ADVERTISEMENT

Query on the Cable/Cord Cutting Phenomena . . . .

T

The-Hack

All-American
Oct 1, 2016
22,842
39,353
113
I'm low-tech, and I love cable . . . . go to sleep watching the SEC network, etc., etc.

Cutting the cable, or cord, as they call it, allows lots of people to save money on their programming.

It has been suggested that the tendency will cost the SEC in the long run, because ESPN will not be able to sustain the Billion dollar cost of the SEC Network and other TV rights paid to SEC schools.

So here's my question in detail: the cameras at the SEC games have "ESPN" written on them, usually, unless (I suppose) CBS is airing the game (and then CBS pays lots of money to the SEC schools for its weekly game). If ESPN controls 90% of the rights to the games, do not folks using a higher tech means of watching have to pay something to ESPN to watch the games? Can't ESPN prevent someone who has cut the cable/cord from watching SEC games it is producing/airing?

Are folks who are cutting the cable losing out on lots of sports related content?

Frankly, I'm so far out in the country that I do not have (yet) the options suburbanites have in getting rid of high dollar cable, but it looks like ESPN could effectively monetize anything that it owns, so long as there is a paying demand.
 
I have DirecTV Now and have evaluated Sling and Playstation Vue. All three options include the SEC Network. In fact, all the SEC channels and access to WatchESPN. I use an antenna to get networks. You can also pay $5.99 month for CBS All Access to watch CBS Live and On Demand content. I do not miss cable or Dish and I don't miss a thing...
 
I use Sling TV. The costs are built into the programming. I have all the sports channels. And I can watch on my phone at work/on the go as well. Absolutely no reason for me to use Spectrum for TV services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordEgg
The-Hack said:
I'm low-tech, and I love cable . . . . go to sleep watching the SEC network, etc., etc.

Cutting the cable, or cord, as they call it, allows lots of people to save money on their programming.

It has been suggested that the tendency will cost the SEC in the long run, because ESPN will not be able to sustain the Billion dollar cost of the SEC Network and other TV rights paid to SEC schools.

So here's my question in detail: the cameras at the SEC games have "ESPN" written on them, usually, unless (I suppose) CBS is airing the game (and then CBS pays lots of money to the SEC schools for its weekly game). If ESPN controls 90% of the rights to the games, do not folks using a higher tech means of watching have to pay something to ESPN to watch the games? Can't ESPN prevent someone who has cut the cable/cord from watching SEC games it is producing/airing?

Are folks who are cutting the cable losing out on lots of sports related content?

Frankly, I'm so far out in the country that I do not have (yet) the options suburbanites have in getting rid of high dollar cable, but it looks like ESPN could effectively monetize anything that it owns, so long as there is a paying demand.
Click to expand...
'
If you have cable you not too far out in the country, here in Georgia has to be so many subscribers per mile or they won't service the area, within 250 feet of their main line.
 
Again, I'm low tech, Grumpy. I have dish, with a dish mounted on the roof. So, I guess I'm not really cable, but satellite/dish. It's like $140.00 per month,
 
I love this topic. I live about 9 miles from New Circle road. Windstream sold us DSL when we moved in 6 years ago. I couldn't even get Facebook to load, it was slower than dialup! Then we switched to Wildblue satellite internet, and we kept going over the 10gig data limit and they would slow us down. One day I decided to tether my phone with its 2 bars LTE would have to do. Found out it was faster, cheaper and more reliable than Wildblue. We can't get cable here. So, I have been trying to figure another way . I tinkered with Kodi my internet still sucks . I don't even have a cord to cut!

P.S. I figured out the solution.......MOVE
 
I cut the cord earlier this year and don't miss a thing. I get all the sports channels and traditional cable channels that I did before. It's well worth it to go from a $120/month bill to just $20/month and get the same content.

I've tried all the streaming vendors and so far I like Sling the best. It's cheap, it has DVR capabilities and the user interface is far better than the others. Hulu is in the process of rolling out a streaming service as well but I don't think it's fully functional yet.

One thing you have to consider before going to a stream service is your ISP. The quality of the stream will depend on you connection. If you have really slow internet then it will look really bad on your TV. Also make sure you have a plan that doesn't cap your usage. HD content will chew up bandwidth like you won't believe. A single HD movie can use up 20GB of data so if you are on one of those metered plans it probably won't work for you. I believe I typically use 300GB of data per month.

If you have a strong ISP and unlimited data then you won't notice a difference between SlingTV and Directv or cable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CB3UK
I get that a person can save money, but my question is really about ESPN's revenue.

So you use "Sling" and can watch ESPN games? Does ESPN receive any money from your $20.00 payment to Sling? And don't they receive as much money as they would have from my provider, Dish?

In short, how does your watching a game on Sling cost ESPN money, because you are not watching it on a traditional cable hookup?
 
The-Hack said:
I get that a person can save money, but my question is really about ESPN's revenue.

So you use "Sling" and can watch ESPN games? Does ESPN receive any money from your $20.00 payment to Sling? And don't they receive as much money as they would have from my provider, Dish?

In short, how does your watching a game on Sling cost ESPN money, because you are not watching it on a traditional cable hookup?
Click to expand...

Basically the reason cord cutting has hurt ESPN more than any other network is because ESPN charges so much for their programming. An overly simple example, if you pay $100/month for Dish. ESPN gets $10. CNN, Fox, and most other networks only get $1 or $2 at most. They've been able to charge that much per customer because they don't have any competition. So for each customer cutting the cord, it hurts ESPN more than other networks. They used those really high subscriber fees to pay for all the live sports they show.

Moving to Sling TV or Playstation VUE, or any other option available to "cord cutters", you are still paying for ESPN content, it's just they get much less of a cut than they do from major cable/satellite companies. Most networks have never considered cord cutting to ever cause them issues until the last year or two, so they've made deals for streaming content much cheaper than broadcast network content. There are a ton of other factors like equipment costs and fees cable companies charge which makes their services higher priced.
 
I'm not sure about how it works between Sling and ESPN. Sling is a legit service so they do pay ESPN for content. I don't believe ESPN gets the same rate that they do with Directv but they do get paid. I'm sure the costs that sling pays per subscriber is close but each of these services negotiate their own deal with ESPN.

As far as why sling is cheaper it's because it's an alacarte service instead of bundled. I don't really get exactly the same service on Sling as I did with Directv. I get the 20 or so channels that I actually watch. I don't get the 300 or so channels of crap that I never watched with Direct. You can put together a package on Sling that would cost $100 a month. You would just have to add all the garbage channels that are worthless.
 
SpamburgerHamburger said:
they've made deals for streaming content much cheaper than broadcast network content.
Click to expand...

So they have cut their own throat with regard to having priced themselves in cheaply to streaming outfits?

I realize you were using hypothetical numbers, only, but actually saw a thread here, two months or so, ago, that showed the average subscriber to the SEC Network was paying like 50% more than subscribers for the Big Ten, and almost 3 times as much as the PAC Network, which is perversely in our interest.
 
The-Hack said:
So they have cut their own throat with regard to having priced themselves in cheaply to streaming outfits?

I realize you were using hypothetical numbers, only, but actually saw a thread here, two months or so, ago, that showed the average subscriber to the SEC Network was paying like 50% more than subscribers for the Big Ten, and almost 3 times as much as the PAC Network, which is perversely in our interest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the numbers were hypothetical, but they aren't far off what I've read before. A quick Google is showing me ESPN charges $9 per subscriber for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and SEC Network. In contrast the Fox networks charge $1.86 for FS1, FS2, and Big Ten Network. The NFL Network alone is $1. Every other channel, CNN, Nickelodeon, CBS, everything else is under a dollar. CBS Sports is $0.26 for example.

SlingTV is $20, the vast majority is just to show ESPN. All the other channels are pennies.
 
The-Hack said:
So they have cut their own throat with regard to having priced themselves in cheaply to streaming outfits?

I realize you were using hypothetical numbers, only, but actually saw a thread here, two months or so, ago, that showed the average subscriber to the SEC Network was paying like 50% more than subscribers for the Big Ten, and almost 3 times as much as the PAC Network, which is perversely in our interest.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it like that. I believe ESPN and maybe a couple other networks have badly over priced themselves with cable and Direct. The reason people are cord cutting is because of the outrageous costs of cable. ESPN is responsible for the majority of that. There are some stupid extra charges thrown in by the cable/satellite providers such as equipment charges but easily the majority of the costs are for premium networks like ESPN. The reality that they are dealing with is their subscriber fees are going to be halved in a few short years. You might even see people going back to cable/Direct. I know I have been getting mail offers to come back to Direct for $19/month. I never got offers that low before. A year ago the mail offers I got were showing the same package at $59/month. That shows you how much and how fast prices are going to drop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Hack
The-Hack said:
Again, I'm low tech, Grumpy. I have dish, with a dish mounted on the roof. So, I guess I'm not really cable, but satellite/dish. It's like $140.00 per month,
Click to expand...

I had the same for awhile, but got tired of losing signal everytime it came up a dark cloud. My ISP is also my cable and its less than that, but I don't have any of the premium movie channels. I like it better, but not sure I would like it 140.00 a month or not.
 
The-Hack said:
I get that a person can save money, but my question is really about ESPN's revenue.

So you use "Sling" and can watch ESPN games? Does ESPN receive any money from your $20.00 payment to Sling? And don't they receive as much money as they would have from my provider, Dish?

In short, how does your watching a game on Sling cost ESPN money, because you are not watching it on a traditional cable hookup?
Click to expand...
It doesn't cost ESPN anything. You have different packages to choose from. There are different media conglomerates out there i.e, Disney, NBC, Fox, etc. Each of those conglomerates has their set of channels, almost all of which you get on cable, Dish, whatever, whether you want them or not.

Sling has an Orange package and a Blue package. The primary difference between them is the orange has Disney's stuff, which includes the ESPN family, and the Blue has Fox, which includes Fox News and Fox Sports. After that there are different $5 add on options for various focused content (ie sports, kids, etc.)

Your monthly bill goes to them the same as your cable does now. Cable company takes it's cut of your $140/month for infrastructure and labor, and splits the rest between the media conglomerates for the rights to broadcast their content.

The difference here is I'm not paying for 200 channels I will never ever ever watch because I don't want them. I'm paying for just the channels I want to watch, thereby eliminating an exorbitant cable bill.

I have 100 meg internet and Sling TV, as well as Netflix and Hulu. My total for all of that a month is $90/month. So I'm paying $50/month less than you, and you I'm guessing don't have internet speeds that fast or the Netflix and Hulu services to boot.

It is 100% better to switch, unless you just have money to burn, or have wife/kids/etc. I'm a 33 yr old guy with a girlfriend so I don't really have any considerations outside of myself. A family is obviously different.



Edit: To your point about ESPN, yes this will effect their future contract negotiations. While ESPN is built into the orange package, SEC Network is built into the $5 sports add on. Part of the success of the SECN is that it was built into the major cable providers package. All those folks in the South who don't follow SEC sports (who these heathen animals are I don't know :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: ) would not have to help subsidize the cost of the network and inflate it's profits. Same for non sports fans in general. You switch to these streaming services and if you aren't a sports fan and have the option of cutting that cost off your bill, you will.

As Sling, Direct, PSN, etc currently stand, they are part of what's included for the most part so folks are still subsidizing when they cut the cords. That won't be the case forever. I believe TV rights negotiations are coming due in 2025....that's when we'll see the format change because of another almost decade of a switch to cord cutting, combined with attendance issues across the country, the playoff, more pushes for realignment........more change is a-comin as they say.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jauk11
The-Hack said:
I'm low-tech, and I love cable . . . . go to sleep watching the SEC network, etc., etc.

Cutting the cable, or cord, as they call it, allows lots of people to save money on their programming.

It has been suggested that the tendency will cost the SEC in the long run, because ESPN will not be able to sustain the Billion dollar cost of the SEC Network and other TV rights paid to SEC schools.

So here's my question in detail: the cameras at the SEC games have "ESPN" written on them, usually, unless (I suppose) CBS is airing the game (and then CBS pays lots of money to the SEC schools for its weekly game). If ESPN controls 90% of the rights to the games, do not folks using a higher tech means of watching have to pay something to ESPN to watch the games? Can't ESPN prevent someone who has cut the cable/cord from watching SEC games it is producing/airing?

Are folks who are cutting the cable losing out on lots of sports related content?

Frankly, I'm so far out in the country that I do not have (yet) the options suburbanites have in getting rid of high dollar cable, but it looks like ESPN could effectively monetize anything that it owns, so long as there is a paying demand.
Click to expand...


Can someone tell me the difference between Roku and Sling? My Roku offers CNN, Fox etc. are those program apps the same as what sling offers?
 
Bluuu said:
Can someone tell me the difference between Roku and Sling? My Roku offers CNN, Fox etc. are those program apps the same as what sling offers?
Click to expand...

Sling is a straight up, turn it to that channel, watch that channel live service. There's no selecting an app or browsing content. Just turn it on and watch. Your Roku app probably has a few bells and whistles where you can select different content, or watch CNN live.

Interestingly enough, when I had Roku, the ESPN app just worked. I never put in any subscriber information, it just worked with no issues. Then the Roku had a heart attack and died.
 
Been streaming for over 2 years now. Our cable/internet bill went from $188 a month down to $85. I use a Roku (check out Pluto TV) and subscribe to Sling with the sports package for $25 a month. I tried both packages for $50, but the Fox sports networks don't have enough programming that I am interested in to justify getting it. I use the Watch ESPN app, and we also have a device that we use the Sports Devil and Pro Sport app as well as other apps (Apollo/Exodus/One Channel, etc.) that allow us to get other programming, and right now I'm watching more sports than ever before. It was my way of giving Charter/Spectrum a double middle finger after years of outrageous fees, and as the Danny Trejo Sling commercial says...."paying $100 for channels you never watch"...
 
The-Hack said:
I'm low-tech, and I love cable . . . . go to sleep watching the SEC network, etc., etc.

Cutting the cable, or cord, as they call it, allows lots of people to save money on their programming.

It has been suggested that the tendency will cost the SEC in the long run, because ESPN will not be able to sustain the Billion dollar cost of the SEC Network and other TV rights paid to SEC schools.

So here's my question in detail: the cameras at the SEC games have "ESPN" written on them, usually, unless (I suppose) CBS is airing the game (and then CBS pays lots of money to the SEC schools for its weekly game). If ESPN controls 90% of the rights to the games, do not folks using a higher tech means of watching have to pay something to ESPN to watch the games? Can't ESPN prevent someone who has cut the cable/cord from watching SEC games it is producing/airing?

Are folks who are cutting the cable losing out on lots of sports related content?

Frankly, I'm so far out in the country that I do not have (yet) the options suburbanites have in getting rid of high dollar cable, but it looks like ESPN could effectively monetize anything that it owns, so long as there is a paying demand.
Click to expand...
The problem for ESPN is the fact that all the people who never watched sports at all (which is in the millions of cable subscribers) were still paying ESPN the $7 a month even though they never turned on any of their programming. ESPN was being paid by everyone who had cable service each month, no matter if they watched ESPN or not. Now these non-sports watching people are the ones who are cutting the cord and not signing up for services that offer ESPN content. ESPN is losing millions of essentially silent customers who never watched and didnt want to spend $100 (of which a large portion went to ESPN) a month on programming.

Now those of us who watch sports and use streaming services instead of cable still pay ESPN the monthly fee but thats not the problem ESPN faces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DCFseattle, jauk11 and BigBlueFanGA
The-Hack said:
I get that a person can save money, but my question is really about ESPN's revenue.

So you use "Sling" and can watch ESPN games? Does ESPN receive any money from your $20.00 payment to Sling? And don't they receive as much money as they would have from my provider, Dish?

In short, how does your watching a game on Sling cost ESPN money, because you are not watching it on a traditional cable hookup?
Click to expand...

I think they monetize their content mostly from advertising, not paid subscriptions, so the proliferation of Sling and other freebie systems expands their viewership which means they can charge more for commercial spots. The more people that watch the more money they make.

A similar situation occurred with online content. In the early days of the Web it was popular for sites to charge for certain content, but later on they realized that the most profitable way to do it was to provide content for free and make revenue off of adds. So the switch occurred. BTW I'm pretty sure that Rivals/Yahoo makes most of it's revenue from advertising not the $10 premey content fees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jauk11
JDHoss said:
Been streaming for over 2 years now. Our cable/internet bill went from $188 a month down to $85. I use a Roku (check out Pluto TV) and subscribe to Sling with the sports package for $25 a month. I tried both packages for $50, but the Fox sports networks don't have enough programming that I am interested in to justify getting it. I use the Watch ESPN app, and we also have a device that we use the Sports Devil and Pro Sport app as well as other apps (Apollo/Exodus/One Channel, etc.) that allow us to get other programming, and right now I'm watching more sports than ever before. It was my way of giving Charter/Spectrum a double middle finger after years of outrageous fees, and as the Danny Trejo Sling commercial says...."paying $100 for channels you never watch"...
Click to expand...

got a question for you. I'm holding on to Direct because no one else offers Sunday Ticket (all NFL games) Do any of these system provide access to multiple (or all) NFL games? thx.
 
Deeeefense said:
I think they monetize their content mostly from advertising, not paid subscriptions, so the proliferation of Sling and other freebie systems expands their viewership which means they can charge more for commercial spots. The more people that watch the more money they make.

A similar situation occurred with online content. In the early days of the Web it was popular for sites to charge for certain content, but later on they realized that the most profitable way to do it was to provide content for free and make revenue off of adds. So the switch occurred. BTW I'm pretty sure that Rivals/Yahoo makes most of it's revenue from advertising not the $10 premey content fees.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure of the break down of their revenues, but the paid subscribers is a significant portion of their revenue. ESPN charges $7.20 per subscriber (i.e., cable customer) with the next highest channel charging around $2. They've lost about 12 million subscribers (not people who watch ESPN, but everyone who pays for it) in the past few years. This is why they are hurting so far because they are losing out on all of these subscription dollars.

Source: https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/05/economist-explains-12
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deeeefense
JDHoss said:
Been streaming for over 2 years now. Our cable/internet bill went from $188 a month down to $85. I use a Roku (check out Pluto TV) and subscribe to Sling with the sports package for $25 a month. I tried both packages for $50, but the Fox sports networks don't have enough programming that I am interested in to justify getting it. I use the Watch ESPN app, and we also have a device that we use the Sports Devil and Pro Sport app as well as other apps (Apollo/Exodus/One Channel, etc.) that allow us to get other programming, and right now I'm watching more sports than ever before. It was my way of giving Charter/Spectrum a double middle finger after years of outrageous fees, and as the Danny Trejo Sling commercial says...."paying $100 for channels you never watch"...
Click to expand...


Thinking about moving to Sling. How is the picture quality? I have 60mbs internet speeds. How did you get Watch ESPN APP without a susbsciprtion login?
 
Deeeefense said:
got a question for you. I'm holding on to Direct because no one else offers Sunday Ticket (all NFL games) Do any of these system provide access to multiple (or all) NFL games? thx.
Click to expand...
Nope. NFL network but nothing like Sunday ticket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deeeefense
Crankdatmustard said:
Thinking about moving to Sling. How is the picture quality? I have 60mbs internet speeds. How did you get Watch ESPN APP without a susbsciprtion login?
Click to expand...
A 60 mbs connection should be plenty. The picture quality should be near what it is with cable. They say the picture quality is not quite as good as cable but I can't tell the difference. For a while I had both Directv and Sling at the same time. They looked the same on my TV. If you have a good connection there is no stuttering or pixelation.

You can watch the ESPN App if your internet provider is a subscriber. In my case it's not even though I use ATT and Uverse is on the list. I bet they check your account to verify that you don't just have internet but cable as well. Anyway with Sling I don't need WatchESPN.
 
Hey, thanks for all the responces.

Here's my take on the way things are going, and MIGHT shake out.

If I were to go with Sling, I would pretty much only want the sports, and I would pay less.

But since you all have confirmed that ESPN still has the rights to those ESPN programs shown on Sling and companies like it, eventually, I would think ESPN will charge those companies more dollars per subscriber, since there are not millions of people who are "passively" paying ESPN.

Eventually, ESPN might charge 20.00, or 30.00 to watch their content on these streaming outlets.
 
The-Hack said:
I'm low-tech, and I love cable . . . . go to sleep watching the SEC network, etc., etc.

Cutting the cable, or cord, as they call it, allows lots of people to save money on their programming.

It has been suggested that the tendency will cost the SEC in the long run, because ESPN will not be able to sustain the Billion dollar cost of the SEC Network and other TV rights paid to SEC schools.

So here's my question in detail: the cameras at the SEC games have "ESPN" written on them, usually, unless (I suppose) CBS is airing the game (and then CBS pays lots of money to the SEC schools for its weekly game). If ESPN controls 90% of the rights to the games, do not folks using a higher tech means of watching have to pay something to ESPN to watch the games? Can't ESPN prevent someone who has cut the cable/cord from watching SEC games it is producing/airing?

Are folks who are cutting the cable losing out on lots of sports related content?

Frankly, I'm so far out in the country that I do not have (yet) the options suburbanites have in getting rid of high dollar cable, but it looks like ESPN could effectively monetize anything that it owns, so long as there is a paying demand.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best threads I've come across in a good while... It's about football/sports and all other TV stuff that is very confusing to all but the most tech savvy... Any thread that includes in it a chance to learn something I give a two thumbs up.... Good post Hack! Thanks to all for your contributions.......
You can beam me up Scotty........
 
ESPN would never be able to get 20 - 30 a month for a stand alone service at a subscriber rate that would cover all their costs, and they certainly couldn't get that from a service like Sling. The number of people who would simply share passwords or turn to piracy to get the content would be staggering.

My personal vision of this is that Disney-ABC creates their own streaming service that includes ESPN, access to the Disney Vault, Content from the Star Wars and Marvel properties (including new original programming), and access to material from all the ABC properties for around $15 a month. I could easily see a service like this rivaling Netflix subscriber numbers in just a couple of years especially if they remove all their content from all the other services and make this the only method for accessing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Hack
Tried Sling about 2 months ago and it would play fine for 10-15 minutes and then freeze for 5-10 minutes so I had to give it up. Just started a 7 day trial with Hulu live tv on my firestick and so far it has worked well for me. It hasn't frozen up on me once like Sling was doing. I will say that I liked the package and what I could get from Sling a little better, but unfortunately it didn't work for me. The Hulu live still has your ESPN's and SEC network if you really just care mainly about sports.
 
For those who's interest in sports falls outside of College Football and Basketball, you might check out Fubo TV. They are essentially trying to become a streaming service that is focused almost exclusively on sports. Unfortunately they are still in negotiations with ESPN and NFL Network, but they offer a lot of other options for Sports content.

Also, for those who are ATT Unlimited Wireless subscribers, you can get a $25 a month discount on Direct TV Now plus free HBO. Which could take your monthly costs for service as low as $10 a month. I jumped onto the Direct TV Now service in the beginning when they were offering their 100 Channel package for $35 a month. The service was pretty wonky at first, but it has improved pretty a lot over the last few months.
 
I switched to Hulu TV two months ago. I havent missed cable at all. I pay like $44 (its $40 if you do it with commercials) a month and you get all the good sports channels- ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U, SEC Network, CBS Sports & Big10 Network. You also get pretty much every good channel on tv plus it has DVR feature and you get all the streaming Hulu content. Its pretty awesome and the picture quality is really good.
 
Snowcats86 said:
I switched to Hulu TV two months ago. I havent missed cable at all. I pay like $44 (its $40 if you do it with commercials) a month and you get all the good sports channels- ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U, SEC Network, CBS Sports & Big10 Network. You also get pretty much every good channel on tv plus it has DVR feature and you get all the streaming Hulu content. Its pretty awesome and the picture quality is really good.
Click to expand...


Snowcat what do you pay for internet a month and what subscriber?
 
Snowcats86 said:
I switched to Hulu TV two months ago. I havent missed cable at all. I pay like $44 (its $40 if you do it with commercials) a month and you get all the good sports channels- ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U, SEC Network, CBS Sports & Big10 Network. You also get pretty much every good channel on tv plus it has DVR feature and you get all the streaming Hulu content. Its pretty awesome and the picture quality is really good.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, this is exactly what I am doing. After the Sling experiment failed, I was just waiting for Hulu to get live tv on the firestick, which they did as of last Thursday.
 
Nerds.

Go outside and play.....in the snow....uphill both ways (says the message board poster).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Smashcat

College football on tv

Replies
46
Views
1K
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
yoshukai
yoshukai
G

TV for the Eastern Kentucky game-there is none-streaming only on ESPN app

Replies
16
Views
2K
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
Rivals_Defender
Rivals_Defender
TNCatfanforever

Lady Cats

Replies
38
Views
2K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
Mike-D
Mike-D
MrHotDice

Barney Is to Blame

Replies
3
Views
395
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
FirewithFire
FirewithFire
T

Common Myths or Irrelevant Arguments Regarding Bowl Games (Long and Windy)

Replies
44
Views
1K
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
The-Hack
T
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back