»
Topic: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord
Replies: 62   Last Post: Dec 15, 2017 3:08 PM by: quozzel
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 62  

All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord

[3]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 10:59 AM
 

Maybe in for a big hurt watching clemson football games next year.

Congress is trying to kill Obama net neutrality order today.

If successful the chord you still use to get Internet could control the speed of the content you are viewing.

So.... if you have cable internet but not cable tv, the cable company could slow your espn down so bad that you can't watch.


Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:01 AM
 

I dont have cable internet so there is that.

I agree with you about net neutrality though. It is bull #### what they are doing.

2020 white level member

March 4th 2016- "Lee won't be here 4 years from today" - Viztiz


I used cable as an example.


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:06 AM
 

Any 1 who provides Internet could do this.

Cable companies and att /phone companies (dsl, fiber) probably will

I don't know about Google fiber.

The cell phones hit you so hard it probably won't matter.


Yep free enterprise is so terrible!***


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:23 PM
 



2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

It is anything but a free market


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:32 PM
 

You've never wondered why so many areas only have one decent option for service? The big incumbents have aggressively litigated and lobbied to make it near-impossible to start new ISPs.


Re: It is anything but a free market

[8]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:06 PM
 

Why do those locations only have one option? Because the local government granted a monopoly to the provider in that location. If you think that's a free market, you need to revisit what that means.

This and others are the thousands of micro examples of what the 2015 rules were trying to do to the entire internet. A government panel, with a majority of voters based on the party in the White House, gets to decide the rules for everyone. Creativity, competition, all that goes away - power goes to those who support the party in power. And that's worked out so well in so many other places, hasn't it?

It's amazing to me how easily manipulated people's thinking on this is. You rail about companies deciding how to run their businesses, yet be completely okay with 7 un-elected people deciding how everyone runs their business.

PS - nothing in the 2015 rules would've prevented what the original poster fears. It merely empowered the FCC panel to put those rules in place. Anybody who could name the unelected members of that panel with practically unlimited power without doing a search gets a cookie.

Get the government to be just competent at doing what it's already charged with doing before they start taking on more.


Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:06 AM
 

Pretty much. A horrible repeal all the way around.

But it may balance out. ISPs would allow you to pay money to access certain sites, or at least use them at a tolerable internet speed. Basically letting the slow lane become a normal lane. The money spent on that may be less than what I would have to pay for cable.

2020 student level member

I had direct tv now this year and only missed the one game


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:07 AM
 

That was blacked out on cable locally anyways (Arkansas). I had to watch at my in laws house. I am happy with it but did notice one or two games I was about s minutes behind. It was a little frustrating because tigernet blew up on a bad play or a good play before I saw it. But otherwise has been good. If that happens I guess I’ll go back to cable but st least I’ll get the new customer price

military_donation.jpg

Yeah.. I watch some Game at my neighbors direct tv

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:17 AM
 

AND listen on the radio which is line 30 secs ahead.

Last year I was dancing and jumping around 39 seconds before they watched renfrows catch.


Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:08 AM
 

IMO, Congress needs to DO AWAY with 'cable neutrality'....the phrase is a total misnomer.


Any internet provider who expects me to pay more than $50/mo


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:30 AM
 

OR thinks I will tolerate limits to my streaming video to watch live sports will lose my business. I will completely do without and go to local watering hole to watch games. I do not watch live TV except for sports. That is it. If they think they can extort me for more $, it won't happen.

LET THE MARKET DECIDE, NOT THE CENTRAL FED GOVT BUREUCRACY!

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

But can the market really decide here?

[11]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:09 PM
 

This isn't the case of multiple companies making widgets and you getting to decide which widget to buy based on your criteria. New companies can't just come in and sell the "widget" of internet access.

There are a limited number of ways that the internet gets to your house. Any new company wanting to provide that service has a LARGE obstacle in front of them in infrastructure already in place for the current companies (paid for by the users over time, and by grants from our government) to which any new company doesn't have the same access. We already have these private companies in place that behave as defacto utilities (assuming you agree to the concept that in our current society the internet and the services it provides have become all but necessary).

So if these current companies are going to reap the benefits of being incentivized in the past to create/maintain the "data-pipes" to our houses then they should be held to some standard of service.

I'm a free market guy. It tends to work. But there are exceptions and it seems to me that regulations are necessary when we've give a small group of companies such a large upperhand against any future competition.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Well said. This should be the end point in any discussion on net neutrality.***

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:12 PM
 



2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

null


Re: But can the market really decide here?


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:20 PM
 

Yes, the market can decide... let me ask you a question, then suggest a proposal... this is not an "equality" or "right" issue...



QUESTION:

Without the lure of more $ and profit, what investment would be made to address this bandwidth delivery issue?

PROPOSAL:

Why not have local cities and counties treat the last miles of access to homes like other utilities? In other words, there will be one gas line, one electric line, one water line and one physical, high-speed internet line to each gone that the city/county owns right of way on.

To maintain those rights of way and infrastructure, the city charges a tariff/tax.

Consumers buy the service feeding the access pipe from multiple sources/service providers. Just like we do with gas, electric and water.

As innovations occur to carry more bandwidth more efficiently, this infrastructure will get upgraded city-by-city, county-by-county and the cost to keep this maintainecis reflected in the democratic local govt managed tax/tariff.

So why can this not work?

Message was edited by: hufferbilly®

Message was edited by: hufferbilly®


2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

OK


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:42 PM
 

I've said all along, the ideal path is to do that. However that part isn't going to happen because it would endanger (to a much greater degree) the profits of the current oligopoly. See how they are now fighting for this current issue? Imagine if the debate were about opening up competition to further forces.

Also, many of the "pure" market competition folks would decry the municipilization of these last-mile pipes under the same "hands off" argument being used about net neutrality.

I'm fine with your suggestion, I just think we've already sailed past that being viable.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Some progressive cities have done this as precedent already


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:13 PM
 

http://www.citymayors.com/features/us_e_cities.html

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/city-internet-connection-household-adoption-rates-data.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457231

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I don't have a choice in who provides my gas

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 3:02 PM
 

Or electricity.


Re: I don't have a choice in who provides my gas


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:12 PM
 

Does anyone or water for that matter

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Go Tigers! Once A Tiger Always A Tiger


Re: I don't have a choice in who provides my gas


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:17 PM
 

yep got a well and tank, I can chose

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Internet service and internet TV are not basic human rights


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:22 PM
 

So if it is to expensive, stop buying...

Go with phone network plans or DISH or DIRECTV. Or better yet, do without.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Yeah! Same with healthcare! And education!


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:31 PM
 

They aren't basic human rights so if you can't afford them, just do without!


You're right.. this is a 1st world argument.. much like electricity isn't a human right.***


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:36 PM
 



2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

null


Re: You're right.. this is a 1st world argument.. much like electricity isn't a human right.***


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:59 PM
 

Streaming Entertainment is not a right. Not life threatening.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Dude, seriously? Thats the argument you're trying to pin on


Posted: Dec 15, 2017 12:08 PM
 

me? Be better.
Our daughter uses it for streaming videos for school. In our home we use it to stream videos to learn how to lay floor, sweat copper, install junction boxes, add breakers, finish drywall. At work we use it to show families videos about procedures their loved ones will have in the OR, ICU, IR, etc.

I can't even imagine how small business owners are feeling.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

null


again, not a right... all luxury stuff***


Posted: Dec 15, 2017 1:57 PM
 



2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: again, not a right... all luxury stuff***


Posted: Dec 15, 2017 3:08 PM
 

It would be difficult to describe the internet - as it exists now - as a "luxury".

It's gotten to be almost impossible to function in society without the Internet. It's embedded in our banking, our workplace, our school system. And worse, it's now inextricably entwined with our communications industry.

There was one idiot house of representative (Jason Chaffetz) who made himself (in)famous for saying last year in regards to the health care bill: "well, poor people shouldn't buy those expensive iPhones, then." (Which was tantamount to that "let them eat cake" comment that once got Marie Antoinette beheaded when she was told the angry French peasants had no bread.)

Uh...okay. That phone, to most working-class people, isn't just (usually their only) phone anymore: it's their computer, their access portal for all things Internet (including their E-mail), their sole access point to every form of digital media and communication that our society makes almost mandatory to function. And there aren't a lot of alternatives out there. Try getting a cheap phone these days...there really aren't many options. Phone companies roll up the cost of a phone nowawadays into their monthly bill, make it almost mandatory to sign multiple-year contracts, and they almost instantly liquidate older (cheaper) models of phones from their inventories.

You want to fill out a job application? You have to do it on-line.

You want to fill out a myriad of loan, tax, or banking information? You have to do it on-line.

You want to keep up with your kid's grades in school, send a message to his/her teacher? You need an e-mail account.

It goes on and on. If you don't have at least minimal access to the Internet these days, you're a non-person, incapable of functioning at even a basic level. Go on: put in a job application (if you can still find a paper one anywhere) then tell your employer: "I don't have any Internet". They're going to wonder what Amish farm you live on, or what prison you just got released from. Either way, don't expect them to call you.

Whatever, as embedded as the Internet is into our culture, and as dependent as everyone has become on it, it just isn't accurate anymore to describe it as a "luxury" anymore. And the last thing you want to do is create a subculture of people so poor they literally fall off the grid because they can't afford to be on it anymore. Especially when all you're allowing to happen is for Verizon to stuff their pockets over the short term.

I don't see how that gets anybody anywhere. Except maybe the Verizon shareholders.


Re: Internet service and internet TV are not basic human rights


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:51 PM
 

Direct TV is owned by AT&T, it took control of that entity and did away with it's UVerse program because they could effectively control more.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Internet service and internet TV are not basic human rights


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:56 PM
 

ATT taking over Directv was where the outrage and govt control needs to be!

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:30 AM
 

> Maybe in for a big hurt watching clemson football
> games next year.
>
> Congress is trying to kill Obama net neutrality order
> today.
>
> If successful the chord you still use to get Internet
> could control the speed of the content you are
> viewing.
>
> So.... if you have cable internet but not cable tv,
> the cable company could slow your espn down so bad
> that you can't watch.

Yeah, because prior to net neutrality being enacted in 2015 we couldn't stream anything. I guess all the ESPN3 broadcasts and Netflix movies I watched without issue for many years prior to net neutrality was a figment of my imagination... Don't be such a chicken little...

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

In 2015 netflix, hulu, vue, sling


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:42 AM
 

Weren't nearly as big and popular as they are now.

I never cut charter's cord so it won't effect me, or it shouldnt... they still may hit me with an extra fee to stream espn on my phone.

They already block most content over the phone unless you have WiFi.


Re: In 2015 netflix, hulu, vue, sling

[2]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:19 PM
 

The whole argument boils down to who do you trust to manage the Internet? Bureaucrats or Private Industry?

Net Neutrality isn't some panacea for keeping the Internet "free from data throttling". Sure the previous FCC chief's sold it as such but the truth is it was nothing more than a power grab by FCC to regulate the Internet under Title II authority of the Communications Act of 1934. Until the FCC made this power grab in 2015, ISPs were considered a Title I service and the FCC was limited in what they could dictate to ISPs. If ISPs remain under Title II there is nothing to prohibit the FCC from imposing their own throttling standards or censorship in the future. Think it couldn't/won't happen - just let the pipes keep getting clogged with more demand with no corresponding backbone investment by private industry and you will see the FCC impose their own brand of data winners/losers.

In general, the more the Government gets involved in private sector activities, costs go up, quality of service goes down, and innovation is stifled. You may feel more comfortable with the Government being Big Brother to our Internet providers - I don't and that is coming from someone who spent 27 years working for the Government.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: In 2015 netflix, hulu, vue, sling


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:36 PM
 

> The whole argument boils down to who do you trust to
> manage the Internet? Bureaucrats or Private
> Industry?

The big incumbent ISPs have litigated, lobbied, and acquired their way into local monopolies or duopolies all around the country. You've never wondered why there is often only one decent option for broadband, no matter where you go?

It's NOT a free market, new ISPs are now incredibly difficult to start, and the big names don't actually compete with any other major names in most of their territory. They avoid one another, and price fix in the areas there are overlap.


Re: In 2015 netflix, hulu, vue, sling


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:56 PM
 

Your point about ending Net Neutrality making it easier for smaller ISPs to enter the market is actually untrue. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai received a few letters regarding this and has used it as his leading argument for ending Net Neutrality, however, he hasn't been able to explain how ending Net Neutrality actually helps smaller ISPs.

Here's a lengthy article regarding the pros and cons of ending Net Neutrality for smaller ISPs.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/13/15949920/net-neutrality-killing-small-isps

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: In 2015 netflix, hulu, vue, sling


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:31 PM
 

> > The whole argument boils down to who do you trust
> to
> > manage the Internet? Bureaucrats or Private
> > Industry?
>
> The big incumbent ISPs have litigated, lobbied, and
> acquired their way into local monopolies or duopolies
> all around the country. You've never wondered why
> there is often only one decent option for broadband,
> no matter where you go?
>
> It's NOT a free market, new ISPs are now incredibly
> difficult to start, and the big names don't actually
> compete with any other major names in most of their
> territory. They avoid one another, and price fix in
> the areas there are overlap.

Businesses will lobby for what they think is in their best interests. Why wouldn't ISP providers lobby to keep the Government from regulating how they manage and deliver services to their customers? Would you volunteer to have the Government tell you how to run your business? The flipside is that certain content providers (Netflix, Hulu, etc...) lobbied hard for net neutrality. Netflix loves the idea that they could potentially hog up 75% of a data pipe with their streaming service to the detriment of other content providers and not have to pay a cent more for the privilege.

It is true that some places have no choice in broadband access. However, to say there is no free market is disingenuous as there are many more broadband options today than just a few years ago. I live in Shelby, NC (not exactly a booming metropolis) but have a choice of 3 different broadband providers. That was not the case 10 years ago. Geography and available infrastructure largely determines your access to broadband - not some evil plan that has kept providers out of the business. Cable Companies started out with an advantage because they were able to rapidly take advantage of their existing copper networks (which they heavily invested in and installed back in the 70's and 80's) to provide reliable broadband access. They did this without FCC Title II oversite (i.e. "net neutrality") and it brought forth a revolution in broadband access across the country that has essentially changed the way we live. Phone companies came to the game a little later but are catching up with fiber and over the air networks. If power companies ever figure out how to deliver reliable broadband over the power lines they will be the new kings of broadband. There is competition albeit not in every locality in the country.

Free market principles work and I trust the free market to adapt, innovate, and create the technology and provide the services that customers want; the Government - not so much. Like I said - you are either a big Government person or a free enterprise person. No shame in wanting net neutrality, but you should also be clear eyed that a Government that can impose net neutrality rules today can very easily impose network restrictions you hate tomorrow.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

What 3 providers?


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:52 PM
 

Cable
Phone
Cellular

?


Re: In 2015 netflix, hulu, vue, sling


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 3:03 PM
 

My thing is, the Government and big companies are lobbying the hardest to end Net Neutrality. Why would they be doing that if it wasn't in their best financial interests?

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Trickle down internet***


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 3:09 PM
 




DITTO BROTHA!***


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 4:10 PM
 



2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: In 2015 netflix, hulu, vue, sling


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 5:03 PM
 

The reason your spectrum tv app doesn't work outside of your home network is contracts with the channel providers like Viacom. They don't want essentially lines of free services walking around.

They get paid per subscriber from cable/satellite companies and they don't want you giving your friend your logon for it to work without him paying. Your service is authenticated through your modems Mac address to prevent that.

military_donation.jpg

Ask yourself

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:10 PM
 

Why would the big communication companies be pushing so hard for their repeal if not because they want to reap some perceived benefit.

What is that benefit to them?

I imagine if you find that answer then you'd see my problem with the whole mess.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


The problem isn't so much "speed throttling"....

[2]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:33 AM
 

...the problem is that markets are "protected" so that cable/telephone providers have a monopoly. If the gubermint simply removes these protections to allow other entities to run new cable/wire/fiber into communities it'll go a long way to "fixing" your concern. Honestly, the vast majority of the communications infrastructure running through communities is old and nearing the point of being obsolete.

The whole industry needs an enema and we need to be running new fiber directly into communities/neighborhoods and opening up these "channels" to whoever can best compete in providing broadband services. The way I see it, these physical lines should be open to half a dozen or more providers to give you broadband services. From there, you should have the freedom to select Sling, YouTubeTV, DirectTvNow, et al. for your viewing content.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg


So let me ask 1 question and propose 1 solution


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:07 PM
 

QUESTION:

Without the lure of more $ and profit, what investment would be made to address this bandwidth delivery issue?

PROPOSAL:

Why not have local cities and counties treat the last miles of access to homes like other utilities? In other words, there will be one gas line, one electric line, one water line and one physical, high-speed internet line to each gone that the city/county owns right of way on.

To maintain those rights of way and infrastructure, the city charges a tariff/tax.

Consumers buy the service feeding the access pipe from multiple sources/service providers. Just like we do with gas, electric and water.

As innovations occur to carry more bandwidth more efficiently, this infrastructure will get upgraded city-by-city, county-by-county and the cost to keep this maintainecis reflected in the democratic local govt managed tax/tariff.

So why can this not work?

Message was edited by: hufferbilly®


2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Competition is the best way to stop the Comcasts & AT&Ts


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 11:42 AM
 

from gaining so much power that they can control the speed of our content. Competition is a good thing, just ask Dabo.

Go Tigers AND Tiger Nation(al Champs!)!

2020 orange level membermilitary_donation.jpg

Go Tigers AND Tiger Nation!


lack of competition is the root of all my issues.

[2]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:15 PM
 

When I lived in Atlanta, I had better pricing and service. When I moved back to SC, I can get high speed with Charter or a low speed internet with other providers. I literally have 1 option.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Very misleading graphic


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:41 PM
 

Peering arrangements are generally only for the biggest of big companies, Google, Netflix, etc. And it's far more prominent for streaming services than anything else.

Much of the worry in repealing net neutrality is that the upstarts or the mid-sized entrants won't be able to afford paying the toll for arrangements like these. They'd have to do it with most or all of the big name ISPs. This makes it more difficult for little guys (like TigerNet) to break through, and it degrades the quality of service for users.


It's Trumps fault.


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:14 PM
 

He hates all Mexicans and Muslims, and he's a closet Nazi. Now this!?!


Re: It's Trumps fault.

[4]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:34 PM
 

Hi Stanley

2020 white level member

March 4th 2016- "Lee won't be here 4 years from today" - Viztiz


I wish our telecommunications system was more like

[2]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:28 PM
 

India's



2020 purple level membermilitary_donation.jpg

Re: I wish our telecommunications system was more like

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:05 PM
 

pretty sure everyone in that neighborhood gets free cable.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 12:39 PM
 

It's not congress this time; it's the FCC commissioners.

The party currently in power has convinced half the country that all regulations are bad and God forbid we should we should require companies to act as though the public good mattered.

Thanks to the presidential appointment process (Education, EPA etc.), net neutrality is by no means the only valuable safeguard we stand to lose this time around the block. There is middle ground everywhere but we won't find it by watching one man wield a giant eraser.


98% of regulations are bad... not ALL***


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 4:12 PM
 



2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

It was a useless bill to begin with, let the market regulate


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 1:56 PM
 

the net and keep the government OUT of it


Like most things we'll have to see

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 2:01 PM
 

I know a lot of people who moved to Internet TV . It seemed more options were open Than just phone cable, coax, or satellite.

That may have been directly related to the bill, maybe not.

We'll see how vue and sling do.


Blame Netflix


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 3:27 PM
 

It ticked off Comcast by lobbying to block their Time Warner merger

Comcast figured another way around


Re: Blame Netflix


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 4:34 PM
 

This is a really dumb approach to this problem. Blame netflix for being innovate and bring a product to the market that people want? Or blame the greedy ISP's that want to charge more for something that doesn't actually cost them anything more based on the demand for it.
Yeah I don't think Netflix is the bad guy here.

2020 student level member

Re: Blame Netflix


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:01 PM
 

Ok snowflake; Who said Netflix was the bad guy or who said there even was a bad guy.


Re: Blame Netflix


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 5:12 PM
 

Dish also petitioned to stop the merger because it would effectively put Comcast in charge of it all, and would also destroy streaming services unless they catered to the cable/internet companies.

Netflix stated that the bigger companies were charging a interconnection fee while the smaller companies were not. So that begs the question, why did the larger companies making more in revenue need to charge the fee?

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Blame Netflix


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:05 PM
 

Because they can


Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 5:04 PM
 

It worked fine before the neutrality act was enacted by Obama. We'll be fine.

military_donation.jpg

Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord

[1]
Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:07 PM
 

I did truly cut the TV and will be cutting further into my communications bill, even if it means sacrifice.

F**K Ajit Pai and anyone else above or below him that is supporting/benefiting from this garbage.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:22 PM
 

Not the place for political garbage but any thing done to stop the madness from the last eight years is appreciated


Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:30 PM
 

I’ll never understand conservative logic.

Free Market = good

Free Internet = bad???

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: All you so caled cord cutters who didn't really cut the cord


Posted: Dec 14, 2017 8:32 PM
 

You're clueless as always, but this is impressively dumb.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Replies: 62  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: sec up row A when you walk in seats on the right 50 yd line north side lower deck 3750.00 call...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
4340 people have read this post