|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Telecom Network for Professionals and Users Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | ATT purchase of Bell South | Views: 1313 | | Nov 11, 2006 5:45 pm | | ATT purchase of Bell South | # |
mark adams | | What does everyone think of ATT purchase of Bell South? With the telecommunications Act of 1996 this allowed competition in the industry. The FCC is expected to allow this merger to happen with conditions.
Does everyone think this is the possible start up of another ATT Monopoly? Lets see some postings on this.
Mark Adams
Telecommunications Consultant
http://tele456com.ld.netPrivate Reply to mark adams | | Nov 11, 2006 11:57 pm | | re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # | 
Ken Hilving | | Mark, how about kicking off the discussion with your assessment of what this means? Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Nov 12, 2006 1:25 am | | re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # | 
Steve Macke | | It is proof that the our government is up for sale. The lobbists over the years have slowly paid for favorable laws that allow them to gain an unfair advantage and market protection.
We end up paying out the kuzo has the phone bills we have today are 2/3 taxes that the phone companies collect to pay off the folks in high places.
If we would allow the market enough time to engage in a true open market we would get better services and lower prices.
We will be seeing some new technology in the not to distant future that will allow for a competitor to compete without having to rely on the ILEC for the first or the last mile.
So now we deal with the new AT&T - as for me I turn off all but one line in the house for life line services. The rest I use cell phone or VOIP phone. The best way to make a statement is with your wallet.
All the Best
SMPrivate Reply to Steve Macke | | Nov 12, 2006 6:04 am | | re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # |
mark adams | | The ATT/BellSouth merger is doubtful to set up a monopoly however the FCC will have conditions set forth. True they will have a very deep reach in much of the telecommunications industry including cable,Internet,wireless services. In case one has not noticed mergermania has been happening in the telecom industry lately.
However I do not think it will come down to a monopoly. They will certainly have alot of muscle to flex but doubtful it will be a revisit to what it was pre- 1980's before the monopoly was broken up. The Anti Trust department of the DOJ cleared the deal and said there is no threat to competition. The FCC is split on what conditions to place on this merger. You can see this here at this link.
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/BUSINESS01/611030449
Let me know what everyone else thinks.
Mark Adams
Telecommunications Consultant
http://tele456com.ld.net
Private Reply to mark adams | | Nov 12, 2006 7:25 pm | | re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # | 
James Hilving | | I agree Mark.
I think that competition is much too easy for other providers to engage for the ATT/BellSouth Merger to create a true monopoly, especially one that was comparable to the one broken up in the 80’s. If I compare my options today to just 5 years ago for local communications and entertainment I have more Internet, TV, Phone, and even Wireless options. A merger between BellSouth and ATT would not negatively affect this impact…it will increase my options if anything.
I think we will see an increase in the race for multi package offerings. Cable Companies offering Phone and Phone companies offering TV is one example.
-JimPrivate Reply to James Hilving | | Nov 13, 2006 3:09 am | | re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # | 
John T | | Monopoly? Those days are gone for ever.
Ma Bell fought against it for decades and finally lost that battle in 96.
How do you think the RBOCs and CLECs came to be?
The only reason AT&T and Bell South are coming together is because of survival.
Just like Verizon & MCI.
AT&T would have folded up in a few years if its "offspring" [SBC]didn't come by to salvage it [actually it was after the AT&T name brand].
Anyone thats been in the telcom business knows how incestuois it is.
Private Reply to John T | | Nov 13, 2006 12:57 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # |
Tom Foale | | I agree John. The fixed telecom business models are (finally) under great threat from a variety of sources and margins are reducing - always seen as a good reason for consolidation to reduce costs.
One of the threats is, funnily enough, how the fixed operators plan to reduce costs and introduce new revenue-generating services. BT is leading the way with its 21st century network, an IP and MPLS-based network replacing all of the different networks it currently has. This will indeed reduce maintenance costs and allow them to offer better services.
As part of this they will move to consolidated authentication and billing etc - one system for all applications. They will also be considering whether to create these in-house or whether they should be outsourced. This is a more difficult decision than it looks.
Remember the IBM PC? When IBM created this it made a design decision that was instrumental in eventually destroying it's position in the market. IBM decided to give the operating system and chipset to Microsoft and Intel, retaining the assembly side which were its core skills. IBM had traditionally made the bulk of its revenues in computer assembly where it took a lot of skills to make the computer perform well. However, PC assembly was a different issue - standardisation made it a business where cheap manufacture, product development cycles and lowest-cost routes to market became the dominant factors, with most of the value going to the parts of the system that were not yet good enough - the CPU, operating system and memory/disk manufacturers, forcing IBM out of the PC market. They still make the best/fastest supercomputers in the world, and Thomas Watson would still recognise his old company today.
The telco's are facing the same dilemma. As they simplify the network and standardise the interfaces, if they retain the network engineering side - their traditional skillset - they will gradually be forced out of retail networks because network engineering will have far less value. They will still own the infrastructure and wholesale, but the retail side will go to the players who can create more services faster, have better customer service and have the lowest-cost routes to market. The bulk of the profits will be split between the telco's (because they will still be last-mile monopolists, at least until wireless broadband becomes ubiquitous) and to the parts of the value chain that are still not quite good enough, which will probably be equipment manufacturers and software services outsourcers.
That's my thoughts, anyway!Private Reply to Tom Foale | | Nov 13, 2006 8:20 pm | | re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # |
J. Olson | | Don't know about that merger, but Bell South has been up for grabs now for a few years now. A major carrier I worked for merged with them in 2000. I do know that last year on the West Coast in No. Cal for example, we had SBC for about 3 years, formerly Pacific Bell and now it's "The New AT&T". I hate that as it feels like there's no other viable choices. Unless you want to do a packaged deal with the cable company or your internet access company or Vonage or something you're becoming more out of luck.
I don't dislike AT&T. I just want my options back. I enjoyed the days when a consumer could close the door on a carrier for bad customer service and arrogant behavior or outright over pricing. I was desparate in the Spring '06 to change carriers having been in the business once, I called around to the guys who once were servicing all over the area. Everyone told me we don't service that area anymore. Sprint was once very strong in the San Francisco Bay Area and so was Qwest and they're gone! Finally, I visited the CPUC California Public Utilities Commission website to find anyone to switch to and after an hour of calling around gave up. I'm still with the New AT&T. Here's the CPUC search results: http://efrs.cpuc.ca.gov/efrs/app/carrier_external_search/list.asp?txt_Value0=&txt_Field0=sUNumberSearch&txt_Value1=&txt_Field1=sUnumRange&txt_Value2=%28len%28ISNULL%28sLEC%2C%27%27%29+%2B+ISNULL%28sCLC%2C%27%27%29+%2B+ISNULL%28sCLR%2C%27%27%29%29%3E0%29&txt_Field2=sCarrierType&txt_Value3=&txt_Field3=sNameField&txt_Value4=&txt_Field4=sNameSearchString&iFields=5&cmdRNDRSearch_Submit=Search
Remember, in the San Francisco Bay area and Silicon Valley we had a multitude of carrier options about 3-4 years ago as the Telecom Act was in full force. The problem with telecom in America is that AT&T still controls local access points for the most part making it virtually impossible for competitors to really be competitive. I worked for one on the most competitive carriers selling local, long distance and data services to business and anyone who has sold that knows there's the last mile to deal with.
When things got rough in telecom the heaviest hitter didn't help the industry they just made it more difficult and slower to provision service. Ultimately, scandel, etc. and who knows what drove loads of competitors right out of our market. There's still a surviving XO Communications that I know of. Why? We'll soon find out. Maybe AT&T controls them too somehow. I'm interested to learn more about what might be behind the curtain. No offense to XO. I hear they're doing well and I've been told easier to work with.
As an AT&T customer, I had a short debate regarding the Act reversal with a supervisor over at the New AT&T and all they could say is "We understand how you feel, there are plenty of other carriers you can use, but we're the New AT&T." I'm thinking, 'So what! Your lawyers created a new branch and gave it the same name with the word NEW and slightly altered your existing logo. I still pay the same company...AT&T.'
If you don't think a controlled monopoly is happening under our noses and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 isn't being manipulated and looped-holed to the max by AT&T wake up! The genie is out of the bottle. The FCC is allowing it to happen while we're all caught up in the war, a slow economy, shrinking middle class, high gas prices, closing businesses, loss of legacy grocery store chains, lost jobs and other threats. Business and Industry politicians are being paid off by major oil companies and big fish utilities like AT&T to make more money off it's citizens amidst the chaos.
That's my view.
Jan Olson
http://www.leadvault.comPrivate Reply to J. Olson | | Nov 13, 2006 10:05 pm | | re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # |
mark adams | | I think I opened Pandora's box with this thread but howveer this is good for stimulating discussion.From the sampling here it appears that most in this network feels that the days of ATT the monopoly is done and past. If it were not for ATT and its pioneering efforts there is much development we would not have today.
Lets keep the comments coming.
Mark Adams
Telecommunications Consultant
http://tele456com.ld.net Private Reply to mark adams | | Nov 14, 2006 6:26 am | | re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South | # |
John T | | One thing that the Ma Bell monopoly and the Western Electric /old Bell System did spawn was countless of innovative companies, even before the "dotcom" era.
Having had the privlege of working at the "Labs" as an engineer back in the day was like being in a never ending "trekkie" convention, walking around in jeans and t-shirts with sayings like: "if-then-else" and "troff".
LOL Private Reply to John T | | Jan 01, 2007 6:09 pm | | re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
John T | | AT&T purchase of BellSouth approved
Companies' concessions win over FCC Democrats
By Jeffry Bartash, MarketWatch
Last Update: 5:11 PM ET Dec 29, 2006
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- AT&T Inc. on Friday got its own gift for the holidays: final federal consent to acquire BellSouth Corp. in a massive $85 billion deal that will create the largest phone company in the U.S.
The Federal Communications Commission approved the deal after the phone companies agreed to extra concessions demanded by the two Democrats on the agency's five-member board. The vote was 4-0, with one Republican abstaining.
A combined AT&T and BellSouth will cater to 70 million local phone customers in 22 states, mostly in the South and Midwest but including California. It will also operate the biggest long-distance network in the nation, serve 10 million broadband users and employ more than 300,000 workers.
In addition, AT&T and BellSouth already co-own Cingular Wireless, the biggest mobile operator in the U.S. in terms of customers.
The company's total revenue will exceed $120 billion and an enlarged AT&T would have a market value of more than $200 billion.
With FCC approval in hand, AT&T closed its acquisition of BellSouth. The companies had already won approval from the Justice Department and all states with jurisdiction.
"AT&T will be an engine for innovation, competition, and growth for our customers at home and abroad," AT&T Chief Executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr. said in a statement.
Winning the vote
To break a nearly two-month deadlock at the FCC, AT&T agreed to observe "network neutrality" principles; offer standalone high-speed Internet service for $20 a month to most of its customers; and cap prices on so-called special-access lines that serve big buildings with multiple business customers.
In addition, AT&T agreed to divest 2.5 GHz wireless spectrum owned by BellSouth and bring back 3,000 jobs performed outside the U.S. by 2008. See AT&T letter.
"We celebrate today not a triumph for huge corporate mergers but a modest victory for American consumers," said Michael Copps, one of two Democrats on the FCC board. "Would I have preferred to do even more? Of course. Am I entirely satisfied? No."
For AT&T, the concessions aren't likely to weigh heavily on its bottom line, Wall Street analysts say. Price controls on special-access lines would last no more than four years and the 30-month guarantee of neutral treatment for any Internet service that rides on AT&T's network could be voided by congressional legislation.
"We believe financial impact of the concessions will be minimal," A.G. Edwards analyst Kent Custer told clients Friday.
The company's acceptance of Net neutrality, however, was hailed by critics as a significant victory, especially in light of the failure of Congress to reach a consensus on the matter.
"This will be a win for the public," said Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America. "By holding AT&T's feet to the fire and demanding the Internet remain neutral, the FCC can maintain a level playing field for all."
The debate flared up last year after some phone-industry executives suggested that they should be allowed to impose a form of user fees on popular Web sites or to charge money for priority service.
Sites such as Google or Yahoo are heavily trafficked and take up more "space" on the expensive Internet networks of carriers such as AT&T and Verizon. They could soak up even more network capacity as they roll out new services that allow Web surfers to download videos.
Yet critics say a tiered approach could dramatically undermine how the Internet works. The absence of neutral treatment could increase access costs to users, allow network operators to favor some Web sites over others and potentially stifle the birth of innovative new Internet companies, they assert.
For at least the next 24 months, AT&T has agreed not to sell "any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes" data transmitted over the company's wireline network "based on its source, ownership or destination."
The company's new fiber-based Internet-video network, however, may not have to operate under those guidelines. The fiber network is still in its early stages, however, and won't be fully operational across most of AT&T's territory for at least several years.
Lots of rivals remain
Despite its enormous size, an enlarged AT&T faces competition on a number of fronts. Small providers offering cheap Internet-based phone service are nipping at its heels while the cable-television industry has quickly moved into the phone business. At the same time, Verizon and Sprint Nextel Corp.( S) 18.89, -0.27, -1.4%) continue to challenge AT&T in the wireless and corporate-services markets.
AT&T and BellSouth have said they could offer better services at lower prices if they were allowed to combine. They are spending billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to deliver improved wireless coverage, superfast Internet access and pay-television service over fiber-optic lines.
The Democrats at the FCC, however, expressed concerns about the deal from the outset. Their resistance stiffened in early November after the antitrust division of the Republican-led Justice Department approved the deal without any conditions, saying it would benefit consumers.
Although AT&T and BellSouth do not compete directly in many markets, some Democrats and other critics argued that the sheer size of the merger would inevitably reduce competition and raise costs for homes and businesses.
To prevent such an outcome, Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein forced several delays on an FCC vote. Chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican, tried to get around their resistance by inducing Robert McDowell, the third GOP member, to cast the tiebreaking vote.
Almost two weeks ago, however, McDowell declared he would honor a prior vow not to participate owing to an ethics agreement he signed before taking his position in June. His decision forced AT&T to negotiate hard with the Democrats over the past week in order to wrap up a deal before the end of the year.
Still, the deal is unlikely to receive a warm endorsement from consumer groups and others opposed to the merger.
They especially worry that big carriers will obstruct the ability of Internet users to surf any Web site they like at the speeds to which they are accustomed. Phone companies, for their part, have insisted they will maintain a fair and open Internet and say no law is necessary since the problem is nonexistent.
Some members of Congress have sought to pass a Neutrality law but to no avail. Even if the incoming Democratic Congress approves such a measure, the White House is likely to veto any bill.
Major industry upheaval
The AT&T-BellSouth deal could represent one of the last big deals spawned by the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996, which partially freed the industry from extensive regulation. Phone companies have merged at a dizzying pace over the past 10 years.
The 10 leading phone companies a decade ago -- AT&T, MCI, Sprint and the seven Baby Bells created by the 1984 breakup of the old Ma Bell - have been reduced to four: AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q) 8.37, -0.04, -0.5%) A host of smaller regional players also exist.
Despite the wave of consolidation, pricing trends do not bear out the claims of opponents. Local phone rates are somewhat higher now compared to 10 years ago, but long-distance prices fell 40% from 1994 to 2004 while wireless prices dropped a steeper 80% in the same time frame, the FCC has found.
Internet-access costs have also plummeted in recent years amid heated competition between the phone and cable industries.
Jeffry Bartash is a reporter for MarketWatch in Washington
Private Reply to John T | | Jan 02, 2007 2:47 am | | ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
Charlotte Terbot | | If there is not a change in ATT, we will have the same monopoly we had in 1986. They are spending millions on advertisements for products and services that they will not offer to everyone. If I had a choice I would definately use someone else. Private Reply to Charlotte Terbot | | Jan 02, 2007 3:17 am | | re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
John T | | LOL, how can you say we will have the same monopoly?
1986 and Ma Bell is dead forever. [just like the 8 track cassette tape]
1986 is a million years ago when it comes to telephony technology.
Pandora's box has be opened a long time ago, the second a "soft switch" took over the job of a circuit switch to provide a dial tone the PSTN just took a tumble and the Internet just pushed it aside.
Long live the Internet, because Internet Telephony & VoIP ain't going away, it's just gonna get better.... Private Reply to John T | | Jan 02, 2007 4:35 am | | re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
Charlotte Terbot | | Sure Long live the internet ~ when and where you can get it. I live in a bedroom community of about 3000, and AT&T nor SBC before them will provide any kind of DSL for us. All we have is a weak dial up, or a cable that has 256k. It sure is not broadband. My home has several computers, and we need to be on line 24 hours a day. We live less than 1500 feet from the 'soft switch' you are speaking of. We get very poor service. it is nearly enough to make me want to sell my house and move!! Private Reply to Charlotte Terbot | | Jan 02, 2007 12:46 pm | | re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
John T | | That sounds like a business opportunity to me.....
Private Reply to John T | | Jan 07, 2007 5:55 am | | re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
mark adams | | ATT is now the biggest in the U.S. with this purchase of Bell South. I agree with you John. But instead of 1986 being a million years ago its more like a billion years ago as far as technical advancement goes.
ATT may have a decent market share but with competition the way it is you cannot say it will be a monopoly much less even an oligopoly. There are too many competitors for this to happen and technology has advanced way too much for that to happen.
Let us look forward to a new year with new opportunities available to us.
Mark Adams
Telecommunications Consultant
Total Business Solutions Communication
http://tele456com.ld.netPrivate Reply to mark adams | | Jan 07, 2007 6:49 am | | re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # | 
Bill Nusbaum | | I have been lurking on the network for quite a while but felt compelled to write about the "new" AT&T. I have been in the telecom & related industries for 30 years in a variety of capacities & working for almost every interest mostly in strategy & public policy/legal/regulatory positions, including 13 years at PacBell . I currently am a consumer advocate. I beg to differ about the rosy views expressed about how "competitive" the telecom market is especially with all the consolidation occurring.
The argument that the IP technology is creating strong telecom competitors is just not supported by the facts. Instead the facts instead suggest that:
- AT&T and Verizon control between 80-90% of the local market in their respective service territories
- While VOIP presents an option, both ILECs are rapidly converting their networks to the same technology such that the survival of companies like Vonnage is unlikely
- Also, re VOIP, it may be an alternative for those who wish to also subscribe to a broadband connection, but is not an affordable option for low income consumers
- Cable offers a competitive alternative in certain geographies and will be the strongest competitor to the ILECs
- The CLECs have all but disappeared, at least for local services
- Wireless may be an alternative for those who want to "cut the cord" but quality is still a major issue, plans tend to be expensive & the wireless market is dominated by the ILECs - AT&T and Verizon - there is T-Mobile and Sprint/Nextel but the later may not survive; there are regional carriers but consolidation is widely predicted
- DSL options are also not numerous since even the alternative carriers such as Covad lease the last mile from the ILECs
- The most likely market scenario is not robust competition, but a duopoly
Unfortunately, regulators at both the federal and state level have also bought into the myth that robust competition is here today & growing. Private Reply to Bill Nusbaum | | Jan 14, 2007 4:32 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # | 
April Diehl | | I am torn on this whole deal. In one sense I can see this being a problem because basically we have 2 major Telecoms (AT&T and Verizon) and a couple that are IMO struggling to survive (Qwest and Sprint)
Yes there are others, but in many causes they are localized and not available nationally.
From the other side, Telecom as an industry is seeing major changes today and in the future. Companies are offering more managed services and communications solutions, that the backing of a large network and brand is beneficial than having it chunked up between several smaller companies.
I do worry that these companies are going to get to big to quickly and we are going to have another situation where a CEO or CFA can "hide" money in the acquisitions and mergers, and another WorldCom fraud might happen.
I have heard many people say they are going to "cut the cord" and just use their cell phone because they are tired of the big telecom companies. Many do not realize that the cell phone they use is probably run by one of the companies they "cut the cord" from. Example Cingular.
I need to review the deal that was approved for this merger and get a better understanding of exactly what the FCC thinks they are accomplishing.
They restricted WorldCom from buying Sprint, after it bought MCI because of fear of a monopoly. I am not sure I understand the difference here. The New AT&T is now made up of the PacBell, SouthWestern Bell, Ameritech, Southern New England Telecom, and now BellSouth. That leaves just the Qwest territory left of the RBOC's.
Private Reply to April Diehl | | Jan 14, 2007 8:20 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
mark adams | | Actualy my friend Sprint and qwest are doing very well. And yes for a while qwest was in trouble due to some troublesome scandals. But that is behind them and they are profitable again. There are many more telecoms than what you are aware of. And they are strong and nationwide as well. Yes some are only regional but many are nationwide and very competitive I might add.
ATT will never have the glory days of a monopoly ever again. We are truly blessed to live in a day and age when technology is so abundant and makes our lives that much more richer.
Mark Adams
Telecommunication Consultant
Total Business Solutions CommunicationPrivate Reply to mark adams | | Jan 15, 2007 2:05 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
James Hilving | | In response to April wanting to review the merger details the FCC agreed. The final merger commitments can be publicly accessed here.
http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf
You may have already had this and just not read it yet but thought I toss it out there.
Hope it helps,
-James HilvingPrivate Reply to James Hilving | | Jan 20, 2007 4:07 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # | 
Ray Saugaato | | Technology innovations and value addition is the key, backed by investors to implement a macro model.
This is the era of corporate. The jest to give returns to investors (who invest more as they get better returns), will make a corporate go for more qualitative and quantitative business. Hence, lobbying with nexus with bureaucrats and politicians are bound to happen. That is capitalism negative side.
Even we are facing the same issues in India, few companies controlling billion dollar communication (every mode and medium) market.
How to stop big companies to take over the market and create an environment of pseudo competition?
1. Regulative body like we have Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, doing a wonderful job to restrict future monopolistic market.
2. Reduce barrier to high entry cost - Which even TRAI couldn't regulate, as the Govt. is greedy to earn more from the companies. The system of Auction, has handed the money players the contract. And once a system is setup, and even if the govt. wants to deregulate such a regulation, the lobby stops with all the business and emotional logic.
3. Giving security to existent small pioneer players - with prospects to grow, with state / bank funding, to compete.
But those, who don't want to grow will be extinct. You just cannot be a middle class businessman, that is the irony.
Anyway, these are just personal thought. Private Reply to Ray Saugaato | | Jan 26, 2007 5:45 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
April Diehl | | Thanks James, I will read through that. Private Reply to April Diehl | | Jan 26, 2007 1:24 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
James Hilving | | Those who have not seen it yet. This video clip of the ATT mergers covers pretty nicely. :0)
http://home.comcast.net/~james.hilving/ATT-History.wmv
Enjoy,
JPrivate Reply to James Hilving | | Jan 26, 2007 5:01 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: ATT purchase of Bell South [IT'S a DONE DEAL] | # |
April Diehl | | hahahahahaha.. that is funny stuff.. that has been circulating at work. here is another one that is good.. More of a pictoral view.
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l36/RainbowST/ATT00009.jpg Private Reply to April Diehl | | |
| |
| |
