 goobertek
join:2005-01-27
Baltimore, MD | oh noes!11!!! broadband plans with rollover bytes! | |
|
 | |
| | zjumper
join:2004-08-17
Baltimore, MD | you were the only one to get it how about that | |
|
| |
| |
| | 
mdlthomas
join:2000-04-24
Clarksville, TN | Re: oh noes!11!!! hell for that matter, email Duane Ackerman...same email scheme.
Might as well go to the top, right?
--
mdlt | |
|
| |
Guru
join:2005-12-01
Canada
| Uh??? "Any model that allows the consumer to have more control and more choice makes sense to us,"
WOW...
Excuses people cum up with to make money...
Very impressed.  | |
|
| 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
 from:
calvoiper 
| Re: Uh??? I don't think all these ideas should be treated the same.
Paying by the type of application is vile. This is nothing more than an attempt to rename the BS they were threatening to do a few months ago with google, vonage, etc. Lack of application neutrality would also lead to all manner of abuse as they seek to protect their own application revenue.
Paying by amount of transfer isn't inherently a problem provided that it is structured in a reasonable way. The devil is in the details. If it is an optional service that actually empowers the user to control their costs by controlling their use, that could be a beneficial thing. If it is a scam intended to keep the costs of the light user high while soaking heavier users with exorbitant fees, that is a different matter. It isn't likely, however, that there would be real pay per use. One of the plans discussed in the article is $27 for 1 gig transfer and $1.80 for additional. This is absurd. Firstly it isn't pay as you go. It is a flat fee for an absurdly low use. This doesn't empower the customer. It gouges the low user, gives them no real control over their own costs, and gets worse from there. It is a hybrid which gives the company the benefits of both flat fees and pay per use, while depriving the customer of the advantages of both and forcing upon them the disadvantages of both.
A pay per use model would be $5 a month plus $1-2 per gig transfer, which is the type of model electric utilities use. They are true pay per use. Those who use very little would be paying $10 or less, those who consume a great deal would be paying hundreds.
Having said all this there is no evidence that the present model can't fund service levels. There is no NEED for new business models, the incumbents are just taking advantage of collapsing competition and deregulation to demand additional revenue. | |
|
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Uh??? I agree with you generally.
I would point out that attempts to gouge certain classes of users are less likely to succeed as long as the charges are passed along directly--someone else will come along and solicit the gouged customer class. (An immediate thought is the customer using only 1 gig or less per month--they will probably abandon traditional broadband for any of the coming wide-deployment wireless applications, muni funded or not.)
If, instead, the ISPs dump extra charges on the content providers, we'll never have the ability to seek out cheaper ISPs, just as Unix/Linux users didn't have the ability to seek out cheap PCs when Microsoft was forcing the PC manufacturers to pay for Windows "per machine manufactured" rather than "per Windows copy installed."
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
ShootToThril
Tell The Truth
Premium
join:2004-06-07
Sherman Oaks, CA
clubs: | What? Why don't they just take the road of offering different tiers and be done with it . Let the user decide the level of service they want and pay accordingly. | |
|
| 
superht1
join:2001-02-22
Kennesaw, GA | Re: What? This is making me want to puke. I don't have that much money to keep paying more!!! Everything is killing us, we're being buried alive!!! | |
|
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: What? Then choose the right plan. | |
|
| | | phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA
| Re: What? Yeah, just like any of their other "plans", you go over a little and get hit with insane "going over the limit fees", "processing fees", "new user bracket fees", "deposit fees", "premium use fees", or whatever the hell they can come up with....If its anything like how they ran their crappy cell service, youll sign up for one plan, but the crack head taking the order will put you on a totally different one, and youll end up with a $400 bill at the end of the month (its happened to me)..Screw that and screw them. | |
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by ShootToThril :Why don't they just take the road of offering different tiers and be done with it . Let the user decide the level of service they want and pay accordingly. Because there's a difference to some end users between being able to download at high speed in occasional bursts (when surfing web pages with photos, graphics, etc.) and being able to download at high speed constantly (ripping music, watching streaming video, etc.) Both want a high-speed connection, but one wants to use it a lot more than the other, and that increased use puts higher loads on the shared parts of the ISP's network.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | 
stomp357
join:2003-04-13
Lake Charles, LA
 ·Suddenlink
| Re: What? said by calvoiper :said by ShootToThril :Why don't they just take the road of offering different tiers and be done with it . Let the user decide the level of service they want and pay accordingly. Because there's a difference to some end users between being able to download at high speed in occasional bursts (when surfing web pages with photos, graphics, etc.) and being able to download at high speed constantly (ripping music, watching streaming video, etc.) Both want a high-speed connection, but one wants to use it a lot more than the other, and that increased use puts higher loads on the shared parts of the ISP's network. calvoiper Why not just give people like you a metered service, and keep us with the same as we have. You'd get your reduced service, and price, and we'd get what we pay for. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What? If an ISP wants to be successful, it should indeed continue to offer an unmetered service, though not necessarily at the same price they currently offer it.
If what you really want is a guarantee of no rate hikes, sorry. These sort of guarantees don't exist for most products, including utility services, and we aren't likely to see them for broadband.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC | Killers These bone heads just don't have a clue. Their tiered net and bill by the byte tactics if employed will kill the net as we know it. | |
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Killers Well, if the net as you know it depends on other users subsidizing your 23/7 downloading of all forms of content possible, then maybe so....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Re: Killers Well, it certainly will have an effect on lots of people if they start billing per GB over 1GB a month as indicated in the comments.
As many have said, It'll affect web browsing - everyone will be turning off pictures, plugins, etc - anything that turns a 10K page into a 2MB page - there goes lots of rich content.
Then there's video streaming - there would go a lot of the iTMS video/music, CNN videos etc...
It would basically push us back to dial-up like use, just slightly faster loading, cause everyone would be worried about astounding bills at the end of the month.
The problem with comments like yours is you assume that currently and forever more, the only way anyone would use more than 1GB or the current suggested "cap" is through illegial means. But there is plenty of legal content that many people like to consume - from Game patches, to MMORPGs, to Yahoo etc java/flash games, to streaming video, net radio, VoIP, and content sharing, say personal videos sent to friends, or posted up to google video for fun, video conferencing via MSN for family members far away, even the few who download whole games via STEAM.
All legitimate, and all easily would eat up 1GB, heck likely could eat 10GB in a month of casual use in a family setting.
Forget about the hundereds of WoW or EverQuest fanatics, CounterStrike fans, or movielink and Vonage customers. And of course there's the occasional linux distro downloader.
I don't think billing per byte would take off in the US unless it was no monthly fee, and very low price - say $0.80 or less per GB. I have a hard time imagining that anyone who was told $27 a month + $1.80 per GB wouldn't be canceling that account right then, and calling any competition, even if it was dial-up (unless they have more money than brains).
--
Opera 8.52(Build 7721); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 3400+; 1GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 2/15/06(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Killers First, in no way do I assume that heavy usage of a broadband connection is always caused by illegal usage. It could be that your guests from out of town are using one or more Slingbox type devices, it could be that you are into heavy MMORPG activity, or it could be something else. It's just that our trend towards heavier usage (and I think we both agree that there definitely is such a trend) is forcing expensive upgrades of shared portions of ISP networks.
I think the proper economic response is to place that increased cost on the cost causer. I agree that $27/mo for 1GB and $1.80 per additional GB is high--but if instead we see the ISPs putting that charge onto content providers, we won't have the option of cancelling our ISP to avoid the cost. It will be a hidden "under the table kickback" charge buried in the cost of the content we receive.
As long as the charges are reflected in user rates, users will gravitate to the lower charge, and that will keep prices in line. Otherwise, we're dooming ourselves to a whole new round of hidden, subsidized costs that the Baby Bells love so much--just like USF and access charges.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
 ·Wireless Beehive
| I'm not sure about that. Remember when mass use of the Internet first started, back in the dialup only days, the model was to charge by the hour of usage. Then AOL came up with the brilliant idea of an "unlimited" plan.
Now we are all spoiled and we expect it to be unlimited forever. But remember it wasn't always that way.
--
»musicfromthebluelight.com | |
|
|
| 
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| Re: What da said by steevio :Who the heck is runnin' the show up there Heck, Japan and Korea, and I am sure other east Asian countries, are runnin' wild with 10M/10M, and some with 100M/100M deal, and yet in the States we are debating about charging per/byte  Are these guys serious Why are we going backwards with this "bandwidth" issue? GREED
--
huh? | AIM | Utopia does not exist. | |
|
| |
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
| Re: What da said by manfmmd :said by steevio :Who the heck is runnin' the show up there Heck, Japan and Korea, and I am sure other east Asian countries, are runnin' wild with 10M/10M, and some with 100M/100M deal, and yet in the States we are debating about charging per/byte Are these guys serious Why are we going backwards with this "bandwidth" issue? GREED NOW, NOW! They're just looking out for their shareholders. And after all they're obligated by law to protect their investors interest. That interest just coincidentally happens to be Money.:D
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. | |
|
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Re: What da When was the last time you heard of a telephone company going bankrupt? this is greed pure and simple.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: What da said by dvd536 :When was the last time you heard of a telephone company going bankrupt? this is greed pure and simple. Worldcom | |
|
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What da and Level 3
and NorthPoint
and Rhythms
and ATG
all of which had business plans which significantly depended on Internet traffic.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | 
JohnQPublic
Premium
join:2002-03-22
Xanadu
| said by manfmmd :said by steevio :Who the heck is runnin' the show up there Heck, Japan and Korea, and I am sure other east Asian countries, are runnin' wild with 10M/10M, and some with 100M/100M deal, and yet in the States we are debating about charging per/byte Are these guys serious Why are we going backwards with this "bandwidth" issue? GREED Amen!
--
"[Our enemies] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." G.W. Bush (8/05/2004) | |
|
| | 
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| said by manfmmd :said by steevio :Who the heck is runnin' the show up there Heck, Japan and Korea, and I am sure other east Asian countries, are runnin' wild with 10M/10M, and some with 100M/100M deal, and yet in the States we are debating about charging per/byte Are these guys serious Why are we going backwards with this "bandwidth" issue? GREED Right to the point Why wast time 
--
»www.auralmoon.com/html/ Stimulating ears for 6 years | |
|
| lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| why to folks keep comparing the US market with Japan & Korea both of which are smaller that calif in land mass? of course if your whole country is smaller that one state your cost of putting up infrasture is going to be less. Get a clue folks. if you want those 100m/100m speeds SOMEBODY has to pay for the buildout of the network. and whomever does the buildout has to make a profit or why build it? | |
|
| |
See 8 replies to this post |
|
jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN | Control and choice. Yes. With billing by the byte, consumers can limit their cost by limiting usage. I already do that. I stopped using BellSouth's DSL some time ago. You can drop your payments to BellSouth to zero this way. | |
|
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Exactly why.. No.
I want fast downloads, but only occasionally. Why should I pay for someone who wants to hog capacity at a peering point 23/7?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | tscoccol
join:2002-08-03
New York, NY | Re: Exactly why.. Then go down to Kinkos and pay for your internet connection as you need it. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Exactly why.. No.
I want it at home. Sorry, I don't care to subsidize your MMPOG habit.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | HMS1
join:2006-01-14
Austin, TX
| said by calvoiper :I want fast downloads, but only occasionally. Why should I pay for someone who wants to hog capacity at a peering point 23/7?
Maybe you imagine that under a by-the-byte plan you'd pay less because you use less. But no big business would ever implement it that way. Instead they'll charge so that moderate users pay the same as they have been paying and heavy users pay much more than that. In other words, your rates (assuming you're a light user) will stay the same, but you'll lose the option of making an occasional big transfer without paying even more.
See what asdfdfdf said above ("Re: Uh???").
The other answer to your question is, customers generally dislike metered billing. Maybe *you* like it, but most people reject it when they have a choice. The market has shown this many times: other things being equal, customers will choose flat rate.
And if heavy users get the data rates the ISP advertises, and light users don't want more than they're using, everyone is happy. Except the sellers, because they're not satisfied with selling a commodity at a fair price. They need continual *increases* in revenue to satisfy shareholders and advance their careers. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Exactly why.. That's your world view.
I see bandwidth usage increasing, possibly exponentially, in the next few years, and I see increased costs for the expanded shared facilities that will be necessary to support this usage.
(Simple example. I think it's quite likely that Australians and Americans are going to start watching more of each other's video. Let's say that video traffic between Australia and the US doubles every year or so for the next few years. You can't tell me that there won't be increased costs for the extra submarine cable bandwidth necessary to support that traffic--even assuming that efficient caching is used.)
I don't think it's a good idea to have everyone share this increased cost equally, just as I don't think it's a good idea to provide unmetered water, natural gas, or electricity to residential customers. Unmetered usage encourages waste. Additionally, Unmetered usage means that everybody else ends up supporting the fanatic that downloads 600GB per month.
Frankly, it's not that I think my cost will go down. It's that I don't want it to go up to support super heavy users. Also, I want the pricing to be clear and direct so that a cheaper ISP can and will compete against any gougers. If we instead develop the "under the table" kickback scheme that the whining Baby Bell want, then there will be less competition and higher rates.
Furthermore, you may be right that "metered" pricing will die on the vine. I would note that while "unlimited" mobile phone plans exist, they certainly haven't driven "pay as you go" or "pay for daytime as you go" usage plans out of the market by any means. If the market will always move towards unlimited usage, then fine. The regulatory approach should be enforced to keep the pricing straightforward and on the end user, without complex "content provider subsidy" schemes, but beyond that the market should determine what actual tiers are offered, both capacity and usage tiers.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | already done? is this what some british companies have been doing too? | |
|
| |
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Your connection is always on There is no way to stop the bytes short of turning off your modem or router. Even when you're not using your connection for anything useful, your connection is still in active and the tcp/ip protocol is still processing bytes.
I'm certainly not going to allow my ISP to bill me for bytes generated by every script kiddie probing my IP address. | |
|
| |
| | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: Your connection is always on Agreed. As soon as all the screaming customers who fight for every last penny off their phone bill see this BS will regret the day it ever considered billing by the byte. | |
|
| jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | That's real true, if I'm paying for every byte I recieve, then I better only be sent stuff I request. Cause I'm not paying for someone attacking my machine or pushing SPAM to me. | |
|
Anonuser
join:2003-01-03
Milwaukee, WI | I
I will switch back to dial up, or split a T1 with neighbors again before I will pay by the byte.
--
Do the Do! | |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | This is nonsense... ... and I hope BS will be fucked completely if they introduce it unilaterally. | |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| "Bellhead" thinking I'm not suprised. The Telcos hate selling DSL access, the way it is structured now. A flat rate monthly rate for unmetered 24x7 connectivity? That's not how they've traditionally made their money. They've made their money by charging per-minute, per-mile for access.
And by and large, that's how the cable companies have made their money, too: by chopping up their bandwidth into "channels" and charging per-channel-group (or per chunks of Mbytes in the case of PPV).
When telcos talk about rolling out "broadband", they're not talking about rolling out ever-faster unmetered internet access. They're talking about using IP protocol to sell metered content along the lines of the cable company model. They'll only do unmetered internet access because they have to, to be competitive with other SP's (cable cos.) that are offering the same thing.
To me, this is arising out of the same issues that are driving the movement to two-tiered internet access. As access speeds go up, they don't want the unmetered "High Speed Internet" channel that they provide to cannabalize the revenue they expect to receive from their other "broadband" services they plan on deploying. That's already happening with VoIP; they don't want it to happen with higher-speed things like video. | |
|
graysonf
Premium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| Not unexpected Brings new meaning to lameness. But not unexpected from the RBOC who has done everything and anything to remove all competitive access to their copper.
Eventually, there will be no choice left, only mediocre crap service. Then we can all reminisce about how wonderful it used to be. | |
|
bsbsbs
| BellSouth: Considering Billing By the Byte? BellSouth: Considering going out of business, FAST!
Do they even really exist as a telco? Or are they relegated to that 4th tier qwest scum left over when you drain a sewer?
Bellsouth shouldn't even be mentioned here as a serious broadband player, I mean they even make satellite broadband look like a good deal these days. | |
|
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: BellSouth: Considering Billing By the Byte? HAHAHA, you got that right oh anonymous poster of wisdom. | |
|
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Per Byte model will happen if net neutrality laws passed ...and the "charge per byte" model is the ONLY model that allows competition for end users to hold down ISP rates.
If the ISPs start charging the content providers, there won't be any cap whatsoever to how much they can extort by threatening ("to degrade" / "not to prioritize") any non-compliant content provider's traffic.
As an end user, you might well switch to an ISP that charges less per byte (or doesn't charge per byte at all.) On the other hand, will you ever switch ISPs just so Google pays less for the info they send you?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| It's BellSouths network Of course, that means that there MUST be a competitor that the customer can buy high speed access from. If Bellsouth is the only provider, then they get to play in the 'you're a monopoly romper room'. And that room has a different set of rules!
If you are the monopoly, then you open up your lines to 3rd party providers for the last mile. Which means I can start a company, run an OC-48 to the local CO, and then tap into any line/circuit in that CO to sell my product. The rates you can charge me for that access will be regulated, because, umm, you're a mo-nop-o-ly.. Can you say 'mo-nop-o-ly'.
Verizon: Helpful hint, if you try the same thing, then we will make you share your FIBER too! ooooh.. just because the law doesn't allow it yet, doesn't mean we can't change the law. Do it Verizon, charge per byte after removing the copper. We dare you!
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
|
|
See 23 replies to this post |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC | I've said it before... and I'll say it again.
I'm glad I quit doing business with this crummy excuse for a company June of 2004 and haven't regretted it one bit. | |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| You guys are funny Bill Smith says 1% of their customers generate 40% of their traffic. And you guys are all screaming because he's wondering if maybe it doesn't make sense to make that 1% of customers foot a bigger share of the cost incurred to handle the traffic they generate?
Yeah, the sky is falling for sure now! Everybody run to their blogs!!! | |
|
| 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: You guys are funny said by RJ44 :Bill Smith says 1% of their customers generate 40% of their traffic. And you guys are all screaming because he's wondering if maybe it doesn't make sense to make that 1% of customers foot a bigger share of the cost incurred to handle the traffic they generate? Yeah, the sky is falling for sure now! Everybody run to their blogs!!! Screw the 1%.. what hell would this do to the free pony offer?
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP!
LiveWhois.Net - It's Never Been So Easy!
RR.CX My Blog.. | |
|
| 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by RJ44 :Bill Smith says 1% of their customers generate 40% of their traffic. And you guys are all screaming because he's wondering if maybe it doesn't make sense to make that 1% of customers foot a bigger share of the cost incurred to handle the traffic they generate? Yeah, the sky is falling for sure now! Everybody run to their blogs!!! That sounds logical on paper and appears to be a consumer-centric marketing strategy, however, I'm willing to bet that if they start charging by the byte, fewer than 1% of us will be paying anything less than they are currently paying. | |
|
| backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| well that 1% is pushing the envelope no doubt!
but don't we need these people on the network to push for improvement?
For the people who are happy downloading a predetermined amount of data each month... do you believe that it is healthy to promote a business model that does not seek growth and improvement to the business and in this case the network?
the people who are pushing the envelope are the future of the internet!
and if you believe that your little connection now is "good enough" then that is nice for you... but please don't act like you are more moral of a person because your internet needs are not very robust.
I see all these threads have to kinds of people in them... those who think they should pay less for what they are not using and those who think that what they are paying now is already too high.
Does anybody understand the concept of economies of scale? | |
|
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| connection better be at full speed then! If any ISP starts to bill by the byte,
then the speed of the connection better be the max the line is capable of both downstream and upstream.
This is the only way I'd support a metered connection of this nature. With a billed by the byte system, consumers could enjoy their full line potential,
but anyone downloading incredibly huge amounts of data would pay for that extra data.
Maybe this is the only way we the consumer can experience the true potential of our cable/dsl lines. Most if not all dedicated server companies operate this way, and it seems to work well.
for example, my friend's dedicated server is 2000 gigs per month, but the server is connected to a full 100MBPS port. He also has some unmetered servers that he uses for streaming his internet radio stations, and those are unmetered, but capped at a speed of 20MBPS, and this works fine. So could that type of offering work for consumer internet? Bill by the byte, but your speed is opened up to the max possible? | |
|
weedahoe
join:2003-09-14
Duluth, GA
| here is what i think I happen to like my srvc as it is now, i have in the past debated about going to cable as it is a bit cheaper but havent simply due to the flawless connection i have with BS.
BUT BE WARNED BELLSOUTH, PULL SOME SHIOT LIKE THIS AND I WILL CUT YOU QUICKLY FROM ALL MY SRVCS.
We dont even use the landline but only have it cause we cant get DSL w/o it. | |
|
| joverstr2
join:2004-12-06
Mobile, AL | Re: here is what i think Ditto | |
|
| 
steevio
Saving Lives One Shift At A Time
join:2003-06-22
Valencia, CA | Amen brother, Amen........:D | |
|
| | |
| Racy
join:2001-03-27
Lawrenceville, GA | I Second that motion! | |
|
|
|
|
BellSouth: Considering Billing By the Byte?
What da
·
Per Byte model will happen if net neutrality laws passed