Are You In Favor of Broadband Data Caps?



+ Add a Comment



Of course not. Who wants a limit to their internet plan? This will surely encounter great opposition from the public.

Shaw Capital Management




150GB is plenty of bandwidth for me, and $10 for every 50GB you go over dosen't seem too expensive. I would never use more than probably 25GB a month, but I don't use the internet for a lot of streaming services, either. I watch two or three videos on youtube usually every day, but that's it.



Such a wonderful post...




FCC Complaint?



I've had Clear for close to a year and in the beginning it was truly unlimited data. I would average 15gb a day split between 2 modems. Never a warning in sight for violating the "Acceptable Use Policy" Some days I could blaze through 50gb when the previous week had light usage. Then came months of being throttled within a inch of my life. Now the service is back to the level it was when I signed on BUT now my service has been terminated for multiple violations of the "AUP". My first violation came when I topped 100gb in a week. Alot I know but I lost my music collection to a hard drive crash but luckily I had a backup online. The next week I saw my 2nd warning come from a total of 70gb of traffic. So taking drastic measures I kept my usage down to under 3gb a day and they still violated me! In case anyone is wondering 90 percent of my traffic was during off peak hours from midnight to 6am. How can I negatively impact anyone is everyone is asleep/offline during those hours? Unlimited data? Not so much.

I tried many times to get some idea from the customer service reps as to a number I should stay below but all they would quote is that the average user only consumes 5-10gb a month. Watching 2 movies on netflix a day could kill that amount in a few days. Uverse has a 250gb cap and even 150gb is slim but manageable on regular DSL. 

Since my termination notice gives me 14 days till service interruption AND the month is billed in advance I thought what the heck let's see how far I could push my mobile hotspot and see what Clear does if anything. In the last 3 days I averaged nearly 80gb a day! LOL now that is what I call being a bandwith hog! And since it's "unlimited data" no extra charges! Well till they cancel you!



I think that it is plainly obvious that data caps are simply the ISPs way of trying to illegally circumvent net neutrality laws which were put in place to prevent them from being able to use there position as an internet provider as an unfair competitive advantage. In other words they are trying to limit peoples access to Netflix, HuluPlus, Amazon on Demand, Pandora, Various VOIP services. All of these things have two things in common. They compete with ISP's like ATT and Comcast for one. and secondly they are generally kicking there butts in the price vs performance arena. Combine that with ATT and Comcast trying to get into bed with RIAA and MPAA in trying to in effect prosecute people without them having access to due process by eliminating there internet access based on what the RIAA believes to be true is foohardy and ridiculous in the extreme.



(Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16…… Welcome to HTTP://WWW.LUCKYVOGUE.COM



Data caps are pure BULL****! The use of datacaps is just another stinking con job from ISP's not wanting to upgrade, improve and provide for an expanding market use. It's just a lazy way to charge more money for not doing anything productive. It's simple; don't upgrade to provide for market growth, keep the same old equipment and infrastructure, charge subscribers more money then cry that too much DATA is on the information highway. In a nut shell it is called monopoly and extortion. It's like saying that since elctricity use will triple we will not build more plants but will charge more money and black out areas that use more electicity. As far as I am concerned this is a no compromise situation, I as a paying customer demand speed, reliabilty and absolutely no datacaps, period! Technology is and will advance constantly.



There has been previous articles when broadband providers started placing caps on their customers.  The cap was labeled as a "fair use" act.  They would market unlimited internet, but if you read the fine print, unlimited was defined by a cap(fair use).  They claim that 2% of users will be affected because they will consume "a disproportionate amount of bandwidth". What about the other 98% doesn't even come close to the fair use/cap?  Are they going to roll over the extra GB of credit?  Is that 2% of people really bogging down the network and crashing the servers?  Is that 2% of people really taking away from the other 98%?  I don't think so, I think they are just out to screw customers over.

Back in the day of dial-up befor DSL and cable internet came around, there was never any caps on internet.  Around that time people weren't dependant on the internet to get their information.  People were still maxing out their bandwidth downloading, pirating, surfing the web in general.  There wasn't a problem with it then and it shouldn't be now.  Technology has aggressively progressed since then and will continue to do so.  When dial-up was your only option, websites were mainly text, simple pictures, and colors.  As technology increases, so will the demand for more bandwidth.

Today's businesses is driven by the internet.  Look at iTunes, Netflix, and Youtube.  You pretty much have all major TV station broadcasting their TV shows online.  Downloadable video games and DLC's are gaining popularity  Newspapers are losing business because people are getting their news from the internet.  Just about every single portable device you carry on yourself can access the internet.  Eventually everything we do will go through the internet so reaching those caps won't be hard to do if you live a internet dependant life.  I think the company is expecting a spike in internet usage and they are implementing a way to rob customers of more money.



Capping is such a turn on



I'm going to cap you all night long baby.



If my usage is consistantly under the data cap, I should not have to pay for going over once in a while.



It depends on the max of the cap. Anyone with just a 150GB cap should feel lucky.

I'm on a so-called unlimited wireless internet service. It used to be truly unlimited when I first started the service but about 3 months ago they started putting a 5GB cap on downloads. After 5GB they throttle the speed down from 1.3GB to 256kbps which sucks big time but I don't pay more for anything over 5GB.

When it was truly unlimited I was using 50 to 100GB a month, most of it watching some movies on Netflix. I can see trying to discourage bandwidth hogs which are downloading 24/7 but for someone like me, a 5GB cap is ridiculous. Hell half of that is taken up by updates, web page video ads and so on. I end up reaching the cap in 3 to 5 days.

For those who live in a rural area like I do we don't have much of a choice of broadband providers. All of the major wireless internet providers that I know of have a 5GB cap. The only local wireless internet provider charges $50 for 768kbps a month but don't mention any cap.

I don't think anyone "wants" a cap. But why can't internet providers monitor the super heavy usage customers and cap only them or start charging only them for super heavy usage.

I think it all comes down to the bottom line $$$.




"For those who live in a rural area like I do we don't have much of a choice of broadband providers."

I live in a highly populated area and we have 2 choices for broadband ISP's. Across the US I think most areas only have about 2 choices, which isn't much of a choice at all.



Canuck here: Guess what? This has been going on here in Canada for years! It is not that big of a deal. You pay for the service you think you will use and download accordingly. I pay for 80GB per month service. For this I pay $55.00 CAD. I have never gone over 80GB per month. But then again I am not downloading every torrent file or HD movie I see either. Even with netflix on my kids Wii, we still never go over 80GB per month, we come close but never over.

I think caps are fine, it makes all the online digital hoarders reduce there downloading and allows us all to have faster service!! Stop all your crying and grow up...



I know for a fact that your internet isnt 1-bit faster because of this policy. Moreover, the people who actually USE their internet could give a shit less about your on line habbits.



I'm Canadian too. Yes, it has been going on here for years, the big ISPs (which I don't use, primarily because customer service is so terrible) have been charging unfair amounts for bandwidth (the other reason I don't use them). I use a smaller ISP. I pay for 300gb of service a month. For this I pay $32. I normally do about 80 - 100 gigs a month. This is a fair price. Caps are fine if there's competition, but if there's no competition you get ripped off and might not even be able to get the amount of bandwidth you want. In my area I'm lucky because there's lots of competition. I don't know why you're so happy about being ripped off.



I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in most areas there's little to no choice for broadband. There's only two ISP's in my area, Time Warner and....AT&T. There's a lot of choice! Kind of difficult to take my business elsewhere if I don't like what Time Warner has to offer.



I call BS on that "the customers wanted it" nonsense. No one wants a limit imposed on you like back in the dirty days of Dial-up. Aren't networks today supposed to be able to handle that responsibility? I think that ISPs are not capable of handling the network traffic that is starting to arise. I think they are not able to comprehend that maybe expansion instead of capping is better (although more costly it's certainly better than annoying customers).

I was with AT&T before they started capping their network. Now I pay for basic DSL access with a cap. That irritates me beyond anything. This is exactly why I have switched to another ISP with a faster speed with no cap (although it's inevitable, I still l prefer not to be capped).



"Aren't networks today supposed to be able to handle that responsibility?"

Well that's really the kicker because you would think a service provider would be upgrading and expanding their network to handle increasing loads. One of AT&T's main reasons for wanting to buy T-Mobile is to aquire their spectrum. Yet in other articles I've read they show that Verizon has less spectrum in most areas than AT&T yet their network is much more reliable. I think AT&T is just a bad company and instead of spending money on their networks they just inpose caps and other methods to try and deter useage.



My questiion is, with Brighthouse they offer up to a  # of Mbs a second, what is the minmum?

Where is the standard minimum listed?


We are had again.




As long as the data cap isn't too low then I'm fine with it. 150GB seems on the lower end of reasonable, but I usually don't go over that anyway. Since ~98% (forgot the exact percentage) of people don't usually go over the caps, it would mean that ~98% of subscribers would get higher quality connection. That's certainly better than every else suffering because 2% of the subscribers are data nuts and stream and download 24/7.

Ultimately, if a cap helps people get higher quality connection, then I'm all for it.



i'd hate to post without reading all the comments first, but my eyes are starting to hurt from stairing at the screen.  The day my isp imposes a data cap is the day i prepair to cancel my service.  the second i get a bill saying i went over my cap, i will be right on the phone saying if you dont remove the cap, and keep my bill where it was, i'm dropping you, and taking my $180 a month elsewhere...even if elsewhere is the stone ages.  you see, its not just my internet i get from you, its also my phone, and my tv.  and i would rather be without phone interent and cable then let them get away with f$%$ing me up the a$$ without even offering me a ciggarette afterwords.  i'm so glad that i dont have to deal with at&t, comcast, time warner, or any of the other crap ass services out there that think being an isp is a game they can play...give the customer as little as possable for as much as possable.  of course, we all know that this is NOT about network preformance, its just another company trying their cheep ass tricks to try and fuck netflix out of business.  Its all about keeping tv service on cable and satellite, because the second people start getting their tv shows somewhere else, they might just cancel their tv service all together.



I think you're a an IDIOT if you say you want CAPPING for yourself.




"AT&T says so. Mark Siegel, a spokesman for AT&T, claims it's only putting data caps in place because, well, that's what its customers want, CNet reports.

"Our approach is based on customers' feedback," Seigel said. "They told us that the people who use the most should pay more, and they also told us we should make it easy for them to track their usage. We think our approach addresses these concerns."


What a joke! I seriously doubt that most customers could care less how much their neighbors pay and what their usage is unless they're hogging so much bandwidth that it's somehow slowing down their connection. This is just a bad excuse and a poor attempt at justification for a cap. They're just a bad company all the way around.



If you don't like a cap, find another provider.  If eventually, no capless services exist, there was not enough demand.   Free market, people.  Geez...



A Free Market is non-existant in a sea of BS. Hence, the BS, rather than improvements.



Government endorsed monopolies can hardly be considered a free market. If it wasn't for government interference in the market these companies wouldn't be able to abuse their customers the way they do. So, of course we complain. We're all getting a raw deal and we know it. Don't try to pretend that what is happening here even resembles a free market, because it doesn't.



ISP's are greedy bastards, and it is extremely inexpensive to upgrade the systems to handle more data. The upgrade is done on the backend, not the last mile to the house, which is expensive. IT costs pennies to perform this upgrade, but like cell carriers, they rather charge exorbitant fees, than address the actual issues and invest their billion dollar profits to fix the issue. People like you who state that we should find a different carrier if we do not like caps, are short sighted at best, and ignorant at worst. I download ALL my software digitally, including my OS, Office suite, Server OS games, I stream movies and music from Hulu and Netflix. I subscribe to other services as well, and do exceed these data caps imposed by Comcast and AT&T. So far my provider has not instituted caps, put I would be one pissed of hombre if they do, as no where in my contract does it state I am limited to the amount I can download every month. A class action lawsuit would put an end to caps pretty quickly.



Actually it's not all that inexpensive, depending on the type of upgrade being done, there's excavation charges, there's buying land rights or at least usage options, laying copper, laying fiiber, coordinating the field DSLAMs with the systems at the POTS, and doing all that without disrupting existing servcice wherever possible... (fair disclosure I was a DSL support tech for a while)

However, obviously a provider like Comcast, which just bought its own ENTERTAINMENT EMPIRE can afford to do the work, they just don't want to when they can pocket the cash instead.



Sure, and if you don't like the Gate-Rape, find a different airport.  Security theather, people.  Geez...

And if you don't like your health insurance, find a different provider.  Free market, people.  Geez...

And if you don't like your public water provider, find a different one... Geez...

And if you don't like your electricity provider, find a different one... Geez...


Thanks for the oh-so-helpful advice and the lesson in free-market economics.




Yep, the lack of choice when it comes to selecting an ISP in your area is crazy. I'm happy with Charter, and thankful I don't have to deal with those greedy asshats at AT&T.



unfortunately in my case that would require to move to a different town.

that argument is worthless when the "providor"(comcast in this case) has a monopoly on the entire area.....



"Our approach is based on customers' feedback," Seigel said. "They told us that the people who use the most should pay more, and they also told us we should make it easy for them to track their usage. We think our approach addresses these concerns."

Fucking lies. God damn lies. Fuck you and fuck your bitch ass cunt execs and fake surveys. Transferring a single GB of data costs them one cent. One god damn cent. You know how much they charge if I go over my 100GB limit? A dollar per GB. I understand that network development and maintenance costs money, but this is a joke. There is absolutely no need for these ridiculously low caps. I'm OK with my 100GB as I barely ever even get close to that. Maybe once I sign up for streaming media or something, but at the moment, my monthly offsite backup has the biggest impact at just under 30GB. Maybe a Steam game or two adds another ten gigs or so.

I really don't mind them putting down reasonable limits, the problem is, some ISPs are not being reasonable at all. They are stopping innovation to make money of almost pure profits.



first of all, to all those saying "bandwidth is not a commodity and can't be used up" go back to highschool. It I am an ISP, and I have a network serving Anytown USA, Zipcode 12345... and there exists on that network a switch that can pass a maximum of one terabyte of data a second, then that is a finite amount. it means whether it's two hundred people with 20 gig connections or a thousand people with one gig connections, the bandwidth can theoretically all be used up at any one time, even though the data itself never stops coming in or going out. Think of it like the plumbing in your house, if everyone in the house turns on their sinks and flushes their toilets at the same time, there's not enough water left to take a shower, even though your house continues to recieve water at the same rate form the city/well/sistern.

Now.. as to the CONCEPT of a bandwidth cap. It's like Communism or Representative Democracy: It sounds good on paper, but in practice your empowering a few schmucks to make decisions in your collective best interest, and in reality, they are instead going to make decisions in their best interest instead, because it's easier to screw a stranger you never see than screw yourself and your family.

So the problem exists not in the cap itself, but in the motives of the people enfocing it. Rather than build out the infrastructure to actually supply the usage they are advertising, they find it far more profitable to sell you something, and then penalize you for making use of it; and pocket the difference between what they are advertising and what they are actually capable of delivering.


Sort of like if the city tells you it's capable of supplying you one hundred gallons of water at any time and selling you a water based on that promise, or a 50 gallon package, or a ten gallon package.  But if everyone actually used that, the pipes would run dry because the city doesn't have and won't invest in, the pumps needed to actually supply that promised and advertised service.



Sure, if that ISP never upgraded their network there will be a fixed amount of throughput that their servers can handle. As more people come online, the load will increase on the ISP. However, those added people are paying you more money which you can invest in expanding your capacity. Thus rewarding your customers with greater speed and reliabiliy which will facilitate them to keep paying for your ISP service . Since the US ranks very low among modern countries in bandwidth, it's probably safe to assume less and less of this is going on. 

Imagine you have a pizza shop:

You start out with one oven and that can serve a certain number of people in a timely fashion. Eventually you get so busy that you can't make enough pizza for everyone in a reasonable amount of time.

ISP solution -> Limit the amount of pizza people can order and probably lose business(AT&T).

Logical solution -> Increase your pizza making capacity by investing in a second oven and increase your business by making more pizzas at a quicker rate. This will lead to increase customer satisfaction and increased revenue if done correctly.


Sure some of the dynamics are different, but the two situations are not that much different. 


Secondly, Communism is more of an economic system and Rep. Democracy is more of a governmental system. Both systems clearly have their own unique problems that cannot completely be avoided. However, the two systems are designed to address two totally different issues. Comm. vs Capital. is more of an apples to apples comparison.                              







Bandwidth cap = communism. Finite resources spread amongst the bujoi.Take it or leave it.

No bandwidth cap, competitive pricing, adding infrastructure/adding more customers = capitalism. Only so many slices you can get from a pie, so add another pie!... you'd be dumb to leave it.

I think the problem here is either lack of competition, too much govt regulation, or somebody paid off politicians which in turn set pro-isp policies at the FCC. Or most likely a combination of all the above.



I live in canada and, well can only get one ISP. Eastlink. No caps. high speed. hardley any downtime. I usally get 600 KB/s down and 50KB/s up. an that is there mid range service plan and its $40 a month. Personaly I cannot do anything knowing there is a cap wich i will fill. (I looked at my router and I use just over 60GB a month) I say no to caps, the internet is free, why even pay a fee to acess it?



For $50-$60 a month, after the 1st year I should be a stockholder, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

You're a loyal customer of an ISP for many years and now they want to cap your data, slap you with a penalty for going over? Instead of capping they should be expanding infrastructure. Can't compete, get out of the game. 

Any other businesses out there act like this to their customers??? 



yup, the packaged meat industry... they couldn't grow chickens and pigs big enough to create ever-increase breast and thigh portion sizes demanded by the market. so instead, they started artificially increasing the weight of their products by injecting them with water and calling it "a flavour enhancer" in order to out-weigh the competition and continue to be able to advertise having the biggest, plumpest cuts of meat.

its why I only purchase meat from the butcher counter now. I got tired of watching 20% of my paycheck go into the grease trap after cooking a pork chop.



I'm fine with tiered speeds, but if I pay for a given upstream and downstream speed, I should be able to saturate my upstream and downstream speeds continually for any period in which I pay for them.  if the company can't provide that, they shouldn't offer the service. 

At the same time, I believe that any company offering tiered service levels is well within their right to offer a tier or two with a data cap for a lower rate, so long as there's an uncapped offering.

Right now, comcast has a theoretical cap, which I go over every month.  I never get cut off, I never get warning e-mails, and I never get threatening letters.  I also enable encryption in my bit-torrent client and throttle the traffic to a continual trickle.  As long as the cap is theoretical, I'm fine with it, when that changes, I'll be looking to either upgrade to an "Unlimited" plan, or switch to another carrier, even if it costs more.

the whole issue boils down to companies either delivering, or not, what they have agreed to provide, and using obscure legalese and clauses burried in massive documents to weasel their way out of what would be an otherwise obvious obligation.



First things first, making me create an account just to post a comment? LAME.  I also refuse to use my facebook login because they already have enough info about me without knowing what things I am reading.


Now, this, just like Microsoft removing drive extender from windows home server, was not based off of ANY consumer research.  That is the go-to phrase for companies that want to gouge us, but make it sound like they are doing it for our benefit.  Show me the research, show me the survey.  If they actually DID contact customers, the wording could have been made purposely confusing so as to skew the results.  Also, if they DID contact customers, did they contact the heavy users as well was the regular users?  What was the ratio?  I call BS until you show me the facts.

While I am not an AT&T or Comcast user, I think one thing is clear.  They get money by people buying in to their TV services as well.  Services like Netflix and Hulu detract from their earnings and they are trying to recoup those costs by doing the worst thing they possibly can, forcing the customer to pay for their poor planning.  While the US is not the first place that caps are being put in place, the internet infrastructre in the US is ranked what, 37th in the world?  The money being paid is clearly not being put towards network upgrades. 

I have heard that Comcast business accounts are uncapped, the monthly costs are the same and the only difference is the setup fee.  If you are on Comcast, switch over and abuse the service.

Not to mention with the advent of online backup services like carbonite, mozy and the like this is cramping numerous different services.  Caps, just like gas prices, need much tighter regulation.  My dad's place has the worst cap I have ever seen.  You are limited to 300mb a day.  WTF is that?  XP SP3 was 384mb.  This company was basically saying that you cannot update your computer to make it more secure.  Caps should be legal and these companies should be sewed.  Class action lawsuit anyone?



Do I like data caps? lol 

That's like asking "Everybody love Hemorrhoids?!! Give it up for them hemmis!!"

Anyways, its pretty bad the US lags most of the modern world in bandwidth/speed, but now data caps too?

Just come over and slap me in the face.



I can even pay for unmetered internet in the datacenter I can also get faster internet there starting at a few thousand GB and they even throw in a computer and electricity. So with energy as high as it is how is it that the price per GB is higher at my house than in the datacenter!?

In my house the line is ALREADY here. I PAY for the computer and the power. The only cost they have is the routers and switches which is going to be a bit more than a single datacenter as they have hubs ect. However, the main costs ie electricity, by not needing to pay to power my computer, is lower. Also the number of customers they have per switch are much higher. Therefore it should cost them less money to provide me the service I already get than it does for me to get basic service in most datacenters. So this leads to the conclusion that either these datacenters are losing millions and are about to go under or that this company is giving me a raw deal.



while i think data caps are a horrible idea (got thru "20%" of my 250 gbs on comcast after 4 days), at least at&t is aproaching it in a slighly better way than say.... terminating your contract for 1 year if you go over the cap twice =_=



While reading this thread:

I came across this suggestion by tim85254

"Relevant state department of weights and measures...

Time for a letter writing campaign to your state Attorney General. Their bandwidth meter should be held to the same standard as a gas pump or a delicatessen scale. They should have to prove the accuracy satisfactorily to every jurisdiction in which they propose ripping people off with usage-based-billing.

It will either delay the introduction of usage-based-billing or hopefully make it so expensive to implement that they back off."

Everyone, start writing your representatives and State Attorney General.



What i love most about your comment is the fact that the post made by tim is removed now.. at least Maximum PC wants to hear what the consumers want, even though we dont get internet service from them.





It's a business model that'll net them a lot of money. It has nothing to do with the customers, and until they start offering service for $10 a month for a few gigabytes, they're not even trying to backup what they say.

It's also bullshit, because any research shows that bandwidth is not something that costs the providers a lot of money. It's not a finite commodity. They need to stop acting like it is.

I'd say let them have their business model, but the problem is that because they lack any competition, they are free to gouge. Back in the old days of ISPs, there was lots of competition. They used to charge based on how much time you spent connected to the internet. Heavy competition got rid of that, and the consumer benefited greatly. This is how the capitalist system works, and it's a great system. But if you take away the part where there's competition, it stops working for the consumer. 250 gigs is very generous now for most users, but it won't be within a couple of years; do you really expect AT&T (AT&T!) of raising that when they know that they don't really have to?

The sad thing is that there are other countries who see the internet is an important service, and are investing in the infrastructure to allow their citizens to have cheap, unlimited, superfast, internet. It's going to be Americans (and the people living in the few other places where they are introducing this model) left behind on this one. Are you looking forward to living in the internet ghetto?




I couldnt agree more. This is my comment made on the article about the AT&T broadband cap(a service which i currently use):



"Unfortunately, AT&T's timing really sucks. We're at a point where streaming media is just starting to take off, with services like Netflix, Hulu, HBO GO / MAX GO, and the list goes on."


Nope actually it doesnt suck.. at least not for AT&T. Think about this a moment.. i personally can see in the next 10-15 years pretty much everything done on the internet, everything from; radio, television, movies, local news, shopping, working from home, gaming and the list goes on. Yes these things are being done now but as the older generations(the ones who dont quite 'get it') keep getting older and all of us 'modern' computer users grow in numbers the internet will be even more of a focal point in our lives and imo companies putting a cap on bandwidth like this only proves to me how greedy they are and how something that was invented to be 'free for the world' is being grossly abused by charging absurd amounts, which if history says anything, will only become worse. I personally use AT&T and aftter July i will be done with them and changing services simply because of this.




Sorry, maybe I think downloading Blue Rays is illegal and shouldn't be done.   Not taking AT&T's side since 150GB clearly isn't enough.  As more and more of our daily life is connected to the internet, 500GB isn't going to be enough.  Even for us who don't steal content.  There was a time when 1GB was called a waste of HDD space, hehehehe!

Just like causing the whole copy right BS to start, the folks wanting shit free is screwing it up for everyone else:rollseyes:

Another very dumb comment "back in the modem days"  geesh, I'd love to see some one reach a 150GB cap going 4.9k a sec, that'd be amazing.  LOL!  Yes, AT&T and others are crooks but blame it on the folks who're calling for less Government.  Geesh folks get you complaint strait.  This is DEREGULATION at work. Dereg is good when there are many folks competing. Dereg is bad when monopolies rule.  Writing letters ain't goin' to do Jack!  These greedy aholes have bought enough folks in Washington DC to be left alone!  While the Lobbyist own ALL Dems and Repubs we're screwed!

Example.  THE PSC or Public Service Commission here in Little Rock serves everyone but the Public.  They've never met an Increase they didn't like LOL! 


Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.