enormous-Schwanstucker: Lawnchair: Lawnchair: If they charge $4 a month, they have to sign up 1/10th of the current cable households.  Even that is a  massive challenge.  Virtually no other model is going to provide as much cash as getting 40 cents from every cable-sub household.

Also, I should point out that the people the  do get to pay them $4 a month aren't going to put up with 15 commercials per hour.  People, joy of psychology, put up with tons of commercials on their "free" (even though they're paying $60+/month) stations.

There goes another major revenue stream.

When a compelling program is on a particularly commercial laden channel (wait, thats all of them) I'll tune to that channel, hit pause and go do some mundane task around the house for 45 minutes or so. I come back to the TV and rocket through the commercials. Win/win but a pita nonetheless.


I just wait an hour or two and my torrent program automatically grabs them from my private tracker.  Already stripped of commercials.  Seeing as I work from home, I don't have to worry about spoilers from co-workers.
 
2013-08-06 09:12:54 AM  
Kids growing up these days don't care about TV. They watch YouTube, and probably Netflix.

15 years from now, when the young children of today have their own homes, they won't be paying for cable TV. They won't care. And that's when things will get crazy.
 
2013-08-06 09:17:07 AM  

realmolo: Kids growing up these days don't care about TV. They watch YouTube, and probably Netflix.

15 years from now, when the young children of today have their own homes, they won't be paying for cable TV. They won't care. And that's when things will get crazy.


I'm not paying for cable now, I've just got internet + netflix and that provides plenty of entertainment for a much lower cost than cable.
 
2013-08-06 09:19:13 AM  

EWreckedSean: I missed Dexter not being on...


And it's the final season.

I also would miss Big Bang Theory, but I still get CBS/Showtime.

/so far Dex is still alive, but they tease killing him in every episode.
//That's it, going to watch Ray Donavon while I am thinking of it.
 
2013-08-06 09:19:23 AM  
Not just CBS but all CBS owned channels--Showtime, Smithsonian, CBS Sports.

Time-Warner's douche move is perfectly timed, as CBS has the PGA Championship this weekend, The last season of Dexter and the first of Ray Donovan are in full-throttle on Showtime and football is right around the bend with fall seasons starting at the same time.

Douchey, but effective.
 
2013-08-06 09:23:09 AM  
Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.
 
2013-08-06 09:26:40 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.


Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?
 
2013-08-06 09:33:17 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?


Is Homeland back yet? There isn't much worth watching on showtime except that.
 
2013-08-06 09:36:27 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?


No, meant just the CBS content.
 
2013-08-06 09:42:53 AM  
CBS and all its affiliated channels is not available on my TWC powered TV?  Really?  I didn't notice.  Huh.  Maybe if they had a decent show on that interested me I would watch that network.

Now if Discovery, History, Military, Spike, BBCA or Velocity were to go away, then there would be gnashing of teeth and phone calls made to TWC demanding action.
 
2013-08-06 09:45:41 AM  

Carth: If the contracts don't forbid it the channels should sell a-la-cart live access via their website. I won't pay $60-100 a month for cable ever but I would pay for accesses to the 5-6 channels I like. Let me buy a live pass and make an App I can watch on roku, appletv, whatever.


Yeah, this is what I meant.  I wasn't talking about a la carte through cable or a dish company.

I would pay $5 a month for something like AMC even if II had to put up with commercials.  Showtime doesn't have commercials, so I'd probably shell out $5-10 for that.  I definitely would for HBO.  I might get a few other cable channels at $5 a pop.  I'd still be paying a lot less than for cable and it might give channels that used to be halfway decent but are now mostly reality crap or constant reruns incentive to provide some halfway decent original programming again.

I've only had a Roku a few months, but I'm seeing more and more new stuff pop up there all the time.  Not all of it's free, but a lot of it is.

An antenna isn't really practical for me given terrain and distance from broadcasters.

Comcast was just so bad and kept constantly raising prices, dropping channels, failing to deliver OnDemand that I fired them and I refuse to get a contract with Dish or Direct especially when I can't be guaranteed that what I want to watch won't be disrupted by another dispute like the one last year with AMC.
 
2013-08-06 09:50:21 AM  
The old school exclusive cable contracts for towns required educational channels which Ted Turner set up to win the game in thousands of little towns.  Now those channels are running anything but educational shows and those cities should look at the fine print on the exclusive contracts and end them at once.
 
2013-08-06 09:57:06 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?

No, meant just the CBS content.


Okay well too bad you're not just paying for the CBS content.
 
2013-08-06 09:58:00 AM  
FTA "Letting customers cherry pick the channels they want could cut revenue of media companies. Needham & Co estimated in July that the cable industry including media content providers could lose 50 percent of its revenue, about $70 billion, if the a la carte was widely adopted."

And it is important that the cable companies continue to extort $70 billion from the public.
 
2013-08-06 10:09:57 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?

No, meant just the CBS content.

Okay well too bad you're not just paying for the CBS content.


FTFA:RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank estimates that CBS currently receives $1 per month, per subscriber and is seeking to double that to $2 per subscriber.

Sure sounds like they want to charge extra for just CBS content.
 
2013-08-06 10:18:34 AM  
Where I live, in the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains, there isn't a single station on TV or radio that I can get a clean signal from, so the only way we get TV is by cable or Dish. While a lot of the stuff I watch (not that much to be honest) is available in other ways (Netflix, Hulu Plus, iTunes, etc.) the one thing we can't get that we like is the morning news to play in the background while we're getting up in the mornings.

If I could find a good reliable stream for that, I'd quite cable TV in a heartbeat!
 
2013-08-06 10:19:42 AM  

Carth: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?

No, meant just the CBS content.

Okay well too bad you're not just paying for the CBS content.

FTFA:RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank estimates that CBS currently receives $1 per month, per subscriber and is seeking to double that to $2 per subscriber.

Sure sounds like they want to charge extra for just CBS content.


I believe this means all CBS-owned content, including the other channels that CBS owns, such as Showtime.
 
2013-08-06 10:20:01 AM  

Carth: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?

No, meant just the CBS content.

Okay well too bad you're not just paying for the CBS content.

FTFA:RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank estimates that CBS currently receives $1 per month, per subscriber and is seeking to double that to $2 per subscriber.

Sure sounds like they want to charge extra for just CBS content.


That seems like a pretty darn good deal for the most watched network on television.
 
2013-08-06 10:32:11 AM  
Some lemme get this straight: CBS wants to double the price they receive for their content.

TWC says "Fark no, we'd have to raise rates."

CBS: "Fine, we'll just pull our content from you, then!"


Why would I feel the slightest bit sympathetic for CBS in this case?
 
2013-08-06 10:33:25 AM  

alkhemy: Where I live, in the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains, there isn't a single station on TV or radio that I can get a clean signal from, so the only way we get TV is by cable or Dish. While a lot of the stuff I watch (not that much to be honest) is available in other ways (Netflix, Hulu Plus, iTunes, etc.) the one thing we can't get that we like is the morning news to play in the background while we're getting up in the mornings.

If I could find a good reliable stream for that, I'd quite cable TV in a heartbeat!


Define 'the morning news' a little better, if you would please.

If NPR is an option (and you just can't get radio signal), virtually every NPR station streams legally.

Is local news a requirement?  Several world TV broadcasters in English out there on streaming and/or free-to-air satellite dish.  Al Jazeera English, Jewish News One, China Central TV, NHK World, France 24, Russia Today, etc. (I may have some weird world views after all that).

The cheapest paid plan out there right now is Dish Network's "Welcome Pack" (which they don't advertise, but it's only $20/month for locals and some odd stuff).  That package can't last long at that price, though, if all the network affiliate stations start demanding $2/sub/month (and probably $3 next year and $4 the year after that).
 
2013-08-06 10:35:49 AM  

Fireproof: Carth: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?

No, meant just the CBS content.

Okay well too bad you're not just paying for the CBS content.

FTFA:RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank estimates that CBS currently receives $1 per month, per subscriber and is seeking to double that to $2 per subscriber.

Sure sounds like they want to charge extra for just CBS content.

I believe this means all CBS-owned content, including the other channels that CBS owns, such as Showtime.


Maybe but the article isn't very clear. If the despite stems from the 1992 law allowing the broadcast networks to charge cable companies to retransmit it likely means just CBS.

$1 a month would be very low for CBS Sports, Smithsonian, Showtime and CBS. But it seems about right for just CBS.
 
2013-08-06 11:02:46 AM  

Girion47: That's funny, I have Time Warner Cable internet and I still am able to get all of the CBS shows I care to watch.


So, this is either:

1)  You don't care to watch any CBS shows, and are thus unaffected, or

2)  Your local CBS station isn't blacked out, or

3)  You just watch stuff on CBS.com.


2 is because Time Warner take CBS down everywhere.  Just many places.  Some CBS affiliates are owned by Time Warner, and those haven't gone black (or put on StarzKIDS, which can be worse).
 
2013-08-06 11:06:51 AM  
Has anyone on fark tried using https://aereo.com? $8 a month for all the broadcast channels on any device and free DVR seems like it might be a good sports alternative for people.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report