 stftk14
join:2003-01-21
East Lansing, MI | first pwn3d first | |
|  | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: first pwn3d said by stftk14  :
first
and with an insightful, mature comment that stimulated thoughtful contemplation of the issue | |
| | 
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL | Depends on where you look ... There is plenty of public interest and leadership here:
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| systems2000
What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace
 ·Embarq
| Doesn't Surprise Me
Another good example of why we don't need politicians, and for the Government and courts to just get out of the way.
Why does the media need to be involved anyway? All their going to do is take the side of corporate media.
--
Personal Theme Song:RUSH - Mystic Rythms from Power Windows. | |
| 
Bill
Light Up The Halo
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
clubs:
| Since when is it the politicians job? The last time I checked broadband was being deployed and ran by private corporations.
Its the corporations job to make broadband prices cheaper and make it available to more people.
The government shouldn't be involved in the private sector. | |
| | 
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Re: Since when is it the politicians job? Check again.....only where it is profitable for them to do so (and "profitable" means something completely different to them than a muni).
Corporations only drop prices when there is competition. When there isn't a muni around for competition prices only will go up.
And in how many markets in some of these small communities is there competition? How many small communities even have broadband offered to them by some of these incumbents? That is what we are talking about here. Then munis shouldn't be denied their right to provide for their residents.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | 
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
October 1st, @08:33PM
| The red herring the "broadband socialists" won't tell you is that there are about 12.4 million residents in Illinois, and of those, over 8 million live in the Cook and the six "collar counties" (»www.npg.org/states/il.htm )
Broadband is available to well over 90% of this area. Similar coverage is available to the outstate and downstate areas of Rockford, Peoria, Champaign, Decatur, and Carbondale.
In many areas, there is the option of several DSL providers as well as cable. In much of DuPage County, there are two cable providers as well.
So the excuse that broadband "isn't available" is a weak one. The real gripe here is that it's not cheap enough...and even that is questionable. SBC offers DSL for $26/month.
For those of you unfamiliar with Illinois geography, the Tri-cities that BBR incessantly holds up as the poor abused stepchild of the ILECs and cableco's is by no one's definition a "small community ignored by everyone". It's within the six "collar-county" area, and aside from a few small pockets, broadband of one kind or another is available in this area for anyone who wants it.
This isn't about being "underserved". It's about a few "activists" who think the government should supply them with cheap, subsidized service.
And most BBR members would probably have a cow if they knew what the average property values in Tricities (Geneva, St. Charles, and Batavia) were...and wonder why anyone who can afford cushy west suburban digs would crow about paying $30-$40 a month for internet service. Many of them pay more than that for bottle of wine.
If no one is calling attention to the broadband "problem" in Illinois it's probably because there isn't one.
This is the biggest "non-issue" I've seen on BBR in a long time.
mocycler
--
Well, that settles it! Edison the Cat doesn't want John Kerry to be President. | |
| | | 
techjoe
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Worth, IL
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Since when is it the politicians job? Cook has LOTS of "small pockets" with no broadband. Unincorperated Cook has major problems with CO distance. Myself and at least two others I know of, all miles from each other, all in unincorperated southern cook (diff COs) are 'too far' for ANY dsl but IDSL which in case you don't know, runs $150/month and some change for a 144kbit connection. Comcast doesn't have lines everywhere, and in some areas of Cook they just aren't worth it..
We also have "pockets" of 100'+ treelines that make wireless not a great option in many parts, as some here I'm sure can agree with.
/rant | |
| | | 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Batavia, IL
edit:
October 1st, @11:38PM
| Here we go again....
Mo, until we screamed we had DSL in Geneva only. Dead air in Batavia and wasteland in St. Charles. We went to referendum in 2003, lost 40/60 at the ballot, and shortly thereafter had full coverage with cable modems from comcast (mind you, no plans to upgrade anything were anywhere until the cities started screaming). We're getting closer with DSL.
Yes we have upgrades now, and it's a fine stop gap, but if you think 3 meg is the end all be all, i've got a bridge for you. We border the DuPage Airport Tech Park (»www.dupagetechpark.com/index.asp), are home to Fermi National Lab (»www.fnal.gov), and are now directly conneccted to NIUNET (»www.thebusinessledger.com/Articl···isuID=27).
Last year we were hosed. After watching the garbage the incumbents pulled, we decided no more and are actively trying to step well above their offerings.
And once again, Mo, even Naperville benefits.
Again, for clarification, last year's ballot was backed by General Obligation bonds.
Over 3000 citizens signed petitions to put this back on the ballot this year with the critical phrase "with said utility prohibited from using tax-backed financing?" If that isn't Democracy in action, I don't know what the heck is....
Read privately financed, muni run.
If you don't think you should be striving for better, whatever.
If incumbents won't or don't want to bring better services, they shouldn't try to block us from taking care of matters ourselves.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Hi Mo,
Been awhile. Now, you know that this year's 2004 referendum in the Tri-Cities prohibits the cities from using any tax-backed financing to create a broadband utility, right? Private investment will finance the utility and the cities would own and operate the utility. Who said anything about subsidized service here?
The Tri-City broadband referendum and many other municipal broadband ventures are not just about providing video, voice and data for a city. They are also about economic development and providing services to their schools, hospitals, police and fire stations etc.... If they can supply cheaper broadband services in addition as a bonus and provide local service with local accountability then that is just icing on the cake. Why pay more than one has to - no matter what your level of income?
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: Since when is it the politicians job? said by Octopussy2 :
Been awhile. Now, you know that this year's 2004 referendum in the Tri-Cities prohibits the cities from using any tax-backed financing to create a broadband utility, right? Private investment will finance the utility and the cities would own and operate the utility. Who said anything about subsidized service here?
Who is going to be the issuer of these bonds? Who's credit rating is going to be used to back the bonds? Who is going to insure the bonds against default? Someone has to be legally responsible for these bonds, who is it?
Is this system going to pay property taxes, Income Taxes, Franchise Fees, or Sales Tax on equipment and supplies it has to purchase to support or operate this system? If these fees and taxes are not going to be paid, then this system is subsidized!
If these bonds are going to be issued by these cities, then their credit rating is going to be used to get interest rates that are below market rates for commercial bonds that a commercial company would have issue if they were going to build this system. Further, if these bonds are issued by the local government; that would most likely make the income they return to the investors TAX EXEMPT! Translation, more tax payer subsidized support of this system.
Where do you think the money for all types of bonds comes from? It comes from private investors!!! IF this project manages to get past the voters, it still has to get the interest of these Private Investors.
I haven't seen anything from the organizers of this project saying that there were going to purchase any of these bonds themselves!
I found this quote on your site:
With private investors no taxpayers are at "risk" in putting up the money for this broadband utility. PRIVATE investors..... THEY assume any risk if enough money isn't made and there isn't a sound business plan in place - just like SBC or Comcast would. Why do we neEd to discuss someone Else's investments and risk? Should we discuss your personal finances here? No. Your investments are of no tax risk to me. And the same goes for this broadband utility we are discussing.
Bonds are a legal obligation (enforceable in court) that you will pay back someone with interest, the money that you have borrowed from them. I believe these bonds are going to be LEGAL DEBTS of the government agencies issuing them! Bond holders DO NOT assume any risk!! The issuer of these bonds assumes the risk!
I'm sorry but the quote above shows me that the organizers of this project care only about themselves and not the public they are trying to claim they are looking out for!!
May I remind you that it was the BOND HOLDERS who forced @HOME to close down operations and go out of existance!!
Would you please explain to me how the Bond Holders could not force the same situation to take place if this system's performance is not up to their expectations, and what would prevent them from forcing the cities to make good on the bonds, therefore costing the tax payers more money? | |
| | | | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Batavia, IL
edit:
October 2nd, @05:58PM
| Re: Since when is it the politicians job? Honestly, I don't care how the project is financed as long as the property owners are not at risk for increased taxes, as would be the case with general obligation bonds. This is the important issue to many here in the TriCities.
Remove the general obligation bond approach and you have removed citizen liability - which is exactly what the citizen group did with their petition. The question reads (using Batavia for an example):
Shall the City of Batavia, Kane County, Illinois acquire, construct, own and/or operate a community
antenna television system, to provide cable television, internet and/or telephone services via a fiber optic
network to the home/business with said utility prohibited from using tax-backed financing?
All of the same fees any player pays, a muni also has to pay - including franchise fees - the same fees that Comcast has to pay.
We're shooting for 100% private investment. Utopia was done on about a 60/40 split of private investment and sales tax backing. We've heard of others being done in other various public/private models. We've had interest from several private investors that would like to treat this like a mortgage, meaning roughly, "It's yours but pay us interest on our investment." The reason its a safe investment for them is they know they could resell the entire asset if the cities managed to totally screw things up. Just like your home or car could be repo-ed and resold, so could the ftth plant.
But even if it did get repo-ed, the citizens would still benefit from facilities based competition for SBC and Comcast. The owners (investors) would either sell or lease the asset and somebody would offer services across the plant....We're not talking long haul fiber sitting unused along the highway...we're talking fiber to the home in three cities with municipal water and electric utilites.
As an effective catch all or "get out of jail card" if the project can't be financed - for any reason - without taking the potential hit off the property owner, then it just doesn't happen. No build. It's a win-win from a citizen point of view.
As citizens walked petition sheets to get this put on the ballot(it was not pushed by the city governments this year), and since this is an election year, I would expect this November 2nd to be the best chance we have to get the true feeling of the communities. This is an opportunity to excell. If the citizens want it, great. If they don't, great. Either way, it's democracy in action.
P.S. What happened to @HOME's assets? They were sold...they didn't just become "valueless" property...
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | |
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| mjcrocket , I could not have said it better myself.
It's not my intent to single out the Tri-cities effort here in Illinois, but since it is a local issue I am familiar with, I will use that as my example.
They beat to holy hell the notion that "no taxpayer money is at risk", but nowhere will you hear them mention the $200,000+ of public money already spent on feasibility and engineering studies. These are things SBC and Comcast would have to eat themselves if they want to set up shop in a new community.
So the "no tax money" jab is at best poor research. At worst, an outright lie. Tri-cities/Fiber For Our Future has already received well over $200,000 in public aid and the issue has not even hit the ballot yet.
And Illinois has a reputation for graft that is both legendary and well-deserved. Navy Pier in Chicago was also one of those wonderful win-win efforts that was supposed to be supported wholly by investors and user fees. When the final tab came out to more than double the projection, guess what happened? Oh yeah...city council and their checkbook rode to the rescue!
Do the Tri-cities folk honestly believe the very politicians who rubber stamped the project in the first place would actually let it go belly up? C'mon. In the true spirit of Ricky Daley (mayor of Chicago), they would cook up a deal using public dough and then hold a press conference to brag about it.
Municipal broadband is a fraud. If it truly was the wonderful utopia it's claimed to be then it could be done outside of any government involvement.
Peace,
mocycler
--
Well, that settles it! Edison the Cat doesn't want John Kerry to be President. | |
| | | | | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Batavia, IL
edit:
October 2nd, @06:31PM
| Re: Since when is it the politicians job? Good grief, Mo.
The money was spent in 2002 for the feasibility study by the cities. That study is here (»www.geneva.il.us/bb/faq.htm#2003Studies and/or here »www.cityofbatavia.net/projects/B···Plan.pdf.) No engineering study has ever been done.
The cities haven't contributed a dime to the effort this year and NEVER EVER HAS FIBER FOR THE FUTURE RECEIVED ANY FUNDING FROM THE CITIES. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A CITIZEN GROUP ONLY. FFOF HAD A TOTAL BUDGET OF $3,000 for the April 2003 referendum, most of it donated by its immediate members.
Even so, as long as it's a citizen issue, it is the cities responsibility to pay attention...that's what they are there for to start with. The city governments are there to serve the needs of their citizens.
Again, this isn't the cities putting this on the ballot, it's the 3000 citizens that signed the petitions that said put this on the ballot.
What KILLS me in all of this is that anybody on this board would LOVE to have fiber to the home. We're trying to make that happen....citizens....and you want to fight me about it? Is SBC or Comcast going to build a FTTH system in the TriCities anytime in the near future? NO! NO! NO! Then why fight the cities (initially in 2002) or the citizens (now) to do so? If they're not willing to make the investment in our communities, then GET OUT OF THE WAY!
They don't need to lie and spew garbage like "fiber is untested" and "you'll never need more than 3 meg down." ( see »66.17.198.223/videos/SBC%20visit···ncil.wmv) They know they're full of it and so do we.
As to going belly up, it wouldn't have gone belly up when it was to be financed with G.O. Bonds, and it has an even lesser chance of tanking when all the investment is coming from the private markets. I think they'll (private investors) want to make darn sure they can get their money out before they agree to put it in.
Go to »www.tricitybroadband.com/movie.htm . Watch the panelists. Learn.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: Since when is it the politicians job? said by batageek :
As to going belly up, it wouldn't have gone belly up when it was to be financed with G.O. Bonds, and it has an even lesser chance of tanking when all the investment is coming from the private markets.
How do you know that this project would not have gone belly up if it was financed with G.O. Bonds? Further, how do you know with the currently proposed financing model that it has even a lesser chance of going belly up? Where do you think the money raised by G.O. Bonds comes from? For your information it will come from the very same private markets that you are now citing as your life line in this proposal!
said by batageek :
What KILLS me in all of this is that anybody on this board would LOVE to have fiber to the home. We're trying to make that happen....citizens....and you want to fight me about it? Is SBC or Comcast going to build a FTTH system in the TriCities anytime in the near future? NO! NO! NO! Then why fight the cities (initially in 2002) or the citizens (now) to do so? If they're not willing to make the investment in our communities, then GET OUT OF THE WAY!
If the current providers do not see any financial rewards for building a system that you are dreaming about, what makes you think any other company would see any financial rewards that would encourage them to attempt a project to meet your dreams? I'm sorry, but these companies and investors that you are talking about being the source of your salvation (since you think the current providers are not) are or will be concerned about only one thing, making money; nothing any different than the current providers! | |
| | | | | | | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Batavia, IL
| Re: Since when is it the politicians job? mjc:
The cities had a feasibility study done last year. In it, it was shown that the plant would make cash without ever having to tax the citizens. The cities wanted to finance the build using G.O. Bonds because they carried the lowest interest rates. With G.O. bonds, the taxpayers could be on the hook because the bonds are backed with the assets of the cities. Anyone will write bonds that are backed by property owners.
With the private investment idea, the model for operation of the utility and its expected take rates will set who invests in it. There will be no option to go back to tricity property owners (because they will be excluded) but only the physical assets of the utility. This structure will make the scrutiny of any business plan for the utility much higher because the investors know they cannot rely on the property owners to back up the investment. Obviously, the finance model will not be as cheap as a general obligation bond and will take longer to pay off, but the citizens will also assume NO RISK.
As to any other company seeing the value, because Comcast & SBC won't see a ROI in 5 to 6 years, they won't build this in the TriCities.
From a municipal point of view, the cities are looking at a long term investment that does not rely on the revenues from the plant itself for economic development. They see the businesses that come to town as the driver, as well as the obvious benefits the utility would bring to their existing water and electric utilities. The triple play just pays off the mortgage on the build.
As to the private investor(s) that could back this, they've got it easy. They don't have to do anything (except their homework upfront), get to sit back while the muni runs the show, and get to collect on a long term investment....just like a bank collects on your mortgage.
I'll grant you, many muni builds have not been financed this way, but that's what we're shooting for here. And if for some reason it can't be financed this way (remember the referendum question mandates the use of "non-tax backed financing"), then it won't be done. End of story.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| You've missed the point completely of what we are doing in the Tri-Cities and what the question is the citizens have put forth for the Nov. 2nd referendum.
I don't think you understand who Fiber For Our Future is (a citizens group who supports economic development in our area through FTTH and FTTB builds). We can't make any decisions for the cities regarding financing a stand-alone utility that would provide video, voice, and data. They would decide who would be the ultimate private investors etc.... They would, however, be bound by the wording of the referendum question which specifically prohibits the use of tax-backed financing.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | dfinn6230
join:2004-09-19
Cary, NC
| I agree with you in theory. However, broadband deployment involves the act of digging trenches to lay cable/fiber on public lands. If 20 cable companies did that at the same time, there would be problems and this solution would be very inefficient for society as a whole. Satellite involves the usage of a limited natural resource called electromagnetic sprectrum that must be regulated to some extent, otherwise everyone would be trying to use the same frequencies at the same time and the result would be no useable spectrum. DSL has problems to cable. BPL interferes with other areas of the sprectrum resource. But there are many problems involved with government regulation, the most serious of those being incompetence coupled with politics, which is in the same league with, but someone more desireable than, greed in its purest form. | |
| fiberrocks
join:2002-08-04
Moses Lake, WA
|  Gigabit Ethernet to the home
»www.gcpud.org/zipp
It's truly Internet heaven.
Currently, we are at an internal political standstill that is preventing further construction.
Doh! | |
| | cubedude
join:2003-08-11
Katy, TX
| Re: Gigabit Ethernet to the home They're laying fiber and then providing 1.5mbps connections?
From their site:
How fast is the Internet on the Zipp Network?
Average connection speeds for the Zipp Network have been charted in excess of 1.5 Mbps. Compare that to the 28 to 42 Kbps speed offered through traditional dial-up connections! Zippier than ISDN. Zippier than some DSL. Zipp is the fastest connection in the county.
| |
| jayperkins
join:2001-05-19
Brookhaven, MS | Don't worry As soon as there is full successful deployment, politcios will be rushing in claiming credit for the idea. Regulators will storm in to regulate and tax it, and then all will wish it was kept a big secret. | |
| 
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| Nothing new... a few thoughts and analogies... In the early 20th century, lawmakers were stunned by the sometimes creepingly slow deployment of electrical service. The result were thousands of municipal power plants, the Rural Electrification Authority, and thousands of miles of physical plant installed by local, state and federal agencies. And the long-term result has been that the United States boasts virtual 100% availability of electrical service.
The REA still exists, I believe (I might be wrong), although what they might actually DO, nowdays, somewhat stumps me. Virtually NO municipal power plants are operating, anymore, at least under the municipality's management. They were mostly sold off, along with their outside plants, decades ago to private sector power companies. But the program paid off, and it benefitted everybody, including the providers in the private sector, over the long term.
I've compared, very roughly, deploying highspeed internet and fibop with electrical service. The similarity I point to is the concept of "natural monopoly." Usually, the metaphor arises in political discussions regarding what in many areas amount to telco and cableco monopoly status in new-tech services. Welllll... first question we have to ask is, if this is so cutting edge, and so profitable in the long term, why, then, aren't we seeing a rush of entrepreneurs starting new enterprises to fill in the service gaps the big guys can't service, yet? And, by extension, if it IS so profitable, why don't the guys with the virtual monopolies rush to wire the nation, top to bottom and side to side?
The answer lies in the nature of the business. Like telephony and electrical service, the outside plants are staggeringly expensive to build, and staggeringly expensive to maintain. "Staggering" means that even with their billions in raw revenues, if the big providers (like the telcos) want to build just a few hundred square miles of outside plant, they need a bond issue. Trying to fund it "cash on the table" from their cash flows could bankrupt the entire company on a single deployment. Telcos and power suppliers live and die based on their Fitch and S&P credit ratings, by way of example. And cost recovery and depreciation are measured in decades, not years. In many ways, these are forces of scale. And where there is virtual monopoly status, however defined, monopolists have little or no incentive to toss in large amounts of money for nominal returns -- and in their defense, even a "natural monopolist" might find wiring up a hundred square miles with 1.2 potential subscribers per square mile risky beyond the massive economic risk they've decided to assume in return for their natural monopoly status.
This was where the municipal provider model came in in the early days of wiring up America for light and phones. Most small towns had a private telco, once upon a time. A very few still do. But nobody wanted to build a power plant. A lot of towns, even some major cities, built one, and what they and the small telcos built became the base infrastructure much of our cumulative outside plants still utilize. I see no reason a similar model can't serve us just as well, long-term, in deploying new communications technologies. Nor do I see it as threatening the providers. If Mohamed won't come to the mountain, we'll bring the mountain to him. If RBOC won't come to Hooterville, we'll bring Hooterville... all wired and ready... to RBOC.
Ultimately, the same forces that make these sorts of enterprises "natural monopolies" in the marketplace make municipal operation of them, in a long run analysis, too costly and management-intensive. Ultimately, most municipally operated utilities get sold off, eventually, to the private sector. Even water, these days, is being taken over by regional mega-suppliers, and mostly just the biggest cities and remotest small towns still run their own water purification and delivery plants.
What is a natural monopoly? It's a business that's so expensive and/or loaded with risks to enter and stay in that only a potential promise of extraordinary returns in a long-term sense would incentivize the costs and risk associated with deploying and maintaining the business for anything resembling a sane or prudent businessperson. Even though nobody says in so many words, "you can't enter this business," only highly capitalized, risk taking investors want to enter it... and a few madmen with delusions regarding the investment and the work involved. A natural monopoly is your electric company... your gas company... your telco.
In a typical situation, if you have a hugely profitable grocery store, for example, you can open one in Hooterville and, if it isn't real profitable, well, all you have to do is pay the lease to Sam Drucker, keep the shelves stocked, and cut back to a single manager/clerk. If the store flops belly up, cancel the lease, sell off the stock and move on to Pixley, and a better market. You just can't do that with a utility. So you never even seriously put Hooterville on the master plan, unless you're forced to, or the town delivers you a ready to fly, out of the box plant to take over. And no small time provider wants to do it, after they finish their business plan and realize how much it's going to cost to do it, and how long it's going to take to recover that. At least, not unless that entity is subsidized in some way.
That's one way of looking at it, at any rate. If the providers don't want in, we need to deploy availability of this technology universally, if we want to enjoy its full promise and benefits. The only way of doing that is creating a physical plant sea to sea, border to border, that doesn't serve only the urban and suburban "elite," but that serves the whole nation, including rural areas. Municipal intervention, or at least incentivization, is necessary to make serving the rural markets more attractive in the longer term to the providers. Left to the forces of supply and demand, as is true of most any natural monopoly business, you're going to get two areas: the densely populated, profitable, high demand areas that the provider can afford to service at a priority, and the thinly populated, unprofitable, low demand areas, that the provider sees (rightly, from a pure business perspective) as being a lower priority, higher cost of deployment regions.
... just a few thoughts. 
--
Semper Eadem
I read Shakespeare and the Bible, and I can shoot dice. That's what I call a liberal education. | |
| | | |
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| I stand corrected. There are virtually none around here, although I've driven past the hulks of a lot of old municipal power plants in small towns around the area. Evidently, then, the REA may still have some duties and functions, too. But my point stands; they did (do) what the big providers often can't or won't, build out underserved areas and areas where private sector companies couldn't provide a reasonable rate if they could provide service. And contribute to the virtual 100% availability of the original "plug and play," the electrical outlet.
The same thing can work with new tech.
... and it's by no means a new idea, by no means uncharted territory, nor by any means a "completely new concept." It's worked before in similar situations, it can work again.
--
Semper Eadem
I read Shakespeare and the Bible, and I can shoot dice. That's what I call a liberal education. | |
| 
antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
edit:
October 2nd, @02:40PM
| Verizon DSL deployment for Pennsylvania
Click on image |
Dslreports.com Forum No-Spin zone starts here.
»www.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com | |
| | | |
|
|
America: Wiring Itself
