 | | excessive? Didn't know you could excessively use a phone?..... Have to love the "unlimited" claims anymore.... you should never terminate a users phone service especially if they are an older person who might need it for emergencies | |
|
 |  JimThePCGuyFormerly known as schja01.Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL | Re: excessive? And younger persons who might need it in an emergency too. | |
|
| | | I thought only teenage girls ruined American Idol with ridiculous voting. I for one am GLAD Nanna got the boot.
LOL | |
|
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Williamstown, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: excessive? said by ITALIAN926:I thought only teenage girls ruined American Idol with ridiculous voting. I for one am GLAD Nanna got the boot.
LOL
Nanna needs to get a life. What morons need to vote over and over for some TV show contest? | |
|
| | | | | Re: excessive? I have to side with Comcast on this one. 100s of calls an hour to the same number is definitely a red flag.
But more importantly, anyone who both watches American Idol, and feels the need to make that many calls about it, shouldn't have a phone line. The rest of the world doesn't need to hear from them. Ever.
--
Intel i7-2600k /ASRock P67 Extreme4 /4x 4Gb G.Skill /2x Intel 510 series 250Gb SSD /3x WD20EADS 2TB /2x PNY GTX 260 /Silverstone 850W /Custom water cooler /Antec Twelve-Hundred | |
|
| | | | jades
join:2013-04-01
New York, NY | Re: excessive? I agree with you
I work in telecom and when we see this types of short duration calls it's usually telemarketing or spam calls | |
|
| | | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by Camelot One:I have to side with Comcast on this one. 100s of calls an hour to the same number is definitely a red flag.
You have got to be kidding. What someone does with their UNLIMITED phone service is their own god damned business.
But more importantly, anyone who both watches American Idol, and feels the need to make that many calls about it, shouldn't have a phone line. The rest of the world doesn't need to hear from them. Ever.
| |
|
| | | | | | | Re: excessive? Read the TOS/AUP there is a limit on ALL unlimited plans for usage when it comes to voice. Normally its under 3,000 minutes. Cellular, Landline, and VoIP providers ALL have the same clause. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: excessive? said by r81984:That makes no sense.
You cant call it unlimited and then contradict the offered service in the fine print.
If something like this went to court, the phone company would lose.
If they make a mistake and sell limited service as unlimited a court would rule against the phone company.
Companies have been selling limited service as unlimited for years. That is why Karl made a joke about it. And the courts have always sided with them, thanks to careful legalese in the TOS. "Unlimited" could mean unlimited access to dial, not unlimited calls. | |
|
| | | | | jades
join:2013-04-01
New York, NY |
quote:
You have got to be kidding. What someone does with their UNLIMITED phone service is their own god damned business
Hundreds of calls per hour especially to the same phone number raises a huge red flag. I work in telecom and on the wholesale side, nothing is unlimited and free when it comes to outgoing calls. Once the customer exceeds 5,000 outgoing minutes, this is a loss for the company selling the service. Incoming calls are another story
Additionally, most carriers charge for an excess in short duration calls, whether it be toll free or domestic. Comcast needs to protect their network and when a flood of calls to the same number is going through their system, anyone with the right mind is going to suspend the service. This is crazy.
100% if the time an automated system would cause these types of calls. In this case it's a grandma (as far as we know). So for Comcast, or ANY provider, to assume that their network is being abused in this case is perfectly acceptable, and they must protect their network. | |
|
| | |  noc007
join:2002-06-18
Cumming, GA | Doesn't American Idol have a limit to the number of "votes" you can make anyways? I don't watch it so I don't know, but the other shows like this I've been subjected to have a limit to the number of "votes" you make that are counted. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: excessive? Think theyd have the technology to limit it one vote per incoming number. | |
|
| | | |  Cthen
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Comcast
| said by noc007:Doesn't American Idol have a limit to the number of "votes" you can make anyways? I don't watch it so I don't know, but the other shows like this I've been subjected to have a limit to the number of "votes" you make that are counted.
Not sure if they are still doing it but, you used to have to pay for every call to them like a 900 or 976 number. If that is still the case then grandma is loaded and they love it each time she calls. (Or anyone else who calls repeatedly lol)
--
"I like to refer to myself as an Adult Film Efficienato." - Stuart Bondek | |
|
| | | | | at 72, what else is one supposed to do other than that and, post on DSLReports forum? We all gotta do sumthimg, rite? | |
|
| | | | Is it possible to "ruin" something that starts out ruined? (It was just as ruined a concept when it was called "Star Search".)
--
"Face piles of trials with smiles; it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave." | |
|
| | | Excessive use of an unlimited service...
Sounds like an oxymoron to me, and the "moron" part seems particularly appropriate. | |
|
|  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by neufuse:Didn't know you could excessively use a phone?..... Have to love the "unlimited" claims anymore.... you should never terminate a users phone service especially if they are an older person who might need it for emergencies
This is something I agree on with comcast 700 calls IS excessive use... sorry.
--
Well, does your car at least turn into something else? Sometimes I turn it into a trashcan. Hmm... | |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC | Abuse or Excessive Usage Was this is case of abuse versus excessive usage? I can't imagine the usage cost Comcast anything and that they would want to get into a fight with the PUC over something like this. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage said by whfsdude:Was this is case of abuse versus excessive usage? I can't imagine the usage cost Comcast anything and that they would want to get into a fight with the PUC over something like this.
I agree, it sounds more like spamming behavior. She called the same number hundreds of times in an hour. That is a red flag. | |
|
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage Agreed. That is completely ridiculous usage. That's not talking for 10 hours a day to actual other people, it's making hundreds of connections, which is abnormal for even the heaviest of phone callers. | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | It's not necessarily usage. It's the interconnect fees. Every call is originated and terminated by a system. When the systems are different, the telecom laws permit the terminating system to charge the originating system. In this case, Comcast was originating hundreds of calls for which they then had to pay someone else to terminate. The termination charges must have been enough to exceed some threshold which flagged nanna's account for abuse. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage Though wouldn't American Idol be an 800 number anyway? So, interconnect fees would be near nil, if not zero. | |
|
| |  Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | said by rradina:It's not necessarily usage. It's the interconnect fees. I believe the calls she made were toll free. The recipient paid the bill, not Comcast. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage said by Jim Gurd:said by rradina:It's not necessarily usage. It's the interconnect fees. I believe the calls she made were toll free. The recipient paid the bill, not Comcast. Toll-free is exactly what it says -- free of tolls. It's not free of other charges -- specifically, internal network costs.
A toll-free call from a cell phone still gets charged minutes. A toll-free call from the popular unbundled VoIP providers (Callcentric, Voip.ms) often incurs a per-minute fee, depending on the routing it takes.
And this isn't even anything new to VoIP. Thirty years ago, the old Bell System would also monitor your usage to look for excessive usage on a residential line. | |
|
| | | | clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage On VOIP and cellular, you're paying for the interconnect and airtime, respectively.
But the idea has always been the same, 800 numbers do not incur any additional tolls. If you have something called "Unlimited Voice", why would it matter if she placed 200 calls to time and weather or 200 calls to American Idol? Or 2000 calls to either?
And if they were looking for excessive usage on landlines in the 80's, my family would have been given the boot. There were literally fights on a daily basis over who got to use the phone. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage said by clone:On VOIP and cellular, you're paying for the interconnect and airtime, respectively.
But the idea has always been the same, 800 numbers do not incur any additional tolls. If you have something called "Unlimited Voice", why would it matter if she placed 200 calls to time and weather or 200 calls to American Idol? Or 2000 calls to either?
Yes, Comcast is offering a VoIP service. They thus incur real fees when the service is used in a non-residential pattern. There is no toll above-and-beyond, but that doesn't make the calls free.
There is no difference between American Idol and time-and-weather, because American Idol is toll-free. Thus, there is no toll charge, and it is equivalent to a local call. That does not mean it is free. 2000 calls to either number would be a non-residential pattern.
I agree that "Unlimited" is a misnomer. All of the major VoIP providers prohibit non-residential usage, and it's because they cannot afford to have a telemarketer sign up and actually use it as an unlimited service. I think it'd be a lot better to advertise, say, 3000 minutes, with per-minute overages.
said by clone:And if they were looking for excessive usage on landlines in the 80's, my family would have been given the boot. There were literally fights on a daily basis over who got to use the phone.
How many calls did you make each weekday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM? How many calls did you receive?
They were looking for, say, a dentist setting up shop in a residential house, and trying to run his business off of a residential phone plan. | |
|
| | | | Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | said by tanzam75:Toll-free is exactly what it says -- free of tolls. It's not free of other charges -- specifically, internal network costs. The bandwidth charges would be negligible in this case. VoIP uses very little compared to streaming video.
said by tanzam75:A toll-free call from a cell phone still gets charged minutes. A toll-free call from the popular unbundled VoIP providers (Callcentric, Voip.ms) often incurs a per-minute fee, depending on the routing it takes. There are no per-minute fees to unlimited by definition, and airtime charges do not apply, whatsoever, in this case.
said by tanzam75:And this isn't even anything new to VoIP. Thirty years ago, the old Bell System would also monitor your usage to look for excessive usage on a residential line.
Maybe, but it's not relevant. Comcast isn't paying anything (other than a tiny amount of bandwidth) to complete these calls. The recipient pays it all. That's why the calls are toll free to the calling party. | |
|
| | | | |
3 edits | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage said by Jim Gurd:The bandwidth charges would be negligible in this case.
Bandwidth is not the constraining factor.
VoIP calls connect to the PSTN at some point. Even VoIP-to-VoIP calls might go through the PSTN if the providers do not have an IP-based connection to each other. At the connection point, there is a real capacity constraint that is not based on bits and bytes, but on connection count. And that's where the fees get charged.
said by Jim Gurd:There are no per-minute fees to unlimited by definition, and airtime charges do not apply, whatsoever, in this case.
Yes, that's true. But I was addressing the misconception that toll-free calls are free to the provider, because you were responding to a comment that pointed out that Comcast is incurring real costs.
Now, whether Comcast should offer "unlimited" service that they cannot afford to deliver -- that's a different matter. I agree that "unlimited" is misnamed -- it should be something like "3000 minutes."
Other VoIP providers also put restrictions on their "unlimited" service -- because they, like Comcast, cannot afford to offer truly unlimited service.
said by Jim Gurd:Maybe, but it's not relevant. Comcast isn't paying anything (other than a tiny amount of bandwidth) to complete these calls. The recipient pays it all. That's why the calls are toll free to the calling party.
The recipient pays the toll, which includes some of the interconnection fees. However, the recipient does not pay it all.
This is why a percentage-above-cost provider like Callcentric charges a per-minute fee for toll-free calls. This fee is real, and it is not paid by the recipient. (No, they're not charging for servers or bandwidth -- you can make unlimited VoIP-to-VoIP calls, even though this traffic is not peer-to-peer and has to pass through their servers. It's when it hits the PSTN that they insist on collecting fees.)
It's even more clearly seen at Voip.ms, which offers both "Value" and "Premium" routing for 800 numbers. Value routing is free. Premium routing costs money. But doesn't the recipient pay the toll? Yes, the recipient pays enough to make the Value routing free. The recipient does not pay enough to make Premium routing free.
With the unbundled VoIP services, you really see how pricing works in the telephone system. And it often isn't how you imagine, from looking at your old Baby Bell telephone bill. There are all sorts of costs that have historically been bundled, based on an expected usage pattern. Go outside this usage pattern, and the phone company will notice. | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I'm not suggesting that Idol uses this technique but it's an example of how interconnect fees can get out of hand. My point is, what appears free or almost free for us can get significant for the provider because of how we have decided to fund telecommunications in this country.
As long as we use these "distribute the fees" schemes to support what is otherwise unsustainable, we'll always run into trouble when unexpected usage patterns occur.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pumping | |
|
| |
| |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by whfsdude:Was this is case of abuse versus excessive usage? I can't imagine the usage cost Comcast anything and that they would want to get into a fight with the PUC over something like this.
What PUC? Digital Voice is VOIP, you have NO RIGHTS. | |
|
| | | | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage Comcast is a CLEC in each state they offer CDV. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage said by NotTheMama:Comcast is a CLEC in each state they offer CDV.
So what? You are not buying a tariffed service. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage If your PUC doesn't exercise some degree of regulatory supervision over CLECs that provide local residential service, then it's my opinion that your PUC isn't doing its job.
--
"Face piles of trials with smiles; it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave." | |
|
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Abuse or Excessive Usage said by NotTheMama:If your PUC doesn't exercise some degree of regulatory supervision over CLECs that provide local residential service, then it's my opinion that your PUC isn't doing its job.
But comcast isn't a CLEC providing local residential service. They are a CLEC for T1/T3 tarrifed business voice lines, and a CLEC for telco peering. Their VOIP service is unregulated. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | I agree that it was an automatic system.
I am guessing her repeated calls made a server think she was running a robodialier.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | FTC Should Get Involved... The FTC should get involved. If there are loop holes that prevent action, then Congress needs to act and put in place some rules around using the term unlimited. It's ridiculous that we continue to have organizations advertise with the unlimited slogan and then put limits in fine print. Not only is that wrong but the way they do it is usually not even defined because they use terms like "at our discretion" or "we reserve the right to terminate if we deem excessive use".
Bottom line, if you use the term unlimited, we should not accept fine print limitations. It's just that simple. | |
|
| | | Re: FTC Should Get Involved... Unfortunately our corrupt Government has "unlimited" ability and desire to meddle in the affairs of those that line their pockets. Face it... Amerika is just a very corrupt place. | |
|
| |  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | Indeed it is,a very good reply my friend! | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by rradina:The FTC should get involved. If there are loop holes that prevent action, then Congress needs to act and put in place some rules around using the term unlimited. It's ridiculous that we continue to have organizations advertise with the unlimited slogan and then put limits in fine print. Not only is that wrong but the way they do it is usually not even defined because they use terms like "at our discretion" or "we reserve the right to terminate if we deem excessive use".
Bottom line, if you use the term unlimited, we should not accept fine print limitations. It's just that simple.
Exactly. | |
|
 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter
| Should have warranted a suspension The service should have only been suspended, not terminated. That way, a fair investigation could have taken place. She would have called into Cust Service and be given the information and validated how true it was.
Why treat residential custs any different than businesses under similar circumstances? | |
|
|
See 16 replies to this post |
|
| | "Unlimited*" strikes again Don't even think Grandma can dial that fast to do several hundred calls in 1 hour?  - Not even redial would allow you to connect that fast and vote.
I'm tired of all this "Unlimited*" crap though. Tell me I get 10,000 minutes to use in a month, limited to max of 500 a day or something. Sure it's more complicated than "Unlimited*" but at least people know what they are getting into! | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| FTC Time Compel Comcast to state how many calls a customer may place per month. And if there is a limit, ANY limit, then they get fined for using the word unlimited in their ads.
Time for unlimited to mean unlimited, or stop committing the fraud and start being truthful in advertising. | |
|
 japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Ralph Nader did good (before he lost his way) I miss the days of functional consumer protection laws and agencies where shit like undefined limited unlimited got slapped down before most people even knew it was attempted. Now it's the norm and we're all supposed to comprehend where the lies are. Or, more precisely, we're not supposed to comprehend. | |
|
aerithPremium
join:2008-12-31
Milpitas, CA | I'm sorry, but it doesn't warrant a suspension Due to her age, I can't say a suspension and/or termination will do. It's bad PR for Comcrap. A warning letter will do.
As well, she SHOULD HAVE looked here (aka the fine print):
»www.comcast.com/Corporate/Custom···ces.html
An alternate would be that the person can get Comcrap Business Voice, but here comes the contract garbage, that is attached to ANY Comcrap Business Services, unlike Charter Business or Verizon Business Services.
Well, I also wonder why the Fixed (Fox) DC bureau picked up this story, instead of Fixed 32 Chicago. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA | Unlimited Unlimited in their world means consistent with normal residential usage. That does not include robo calling or hosting servers. In other words, don't use that unlimited residential phone for telemarketing. | |
|
| | at least .. .. in North Korea and China that corruption is honest, they aren't really trying to hide it, or if they are they are doing a piss poor job of it. In Amerika if a corporation gets caught, they get handed a get out of responsibility card, and a handshake for their political donation.
Why people tolerate this abuse of power I do not understand. | |
|
|  XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | Re: at least .. Don't forget the million dollar severance packages for the scape goats who are fired from company A who already have even nicer cushier job lined up at company B! | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | What if I want to stay up all night on the Modem? Seems like a weird thing for Verizon to get upset about. They aren't trying to sell a premium phone service... maybe they are trying to force granny to get a cell phone? | |
|
|  PathfinderDazed ConfusedPremium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Re: What if I want to stay up all night on the Modem? How you got Verizon in here is beyond me. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: What if I want to stay up all night on the Modem? Thanks for the correction. Please substitute local broadband oligopoly B for local broadband oligopoly A. | |
|
mts
join:2000-10-06
Lansing, MI | Unlimited Voice Maybe Grandma should visit her local Comcast office. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Unlimited Voice This made my day  | |
|
| |  Oh comcast
| |
|
| rlindsay
join:2001-01-24
Silver Spring, MD | Re: Oh comcast Nope, a hour has 3600 seconds (60 * 60) so it would be like once every 12 seconds. Still a healthy pace. | |
|
| | | Here's some basic math:
There are 3,600 seconds in an hour. Let's overestimate and say she called 1,000 times in that hour. That's still 3.6 seconds per call, which is attainable but difficult.
The story is "plausible," as Mythbusters might say. | |
|
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: Oh comcast Very plausible in fact since the vote, even if a contest, is the just recording your caller ID info, which is sent before the first ring.
an auto dial program on a very basic home computer could easily hang up and redial as soon as the info is sent.
If a requirement was ONE call per #, spoofing could be enabled, if the goal was just to run up the vote. | |
|
| Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | said by TCS:I'm struggling to believe that a 72 year old woman managed to call SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES in an hour. That means she was calling 3+ times per second. Even on speed-dial there's no way you're calling that fast. Comcast once again fabricating stories.
To call 3 times per second it would have to be 10,800 times
redo the e math dude
Every 5.142857142857143 seconds
she called
60 * 60 = 3600 seconds 3600 / 700 = 5.142857142857143 seconds  learning in fun
Yes it is possible most newer cordless phones have SPEED dial.
2 seconds to dial 1 second to connect, ring & answer that is 4 seconds.
She could have had a second, third cordless phone ready to go and cycle between them for faster speed.
So it is physically possible to do it every 5 seconds. | |
|
| | Grandmother So she is 72, is she the grandmother of one of the contestants? | |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | Typical Comast quote:
After the letter was publicized, Comcast claimed the termination notice was sent in error ...
Translation:
"oops ... this is being reported in the media so we better lie about it and backpedal like crazy." | |
|
| | I'm surprised... that Comcast would be able to connect "several hundred" calls in an hour. When I had it, it would take quite some time just to get one call to connect (wait, wait, wait...). Anyway, so... someone can place one call that lasts for an hour, but can't place a whole bunch over the course of an hour. Where's the "problem"? the "excess"? What exactly is grandma "using up" that's in such limited supply? (Is Ernestine behind this?)
--
"Face piles of trials with smiles; it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave." | |
|
Reviews:
 ·DIRECTV
| Unlimited = NOT unlimited = deceptive and fraudulent. quote:
You have got to be kidding. What someone does with their UNLIMITED phone service is their own god damned business.
Exactly.
If the service is is termed "unlimited" and is NOT, even if there is fine print, Comcast is being DECEPTIVE in its offerings which borders on fraud.
If I was that old lady I would be contacting the PUC and state AG, and other consumer protection groups. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·MegaPath
| Re: Unlimited = NOT unlimited = deceptive and fraudulent. First VoIP is NOT regulated by the FCC let alone the PUC. Also read the AUP/TOS BEFORE you sign up. If you can't read then that is YOUR FAULT not the company's fault. If more people read what they agree to BEFORE they signup we'd have less problems from the start and and less people crying for regulation. And if you are unhappy with the polices of Comcast, you can launch your own VoIP service. | |
|
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: Unlimited = NOT unlimited = deceptive and fraudulent. You are VERY mistaken. They are selling residential phone service that is provided to you as an analog phone line. How they've transported it to you is irrelevant; you get a POTS phone port (or two.) You have zero access to, or knowledge of the underlying IP transport. (hint: you cannot bring your own hardware and link it to their VoIP system.) | |
|
andrea77
join:2013-04-07
Winthrop Harbor, IL | Wow!! Hello everybody! I'm the one who originally posted the letter my grandma received from Comcast. To answer some of your questions...First, Fox DC didn't originally pick up this story; Fox Chicago did. I'm sure the link is still on the myfoxchicago page. If not, it's on my facebook page! The original post that I posted is at
»www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=···&theater
...If you care enough to read what actually happened. Fox DC picked up the story shortly thereafter. Eventually it made its way to Fox News and then all over the world!
My grandma is just a sweet lady who loves American Idol. She's not using an auto dialer. She's not running a business. I see what some of you are saying about bandwidth, etc. Either way, It's STILL a very misleading and deceptive practice. We were issued a HUGE apology from Comcast (after the fact, of course)! I called all the way up to Comcast corporate headquarters and received absolutely NO resolution (before the fact)! Like I said, you can read the story if you want to know what actually happened. I contacted the News to get the attention of somebody at Comcast who mattered and had the power to fix the situation for my Grandmother. After the media picked it up and it went viral, the story has been slightly altered here and there (by some). My Grandma was upset by the letter and needed somebody to step in and make things right for her! I would greatly appreciate it if we could keep things positive on these message boards! Grandma IS reading them! Thank you, so much, to those of you who support our cause! We truly appreciate it! Sincerely, Andrea Holt-Batalia | |
|
| | comcast unlimited voice I don't care about TOS/AUP or any organization or the people who think that for any reason the need to re-define the word unlimited. Einstein was right when he made the comment that the only thing in the Universe that is infinite is human stupidity.
fools | |
|
|
|
