Comcast HD Quality Reduction: Details, Screenshots - Page 37 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 01:15 PM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by OggideM View Post

not everyone has the option of satellite

Individual and personal barriers to specific options do not factor into whether a company is or is not a monopoly. That is a matter of whether or not a significant number of people in a specific jurisdiction has the ability to select a competing service. I know of no jurisdiction in the United States where there is not at least a significant number of people with the ability to choose a satellite service.

Please feel free to provide citations to judicial decisions or SEC orders indicating that any wired subscription television service supplier is a "monopoly".
bicker1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 01:28 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 457
The San Francisco Chronicle picked up the AP story as well. Lots of tech heads in this area reading this one I'll bet.
Keenan is online now  
post #1083 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
OggideM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 40
... nevermind...

Quit failing to flip the switch
OggideM is offline  
post #1084 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 01:50 PM
Member
 
SteveMSU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks to everybody that put the research in on this topic. There are a lot of un-happy Comcast subscribers who feel pretty helpless when it comes to this stuff (try explaining what a QAM is to a phone tech). You've made our voices heard and I think it's going to put some pressure on the company.
SteveMSU is offline  
post #1085 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
 
old64mb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Please feel free to provide citations to judicial decisions or SEC orders indicating that any wired subscription television service supplier is a "monopoly"

Finding the latter would be truly remarkable, since the SEC's quasi-executive, quasi-judicial jurisdiction pretty much extends only to whether or not someone/something is directly violating securities laws, and for the bigger stuff they can't issue an order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Individual and personal barriers to specific options do not factor into whether a company is or is not a monopoly.

Yeah, they do. To quote the relevant DOJ rules, "the Agency may delineate different relevant markets corresponding to each such buyer group." It doesn't matter where the barriers come from, only that they exist in large enough quantity in the submarket that the Herfindahl index comes back over a threshold that the reviewing agency - in general the DOJ, sometimes the FTC, once in a while a state AG - arbitrarily sets (with help from a consultant, usually.)

I think the free market will solve this if it was actually a free market, except most submarkets here are duopolies at best, and in many cases duopolies tend to exhibit pricing behavior that tends to make monopolies jealous. That's how you end up regulated.

Back on track...kudos to everyone who is taking up the cause here; it's a worthwhile one, since I nearly threw something at my screen when watching SciFi-"HD" last Friday. Let's keep up the technical analysis, which isn't available anywhere else and may be this community's biggest contribution to the larger community.
old64mb is offline  
post #1086 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 02:31 PM
Newbie
 
AllenAllen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just wanted to say Thank you! I'm so tired of the "It's 100% Digital" BS. Well so is a crappy YouTube movie taken on a cell phone.

Would it make sense to use bit rate as a better indication of quality? 1080P and such-and-such bit rate?
AllenAllen is offline  
post #1087 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 02:40 PM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by old64mb View Post

Yeah, they do. To quote the relevant DOJ rules, "the Agency may delineate different relevant markets corresponding to each such buyer group."

You contradicted yourself: There is a difference between a buyer and a buyer group.
bicker1 is offline  
post #1088 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 02:50 PM
Member
 
Donnie Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

The San Francisco Chronicle picked up the AP story as well. Lots of tech heads in this area reading this one I'll bet.


I hope as many people as possible read this article and educate themselves on the situation.
Customers are not getting what they are paying for.
How much more honest can we get about this dilemma?

Cable prices are already high. Customers pay this price and are NOT getting what we are paying for. Plain and simple!!!

Something needs to be done to correct the situation. It's up to customers like us to spread the word and make a difference.
Donnie Vie is offline  
post #1089 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 03:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
b_scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 17
b_scott is offline  
post #1090 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Please feel free to provide citations to judicial decisions or SEC orders indicating that any wired subscription television service supplier is a "monopoly".

Please feel free to stop with this nonsense.
High barriers to entry mean that de-facto monopolies exist for wired TV service in almost every market. Legal 'definitions' are easy to spout but are not grounded in the reality of the marketplace.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #1091 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 04:39 PM
QZ1
AVS Special Member
 
QZ1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: S.E. PA
Posts: 5,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

If your assumption was correct, we'd already see evidence of change in Chicago, where satellite and cable are now essentially equal wrt required boxes. But charging $5.95 for each extra STB after the digital switch is evidence that they're not changing anything, they're just charging more and waiting to see what happens.

There, I don't think the second and subsequent boxes are $5.95, at least not for the first year.

Here, boxes are $3.95.
QZ1 is offline  
post #1092 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 05:44 PM
Senior Member
 
slybarman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Riva, MD
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Technically I would call them oligopolies, not monopolies.

There . . . now that degree in economics was all worthwhile.
slybarman is offline  
post #1093 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 07:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by QZ1 View Post

There, I don't think the second and subsequent boxes are $5.95, at least not for the first year.

Here, boxes are $3.95.

Thank you! At least that shows my $3.99 price was not something pulled out of thin air. I knew I had seen prices lower than $6 mentioned, but didn't know if they were still current.

Anyway, the bottom line to all this IMHO is that cable and sat will continue to charge whatever they can while still making enough profit to keep shareholders happy. Sat may be an option for many, but it is not an option for all and very few places have an alternate wired service available to them. Where they don't, cable is effectively a monopoly. Where they do, it's just another company trying to get your money. If cable needs to lower their box rate to compete, they can and will.

I wonder what people here are going to do if and when cable boxes go retail?

The other thing that intrigues me is if they can sell a digital to analog converter box for $50 at Wal-Mart, why can't they make a $50 digital tuner for cable subscribers? Is the tuner needed to receive OTA digital signals that much different than a tuner needed to receive digital cable signals? Anyone know how much a DirecTV tuner costs them in order for them to be able to give them away like they do?

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #1094 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 07:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 273
The more interesting question (to me) is if they are serious about pursuing a whole-house digital-to-analog converter, which would allow all these analog sets to continue working indefinitely at little extra cost. And allow them to add tons more high-quality HD instead of cramming 3 to a QAM channel. And possibly allow them to keep the revenues from millions of customers that are just looking for a reason to switch away from their local cable TV monopoly.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #1095 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 07:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Thank you! At least that shows my $3.99 price was not something pulled out of thin air. I knew I had seen prices lower than $6 mentioned, but didn't know if they were still current.

But they are rare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

I wonder what people here are going to do if and when cable boxes go retail?

The other thing that intrigues me is if they can sell a digital to analog converter box for $50 at Wal-Mart, why can't they make a $50 digital tuner for cable subscribers?

  • Not HD
  • No "security" - needed to control who gets low cost basic & who gets expanded basic (trap filters don't hack it with digital)

Dave Hancock
davehancock is online now  
post #1096 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 07:54 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MKANET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 5,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Comcast's low quality HD channel problem made it on the local San Francisco KPIX news (Channel 5).

Can your HTPC Media Center / DVR Do this??

SageTV: Unrestricted full-quality 12 tuner HD Premium Cable recording, including "On Demand" in HD + OTA ATSC + DVB-S2 + Blu-ray/HD-DVD serving 5 clients.
MKANET is offline  
post #1097 of 2079 Old 04-21-2008, 08:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

But they are rare.

Probably, but it shows they don't have to cost $6 or more.

Quote:
  • Not HD
  • No "security" - needed to control who gets low cost basic & who gets expanded basic (trap filters don't hack it with digital)

Yes, I understand the security issue, but is there that much extra cost now and how much after DCAS? Even if that doubles it, that's still pretty cheap. Also, since local digital signals are HD, passing through the HD wouldn't seem to cost more than converting it to analog, would it? If I were a betting man, I'd say these are going to get a lot cheaper once tru2way comes along? What say you?

BTW. What is the latest concensus? Has Comcast improved the IQ in some areas for some of the channels we have been talking about?

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #1098 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 04:05 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

Please feel free to stop with this nonsense.

With respect, my interrogative was no more nonsensical than the one I was responding to. The point I was making is that people disagree about this. I'm sorry that you're upset about the way things are, but the way things are are the way things are not by accident, not by conspiracy, but rather because it is a reflection of how our society wants things.

Slybarman gave you alternative terminology, which is closer to accuracy. Please use it from now on. Thanks.

In the end, the real point is that you do have a choice whether to accept or decline the services being offered you. Use that choice, and stand behind your perspective -- putting your money where your mouth is. That is the way things will change in your direction.
bicker1 is offline  
post #1099 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 05:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
trbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gainesville FL USA
Posts: 10,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

.
.
In the end, the real point is that you do have a choice whether to accept or decline the services being offered you. Use that choice, and stand behind your perspective -- putting your money where your mouth is. That is the way things will change in your direction.

Yes, but also remember that suffering in silence and switching providers is not the limit of our choices as consumers. Sharing our dissatisfaction with like minded others is an increasingly huge power in these Internet days.

When low quality affects us we should get mad and share the info by talking about it in places like AVS. That is way more effective than just canceling something. The number of news articles that have picked up this thread pretty much confirms this. Heck, I had someone at the office yesterday point out one of the articles even though they had never heard of AVS.

Pretty surely Comcast and the competing sat companies have noticed all this by now and will be planning accordingly.

- Tom

Why don't we power our electric cars from greener, cheaper Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors?

Tom Barry - Find my video filters at www.trbarry.com
trbarry is offline  
post #1100 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 06:53 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
kbullkar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenAllen View Post

Would it make sense to use bit rate as a better indication of quality? 1080P and such-and-such bit rate?

Unfortunately, this would also be subject to people playing games... more bit-rate doesn't translate into better quality...

There are a number of factors that affect quality, namely: number of times the video has been processed (each iteration adds the potential to add artifacts), the compression scheme (MPEG-2, AVC, etc.) and tools used (GOP structure as well as representation and concealment tools within the relevant compression scheme).

Another important thing to consider is how the video is going to be processed at the consumer side. Should the service provider optimize video based on the consumers ability to buy the highest end monitors, or should they optimize it based on what the majority of their subscribers will use? There is a lot to be said about targeting most content to 720p and moving high-end content to 1080p - attempting to best match content and monitors... but even that is not a perfect science... 1080i will remain in MPEG-2 for a while, but with the requirement for the monitor to de-interlace, the artifact introduction vs. increased resolution balance is much more religion than science at this point.

There has actually been a lot of work trying to come up with "objective" video quality measures... something that takes the end-result into consideration, but without always having the "starting" point and with subjective models of the human perceptual system, this still has a lot of work before it produces results that are close to receiving "universal" acceptance.
kbullkar is offline  
post #1101 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 07:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry View Post

Yes, but also remember that suffering in silence and switching providers is not the limit of our choices as consumers...............Pretty surely Comcast and the competing sat companies have noticed all this by now and will be planning accordingly.

Very true. I know for a fact that the Video/IT division head at Cox here in Phoenix is aware of this thread. The problem for them is to offer some additional HD channels at a lower rate or none at all, at least until SDV and other initiatives prove themselves. IMHO, doing nothing fosters more defections than lower bitrates, especially by the so-called J6P. The key is understanding all that while at the same time voicing our displeasure (loudly) to make sure they don't think we will accept the current situation forever.

Here we know Cox is upgrading the system to at least 1Ghz, adding more nodes, SDV, etc. I still find it hard to believe that Comcast is not also upgrading their system in a similar fashion, but if they are I also don't understand why they aren't offering more info on such upgrades. Most of us here seem willing to give Cox until the end of the year to make good on their promises. However, if making good means 80 HD channels at recompressed bitrates, I'm afraid they are in for a rude awaking and TV defections will be the least of their problems. I already have plans to do away with my phone landline, but I may also have to actually consider Qwest DSL (or even cellular) for internet service.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #1102 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
b_scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 17
i'm glad they know about it, and i don't mind a temporary reduction in quality for more channels as a stopgap. my concern (and everyone else's i think) is the permanent fixture of these shoddy bitrates. hopefully that doesn't happen.
b_scott is offline  
post #1103 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MikeSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't understand the comments about SDV not being proven.... Time-Warner has deployed a ton of it and is now fully operational in many markets.

Comcst and Cox to some extent sat on their hands, and more than that, tried to stop DirecTV's work with the programmers to turn on more HD channels. Well lo and behold, all this HD got created and now they are scrambling.

This isn't that hard a problem to fix. It just requires making some hard choices. What Comcast is doing now is trying to put off the hard choices, but all it does is delay the inevitable. Even at 3:1 packing, they cannot compete with DirecTV's programming choices, and more HD is coming this year.

Comcast management needs to get off the pot and decide what they are going to do. SDV, conversion of analog channels to digital, etc... Bite the bullet and stop with the half measures. Otherwise they will continue to bleed off shareholder value until a revolt occurs and they get booted out.
MikeSM is offline  
post #1104 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 09:07 AM
Senior Member
 
HIPAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Pa
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
1) We want 200 HD channels
2) We want them all to look like HD
3) Nothing can change next February for those multitudes still watching on analog sets

Sorry, what hard choices? Cable technology is up against the stops. We can't have it all three ways.

--- CHAS

If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
HIPAR is offline  
post #1105 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MikeSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPAR View Post

1) We want 200 HD channels
2) We want them all to look like HD
3) Nothing can change next February for those multitudes still watching on analog sets

Sorry, what hard choices? Cable technology is up against the stops. We can't have it all three ways.

--- CHAS

If they moved all non-local analog channels to digital, they could get close to the 200 channel number on 860 plant. If you said 100 HD channels, then moving expanded basic to digital would do it nicely.

They can give STB's to all non basic subscribers, and that allows for the reclamation of a ton of capacity.

If you added SDV to that, 200 HD channels is no sweat.

Now, what exactly is impossible about this?
MikeSM is offline  
post #1106 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Cost. They aren't going to hand out those STBs for free (see: Chicago).
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #1107 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
McDonoughDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

How could you possibly conclude that he doesn't have Comcrap?

Sarcasm meter not working, I see.

Like I said, why does this fellow continue to torture himself, he appears very unhappy with his service. It's not life or death, it's TV. Move on, there are other choices.

Peachtree City Golf Cart Rider
McDonoughDawg is offline  
post #1108 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 10:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
b_scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

Cost. They aren't going to hand out those STBs for free (see: Chicago).

seriously though, it's not like they're actually selling them now. they're leasing them. people have to give them back if the service ends. so i don't know why they can't just eat the lease fee. they'll still have them if the person cancels, and they really can't cost all that much in the grand scheme of their overpriced service. it's not the consumer's fault they need a box, and they gain no benefit on their end (bulky box taking up space so Comcast can regulate price structure).
b_scott is offline  
post #1109 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Yes, I understand the security issue, but is there that much extra cost now and how much after DCAS?

DCAS requires a dedicated chip and, so far, also requires "tru2way", which requires significant computational power. That also raises things WAY beyond the $50 range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

If I were a betting man, I'd say these are going to get a lot cheaper once tru2way comes along? What say you?

No. The major objection that CES has to OCAP ("tru2way") is it's cost.

Dave Hancock
davehancock is online now  
post #1110 of 2079 Old 04-22-2008, 11:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MikeSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

Cost. They aren't going to hand out those STBs for free (see: Chicago).

You don't think losing a ton of subs has a lot of cost? And the FCC would have let them use cheap STB's if they had decided to go to all digital.

And what about SDV? TW uses it now.

This isn't that hard.
MikeSM is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off