  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | But why? The parents' TV council has been wanting this for awhile so they can do away with "crude" programming like Comedy Central in their homes. Looks like the only way to get today's FCC to listen is to have a right-wing sponsor. Ehh, that's politics, hopefully it will also mean choice for the rest of us. | |
|
 | | | Re: But why? If I had to bet, we will probably never see true ala-carte offered. What the cable co's. will offer is several more groups of packages, that in the end if you want to get just what you want, will still cost you what you are paying today. 
--
rok - Enjoy this game called life, nobody is actually keeping score.  | |
|
| |  gheezerCompooters R UsPremium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | Re: But why? Under the current offering model by the programmers, A La Carte will prove to be much more expensive for the consumer.
ESPN for example, charges an extra premium if their "bundle" package isn't included in the contract with the MSO.
Unless the Programming providers (networks) adjust their pricing and delivery model, there will be price increases for A La Carte services, and we all know where price increases wind up, don't we.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
|
| | | | | Re: But why? That might be true, but if A La Carte is implemented in some form, my guess is those agreements are toast and will have to be renegotiated if it is mandated by the FCC. I for one could care less about sports channels and it bugs me that they are the most expensive. I want DIY!!! | |
|
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by tnroroc:If I had to bet, we will probably never see true ala-carte offered. What the cable co's. will offer is several more groups of packages, that in the end if you want to get just what you want, will still cost you what you are paying today. I agree. If the FCC, in the unlikely event, demands a la carte pricing, the cable companies and telcos will merely price them so as not to be worthwhile ordering.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | Re: But why? i wouldnt agree with that, the canadians do pretty well with a la carte. they do it by having a basic rate you pay, then u can get little channel groups a la carte (like you can get the espn a la carte package which is all the espns) or you can get other network families, or you can get channels types a la carte. I heard its pretty successful up there. | |
|
| | | | |
| | |  rtcyFACTS only pleasePremium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA | said by Romney2012:said by tnroroc:If I had to bet, we will probably never see true ala-carte offered. What the cable co's. will offer is several more groups of packages, that in the end if you want to get just what you want, will still cost you what you are paying today. I agree. If the FCC, in the unlikely event, demands a la carte pricing, the cable companies and telcos will merely price them so as not to be worthwhile ordering. those of us that own BIG satellite dishes know better. Ala Carte is the BEST way to go.most of the channels in basic packages cost 1.50 to 5.00 per month, but when you add expensive sports like ESPN then it goes up thru the roof
here's a link so you can see for yourself what we pay in ala carte
»www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm | |
|
| | | | | | Re: But why? * You must have a minimum of 5 or more services in your package before these services can be ordered.
** You must have a minimum of 10 or more services in your package before these services can be ordered. Is it really al-a-carte if I have to have a minimum number of stations before I can add something else?
--
rok - Enjoy this game called life, nobody is actually keeping score. | |
|
| | | | | rtcyFACTS only pleasePremium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA | Re: But why? said by tnroroc:* You must have a minimum of 5 or more services in your package before these services can be ordered.
** You must have a minimum of 10 or more services in your package before these services can be ordered. Is it really al-a-carte if I have to have a minimum number of stations before I can add something else? well I have ALWAYS had more than 10 alacarte channels ordered anyway, so it's not been a issue, but technically it's still AL carte because I have a CHOICE of what channels to buy. and last time I called and asked the 5 or 10 was related to the LOW prices. you can pay a higher price and get one channel like BET | |
|
| | rtcyFACTS only pleasePremium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA | said by tnroroc:If I had to bet, we will probably never see true ala-carte offered. What the cable co's. will offer is several more groups of packages, that in the end if you want to get just what you want, will still cost you what you are paying today. look »www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm | |
|
| | | | Cable systems will have to go all digital and I can't wait until there is ala-carte programing
This is what I will get
First they need ala-carte on local programing. I do not watch spanish channels and odd end programing. If other channels like WPWR - UPN put programing that I like then I would subscribe to their station.
WBBM CBS 2 Chcicago
WMAQ NBC 5 Chicago
WLS ABC 7 Chicago
WGN WB Chicago
WCIU Chicago
WFLD Fox Chicago
ESPN
ESPN 2
TBS
TNT
ESPN
ESPN 2
Comcast Sportnsnet Chicago
USA
Hallmark
Discovery
FOOD
TLC
MTV
NOGGIN
HBO - ALL
Showtime - ALL | |
|
| | | Pretty ironic. We wanted competition for broadband(let competitors use the wire) . Fcc blocks it. We wanted alacarte . FCC blocks it.
Now the real voice of the Republican Party speaks and things change.
FCC= toadies & patsies & bootlickers.
They are not independent. Just a big sham with a fancy moniker. | |
|
| | |
A BIG point has been missed- for 'a la carte' to work wouldn't you have to have (and rent) a box for each tv.. | |
|
| | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: But why? said by idjk :
A BIG point has been missed- for 'a la carte' to work wouldn't you have to have (and rent) a box for each tv..
I need a box for every TV now, at least if I want digital cable. | |
|
 BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Its what some want, but it will make it worse. You will be forced to pay XX.xx for package A, or you can get X channels for XX.xx, certain channels are X.XX per month, lets not forget the x.xx per month for the cable box...
With their rates something needs to be done, not everyone wants the gardening channel, however how much is it really going to cost us to get only the channels we want?
--
My hourly rates:
$25 per hour.
$35 per hour if you want to watch.
$45 per hour if you want to help.
$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.
The biggest error is sitting in front of your keyboard. | |
|
| | | Re: Its what some want, but it will make it worse. exactly, if most don't have the channel then the ones who want it will pay more than before. but, that might be offsetable if other widely wanted channels are priced lowered. either way, they're gonna try and screw the consumer... | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | I could do without espn, shopping, mtv's, and a few others. somehow I doubt this'll ever apply to the analog channels, but if it did, I don't see how this couldn't save me a little dough by ditching a few of these useless channels. | |
|
 kalphearionIn nomine PatriPremium
join:2003-11-08
Broomfield, CO | sounds cool I usually only watch the basic channels, 4,7,9 31 for news but at times I like to watch SciFi and some other various "non standard" channels.
The breaking point is going to be how much you would save if you went a-la-carte compared to buying the whole package.
I forsee the Cable companies just creating a few more packages. | |
|
|  plencnerbPremium
join:2000-09-25
Elgin, IL
kudos:1 | Re: sounds cool said by kalphearion:The breaking point is going to be how much you would save if you went a-la-carte compared to buying the whole package. I forsee the Cable companies just creating a few more packages. I agree. The question will be, how much will each channel cost in the end? I'm guessing that some channels will cost more then others, and the thing you will have to look at is if you only want say 3 channels, and each one is $5, is that less then what you are currently paying to get 500 channels?
For example, I pay around $56 a month for TWC in Kenosha, WI. That gives me access to over 1500 Channels. Now, looking at the list of channels, the ones I watch on a daily basis are
1) TNT
2) USA Network
3) FX
4) Lifetime
5) Discovery Channel
6) A&E
7) Nickelodeon
8) Cartoon Network
9) Food TV
So, if each channel will cost me say $5, then my cable bill will be $45 a month. Is it really worth it for me to save the 11 bucks or so a month? Probably not. But, if each channel was say $1 each, then I would only be paying $9 a month for cable TV. In that case, IT would be a savings for me.
In the end, it would depend on how much each channel costs, and if the overall savings is worth it or not.
--
============================
--Brian Plencner
E-Mail: bplencnerCancer@wi.rr.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail | |
|
| |  TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: sounds cool Why is no one demanding that the Satellite providers provider ala carte pricing? With no analog channels, they are in a much better position to provide ala carte pricing.
It is not just the cost of programming, you have to remember that there is also a cost of delivery and service, as well as overhead costs.
Cable and Satellite providers don't control the cost of programming, so if the programmers don't play ball, then ala carte pricing is dead in the water.
With ala carte pricing, programming costs will go UP, not down. Cable operators will have to pay more on a per subscriber basis for each channel (or bundle of Channels, call the folks in Bristol sometime and tell them you are a cable operator and you want to carry ESPN and not ESPN2 on your system  ) because they won't get volume discounts.
Someday you might be able to get some channels ala carte, but except for a few edge cases, it is not going to be at a substantial savings to what you pay for the current programming packages.
At $9 per month for 9 channels, you would be costing the cable company far more money than they would be making.
At $45 per month for 9 channels, in many cases, the CableCo would be better off rolling you into a package anyway just to get the better programming costs on the channels you say you never watch. | |
|
| | | | said by plencnerb:For example, I pay around $56 a month for TWC in Kenosha, WI. That gives me access to over 1500 Channels. 1500? I don't think that I've seen a 4-digit converter box... | |
|
| | | plencnerbPremium
join:2000-09-25
Elgin, IL
kudos:1 | Re: sounds cool said by J D McDorce:1500? I don't think that I've seen a 4-digit converter box... Yeah. Below are some of the channels that are numbered over 1000.
1010 - Movies on Demand
1103 - G4Techtv on Demand
1121 - Court TV on Demand
1152 - Kids on Demand
1300 - HBO on Demand
1800 - Adult on Demand
1999 - Answers on Demand
Looking at the list, all the "On Demand" stuff is 1000 or above. There is also lots of breaks in the numbers as well, which I'm guessing is for future additions.
My Box has the name "Scientific Atlanta" in the upper left corner, and the words "Explorer 2000 Digital Home Communications Terminal" on the bottom right side.
--
============================
--Brian Plencner
E-Mail: bplencnerCancer@wi.rr.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail | |
|
| | | | My guess is that if the cable companies are forced to provide ala carte options, it'll wind up being cheaper to buy the packages. It'll probably wind up being $5 per channel (with some of the more popular channels costing more), so that your ala carte bill would wind up marginally smaller than, if not larger than, your package bill.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
| | shopping channels How many GDAmm shopping Channels do we need also what WTF is up all the church ones ?? | |
|
| | | Re: shopping channels Those channels actual pay to be carried by the provider. | |
|
| | | | Re: shopping channels NO CRAP.I wish i can X them it a waste of my time to even go pass them | |
|
| | | | So how about the cable providers give us an incentive to have them on our ala carte lineup? Like an $X reduction in our bill for each shopping channel we add. (The reduction, of course, wouldn't be more than the cable companies get from the shopping channels and would be rigged in such a way that it wouldn't result in a "negative bill.") I know I'd add them into my lineup for the bill reduction and just skip over them like I've always done.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: shopping channels Yeah right , you really think they are going to give a discount?
Maybe they should be looked in on like the oil companies. The prices seemed to drop real quick once they looked into the oil companies.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | Re: shopping channels I didn't say I actually thought they would give us a discount. Just that it made sense to me for them do. As I see it, everybody wins. Customers are happy because they get a (slight) bill reduction. Cable companies are happy because more ala carte customers add shopping channels to their lineup which lets them claim more eyeballs when talking to the distributors. Distributors are happy because their shopping channels wind up on a shorter channel lineup. (If you owned HSN, would you prefer that it was channel number 47 of 539 or that it was channel number 5 of 12?) Of course, there I go again trying to apply logic to the cable companies business plans.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
| | It's about time I'm tired of paying for ESPN, kiddie channels (no kids), shopping channels, etc. The way packages are structured, if you want a particular channel you have to buy the next package when you don't watch half of what you already have.
My next wish would be to have them limit the number of cable channels the networks can own. There used to be some interesting independent programming, now networks buy them and rerun the same old shows (and commercials).
Along those lines, we used to watch ESPN when they carried sports - before they were Disneyed. The Weather Channel? It's become entertainment for old folks. Yuck. | |
|
|  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: It's about time said by goalieskates:My next wish would be to have them limit the number of cable channels the networks can own. There used to be some interesting independent programming, now networks buy them and rerun the same old shows (and commercials). There used to be limits. The FCC lifted those a couple of years ago.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
1 edit | It's not likely That the cable companies will cut their own throats any time soon, especially since this would be "voluntary" (and we know what corporations think of voluntary, dont we?). It would be nice if you could just order the channels you want when you order cable, but then, they would just start pricing them individually and the prices would just keep marching up. The solution, of course, is to just let the non viable channels that no one carries (Like TRIO for example) die a natural death, instead of propping them up somehow. Certain of the movie channels that repeat the same movies allmost nightly for months on end (BRAVO comes to mind) would be prime cantidates. After all, how many times can one watch The Sands of Iwo Jima? Or, The Godfather, Part 2? PLEASE.
No, the only break from escallating prices will come when the telcos (or, whomever steps up finally) begin offering TV service competittion over fiber. Make no mistake, it WILL happen. It will just take time. Fiber is, in the end, the only viable way for the telcos to go if they want to compete. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Hallelujah call me cynical, but I sincerely DOUBT that this will happen... the cable industry has been one "BLOCK" special interest, if all channels break up into a-la-carte, many channels will die off, or fight for their very broadcast lives, and just MAYBE will have to self-promote (say it isn't so) so that you'll see company executives worrying about (gosh darn it) CONTENT they shovel down the throats of people and the PRICE they charge.
Personally, DIE ESPN, DIE ESPN, lay off 30,000 time warner, lay off 30,000 time warner.
victory for the consumer | |
|
 owenhomekeeper of the magic blue smokePremium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR | BS There is no way in the world cable co's would willing give customers the ability to pay less. That's just stupid. Do you honestly think they would set it up in such a way that you could just buy the channels you want and save money?? It's all about finding new and creative ways to get more money out of you, no the other way around.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
|
| | Just Disconnect Not intending to start a troll but...
98% of the stuff on TV isn't worth watching. I have better things to do with my time. TV is a trap which we
have fallen into and we are wasting away our lives by watching it.
Cable TV has a false or "artificial" value associated with it.
If americans would just wake up and see the harm they are doing to their lives by wasting their time watching TV they would be much better off. | |
|
| | | Re: Just Disconnect That's a painful truth. It took getting a DVR into my daily life to make me realize how little good content there actually is on cable. I was concerned that 40 hours wouldn't be enough, but it's plenty if you don't record the garbage.
For the record, I find web-surfing comes in a close second to TV (or maybe even above it by a nose) when it comes to wasting my life. I'll pretend to ignore the irony of posting that statement on one of the very sites that absorbs much of my time. At least this one's fairly interactive. | |
|
| |
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI | The Other Side I'm personally tired of paying for everything *but* ESPN.
Everyone can complain all they want about ESPN, but most ESPN viewers watch WAY more TV than most of you complaining about it.
Personallly, I'd eliminate just about everything *but* ESPN if I could. It's not like I watch any of that other crap like Lifetime, USA, TNT, FX, every single news network, etc... | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
 ·US Cellular
| Re: The Other Side I certainly don't want to subsidize ESPN for the people that want it.
There are only about 15 channels that I want to watch, none of them are sports.
Why should we pay for things that we don't watch? Paying only for channels that we actually want would sure send a signal to the program providers!
I can hear the cries now that diversity of programming will decrease, this is rhetorical, but I this diversity will increase. I am sure that the quality will improve and maybe those annoying graphics will go away. | |
|
 wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
| shopping channels You'll always be getting the shopping channels. No way in hell that the cable cos will drop them as they get a percentage of the sales made on them. That's why there are so many of them. Everytime a subscriber buys something through a shopping a channel it's a ring of the register for the subscribers cable company. | |
|
| TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: shopping channels You may "think" you are, but you aren't actually paying for the shopping channels.
Even with ala carte pricing, you would still receive them. | |
|
| | The Bigger Picture It isn't going to make your cable TV bill or satellite TV bill cheaper. The bigger picture is that it removes the subsidy for channels that wouldn't have a chance of survival without the socialism of forced bundling and tying contracts.
This is actually the first step to a free market system where better programming makes for better revenue, rather than the system enjoyed now by content creators and system operators where there is little financial risk to bad programming. | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| Digital TV tuners can block! This problem will be solved by 2008 or whatever the date is that Analog TV dies and you have to have a digital tuner.
All digital tuners offered by cable companies can be locked down with a pin-code, and you can block selective channels from being displayed.
This way mom and dad can watch their Comedy Central or HBO when the kids went to bed.
As for a-la-carte, I can see it will be an enourmous administrative hassle to get it right. They are much better off to offer certain packages, and let the parents decide by using a digital tuner what they can and cannot see. Or perhaps start with a digital "kid safe" package.
--
George W. Bush on Clinton going into Kosovo, 1999: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Right. | |
|
| | | Re: Digital TV tuners can block! Actually they can implement a la carte now. They need to get off their arses and do it.
Just take the internet's RSS model for listing which shows you can subscribe to. THen make your selections and get charged for them per month or pay per view.
No more channel numbers to deal with, just a "next" channel and a "previous" channel. Couple this with a better remote control that doesn't have a number pad and you can watch actual shows without the hassle of channel numbers.
If the internet can support streaming on demand, the cable companies can do the same. | |
|
| | Channel Ranges The cable co's will set it up like so:
your basic cable - 15$
standard cable - 35$
Ala carte - ---
The Womens Essential Package - $14
(lifetime, etc, shopping)
The Mens Essential Package - $14
(ESPN, Fox Sports, TNT, Etc)
The SciFi Channel - $3.5
Other Useless Channel Package - $10
(omg how many would this be?)
The Kids Essential Package - $10
(Cartoons, Disney, ABC Family, Etc)
The Family Essential Package - $12
(Other Garbage that only has 1 channel you really want)
The above pricing is what we could only hope for I suppose! I Mean I pay right now for RR Premium and Stanard Cable $118.01 a month so If I could get it cheaper i'm all for it!
~PCT | |
|
| | | Re: Channel Ranges This is exactly the point, which is generally missed by the press. Just as in the "naked DSL" question, the issue has two parts--whether you can buy something on a standalone basis AND what the pricing will be. | |
|
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
·Comcast
| So what? I posted this in a similar thread in the Stars Pub:
The problem is that not all channels cost the cable companies the same amount of money. ESPN, for example is very expensive compared to say HSN, and the most expensive channels are the ones that most people would pick in an a la carte package.
The price of the more expensive channels is subsidized by the less expensive channels. If you were to get an a la carte package with just the good channels it would cost you way more than what you are paying for a package mostly full of crap.
You can't do simple math on the price of your cable bill. I pay $45 for my standard cable, which is about 80 channels. That works out to about $0.56/chan/mo. If you think you are going to get a package of 10 channels that includes the most popular ones for $5.60/mo, you are sadly mistaken.
--
This snowflake tastes like fish sticks - Ralph Wiggum | |
|
| TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: So what? A couple comments:
The CableCo can't just carry ESPN or CNN either, at least at a reasonable rate. They have to carry ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, etc, etc. or CNN, HLN, TNT, TBS, etc, etc. to get the lower rate.
The CableCo pays less on a per sub basis for programming that reaches a larger # of subscribers. If only 100 subscribers subscribed to a particular channel, the monthly rate that the CableCo pays for the channel would skyrocket, either causing the CableCo to drop the channel or causing the Channel to shutdown it's operations due to a lack of advertiser interest. | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | what concerns me..... is at least in the satellite services an a la cart menu will stifle the development of new channels. The Best example of this is RFDTV ( »www.rfdtv.com/ ) I have watched this channel grow over the last few years because Dish Network was willing to give them a chance. This is a fantastic channel with very interesting programing. If Dish Network had not been able to bundle this start up with the rest of their offering I don't think it could have got off the ground.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you. | |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: what concerns me..... They could still bundle. A la carte just means they would have to offer individual pricing as well.
This whole thing is cut from the same cloth as "naked" broadband though. Regulatory smoke and mirrors. The only way it works is to make cable programming entirely VoD and you pay per program watched. I don't think that's what the proponents are shooting for though. | |
|
| | | | Re: what concerns me..... And, as far as new channels go, they could offer free trials of new channels for customers to let customers see if they like the station. Not sure if RFDTV is for you? Just sign up for the free trial period and after the first month decide whether to keep it or not.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | business this is the FCC's way of letting the cable industry know that not only are they late on their under the table bribe payments but they are looking for an increase in their yearly stipend in 2006. | |
|
| | If the Cable Co. is Against It Then it must be good for the consumer if you go with general Cableco logic. It just means THEY might lose revenue because people wont want a vast majority of the channels offered. Pricing for their service is only "elastic up" to a point at which people will not pay, but switch to another service | |
|
| TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: If the Cable Co. is Against It Watch what you wish for, the CableCos won't lose revenue at the end of the day, but you will see a drop in the variety of programming available.
No more Kung Fu channel for you! | |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | BRING it ON! I like a la carte.
90% of channels I don't want. This would be great to get all the news/history/tech/documentary channels which I like. I don't go for the bullshit "reality TV." Reality TV to me is the history channel. Don't like seeing the history of humanity and warfare? Than don't call your shit TV "reality."
-Tzale
--
Sie müssen für die Umdrehung leben!~*~You must live for the revolution!~*~Sie musicie żyć dla rewolucji! | |
|
|  auroraPremium
join:2003-03-18
Chicago, IL | Re: BRING it ON! The only reason this is happening now is the launch of the GLBTQ oriented cable networks such as Q and LOGO which are a big disaster to the conservative cause, and has lead a lot of parents/people in general to want to remove those channels from existance | |
|
| | TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | Re: BRING it ON! said by aurora:The only reason this is happening now is the launch of the GLBTQ oriented cable networks such as Q and LOGO which are a big disaster to the conservative cause, and has lead a lot of parents/people in general to want to remove those channels from existance Bullshit. Everything is a "conservative conspiracy" to you liberal extremists.
Logo sucks. That channel praises a lifestyle that goes AGAINST the survival of humanity.
-Tzale
--
Sie müssen für die Umdrehung leben!~*~You must live for the revolution!~*~Sie musicie żyć dla rewolucji! | |
|
| | |  HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: BRING it ON!
Sorry for the rant
Lee
--
"I Don't feel Tardy"
www.gwbmcfund.org
When Clinton Lied , All that was left was a stained dress.
When Bush lied ,all that was left was 2000 + less US Soldiers.. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: BRING it ON! What I think is you all should be sending these replys to the FCC or to your elected officials if you truely want to change how the cable industry keeps people over a barrel! | |
|
|
|
