Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

An important article on sports costs


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   Brubear

Brubear

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 151 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2008

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

Isn't ESPN one of the greatest offenders, cost-wise?

my comments and opinions are my own and do not suggest endorsement by my employer


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   lparsons21

lparsons21

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,719 posts
  • LocationHerrin, IL
Joined: Mar 04, 2006

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

Yes, ESPN is. But it would be one I'd be interested in paying for.

None of the RSNs or other sports channels hold much interest for me.

Lloyd
Receiver/Provider: Hopper w/Sling/Dish Network
HDTV : Mitsi WD-73742 73" 3D DLP
Surround: Harman Kardon 3700, 7.1 Setup

 


#28 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,771 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

SatelliteRacer, the industry is near a shakeup and customers are tired of the "shakedown". (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) )

You know this and have been upfront about all this. Thank you for sharing. You, personally, are the middleman of information in the midst of a company who is the middleman being squeezed by both sides.

We all know, PayTV will survive. It will adjust and thems that don't, won't. I expect DIRECTV will. Not sure about any of the other players, cable or otherwise. :)

Thanks again,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#29 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,169 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

Since D* was built as the sports leader,why doesn't Dish just drop all sports ? It already has dropped the MSG channels .

If there is such large number of subs that do not want any ESPN's or RSN sports programming or the extra costs of those channels.

Wouldn't Dish increase it's number of subs by catering to those non sports fans nationwide?


Because a large portion of their audience likes ESPN and their RSNs. They may have no use for all of the other stuff but generally speaking those are fine/wanted by most people if they like any sports at all which is even a good portion of their audience. They just aren't die hards.

#30 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 18,321 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

Isn't ESPN one of the greatest offenders, cost-wise?


I Actually think RSNs are far worse than espn. Some RSNs charge half or more do what espn does and espn carries a lot more selection of games from more teams and more important games and playoffs that local RSNs don't have.

#31 OFFLINE   TANK

TANK

    Icon

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 888 posts
  • LocationFLORIDA
Joined: Feb 16, 2003

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:55 PM

Because a large portion of their audience likes ESPN and their RSNs. They may have no use for all of the other stuff but generally speaking those are fine/wanted by most people if they like any sports at all which is even a good portion of their audience. They just aren't die hards.


You say "a large portion of their audience likes ESPN and their RSNs." and satracer says in post #1 - "the vast majority of consumers do not watch sports".

So what percentage of sat and cable subs don't watch sports ?

#32 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,955 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:37 PM

Since D* was built as the sports leader,why doesn't Dish just drop all sports ? It already has dropped the MSG channels .

If there is such large number of subs that do not want any ESPN's or RSN sports programming or the extra costs of those channels.

Wouldn't Dish increase it's number of subs by catering to those non sports fans nationwide?


Because it is not good business. While a lot don't watch a lot of sports, I'll bet a lot watch some sports.

Dish isn't stupid. They make money. All you have to realize is that they haven't abandoned sports. They abandoned certain markets but not all (and even have a bigger presence in PAC 12 territory than directv. Since they haven't, it shows that sports still sells.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#33 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 18,321 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:46 PM

I think the pac12 channel is the start to the line being drawn in the sand by DIRECTV. I have a feeling that the conference channels coming will be hard to find a way into DIRECTV systems. But for RSNs, the bigger markets they will have to keep them in if they already have them, mainly ny and Los Angeles. But otherwise, I am not sure DIRECTV won't start hard lining more of them as well that aren't a part of FOX network. Case in point, any Comcast owned RSN.

What gets me is the amounts these channels are bidding. They aren't increasing the price a little, its astronomical. They should increase it only based on the ad revenue increases they think they can get and not extortion fees from consumers as well, because eventually they will say see ya. ad buyers won't.

#34 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,828 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:46 PM

Couldn't ALL the providers band together and put a stop to this and demand sports channels be in their own package?


It's not that easy. For starters, TWC, Comcast and DirecTV (among others) OWN sports channels.

Why would TWC, who put their own channel in the cheapest package possible, have any interest at all to put it in a sports package? Same with Comcast Sportsnet, some of which aren't even on DirecTV. Should they want to put it in a sports package but make a deal with DirecTV first.

You have a better chance on Congress agreeing on something than the individual carriers of television programming.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#35 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,955 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:00 PM

I think the pac12 channel is the start to the line being drawn in the sand by DIRECTV. I have a feeling that the conference channels coming will be hard to find a way into DIRECTV systems. But for RSNs, the bigger markets they will have to keep them in if they already have them, mainly ny and Los Angeles. But otherwise, I am not sure DIRECTV won't start hard lining more of them as well that aren't a part of FOX network. Case in point, any Comcast owned RSN.

What gets me is the amounts these channels are bidding. They aren't increasing the price a little, its astronomical. They should increase it only based on the ad revenue increases they think they can get and not extortion fees from consumers as well, because eventually they will say see ya. ad buyers won't.


Yup.

The story here is the potential sale of MASN to Fox. Orioles, who control the channel, are in negotiations with the Nationals, who are minority owners. The deal has a formula based on 20 years of baseball history that says the Nationals should get $34 million per year. The Nationals are looking at current deals and, pretty much correctly in at least their math, are asking $100 million per year. The Orioles contend that the deal was already done and won't budge. But it is a measure of how much sports moneys have changed.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#36 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,368 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:36 AM

I think the pac12 channel is the start to the line being drawn in the sand by DIRECTV. I have a feeling that the conference channels coming will be hard to find a way into DIRECTV systems. But for RSNs, the bigger markets they will have to keep them in if they already have them, mainly ny and Los Angeles. But otherwise, I am not sure DIRECTV won't start hard lining more of them as well that aren't a part of FOX network. Case in point, any Comcast owned RSN.

What gets me is the amounts these channels are bidding. They aren't increasing the price a little, its astronomical. They should increase it only based on the ad revenue increases they think they can get and not extortion fees from consumers as well, because eventually they will say see ya. ad buyers won't.

some of the Comcast owned RSN are part fox others comcast only owns a small part of them.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#37 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 731 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:18 PM

The real truth is if there was a sports package with all sports channels in it, there would not be enough subscribers to be able to provide it at a reasonable cost. Sports must be distributed across all subscribers in order to provide it at a reasonable cost.


I disagree with this, mainly because I think present sports costs are already unreasonable and I'm guessing D* is beginning to agree. Everyone knows that sports channels like ESPN and TWC Sportsnet bid astronomical sums of money for events because they are playing with subscribers' money. If 60-70% of people decided not to buy a sports package that had all sports channels in it (my own guestimate), that drastically cuts the amount of other people's money that ESPN et al can play with. Their options would be to raise their rates to the 30-40% of people who would pay for a sports package or to quit bidding such ridiculously high amounts of money or probably some combination of the two.

To sum up, if there was a sports only package, I think the following would happen:

Most subscribers' bills would go down.
Sports fans' bills would go up.

As a sports fan, I am ok with this because at least things are transparent and it's only fair that people who don't care about sports shouldn't have to pay for them. I think sports has become way too big a business in this country and needs to be taken down a few notches anyway.

#38 OFFLINE   PCampbell

PCampbell

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,554 posts
Joined: Nov 18, 2006

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:29 PM

None of this will change until we pass the tipping point and customers start to cancel. Then things will change, till then the sports channels will see no reason to change there business model.
DirecTV since 1996

Slimline 5 SWM 16
HR24-100
HR24-500
HR24-500
HR44-500
ATT uverse internet

#39 OFFLINE   jmpfaff

jmpfaff

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 56 posts
Joined: Dec 12, 2004

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:32 PM

Which IS very bad for consumers.


Why is it blindly assumed that ala carte would be worse for ALL consumers than the current system?

It would be worse for some households -- most specifically those with very diverse interests.

But for the average consumer....I don't see how it would be any worse than today. Specifically, I don't believe the per-customer average bill for a provider like DirecTV would go up at all. Consumers would have fewer channels, but they would be the channels the consumer wanted to watch.

In fact....if ala carte would drive up the cost for the average consumer, we would already be there. Time Warner & Comcast & Viacom & Disney & DirecTV are out there to maximize profit -- which approximates maximizing revenue since many of their costs are fixed.

Clearly, the marketing gurus at these companies believe that bundling channels results in more profits than selling channels individually.

I understand the story about why ala carte would be bad. I just think that the first law of capitalism means that is a story and not reality.

#40 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 18,321 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:42 PM

Why is it blindly assumed that ala carte would be worse for ALL consumers than the current system?

It would be worse for some households -- most specifically those with very diverse interests.

But for the average consumer....I don't see how it would be any worse than today. Specifically, I don't believe the per-customer average bill for a provider like DirecTV would go up at all. Consumers would have fewer channels, but they would be the channels the consumer wanted to watch.

In fact....if ala carte would drive up the cost for the average consumer, we would already be there. Time Warner & Comcast & Viacom & Disney & DirecTV are out there to maximize profit -- which approximates maximizing revenue since many of their costs are fixed.

Clearly, the marketing gurus at these companies believe that bundling channels results in more profits than selling channels individually.

I understand the story about why ala carte would be bad. I just think that the first law of capitalism means that is a story and not reality.


Most channels would have to charge well over 10 and some over 40 a month for one channel. Add in that for companies that own multiple channels, if they where to shut down some channels, they would then increase the other channels costs to us even more because while their costs would have gone down, so would their profits, and they will increase the costs of the channels people are getting to keep their profits where they are at now. And the increase from closing one channel would be huge, because your not just talking abut all the subscription prices they would have to get from one channel that. They used to get from two, but you would also have to charge to make up for all the advertising revenue that would have been last, so the prices would increase exponentially.

Strait a la cart will not work. But more groupings and sorting out more by sports and others might, if its done just right. I don't think anything could lower the costs we pay today, but I do think they might be able to get rid of or minimize any increases. Also of note is that DIRECTV has actually added more ways to watch a lot of their content, and will continue to do so, and are not charging anything specific for these services.

#41 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,658 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:10 PM

Why is it blindly assumed that ala carte would be worse for ALL consumers than the current system?

It would be worse for some households -- most specifically those with very diverse interests.

But for the average consumer....I don't see how it would be any worse than today. Specifically, I don't believe the per-customer average bill for a provider like DirecTV would go up at all. Consumers would have fewer channels, but they would be the channels the consumer wanted to watch.

In fact....if ala carte would drive up the cost for the average consumer, we would already be there. Time Warner & Comcast & Viacom & Disney & DirecTV are out there to maximize profit -- which approximates maximizing revenue since many of their costs are fixed.

Clearly, the marketing gurus at these companies believe that bundling channels results in more profits than selling channels individually.

I understand the story about why ala carte would be bad. I just think that the first law of capitalism means that is a story and not reality.


...because it already failed.
DTV = Digital Television

#42 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,771 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:40 PM

Why is it blindly assumed that ala carte would be worse for ALL consumers than the current system?

It would be worse for some households -- most specifically those with very diverse interests.

But for the average consumer....I don't see how it would be any worse than today. Specifically, I don't believe the per-customer average bill for a provider like DirecTV would go up at all. Consumers would have fewer channels, but they would be the channels the consumer wanted to watch.

In fact....if ala carte would drive up the cost for the average consumer, we would already be there. Time Warner & Comcast & Viacom & Disney & DirecTV are out there to maximize profit -- which approximates maximizing revenue since many of their costs are fixed.

Clearly, the marketing gurus at these companies believe that bundling channels results in more profits than selling channels individually.

I understand the story about why ala carte would be bad. I just think that the first law of capitalism means that is a story and not reality.


Couple of key points:
1) The current channel providers rely upon a set income. The whole system is geared upon consumers paying roughly $90 per month. Ala Carte won't change that. It will adjust who gets what and who pays what, but the averages won't change.

2) The Extra costs with ala carte. Right now many channels cost you 1 penny per month. You know there will be no channels that are only 1 penny. They will charge more to recover costs and to set a minimum per user. I'm guessing the lowest a channel will be is $6/year. How does that help you?

The extra advertising costs. Imagine 200 channels running PBS telethons to get you to buy them... :)

The extra overhead to track by individual channel who is enabled to watch what. At least right now things are enabled by packages and groups of users. tons of overhead throughout the system.

3) it existed before. it failed. (it was a huge pain in the neck for consumers, by the way.) I didn't like it when I had it in C-Band. Now, since I would be paying my fees to only one provider, that might be a bit easier, but still a pain...

Peace,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#43 OFFLINE   mreposter

mreposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,710 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2006

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:37 AM

The extra overhead to track by individual channel who is enabled to watch what. At least right now things are enabled by packages and groups of users. tons of overhead throughout the system.

3) it existed before. it failed. (it was a huge pain in the neck for consumers, by the way.) I didn't like it when I had it in C-Band. Now, since I would be paying my fees to only one provider, that might be a bit easier, but still a pain...


And yet Directv (and the others) have no problem delivering, tracking and billing for dozens of Pay-Per-View movie and event channels.

Things have changed significantly since the C-Band days. The boxes are smarter, many things could be handled via the web or smart devices, more and more of the boxes are connected to the internet. There's plenty of technology there that could simplify the entire process of ordering channels on demand.
..........
.......... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD.
.......... Directv customer since January 2000.
..........

#44 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,878 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:31 AM

If they ever do implement it, there will be people subscribing and unsubscribing to channels based on what's currently on air like a lot of people do now with HBO or Showtime when it comes to their popular shows like True Blood and Dexter. Which brings in the issue of setting ad rates with no guarantee of a reliable subscriber count at the time of the ad buy. Channels will either have to really lower their ad rates or dump the ad supported model entirely, resulting in a lot more product placement in shows and jacked up prices for the channels that do survive. (Imagine instead of how it currently is with the companies like Viacom grouping all of their ad supported channels together for providers in a discounted combined rate, you'll have to pay HBO like costs for EACH of them since there's no guarantee the same homes who have Nickelodeon will also have Comedy Central, MTV and VH1 to spread the costs)

And if your a fan of a niche channel you can forget them. If you thought SciFi becoming SyFy, Video Hits One becoming VH1, CourtTV becoming TruTV, The History Channel becoming History, Arts & Entertainment becoming A&E, Bravo! becoming Bravo, Headline News becoming HLN, American Movie Classics becoming AMC, or The Learning Channel becoming TLC was bad, wait to you see what happens to channels like DIY, Chiller, Cloo, Style, BBC America, TCM and the Discovery digital nets if they do survive and not only they have to worry about ratings, they also have to worry about putting on programming that will get people to subscribe to them. They can't just rely on being packed with popular channels like MTV, TNT, TBS and USA and drawing in a new audience from the channel surfing crowd.

And people who say they will just dump cable for Netlfix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime? With every TV channel only greenlighting new programs that appeal to the widest possible audience (the Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore viewer), there will be no alternate programming available there either.

Edited by KyL416, 06 December 2012 - 05:02 AM.


#45 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,942 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:42 AM

I wonder how this will affect things?

Sports TV Class Action Against Comcast, DirecTV, MLB & NHL Still In Play

Antitrust Challenge to TV Sports Deals Allowed to Move Forward

Edited by TheRatPatrol, 06 December 2012 - 06:55 AM.


#46 OFFLINE   jmpfaff

jmpfaff

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 56 posts
Joined: Dec 12, 2004

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:35 AM

Couple of key points:
1) The current channel providers rely upon a set income. The whole system is geared upon consumers paying roughly $90 per month. Ala Carte won't change that. It will adjust who gets what and who pays what, but the averages won't change.

2) The Extra costs with ala carte. Right now many channels cost you 1 penny per month. You know there will be no channels that are only 1 penny. They will charge more to recover costs and to set a minimum per user. I'm guessing the lowest a channel will be is $6/year. How does that help you?

The extra advertising costs. Imagine 200 channels running PBS telethons to get you to buy them... :)

The extra overhead to track by individual channel who is enabled to watch what. At least right now things are enabled by packages and groups of users. tons of overhead throughout the system.

3) it existed before. it failed. (it was a huge pain in the neck for consumers, by the way.) I didn't like it when I had it in C-Band. Now, since I would be paying my fees to only one provider, that might be a bit easier, but still a pain...

Peace,
Tom


Regarding #1 & #2....Right, I'll still pay $90 per month. But instead of 200 channels at 45 cents each (on average), I'll be paying the 20 channels I want to watch $4.50 each (on average). Channels I like make more money (from me), channels I don't like don't get my money. What's the problem?

Regarding #3....mreposter already stated my thoughts more eloquently than I can.

#47 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,955 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:46 AM

Regarding #1 & #2....Right, I'll still pay $90 per month. But instead of 200 channels at 45 cents each (on average), I'll be paying the 20 channels I want to watch $4.50 each (on average). Channels I like make more money (from me), channels I don't like don't get my money. What's the problem?

Regarding #3....mreposter already stated my thoughts more eloquently than I can.


The problem is that one show you might want to watch because everyone is talking about it at work.

The other problem is that handles change and there are programs on them that you will never know about them.

Why would you EVER want to pay the same amount of money for less product?
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#48 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,658 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:48 AM

Regarding #1 & #2....Right, I'll still pay $90 per month. But instead of 200 channels at 45 cents each (on average), I'll be paying the 20 channels I want to watch $4.50 each (on average). Channels I like make more money (from me), channels I don't like don't get my money. What's the problem?

Regarding #3....mreposter already stated my thoughts more eloquently than I can.


The chances of the 20 channels you like actually surviving are slim. Production budgets would plummet as well.
DTV = Digital Television

#49 OFFLINE   TJNash

TJNash

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 175 posts
  • LocationSan Diego
Joined: Jun 05, 2012

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:16 AM

Regarding #1 & #2....Right, I'll still pay $90 per month. But instead of 200 channels at 45 cents each (on average), I'll be paying the 20 channels I want to watch $4.50 each (on average). Channels I like make more money (from me), channels I don't like don't get my money. What's the problem?


Still trying to wrap my head around this one. :confused:

#50 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,771 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:38 PM

And yet Directv (and the others) have no problem delivering, tracking and billing for dozens of Pay-Per-View movie and event channels.

Things have changed significantly since the C-Band days. The boxes are smarter, many things could be handled via the web or smart devices, more and more of the boxes are connected to the internet. There's plenty of technology there that could simplify the entire process of ordering channels on demand.


Things on the receiver end have changed--but that was never the problem. The boxes have always looked for their number and their access codes. Not a problem on their end.

The cost is on the ordering and billing side. PPV pays for its billing via $4 per or more. Imagine if every channel is at least $4. How does that become cheaper for the customers?

My point is that there are channels that cost you about 1 penny per month right now. With ala carte there would not be any...

Peace,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)





Protected By... spam firewall...And...