Rogers Ultra-Lite 64kbps 'lite' tier targets dial-up converts After recently trying to lure heavy users with their 5Mbps cable tier, Rogers is apparently going after the less serious broadband user with a new 64kbps (upstream and downstream) tier for $20 a month. The new "Ultra-lite" tier will complement the company's existing "Lite" tier, which offers speeds of 128kbps down and 64kbps up (for ten dollars more a month), according to CED magazine. With the heavy use and early adopter markets pretty well saturated, cable providers will now be turning their attention to dial-up converts who only need something slightly faster - for roughly the same price they pay for dial-up.
|
 Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| Aboo? Why the hell would anyone want that?
"Uh, I want to go faster, but not too much faster."
I guess it might be people like my father who believe its easier to get viruses with faster connections.
--
Team [ASA] | |
|  |  quantaPremium
join:2002-05-07
Toronto, ON | Re: Aboo? Simple, it's a gateway drug. It's for people who really can't afford anything more, and are resistant to change. It's for the AOLers.
By giving them always-on broadband connection, they may suddenly release how cooler the Internet is with broadband, and start looking into the higher priced, faster tiers...
--
Happy customer of TOROON08CGO | Silentblue.net
Canadian DSL Troubleshooting and Why Can't I Get It? FAQs | |
| |  DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
1 edit | 64/64 is a great option at $20 for those that want to transition from dial-up...
- Downstream is a tad faster than dial-up (wrt 56kbps model)
- Upstream is a lot faster than dial-up
- Low latency. Better internet experience...
- Always on. No need to wait for connection when you want to check something.
- No worry about getting a call while online or eliminate second line | |
| | | | | Re: Aboo? exactly. There are many people who are price sensitive and they aren't all "aol users".
There are rapidly diminishing returns with speed.
The low latency is a radical change for gamers.
Most people on dial-up are NOT getting the theoretical maximum of a 56k modem so the speed is more likely a 50%-100% jump, which would move normal net activities like browsing from the frustrating to the mostly satisfying.
One then has freedom to even ditch one's main phone line and go wireless.
No tedium as with call-setup.
Only real disadvantage in comparison to higher speed is large file downloads and higher quality streaming.
You get, lets say, 80% of the advantages of broadband at little additional cost over dial-up. These types of things are a great deal for many people.
I do think the ideal would be 128 for $20, but I'm probably nit-picking. | |
| | | |  Vamp5c077Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
kudos:1 | Re: Aboo? not exactly true about the gaming ... 64kbps is probably to low for the high player games, it would consume the entire pipe.
--
:: My current desktop :: | |
| | | | |  bklynitePremium
join:2001-03-18
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Aboo? It's plenty fast. Very very few games right now require more than 20 kbps upload and 50 kbps download, which this service provides. The real benefit comes in the ping times which should greatly improve and allow people to have more fun in online games.
--
W-Train.com Webmaster | »www.bklynite.com | I ♥ NY | |
|
| | | | No 128k down/64k up is a great replacement for dialup at 20 bucks a month. 64/64 is perfect at 10 dollars a month. Rogers is just trying to pull a scam. | |
| | | | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: Aboo? said by insomniac84:
No 128k down/64k up is a great replacement for dialup at 20 bucks a month. 64/64 is perfect at 10 dollars a month. Rogers is just trying to pull a scam.
It is still great replacement considering you get significantly more upstream, a tad more downstream, lower latency and always on connection.
Typically with a 56kbps modem, regulatory bodies only allow speeds up to 53kbps. Even that is very very rare. Typically you get somewhere around 40-48kbps. 64kbps will be about 25% more in reality.
On the upstream the connection is usually around 24-28kbps (128-166% more).
Remember there are also savings from dial-up connection charges or if there was second line, it is totally eliminated.
So, for a dial-up user with a second line switching to 64/64 always on connection might even save some money.... | |
|
| Vamp5c077Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
kudos:1 | yeah that totally sucks, that isn't even considered broadband, that isn't really much faster than dialup.. 64k is only like 8kb/s
--
:: My current desktop :: | |
| | | | | Re: Aboo? said by Vamp:
yeah that totally sucks, that isn't even considered broadband, that isn't really much faster than dialup.. 64k is only like 8kb/s
Broadband has nothing whatsoever to do with speed.
If it's cable internet, it's broadband. | |
| | | | | | Re: Aboo? oh really? whats so 'broad' about 64k? and why do we have the term 'narrowband'?
the word's got EVERYTHING to do with speed.
and this plan's pathetic when the bells offer dsl for about the same price as this provider's 128k POS. | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Aboo? said by gilseed:
oh really? whats so 'broad' about 64k? and why do we have the term 'narrowband'?
Well, I suppose there are two different ways to look at it.
I consider it to be broadband because it uses shared transmission media - CATV, which also carries cable TV.
OTOH, there are various definitions of 'narrowband', like less than 28.8k, less than 56k, less than or equal to 64k, voice-grade or lower (how fast is that?), less than a T1 line (!?), and so on.
So I don't know. Matter of opinion, I guess.
edit: Just to clarify, I was thinking broadband vs baseband ... different sort of idea.  | |
|
| | | Vamp5c077Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
kudos:1 | yes I know the main thing that makes it broadband is the always on side of it ... but in my book it is NOT broadband because it is to slow to view broadband content (streams).
--
:: My current desktop :: | |
| | | | | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: Aboo? said by Vamp:
yes I know the main thing that makes it broadband is the always on side of it ... but in my book it is NOT broadband because it is to slow to view broadband content (streams).
Yeah, calling it broadband is probably not a good idea but nevertheless it is a service that will be embraced by many if offered. You might not use it but I see no problem giving users some more options.
A lot of the activities done by average user would be more enjoyable with respect to dial-up.
A lot of people are happy just with email, web, shopping, banking, online tax preperation, etc. IM, and occasional song downloads. This constitute over 90% of internet activities that does not demand bandwidth. They are actually happy to go out and do something else then sitting behind the computer most of the day.
Even average internet usage for most geeks are not that high as they think. Really high bandwidth content is not readily available or costly at this moment... | |
|
|  Andrew JPremium
join:2001-11-09
Lancaster, PA | OMG that's only for people who can't make up their mind. All the hassles of broadband with none of the benefits! | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| I can think why this is useful.
It gets the people who don't want to spend more or cant afford more to switch from dial-up to a single connection.
For example I know a guy who has one newer PC and 2 older ones. His teenage daughter has one in her room, he has one in his office area, and their newer machine is a "general use" machine that anyone can use.
They are not big internet users; News, IM, a little email, some online bill pay, etc etc
Currently, all three machines have dial-up modems. They all have their own cellphones, but they keep a landline for the computers. Problem is, only one can be on at a time.
I've mentioned before to them networking, and they think it sounds interesting, but when I start talking about DSL or cable Internet they are like "Nah, we don't use it a lot... we don't need to spend $40 a month on it."
This type of plan would work for this family. Sure, it's not the fastest connection, but it would be dedicated, eliminate the dial up (they could even drop the line altogether).
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
 sonofjayMission Accomplished - Bush May 1, 2003Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-14
North Attleboro, MA
kudos:1
1 edit | Good Idea. This is a good idea that well allows Broadband to fit everyone's budget and needs.
Ultra-Lite
Lite
High-Speed
High-Speed Extreme
Take your pick.
--
The war is over?? | |
| |  TearAbiteD'oh
join:2001-07-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
kudos:2 | Re: Good Idea. .
perfect for people like my mother-in-law who need something faster, but not TOO fast, and dont have a lot of $$ to spend..
.
--
Click HERE to see my FAKEz | |
| | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | said by sonofjay:
This is a good idea that well allows Broadband to fit everyone's budget and needs.
Ultra-Lite
Lite
High-Speed
High-Speed Extreme
Take your pick.
They need a mid level tier between Lite and High-Speed. | |
|
ViviMr Happy
join:2002-07-28
MD | Whoah What an extreme rip off! That's like what? Maybe 1-2 extra Kbs? LOL. | |
| | | | Re: Whoah How is it a rip off? $20 CAD ($14 USD) is reasonable (about $4 USD more than dialup in the US) for a slightly faster always on connection. The main selling point is the always on features, which is impossible for a dialup user to enjoy. The 8-10kbit per second speed increase (for 56k users) isn't really a good selling point. | |
|
 DesiPremium
join:2002-05-05
Kanata, ON | Canada People That $20 is Canadian, and most RELIABLE Dial-Up plans cost ~$20 anyways. This is probably geared to people (like my aunt, fo instance) who just want to use their phone line.
--
Sala Kala Kuta Mod!  | |
| | | Now for the next step in pricing.... Broadband providers need to offer that package (128kbps/64kbps) or something similar for around US$10-15 per month and I think they'd be able to wipe-out most dial-up ISP's. The only people left would be those without ANY form of broadband connection and those who need/want the dynamic capability of a dial-up connection.
Early adopters of broadband were willing to pay the premium for service. Recent adopters have been willing to switch to the higher performance services for around %50 more than what they were paying for dial-up. The next market to be exploited is the group who would switch to broadband IF it doesn't cost them any more per month than they are already paying.
Broadband is becoming a commodity item, and its marketing is beginning to reflect this. | |
| | | Uhh... Those people need to try harder to convince prospective converts. | |
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | It needs to be cheaper. but this would be great for someone who does E-mail, and little else.
--
»www.gobpl.com | |
| |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: It needs to be cheaper. Not bad at all really. Who really get a full 56k on dial up anyway?
I would get something likee this if I was looking to cut costs and didnt use the net as much as I do now or if I was looking to get basic net access at another place I frequent, like a summer home or a family members house.
--
www.shinraonline.com | |
| | Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| said by Transmaster:
but this would be great for someone who does E-mail, and little else.
so is 56k...
if you can afford the $20 for "broadband", you might as well spend another $10 and get real 768/128 dsl
--
Team [ASA] | |
| | |  insomxPremium
join:2003-01-26
Canada | Re: It needs to be cheaper. 20 dollars canadian!
Here Dial-up (local numbers) is 24.95. Plus you need the phone line, dial up here is only 28.8K anyways, you need to tie up an existing phonel line and then the busy signals. Lol, this is a great way to get dial up users.
I have the normal high speed now, as soon as I feel like I need the extra speed I will pay 100 bucks for the modem.
--
»annoying.bounceme.net Of course, a creation just to annoy cousins and parents. | |
| | | | | | Re: It needs to be cheaper. Bellsouth has something just like this, slightly faster at 256 down. Except their DSL Lite costs FORTY DOLLARS for most people. For $10 more you can and might as well get a more useful DSL line. Seriously, who the hell has Bellsouth the Unlimited plan? And who wants to sign a one year contract? Charter has 3mbps for the same price here. I hate both companies, so I went with the lesser of two evils. 
/rant
Imo $20 is an excellent pricing point for peon-level broadband to get people off the phone line. 128k is fine if you're just looking at web sites, although 256k would be ideal even if it were $5 more. | |
| | | | | | | Re: It needs to be cheaper. said by MechaStyle:
Bellsouth has something just like this, slightly faster at 256 down. Except their DSL Lite costs FORTY DOLLARS for most people.
I was at a friend's apartment earlier this week and turned on my laptop to do some gaming. Windows saw a "NETGEAR" access point and started getting me connected (no WEP -- no changes to default settings). It appears to be my friend's nearby neighbor. The signal strength was "excellent" to "very good."
We decided to see what kind of connection this guy had, since the browsing seemed a little slow. He was on a BellSouth DSL setup, and after a BBR speed test or two, we determined that he had to be on the DSL Lite product.
I'll tell you this -- browsing and lite e-mail attachments would be marginally OK on this setup. Anything with video, audio, or streaming content -- not worth it. And you can forget downloading files -- the measured speed of 206kbps was horrible for downloading after overhead. Not sure how much my 802.11b connection would factor into that overhead.
I have no clue why anyone would want DSL Lite from BellSouth (if this was in fact a DSL Lite line) if all you can do is browse and do e-mail (sans attachments). Sort of defeats the idea of getting newbs and old folks to sign up for the service, particularly if it's advertised for the types of people who might want to get photos of grandkids or attachments from family/friends.
My 2 cents on that.
IronChefMorimoto
--
Desktop: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 1GB PC3200 DDR | 128MB ATI Radeon 9500 Pro
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | 32MB Nvidia GeForce2 Go | |
| | | | | | | | Re: It needs to be cheaper. What pisses me off the most about Bellsouth is that they are going crazy advertising DSL Lite at the $25 price point to make it appear as if it's only a couple bucks more than traditional dial-up. But actually it's $40 for most people who don't have their lame Bellsouth Unlimited plan, and there's a one year contract.  When I used to have Bellsouth for dsl, they had awesome newsgroups and ran a pretty reliable 1.5/256, but their pricing has needed help for a long time.  But unfortunately, they will always continue to pull in the clueless and/or are still a monopoly in many areas. | |
|
| |  Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN | Yeah, I'm missing the whole idea behind it too. There might be lots of people who hang on to dial up so when they travel (UUnet) they can still log on no matter where they go. This would actually make people lose a benefit. | |
|
 OutOfMemopenSUSE 11.4Premium
join:2001-05-11
1 edit |  Still Not Perfect
| |
| | | 56k aint too bad compared It truly disappoints me that compnies are trying to cash in, in this manner. Yes they are entitled to make money, but lets not try to build mansions from the sale of a gallon of water at the expense of the public, ok folks? I run free 56k from MetConnect from an exisiting phone line that would exist regardless of internet or not. I use a product that lets the phone ring automatically when an incoming call (or fax, routed to machine) is detected. It's called Catch-A-Call. So, now tell me, why are they entitled to anything more than say 2-5 greenbacks per month when i get get it for free? And when I say free, i mean no money, no ads, no software needed besides OS dial-up app, no hidden agendas or hidden anything. I wish anyone that would get this service from Rogers consider what I've said. I've been on OOL before for many years. Although i do miss the 10/1 mbit speeds, I feel the free part is sweeter than having massive bandwidth. | |
| | | | Re: 56k aint too bad compared i think its a pretty good deal seeing how its only $20. i mean how much does AOL charge for 56k nowdays? good deal for aol users imo | |
| | yac898
join:2002-12-06
Stony Plain, AB | how/who does MetConnect pay for its bandwidth? | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | The real problem. with slow connections is the inability to keep up with all of the patches, updates, alerts, and notices. I was over at a friends house looking at his computer. His connection speed was 50K. His anti-virus was out of date by over a year, no firewall, none of the Microsoft updates, no anti spyware, nothing. it took 28 minutes to download Ad-Aware, it was going to take several hours to download all of the Microsoft "fixes" I couldn't even do a house call with Pc-Cillin to check for Viruses. To keep up with all if the fixes coming down the line with such a connection your computer would be spending large amounts of time just downloading all of this stuff. I downloaded WM 10 beta last night on my machine in less then 10 seconds, I did the same with WM 9 on Ed's machine and it took 40 minutes. Beavis and Butthead had the right expression for this; "this sucks, and I don't like things that suck!"
--
»www.gobpl.com | |
| | | Still Decent Bottom line is most people never truely achive 56K (Usually much lower than that), any form of cable internet still frees up the phone line, and many dial-up providers still charge $20/mo... so all in all this is a fairly decent deal for dial-up converts who are reluctant to change. | |
| | cbiggers
join:2000-08-10
San Luis Obispo, CA | Re: Still Decent I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but many people have a second phone line for their dialup connection. This alone costs anywhere from $10-$20 a month more depending on where you are and what options you have on it...factor that in with the additional cost of your dialup isp, and you have a pretty good bargain at $20 a month for 64kbps service. That's most likely a TRUE 64kbps bi-directional, compared to the very lackluster performance of 56k with all of the compression garbage ISP's sometimes like to put on server side to try and increase download times (The AOL .art image should have never been made). There are many people who would love to have an entry way into the broadband world, but don't want to have their computer instantly hooked up to all that raw power (many elderly people feel this way). I think its a great idea, and I don't know why people are complaining about it - if you don't like it, don't buy it! Everyone deserves to have a choice and its nice to see one instead of a single, $40 a month package that you must choose. | |
| | | shit
join:2003-07-14
Skowhegan, ME Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
| Re: Still Decent I think the package should be at least 500kbps download and 128kbps upload at least if they are charging $20 a month.I pay $30 a month and get 3000/768 on my dsl connection.But still its not too bad having 64/64 for $20,as long as it will bring the customers,that's all that matters. | |
|
| | This isn't a worthless upgrade. OK, how many here used to have dialup? ~Almost ALL of you
OK, how many times have you actually connected at 56k? 0.
The ABSOLUTE BEST a 56k connection can do (in the US, at least) is like 53.3k.
So lets say that it's only an increase of 11kbps. Well, with AOL charging ~$24.95/mo for service, I'd say you'd be getting a deal with the Ultra-Lite Tier.
Again, it's:
- Always on
- 64k SYMMETRICAL (56k is 33.6k up, and 53.3k down).
Theorectically, you could send and recieve 64k
simulaneously (assuming you were using UDP).
- No second phone line, no goofy call catchers or anything.
- Rogers' email service, which is likely bigger and has more
options than some AOL account
- Again, low latency
- Easily routable (that is, if you don't mind everyone in
the house browsing simultaneously on such a small pipe)
If I was an AOLer for a few years because of cost restrictions, I would be happy to accept this offer. | |
| |  chd176
join:2003-01-10
Winfield, AL | Re: This isn't a worthless upgrade. as many people on the verizon boards were saying you can get 1500/384 for $29.99 why not spend ten more and get something actually worth calling broadband... | |
| | |  toddbs98
join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR | Re: This isn't a worthless upgrade. It would be a good deal for people like my mom that just plays games on pogo an checks email. Cheaper than a second line from SBC. | |
|
| | Dealing in crack, the broadband flavor This should become popular. Dial-up days usually resulted in people buying their own modems for a chance of 14400-53000 bits per second downstream operating speed. A single B-channel ISDN would cost a whole lot more.
Now, the introductions of digital-dialup, as I like to call it, will result in a much more stable connection with the added benefit of temptation. O yee of little faith as nothing is more finer than to tempt those to the broadband side of life.
Bellsouth is working on plans to offer the same thing to get people off of analog modems and onto a digital world to be tempted via a turbo button. Let the Bell tinker with you and your mind as it will lead to greater things. More speed for the customer (though, through temptation), and more revenue for the Bell through migrated service to real broadband.
Personally, a 64/64-Kbps offering for $20/month seems like a steal. Why would anyone want to stay on analog? A lot of those analog modems are software-based and about as efficient at reaching their maximum bandwidth as a donkey flying kites.
Of course, the temptation aspect in which a digital-dialup customer can hit a turbo button for X hours per month and get 1.5x256 (or better) for large file downloads can and will often result in customers upgrading further, probably first to DSL Lite, and then maybe onward to a traditional service offering.
Keep in mind, though, that the DSL numbers for the Bell will be good in reporting number of broadband customers on its quarterly results. Maybe this is the real intent of any Bell offering, but can you blame them? Personally, analog connectivity is just obsolete. | |
| |  SpitefulCrowInsert Witty Tag HerePremium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA | Re: Dealing in crack, the broadband flavor That's a good business model. Set up a system for the DSLAM where users can get temporarily provisioned to higher speeds for a download, etc. and you'll hook people on it. Hell, I'd take that. Somewhere around 512kbit when I'm browsing the web, and then jump to the max speed the loop is capable of when I want to pull down some mp3s or isos.  If the base price of the service plus the charges for the amount of increased speed time I used would be lower than a connection that's always at the higher speed, I'd go for it.
--
Powered by Optimum Online
First rule of fiber optics: you do not talk about fiber optics | |
|
 gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL
·RoadRunner Cable
| For some this will be great... I will admit that I would never get a package like this. I currently have DSL Xtreme through Bellsouth which is 3.0/384kbps but I do know that a package like this would be perfect for my parents. They rarely use the internet however having an "always on" connection and having to only have 1 phone line is definately a plus. My mom doesn't play games online or download much so a 64/64 plan would fit her needs just right.
Those of you who say "this sucks" say it because you want more speed, so pay more for your speed. No one is forcing you to get this package and I don't quite know why you can say "this sucks" when it's only 20 bucks a month. Yes, 128/128 would be a better package but it still isn't bad the way it is. If you factor in the money that is saved on not having to get a second phone line and having an "always on" connection then it does add up! | |
| | | i know nothing........ For most of the 56k people like me even this is not a option, we live in non serviceable areas. i think the point is they are still going after users in there loop (area) they should be laying more lines or installing dslams for rural America with all the money they make... i pay $25.00 for unlimited 128 isdn mated to a webramp 361i fastest speed from dsl reports was 84 down 42 up with a few tweaks i can ping most game servers or dslreports around 135-165. It might not be true always on but even if connection is dropped the web ramp auto dials right back in.. i agree with others here it is a carrot for future revenue but i do like carrots | |
| | | | Re: i know nothing........ a few comments on this thread.
this offering is by a canadian company and funds are in canadian dollars. use the exchange rate and do the math.
this is a push by a canadian cable company that will use the sales pitch...do you have a cell phone...you do, wow you can now cancel that land line and save even more money.
its going to be interesting to see how bell (the one north of the border) responds to this.
i think this will lead to the offering of dsl over naked copper(you wont have to have a land line to get dsl) its already being offered in the states | |
| | | grantjePremium
join:2003-05-07
Kokomo, IN | Re: i know nothing........ I have 1.5/256 ADSL (recently upgraded from 768/160) and I must say, this is truly the broadband speed for me. There are simply very few things anymore that don't load right away, and I have even found what I have heard those on (non-oversubscribed) cable modems comment on: I can actually tell which websites on the Internet are faster or slower (at least in the route they take to me), because the bottleneck isn't my connection any longer.
However I really do wish we could get a similar service to this in the USA. I have a relative who pays for two dialup accounts that perform horribly. (Truthfully, I can't tell whether the bad performance is due to the ISP end or the computer end of things in his case, but it's my opinion that if either ISP were more reliable, the computer/Internet experience on the whole would be much less frustrating for him.)
I think an always-on connection (even if slow speed) would be better for a variety of reasons:
*Updates (OS, Virus, Patches, Service Packs, etc.) could be automatically downloaded and installed - which would definitely be a benefit for non-technical users
*E-Mail would always be going in and out, leading to more prompt responses, and less chance of clogging up servers (not always a worry, what with ever expanding mail quotas, but I still just really like the idea)
*Instant Messaging (which is generally low bandwidth) would be "always-on" increasing the usefulness of it as well as the "presence" feature of knowing someone was online at the computer and available
*Intelligent software built in at either the browser, proxy or OS level could cache frequently used sites during non-prime hours, and provide a better experience when the web browser is used
*Streaming audio - at least at basic AM/FM radio quality, would become usable even while surfing. I haven't seen a whole lot of streaming video interest in older non-technical users, but they do really appreciate being able to receive either music or talk that caters to their unique interests - in this era of radio consolidation, many older adults find what is on the radio to be either offensive or simply of no interest | |
| | | | | yea know about it being in canadian, but i just wanted to complain. It would be nice just to have more choices than dialup or sat. I guess i am what they refer to as urban sprawl. If not for friends in low places at the phone company i probably would install aol and wither away. | |
|
| |
|
|
