|
CLAM DOWN posted:So I saw an ad for this new Rogers bundle plan: http://www.rogers.com/web/content/wireless-campaigns?cm_sp=homepage-pre-_-6gb-en-0712-_-slot1 Yes, you can change to it from a current plan without renewing - or so the CSRs say. I just did this myself because it's basically the exact plan I used to have but $15 cheaper, but I have to check whether they renewed me anyway because it's Rogers. I don't know if it's available for non-LTE phones, though. I'd assume "yes" since Rogers quietly stopped doing the "separate LTE data plans" thing soon after their LTE rollout, but I'd ask support about that part.
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:How does LTE work on Rogers, in terms of access/payment? I have the $30/6GB plan. If I put my sim into an LTE-capable device and I'm within range of an LTE tower, will I get LTE speeds, or is this an extra tier of service that they want additional monies for? They initially tried to have separate LTE plans, but stopped. You might still need a new SIM for an LTE device though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Regardless, it means Mobilicity's brass want out. Maybe shareholders don't; we'll see. But I can't see how this could possibly end well. Maybe the CRTC will get up off its rear end and reserve more of the new spectrum for Wind/Mobilicity, but if they don't have the money to pay for it then even that fantasy is a moot point. It's not so much "their brass want out" as "they are on the verge of bankruptcy as it stands". It's debatable whether they would even have survived until Industry Canada's block on them selling their spectrum to incumbents (because it's them that runs the spectrum auctions and handles set-asides, not the CRTC) expired in 2014. (and it will also be interesting to see how Telus and their management intend to dance around that restriction.) Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:17 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:The big three won't offer it for free unless they're either forced to, or one of them changes policy and forces the others to be competitive. Which will never happen. Actually, all three of Our Benevolent Overlords now offer call display as part of all new plans from what I can tell. (if you have an old plan, of course, gently caress you.) Canadian Telecom: Because We Can.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
MoxSquad posted:Given how apathetic most people are about carrier pricing and three-year contracts. I'm not surprised at all if they'd be willing to just suck it up if their bills went from $60-$70 a month to $80-$90. About those three year contracts. CRTC posted:Today, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued a wireless code that will make it easier for Canadians to understand their contracts and sets out their basic rights. The code will apply to new contracts for cellphones and other personal mobile devices starting on December 2, 2013. It will also apply to contracts that are amended or extended after that date. I haven't had time to read all the details, but this looks at first glance like a decent start.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
MoxSquad posted:The Big 3 can easily maneuver around this, they'll just switch to a tab system and get rid of fixed-term contracts. Fido for example has already done this. True enough (which is why I thought the focus on three-year contracts as a bugbear during the public debate was...counterproductive) but either way things improve.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
WienerDog posted:Does Verizon use the same frequencies as Wind here? If so they could leverage that as lower roaming rates for their customers in the States. Verizon still uses CDMA in the States so I wouldn't expect any synergies there (though if they DO buy in in time for the 700 auction they may be able to use the same LTE frequencies as they do down south). An utterly perplexing thing about the public debate about our telecoms is that people latch onto a foreign player investing into the market as some sort of panacea. What exactly do we imagine Verizon or Telenor doing that Orascom or VimpelCom (who are part-owned by Telenor as the G&M points out) couldn't have done if they chose? The problem is no longer "competitors can't access foreign capital", the problem is that the foreign capital wants to compete without spending too much money, and until I see evidence to the contrary I expect any new foreign entrant will be more of the same. edit: my pie-in-the-sky panacea is structural separation between infrastructure and services but I will settle for regulators with actual teeth and a government that isn't determined to defang them. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Which is odd, wasn't the original Galazy S4 pentaband? Am I remembering wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Maybe this was just an American thing, but as I recall you sued to have to rent telephones themselves from AT&T, not just pay for the landline itself. I bring this up to effectively say "'twas ever thus", because telephones are almost-but-not-quite unique in how utterly useless they are WITHOUT that ongoing service contract, and so it has always made a certain amount of intuitive sense to tie initial sale and initial service together. Add "people value short-term profit over long term" and "businesses like money" and you have the recipe for inertia. Obviously the part about phones being useless without that ongoing service is less true now than it's ever been, but we (general we here) still think of our smartphones as phones rather than the PDAs they actually are and so we are still stuck with the accompanying habits of thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Question, is this the thread we can use to talk about the almost monopoly of ISPs in Canada? Cause even though I'm with teksavvy, I got hosed by rogers today You want this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
From what I can tell, the logic people use to assume that Verizon will be different here is that they wouldn't be the incumbents here initially, they'd need to offer good deals to get people tos switch, and then their inner greedy dicks might just come out later if at all. More realistically I think it's mostly just to spite the Big 3 at this point, which is a perfectly reasonable goal. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
ante posted:The CRTC isn't letting them bid on it. Which means the options are Verizon having the spectrum, or... nobody. Not precisely true. Industry Canada is, at last recollection (the rules are kind of in flux right now), letting incumbents bid in the auction on spectrum that isn't set aside - it's just not letting them buy it off new entrants outside the auction (which is why TELUS couldn't buy Mobilicity).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
Godinster posted:I don't get how anyone in their right mind can oppose Verizon aside from the carriers. For the record, I don't oppose Verizon coming in (and frankly I haven't seen anyone, anywhere, outside our carriers that does), I'm just not on board the Great Red Hope train because:
Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
^^^The enemy of your enemy needs to be watched, because it's entirely possible they are also your enemy. Use them against your existing enemy, sure, but don't empower them too much and don't trust them too easily until you know more about them.Skeeter Green posted:I oppose Verizon coming in because as lovely as Bell Telus and Rogers are, as far as I can tell, they pay their taxes. Verizon on the other hand is a notorious tax cheat in the US and I see no reason for them to change their habits here. As for point b), the 700 MHz spectrum is exactly what Verizon is building their LTE network on in America, so the upcoming Canadian auction is extremely valuable for them to offer roaming in the future. It's true that 700 in Canada will be valuable to offer roaming going forward, but the AWS spectrum Wind et al currently hold is useless to VZW as far as currently roaming to/from the States goes, so they could only really offer such deals to that portion of their customer base that uses LTE rather than either of the two mutually incompatible sets of legacy devices in the States and Canada. It seemed appropriate to call this tricky. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Sure, if the lion was a manipulative rear end in a top hat who took advantage of its prey and actively hosed over customers? What a stupid analogy. Cats of all sizes actually are manipulative assholes who take advantage of their prey and actively gently caress them over for sport.  It is more or less impossible for the telecom industry (most network-based industries, really, but it is particularly the case in telecom) to avoid monopoly/oligopoly without government regulators that are empowered and active. Real Competition won't save you because the infrastructure costs and barriers to entry mean that Real Competition is economically inefficient and, left to their own devices, telecom companies will do exactly what they are doing in Canadian wireless (because they have, largely and deliberately, been left to their own devices - I recommend you read this.) It literally is "welp, capitalism", and it's not "fellating the Big 3" to point this out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
I'm not saying there are any realistic alternatives. I'm not even saying Verizon shouldn't enter. Mostly what I'm saying is that we will continue to be hosed either way, all hope is vain, death is certain. The actual alternatives involve Industry Canada keeping their spectrum set-asides and instituting network-sharing rules that are more favourable to new incumbents (possible), or the CRTC re-regulating wireless services and rates the same way they still do landlines (which would almost certainly be challenged in court given the Cabinet order I linked in my last post), or any of the other regulatory pipe dreams I've ranted endlessly about in this thread but will probably never happen under the present government. bunnyofdoom posted:This is why I always lose at Risk. If you are playing Risk you have already lost. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
I'm not saying pure capitalism is "okay" or "good", and I'm pretty sure Skeeter isn't either, as much as you'd like to think he's a shill or whatever. What I am saying is that if you are expecting Verizon to behave any better, you will be disappointed - and your spite, while understandable, will not lower your cell-phone bill by a cent. The solution to Canada's cellular nightmare is in Ottawa, not in some boardroom in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, or New York. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Italy's Chicken posted:My interpretation of that legal language is that the CRTC needs to favour no at all while still promoting technological advances. They've already broken that rule by giving new wireless providers first dibs on spectrum. The CRTC doesn't run spectrum auctions, that's the Industry Ministry's job. edit: As for your interpretation - well, that's more cathartic than concrete (and you may note that the CRTC's latest attempt to tell the wireless corps to "shut up and stop complaining" is waiting for a court date as we speak, so the people who actually get to authoritatively interpret these things may turn out to have a different opinion than you). The fact of the matter is that the duly elected government of the day wants the telecom industry to be shaped more by market forces than by regulation, and the regulators tend to follow that lead because that's what law and democracy demand. Now, because everybody hates the telecom corps and they see votes in it, the government is trying to find a way out of the mess they've made, but because they're still the market fundamentalists we know and love I expect not to like the way out they find. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Skeeter Green posted:I wish nationalizing Wind and Mobilicity were a realistic option in today's political climate. I'd love to see the two rolled into a Crown Corporation with the goal of offering cheap last gen wireless service to as many Canadians as possible. Leave the LTE and the cutting edge devices to the incumbents, but offer unlimited HSPA and midrange phones, like Wind does now. It would be a drat sight better than loving Verizon. Well, what do you know, someone finally brought it up. When the CEP came down so firmly on the incumbents' side in the Verizon propaganda war I was a little worried. Of course it's still not a realistic option with Harper in charge but putting the discussion on the proverbial front page can't hurt. Nationalise ALL the infrastructure, etc, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
less than three posted:You will get 4G HSPA on all three of the carriers. No LTE as we use a different frequency for that. Do Verizon phones even handle HSPA given that they don't use it themselves? Basically my rule of thumb is: "if you could use the phone on AT&T you'll be able to use it in Canada", as we use all the same frequencies up here as they do. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Science posted:Apparently Wind is planning to buy Mobilicity. I knew Mobilicity wasn't doing well, but it turns out they're in terrible shape. This would also push Wind remarkably close to 1M subscribers which is a nice milestone. They've been on the verge of bankruptcy for months, as I understand it, and since Industry Canada wouldn't let Telus buy them, selling out to a foreigner, Wind or maaaaybe Videotron was really the only choice available to them. I imagine that since Verizon proved the skeptics right about their interest in the Canadian market, that someone in government is quietly encouraging the AWS holders to consolidate as much as possible in order to salvage their fourth-carrier plan and continue fostering competition without additional regulation, but that's just a guess on my part.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
leidend posted:On the radio this morning they said Wind backed out after the government said they couldn't be fully owned by a foreign company. Although I was only half listening while commuting so that may be an over-simplification. It's an oversimplification. Wind's backer VimpelCom had been planning to acquire full control of them last year. The Telecommunications Act doesn't block companies with Wind's market share from being entirely foreign-owned anymore, but foreign takeovers of Canadian companies still have to be approved by Industry Canada. (see also: PotashCorp, Nexen, etc.) After discussions with Industry Canada last year, VimpelCom abruptly abandoned that bid. It was rumoured that Industry Canada would have rejected them due to unspecified "national security concerns" of the same sort that led them to block Acceleros (another of Naguib Sawiris' investment vehicles) buying Allstream from MTS last year, but obviously this was never confirmed. All this happened before the deadline for registering for the 700MHz auction, though, so if that were the only reason they would never have registered in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Anyone know a quick, reliable website for unlocking a handset online? I'm trying to hand one of my old devices down to a friend and it's too loving cold to go hunting for a local hole-in-the-wall cellphone shop.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
The foreign ownership restrictions are already irrelevant for any non-Big 3 telco and pretty much only exist to stop Verizon/Comcast from buying Telus or any domestic big enough that they could just bring their big league oligopoly experience up north rather than actually try and compete. Of course the government reserves the right to veto your investment if you're the wrong kind of foreign or really anyone eXXon posted:except maybe for Videotron. DINGDINGDING. (for the record this is not any sort of inside information, just cynical speculation. Spectrum stuff is Not Our Job.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Outside of crown corporation wireless, which let's be honest will never happen irrespective of the existence-proof of success that is SK/MB, I see foreign ownership restrictions as the only realistic way to make things better. If nothing else, the sword of damocles threat of a Vodafone entry might be enough to stop the most egregious of the abuses we all suffer at the hands of Robelus. My post history ITT is full of arguments as to why this a) is already entirely possible, and b) won't work out the way you want, so I won't be bothering with rehashing them. We'll just have to see if some Vodafone-type ever takes that plunge. The only joy I get on this file is imagining James Moore grinding his teeth as he announces interventionist policy after interventionist policy and then drinking himself to sleep at night wondering WHY WON'T THIS WORK?!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
DarkJC posted:Because there's competition in Manitoba/Saskatchewan in the form of MTS/Sasktel that actually force the Big 3 to compete. Ontario has no such luxury. Only Thunder Bay gets semi-competitive plans here. More importantly, the competition is entrenched. MTS and Sasktel (and TBayTel to a lesser extent) have the "former government monopoly" advantages that Telus (formerly AGT+BCTel) has in AB/BC and Bell has in most of the rest of the country, so they can't be steamrolled quite as easily as, say, Wind/Globalive/Public, and the Big 3 actually have to act like "invaders" in those areas and offer plans that will possibly convince people to switch.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
I wasn't expecting this at all from you guys' posts, but I just called into Virgin to change my plan and the most irritating part was spending 15 minutes on hold: the CSR said the extra GB was for "BYOP plans, new activations, and upgrades" and since I last got a subsidy handset in 2013 and my tab had long since expired they painlessly switched me to a BYOP plan and the whole thing took like two minutes once I finally got to speak to someone, no threats to cancel necessary. I was routinely using my entire 2GB cap and incurring overage charges before so having 4 now for the same price as I'd usually end up paying makes me pretty drat happy by Canadian wireless standards. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Weren't Mobilicity customers mostly using handsets on different frequencies? (AWS, etc) I don't know how much tower sharing they and Rogers were doing before the buyout but I can imagine the experience being different between the two sets of customers for some time. Not that I have any evidence that this is the case - even if they did already transition everything properly, McGavin's would still have the problem that Rogers has worse network quality in the West than they do in the East.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
McGavin posted:Mobilicity and Wind phones use different frequencies from any of the other carriers, so their customers can't use Rogers' main network to begin with. I had to get a new phone to switch to Koodo. Yeah, this is what I meant. I'm not absolutely certain what Rogers will do to improve Mobi's service on the AWS spectrum - frankly if I were them I'd just leave it be and start leveraging phone selection to transition people onto Rogers/Fido frequencies over the next few years rather than basically duplicate a forest of cell towers for the sake of backward compatibility and service equity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Reverse Centaur posted:So from what I understand Shaw can't just pump a bunch of money into Wind and turn it into the Big 4? Could Shaw invest a ton of money into Wind to build a network that can compete on quality with the big 3 and Videotron? Probably, within the limits imposed by the spectrum Wind has (since Shaw sold the spectrum they bought at the last auction, IIRC, or at least traded it in some typically baroque business deal). I'm pretty sure they have that kind of money. Will they? Not without raising prices I expect, and it'll take a while even if they do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Godinster posted:If you like HSPA [not HSPA+] data that's artificially throttled, yeah it's a thing So just like the unlimited plans from Wind and Mobi, then! edit: that'll teach me to reply before reading the two posts on the new page.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:Google - "howardforums Manitoba plan 2015" I thought it was the other way around, since it's MTS that's getting bought out?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Funny how if you lop off the nonexistant population north of the 60th parallel and count only the actual provinces, our density loving doubles. Hell, take out the sparse as gently caress Labrador and focus on cities and the US border region housing pretty much everyone in the country and we can probably kick Norway's rear end in density too. Yes, when you ignore the parts of the problem that make it a problem it suddenly ceases to be a problem. It still takes money to build all the extra cell towers and backhaul fiber lines required to service rural Canada (and people who occasionally choose to leave the major cities), and those things still have to cover physical space so yeah, population density is still kind of a problem (not to mention the limited population available to cover the fixed costs of a buildout over X distance). I was bored at work so I did some math. If you leave out everything north of say Edmonton (i.e., Labrador, Quebec and Ontario north of the shore of James Bay, the northern halves of the Western provinces and the entire territories), you cover 97+% of the population and yeah, more than double the population density - but that takes it from 3.6 people per square km to 9.4 and that rump portion of Canada would still be the 7th-largest country by area in the world. (Norway, for the record, comes in at 15.6/sq. km, and they have plenty of frozen wasteland to lop off too if only building cellular infrastructure worked that way.) When WIND/Mobilicity tried to do without that and focus on the major cities, people complained about not getting service outside major cities when they were roadtripping, or having to roam onto one of the providers that didn't ignore flyover/drive-through country, or overall lovely service, and not enough people switched to them despite the competitive prices that were enabled by this very same strategy of "focusing on the cities" and despite endless regulatory policy seemingly devoted to the sole goal of enabling switching, and what do you know they sold out to the incumbents as soon as they were allowed to. Apparently, people want to be able to move with their mobile phones. In a sane country buildouts over the gigantic amounts of unprofitable space that need to be covered to knit the parts of this country people actually live in together and allow them to communicate would make an excellent public infrastructure program/Crown corp (like the railways and highways were) but MAH TAX DOLLARS. Still, either we pay for the luxury of living too goddamn far apart as taxpayers, or we pay for it as customers. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:They can't it's illegal now. Huh? Early termination fees are still LEGAL, they're just limited to the value of the device subsidy (as in, the difference between what you paid and retail price), and reduced every month for two years until they zero out. So unless TELUS is being unusually generous for people switching between their two flanker brands, they can absolutely charge you a termination fee for the deal as you describe it that would leave you no better off than just buying an unlocked 6S and BYODing it to Public. (see here, section G) Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Nov 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:This has been happening for months you guys must be new to the whole get the best deal for the least money thing. If for whatever reason they try to hit you with fees, open the box and return it for full price and let them eat it. Are any of these people not paying off their tabs/ECFs when they switch to Public or whoever? Because there's nothing like that in those threads. If you said "Koodo won't make you pay off your hardware subsidy when you cancel your service with them" then I wouldn't have said a thing, because I don't know whether they've been possessed by the ghost of Vladimir Lenin or have otherwise decided to do something really stupid, business-wise. But you said "it's illegal for them to make you pay off your hardware subsidy when you cancel your service with them to switch to a cheaper provider", which is dead wrong. They absolutely can. They probably will. And sure, they'll have to eat the cost of restocking the device you return. That's not really a huge amount of leverage when compared to them eating a $400 device subsidy, and if they don't bite on that POWER MOVE you or whoever you recommend this to will eat the time and effort they spent going through this dance to end up with the same phone and service plan they had before. Up to you to decide how much that's worth to you, I've said my piece. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Nov 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
How is that a loophole then? The tab serves exactly the same function as the cancellation fee would, post-Wireless Code: it's how you pay off the amount you saved on the upfront cost of the device. If you're still paying off the tab, you don't save anything over buying the device unlocked unless Koodo is deliberately setting the tab low enough so they take a loss on every device they sell. Which, I mean, they COULD be doing that. But it didn't sound like they were.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Your cost ends up being the tab price minus at worst a prorated 1 day of service. They are in fact eating the loss, I'm not sure you are understanding the deal here So I went and looked it up, and yes, I wasn't quite understanding the deal, and when dude asked about termination fees and you said "nah they can't", I thought you meant you weren't paying the tab either because I think of tabs as termination fees when they're paid off early. But you aren't quite understanding the law, so I guess we're even. Retail on a 6S32 at Koodo is currently $775, Koodo is cutting that to $0 for Black Friday when you purchase on a $504 tab that you can pay off over two years along with your plan. The CRTC says that you can charge a cancellation fee up to the difference between the retail price (today, $775) and the upfront price (today, $0). I'm not going phone shopping today (I actually just bought an unlocked phone yesterday on a Black Friday deal so I'm good for a while) so I won't have a chance to look at a Koodo service contract, so let's just say I would be very surprised if they let you walk away with it for $504, because they can exploit loopholes too, friendo. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Roughly $500 in savings on an Apple product ( $361 vs $870 ) Well, colour me surprised. Because of my job I generally don't expect carriers to miss a chance like that. But how did you pay $360 when that bill says you paid $560?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:If they didn't want to be hosed, they should've hired smarter contract lawyers. Yeah, the main thing I have learned from this Internet Argument is "if I ever want to go over to the dark side I know who I can replace".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
less than three posted:Competition Bureau on Bell buying MTS: "This would be terrible for consumers. Approved!" I mean, to be fair, the point was more "this would be terrible for consumers for these reasons, but we'll let you do it if you address these reasons by enabling someone else to replace the competitive carrier you are buying out." The ACTUAL problem is that Xplornet will do a terrible job of this, as anyone familiar with their Internet service would tell you. Were Shaw not interested in expanding Wind/Freedom to MB?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 15:59
|
|