 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Illegal quote:
Security had inferred, from the amount of bandwidth David had consumed ... cut him off and charged him a $175 early termination fee.
Aside from falsely advertising their service as being unlimited, isn't Verizon also breaking the law by charging the subscriber a cancellation fee even though Verizon did the cancelling?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: Illegal I would think so. Perhaps he should bill verizon $1,750 cancellation fee  | |
| | | 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | Re: Illegal Maybe Verizon is applying reverse psychology? Charging the customer for violation of the TOS when none applies. I do agree that Verizon should not charge for cancelling if the are the ones that did the cancelling. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
whajusa
@charter.com
| Re: Illegal > but it's clearly stated in the TOS that
> Verizon can do whatever they want.
and this is *exactly* what's wrong with licenses, terms and agreements you can't negotiate.. corporations shove unreasonable terms and blanket provisions or restrictions down consumers throats, and given the lack of competition in so many areas, it's either agree to these fascist terms or go without. this applies to everything from cell phone or isp agreements to shrinkwrap software licenses. | |
| | | Randall_Lind
join:2004-01-24
Saint Petersburg, FL
edit:
October 6th, @06:25AM
| Verizon (GTE at the time) is a crappy company as far as dealing with people is concern.
I remember when I had ISDN only had it for 30 days and every night from 6pm-7am they would turn off my phone so I couldn't use ISDN or even make a phone call.
They had tech come out to check out the issues and then threaten me with $85 a hour charges for what was there problem if you ask me. They blame my computer,modem and even me for the issues. This was by the way my first month.
I had 128mb ISDN with 2 phone lines 64mb each. It took them a couple weeks to fix my ISDN line then they announce to all 128mb ISDN users they were going to charge a $1 an hour if we used the 2nd line.
They only wanted me to use 1 phone line for ISDN even through I was paying for 2 lines for ISDN services. My bill back then was $80 for ISDN. So I cancel and got Roadrunner which was new back then and way faster. Roadrunner was also half the price.
So they charge me $300 for canceling and as far as I know they still want it today and I told them I will pay it when hell freezes.
My friend works for Verizon and he said they now charge $200 to install a phone jack up from $85. He said they are losing so many people to cell phones and voip services they just jack up prices on everything and seem not to care about their customers base. | |
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| I see....
A Verizon Lawyer looking for a new definition for unlimited. |
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | | biteman
join:2001-02-02
Grand Rapids, MI
| Re: I see.... This kind of marketing has been going on for years. I worked for a small ISP once years ago said unlimited access BUT in reality it was something like 280 hr's a month. They did not expect people would use more than that.  | |
| | | 
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| No wounder there is a mistake when they were looking for a new definition of unlimited... looks like that dude sees a graphics card, nVidia style or something... dual DVI.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal | |
| | 
clorets
join:2001-12-12
Oklahoma City, OK
edit:
October 5th, @10:59AM
| Re: Illegal edit :eh nm i was thinking of sprint | |
| | 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| 166 gigs is kinda ridiculous. Even some ISPs would cut you off for that.
Maybe they should change it to pay by the gig at maybe $1 a gig over 20 gigs. VZ downloads shouldn't count since you pay for it already.
Do business account users have this issue? Probably not since they are buying tons of usage across lots of users. | |
| | | 
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: Illegal 166 GIGS? I think you misread "166MB per day". | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| limited choice? DO YOU REALLY need to PAY verizon for what you can usually find for FREE via wifi?
WTF! Let Verizon start competing with "FREE" and municipal wireless in the space and see if they can get their huge "V" around a fair price/terms of service for wireless broadband!!! | |
| | 
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: limited choice? said by tmc8080  :DO YOU REALLY need to PAY verizon for what you can usually find for FREE via wifi? WTF! Let Verizon start competing with "FREE" and municipal wireless in the space and see if they can get their huge "V" around a fair price/terms of service for wireless broadband!!! Not everyone has a wifi hotspot near buy for everything they do.
The nature of some people's work puts them in situations where they can trot off to the local coffee shop and use the wifi...
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Victims Oh well, then I guess businesses DESERVE TO GET PRICE GOUGED then.. this is NOT a viable product for residential customers, and it should not be targeted to that market.
The hope was that competition and improvement in services would open up the customer base to include residential customers.. instead companies are moving AWAY FROM and not TOWARDS that goal. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by tmc8080 :DO YOU REALLY need to PAY verizon for what you can usually find for FREE via wifi? WTF! Let Verizon start competing with "FREE" and municipal wireless in the space and see if they can get their huge "V" around a fair price/terms of service for wireless broadband!!! What are you talking about? I live in NYC I get 140 SSIDs, 95% are WEPed and the unless you have a yagi the size of your leg your laptop is drowned out since wifi only has 3 non overlaping channels. When you dont have node congestion, they are all WEPed, or you'll never get a IP or DHCP response. I BT tether to my VZ Moto E815 and run the risk of getting terminated (i was threated at 4 gigs a month, now i do 500mb a month). | |
| Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | 5 GB cap not a viable alternative to wireline But the industry says wireless broadband competition is a clear alternative to cable and DSL. Thus there is no duopoly.
So clearly this article must be wrong | |
| kevinloydw
join:2001-08-18
Sheridan, OR | 1900 or 800 does not change download bandwidth Those are frequency spectrum. Only difference is 1900 is normally a newer tower, so is designed to handle more data/etc. The frequency does not affect how much bandwidth can be pumped through it.
KLW | |
| | 
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
Ajax, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: 1900 or 800 does not change download bandwidth I think the information means that VZ's 800mhz towers are all full (relatively anyway), and Sprint's newer 1900mhz towers are just starting to get used comparatively. Since VZ's 800mhz towers are at capacity, they're struggling, where as Sprint hasn't filled their 1900mhz spectrum with the same number of users. So while both are capable of doing the same thing / pumping out the same capacity, one is less taxed atm.
Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.
--
....where's my fiber? | |
| | | 
Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
·Speakeasy
| Re: 1900 or 800 does not change download bandwidth You have a point, but Sprint has more towers than probably any other CDMA carrier that I know of in the states. So they have more capacity and newer towers especially after the Sprint-Nextel merger. Instead of selling those Nextel towers I heard they where going to upgrade them and use it to expand the network. Which was part of the 7 m(b)illion network upgrade plan. But I might be wrong as well I just heard this from a Sprint-Nextel investor call. | |
| | | | stonecolddsl
join:2004-01-07
Sarasota, FL
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Rapid Systems, Inc.
| Re: 1900 or 800 does not change download bandwidth Actually Alltel (The Largest Regional Provider in the US) has the largest physical network of towers. This is after they bought Western Wireless aka (Cell One is most markets)They have not postioned them selves as a roaming cash cow. As Western Wireless not only have CDMA towers but GSM transmitters on the same towers. They do beat sprint and verizon combined in number of towers and square footage that those towers cover. | |
| | | | jc1350
join:2004-09-23
| There's more to it than just frequency. The "protocols" for how the tower handles each "call" is different and is more efficient on the newer 1900 Mhz towers. So, each 1900 Mhz tower can handle more data in a given time than an 800 Mhz tower. At least that's what I read. I don't understand the technical details as I'm not a communications expert.
--
DW6000 | Galaxy 3C - 1307 | multiple OSs | Linksys BEFW11S4 | |
| | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: 1900 or 800 does not change download bandwidth said by jc1350 :There's more to it than just frequency. The "protocols" for how the tower handles each "call" is different and is more efficient on the newer 1900 Mhz towers. So, each 1900 Mhz tower can handle more data in a given time than an 800 Mhz tower. At least that's what I read. I don't understand the technical details as I'm not a communications expert. "Older" 800 mhz towers tend to use older equipment with a smaller back plane capacity then the newer towers.
Many of the new towers have fiber run to them to mux in the location services each tower must have. These systems have newer gear with a higher back plane capacity.
Older systems are only capable of 30 or 60 mbit back planes, because the equipment is rather expensive to replace they usually try and mux 2 or 3 devices onto one fiber run. They also tend to cycle equipment. Old equipment from a metro doesn't get eol'ed it gets recycled into very suburban areas where it is a increase in capacity to what they had previously.
Back to reasons ! your basically pushing 90 mbit down a 10 gig pipe. The 10 gig equipment is very expensive and since Verizon wireless is making great numbers it is tough to spend on new equipment and justify the upgrades to the bean counters.
Verizon doesn't eol cycle equipment that's why they have a very reliable network. They actually have spare equipment around to replace the old stuff if it breaks.
And yes frequency does make a difference depending on the modulation and other functions the switches provide.
The 850 mhz spectrum can not support the modulation a 1900 mhz slot can also. Well it can but not well. There is so much you can do to provide more bandwidth in one slot but it gets pricey to do. And at this point verizon data services are just breaking even.
Evdo equipment is very pricey at this point. 4 to 5 years when evdo starts to get a better foot hold equipment costs will come down. But it won't unless people start actually using it and that is when verizon punishes. Kind of short sighted eh ?
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| said by Rickez :Will the day ever come when these people verizon, sprint and who ever will just sell us what they really have to offer? I have had 3 cell carriers here in little ol' three rivers ma. They all suck! but when ordering the phones/service I am told how wonderful the service is here. I for one no I will never hit any unlimited cap because I can not hold a connection long enough. "Verizon is imposing caps because 50% or more of their network runs over 800mhz towers, which are already at capacity." We are force feed Verizon's silly ads non stop with that stupid technician guy, maybe he should get his ass to work and throw up some more towers. I know this post is silly, but WTF, I just want to pay for stuff that works. Actually its very difficult to "throw up" towers.
First you need land. Mass, is very expensive to buy land and the people who have it want to lease it and rape pillage and plunder because they have it.
Second zoning. Not all areas are zoned for a tower. And many areas won't change the zones because they fear damage to their environment.
Third. NIMBY principal. They want great service but don't want the tower in their field of view. They can only do so much to hide it. Nimby is not in my back yard in case you are wondering.
Last and not least local politics. Some politicians want to be greased to get the ok to build, while some areas every one is adamantly against it. Like a small city near you. About an hour down 91 near conn. They have 0 service by any provider because they are so "political" that they don't want a tower to disturb the sanctuary of the river, yet they have a radio stations tower there that could be leased to cover the area or even the tower extended about 75 feet higher and it could service the whole city and surrounding country in a 15 mile radius.
As far as paying for stuff that works ! haha that is funny this is modern society everything is always best effort. We are just lucky enough to have it just work when we need it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
edit:
October 5th, @11:27AM
| It's fraud, not puffery It's simply fraud, no matter what the fine print says. A reasonable person, which is what the court standard would be, would believe that the word unlimited means unlimited. And a reasonable person would not identify use of an unlimited service as damaging the network as in the fine print of the TOS.
Verizon should say 5GB a month, which is fairly generous, if that is what the limit is, and should be fined by the FTC as well as refund hardware fees they received when people signed up for the fraud if they continue to defraud people.
Comcast and other operators in similar industries who used to do this (sell limited use services as "unlimited") changed their advertising practices and it's time for Verizon to do the same or face VERY EXPENSIVE consequences. IOW, they should not profit from their illegal activities. | |
| | sgossard34
Premium
join:2004-08-26
Philadelphia, PA
| Re: It's fraud, not puffery Agreed.
I am in the process right now of finding a mobile broadband solution for my users. I have used cingular for awhile and was very unhappy with the slightly above dial-up speed.
I was planning on going to Verizon EVDO but with this BS "unlimited" tactic still being used I will go else where.
Anyone tried the new Sprint cards supporting EVDO Rev. A? | |
| | | 
Cjaiceman
join:2004-10-12
Aurora, CO
·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| Re: It's fraud, not puffery I have a Sprint PPC-6700 that I tether to my laptop all the time and I will get anywhere from 320Kbits/sec to 1.3Mbits/sec, depending on if I'm moving, how strong my signal is, and what I'm doing. One other thing I would like to point out is that Sprint is MUCH more relaxed about what you do on their service. VW says basically e-mail a web surfing is it. Spring allows and actually encourages streaming music, video clips, VPN and other items of the such. That being said, Sprints coverage is much less than VW's coverage area. | |
| | jc1350
join:2004-09-23
| My Verizon EVDO bill clearly states:
Current
data plan: Unlimited Mb Allowance
Unit allowance unlimited kb
That is bandwidth no matter what VZW claims. VZW claims "unlimited" refers to access (as in connect anytime you want, as long as you want - just don't USE the service). Quite frankly, each department within VZW has no clue what the other is saying. I check via email with customer support about this. Their reply (which I kept should I get a letter) states there are NO limits and VZW is not sending out termination letters. I directed them to the previous article here and at an EVDO-centric site. They replied to that stating again there are no limits for the "unlimited" plan.
--
DW6000 | Galaxy 3C - 1307 | multiple OSs | Linksys BEFW11S4 | |
| | | 
Pyrion
Liquid Metal Nanomorph
join:2001-12-01
Poway, CA
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Re: It's fraud, not puffery Ask them for that guarantee in writing.
I'm fairly certain if you just managed to breach the 5GB/month unofficial limitation that you wouldn't get kicked off the network, but if you were using the service constantly for a month or more (easily breaching the 5GB in the first day?) then they'd kick you off the service. It's marketed to business users for a reason: they expect only the basics out of business users. Email, web access and maybe some VPN access thrown in the mix.
Residential users are probably better served by open wifi. On that note, people really need to learn to lock down their wifi routers, unless they specifically intend to offer a public service.
--
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by squid7 :It's simply fraud, no matter what the fine print says. A reasonable person, which is what the court standard would be, would believe that the word unlimited means unlimited. And a reasonable person would not identify use of an unlimited service as damaging the network as in the fine print of the TOS. Sorry, but you are wrong. In court case after court case, ad infinitum, fine print is ruled legal. Don't like that - tough, it is the law.
Verizon should say 5GB a month, which is fairly generous, I agree. And in the case quoted in the Washington Post, they did list that in the ad.
Comcast and other operators in similar industries who used to do this (sell limited use services as "unlimited") changed their advertising practices and it's time for Verizon to do the same A good policy to be up front in the advertising and doing that should make for happier customers, I agree. But it isn't illegal to bury the facts in the fine print.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
edit:
October 5th, @01:42PM
| Re: It's fraud, not puffery If the stipulation in the fine print is clearly illegal, or fraudulent, no court will uphold it. You cannot defraud me just because you got me to sign a contract in which I agree to be defrauded.
Even a contract cannot make illegal conduct legal.
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox | |
| | | 
HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by squid7 :It's simply fraud, no matter what the fine print says. A reasonable person, which is what the court standard would be, would believe that the word unlimited means unlimited. And a reasonable person would not identify use of an unlimited service as damaging the network as in the fine print of the TOS. Sorry, but you are wrong. In court case after court case, ad infinitum, fine print is ruled legal. Don't like that - tough, it is the law. Verizon should say 5GB a month, which is fairly generous, I agree. And in the case quoted in the Washington Post, they did list that in the ad. Comcast and other operators in similar industries who used to do this (sell limited use services as "unlimited") changed their advertising practices and it's time for Verizon to do the same A good policy to be up front in the advertising and doing that should make for happier customers, I agree. But it isn't illegal to bury the facts in the fine print. However false advertising IS illegal and so is bait and switch. The consumer BELIEVES he is getting and buying "UNLIMITED" service. However, further inspection shows otherwise. Case in point-Listerine-who for years touted the slogan "The cold and sore throat remedy"--FTC made them change that. »www.poznaklaw.com/articles/falsead.htm
--
All Things Art
»kkart.deviantart.com | |
| | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| Problem is they don't state in the so-called fine print that there is a 5GB limit, only that your use can't do harm to their network. Now they want to say that someone who uses 5.1GB in a month no matter what time of day or where they're located is harming their network...while they advertise their service as unlimited use. That doesn't fly.
And you're wrong about the fine print. Contracts are found 'unconscionable' all the time. A court can void a contract or part of a contract if the court feels the party to the contract was misled, no matter what the terms of the contract actually stated. It's not always easy to do, but in the case of Verizon, they're advertising unlimited (which is a legal offer) and then changing the offer in fine print while offering no consideration for the change. | |
| 
Jameson
1010
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
clubs: | Obvious Lets just face it. Sprints EVDO is better than Verizons. End of discussion. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
|
fees-06
@vif.net
| about time about time the press ran with this... it's too bad it takes so damn long though... look at cell phone with "SYSTEM ACCESS FEE"... it's BULL! and I found out that it will be going up from (Bell Mobility) 6.95 / month to 8.95 / month.
And, I think, EVERY provider has the same bull$hit fee, so leaving because of it is pointless... unless you can have them drop it from your bill i guess... that will be my next attempt once i see it go up.
they must think that people just won't leave, otherwise they will have to get a new number, I don't need my number that bad. (i'm not sure if cell phone number portability is available in ontario.) | |
| | mr weather
Premium
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON
| Re: about time said by fees-06 :
(i'm not sure if cell phone number portability is available in ontario.)
It's not and probably won't be for at least another year.
Back in the analog days there really was a licence fee each subscriber had to pay for their cellular service. The Canadian government quietly dropped the requirement but the carriers (Bell, Rogers, etc.) kept the fee for themselves and morphed it into a "system access fee". And to this day you'll get CSR's who swear the SAF is government mandated. 
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes | |
| | | kc5fog
join:2005-09-09
Hitchcock, TX
| "Unlimitied" data plans hazardous LOL I hope other networks don't listen to the head of RIM.
He claims that "Unlimited" data plans are hazardous to network expansion.
»news.com.com/RIM+CEO+cautious+ab···983.html
CHICAGO--The president and co-CEO of Research In Motion, maker of BlackBerry devices, warned the industry Monday that allowing people unlimited wireless data use will have a devastating effect on wireless innovation.
In a keynote address given at GlobalComm, a telecommunications trade show here, Mike Lazaridis told attendees that carriers need to be very careful how they roll out wireless Internet services.
"No matter how you slice it, bandwidth is not free," he said. "If we don't set up economic incentives now, research and innovation for new networks won't happen for the future. We want companies to be encouraged to make efficient use of the network, so we don't cross over and use up all the capacity of the networks."
Wireless operators have spent billions of dollars over the past several years upgrading their networks to 3G, or third-generation networks, so they can handle more voice calls and advanced data services. Carriers have already begun offering new applications, such as mobile Internet browsing, e-mail downloads and TV viewing to drive revenue.
Currently, all three of the major mobile carriers--Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless and Sprint--offer all-you-can-eat wireless Internet usage plans for a set price of about $80 per month. Sprint and Cingular also offer plans that charge people for the capacity they use each month.
But Lazaridis warned that as wireless data usage becomes more pervasive, these unlimited plans could have a devastating effect on the industry, since even the most basic data applications eat up more bandwidth than voice calls.
For example, an average voice plan that includes 500 minutes of airtime uses about 45MB of capacity per user per month, he said. By contrast, a user with an unlimited data plan who watches 15 minutes of video per day, reads at least three articles from a mobile Web site such as CNN.com, and checks e-mail using his company's virtual private network uses about 1.6GB worth of capacity per month. Translated into voice minutes, this amount of data usage would require roughly 20,000 minutes per month, he said.
"How do you handle pricing of these services?" he said. "The voice network was built for efficiency, and as a result, it's been properly priced and has predictable business models. We need to encourage conservation of spectrum and encourage users to use the network more efficiently for data, too."
He used Research In Motion as an example of how application developers could achieve this goal. He said roughly 90 percent of BlackBerry users use less than 2MB of data per month, which translates to about 22 minutes of airtime per month.
But some experts disagree with Lazaridis' contention. Jeff Pulver, the founder of Pulver Media, said that unlimited bandwidth use in the wireless world is needed because access to the network is what spurs innovation.
"I appreciate what he is saying," he said. "But he is discounting the future and the natural evolution of technology to provide more wireless bandwidth."
But Lazaridis said that unfettered use will destroy the economics of offering wireless data, discouraging carriers from future investments in new technologies.
"You have to let the industry grow by allowing the carriers to make money," he said. "The message here isn't that we shouldn't do new things, but that we need to have incentives for efficient usage. When you have a fiber running into your home, it is its own little universe with dedicated bandwidth, but wireless spectrum is something that we all have to share."
. | |
| | | | 
Vodka2
join:2005-12-20
Sacramento, CA
| Re: "Unlimitied" data plans hazardous LOL He must be thinking "Thanks for the payoff".
My figures estimate your voice on 500 minutes of usage is closer to 30MB than the 45MB quoted by RIM (and I used to work at cell providers, too... not just cable and DSL)
None the less I'd have to say this guy is super alarmist.
OMG THEY'RE USING 20,000 MINUTES A MONTH! NOOOO! News flash, RIM asshole... that's 20,000 minutes a month at 2 TO 8 KBITS PER SECOND.
Meanwhile Verizon is SO happy to tout it's 700 kbit/second speeds on BroadbandAccess to sell you on it.
For the record, to download 5 Gigs or 5,242,880 KB (the cutoff) on Verizon's Network... you'd have to be able to achieve 700 kbit/s (or 87.5 kbyte/s... HAH!) for exactly 998.64 minutes... or 16.644 hours.
Or, here's a better idea: DON'T SATURATE YOUR NETWORK WITH SPEEDS YOU CANNOT SUPPORT.
People will never treat data like voice 'minutes', that's why nobody intelligent is buying per-KB plans. They need to grab presentations, surf the web, keep entertained on train rides, slam out a fast email. That's also why MANY people have thousands of night and weekend minutes, and rarely use their day minutes. Myself included.
So, any cell phone geeks out here remember just how much payload data per second you can pack into the CDMA or GSM spectrum? | |
| Lee325
join:2006-12-12
New Salem, MA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Well I'm on Sprint So far my EVDO has been excellent. With no other option but Satellite, (that I had and hated) I think Verizion is going to have to change there policy, or Sprint's truly unlimited plan is going to walk all over them. Now that they offer a usb modem that any desktop computer can use, Sprint is also going after the home market, for people with limited broadband options. | |
| | | |
|
|
Verizon's Limited 'Unlimited' Tactics Getting Press
·
