Grex Oldcoop Conference

Item 20: Dial in Line Usage

Entered by janc on Tue Sep 23 01:57:30 2003:

Mark asked me to run new statistics on dial-in line usage.  Here's what
we've got for the last three months:

Usage between Fri Aug  1 00:00:00 2003 and Sun Aug 31 23:59:59 2003

lines    hours     percent
  0:     474.82    63.87%
  1:     204.68    27.53%
  2:      53.76     7.23%
  3:       9.27     1.25%
  4:       0.84     0.11%
  5:       0.04     0.01%
  6:       0.00     0.00%

Usage between Tue Jul  1 00:00:00 2003 and Thu Jul 31 23:59:59 2003

  0:     418.32    56.44%
  1:     220.05    29.69%
  2:      84.79    11.44%
  3:      15.49     2.09%
  4:       2.45     0.33%
  5:       0.14     0.02%
  6:       0.00     0.00%

Usage between Sun Jun  1 00:00:00 2003 and Mon Jun 30 23:59:59 2003
  0:     385.93    53.67%
  1:     240.82    33.49%
  2:      72.35    10.06%
  3:      15.98     2.22%
  4:       3.62     0.50%
  5:       0.36     0.05%
  6:       0.01     0.00%

So in the last three months there was less than a minute when all six of
Grex's current dialin lines were in use.  The real question is whether
we cut to three lines or four lines.  So over the last three months, the
totals with various numbers of lines would have been

  6 lines:     0 minutes of busy tones           0.00% chance of busy
  5 lines:    <1 minute of busy tones            0.00% chance of busy
  4 lines:    33 minutes of busy tones           0.02% chance of busy
  3 lines:    7 hours, 27 minutes of busy tones  0.34% chance of busy

Note the decimal point in the percentages.  At three lines, we'd expect
that if a user calls in at a random time, then there would be one chance
in 300 of getting a busy tone.  In practice, people don't call in at
random times, but are more likely to call in at busy times, so the
chances of a busy tone would be higher than that.
95 responses total.

#1 of 95 by dah on Tue Sep 23 03:03:14 2003:

Listen, the only reason we keep the dial-in lines around is to satisfy
people's nostalgic taste for a genuine dial-up BBS.  I don't see why we don't
just remove all but one line, in order to emulate, nostalgically, the actual
fun people had dialing-up genuine dial-up BBSs.

We'd save money AND improve service.


#2 of 95 by aruba on Tue Sep 23 03:05:08 2003:

Thanks Jan.  Grex's Centrex contract is due to expire in October.  I called
Ameritech and asked for quotes on how much it would cost us to stay on
Centrex, and how much it would cost to switch to a regular trunk-hunt
system.  I had to augment the information they sent with some charges not
included (911 charges and federal taxes), but I think I got everything.  The
results are:

What we pay now:
   $20.00   overhead for Centrex
   $19.81   per line
 --------
  $158.15   Total for 7 lines

What we'd pay if we committed to a new Centrex contract for 36 months, with
a minimum of 2 lines:
   $20.00   overhead for Centrex
   $21.55   per line
 --------
  $170.85   Total for 7 lines

What we'd pay if we dump Centrex and switch to a regular trunk-hunt
system:
   $22.73   per line
 --------
  $159.10   Total for 7 lines

So even if we kept all 7 lines, it would make sense to drop to a regular
trunk line.  And the more lines we drop, the more we'll save.  

The woman I talked to swore there would be no installation charges either
way.  Unfortunately, the quotes she sent me do talk about installation
charges, but that's understandable, since no doubt the software that
prints out quotes is not equipped to deal with our special situation.
Still, I wish I had it in writing that it won't cost us anything to
switch.


#3 of 95 by gelinas on Tue Sep 23 03:13:42 2003:

dah, the dial-up lines are there because we really do have people who use
dial-up.  I won't try to guess or explain why they use dial-up, but they do.
(FWIW, I technically use dial-up: PPP over an ISDN connection, just not to
grex.)


#4 of 95 by dah on Tue Sep 23 03:18:19 2003:

I don't think there's anyone who really does NEED to use dial-up, and besides
my plan will allow the VERY odd people who need to use dial-up to use dial-up.


#5 of 95 by gelinas on Tue Sep 23 03:24:44 2003:

It doesn't matter what you, or I, think of their needs; *they* think they need
it, so they do.  As the statistics show, one line won't supply the demand.


#6 of 95 by dah on Tue Sep 23 03:26:32 2003:

No, and that's the point:  We'll have less supply than demand, which will give
us more nostalgia and more money.


#7 of 95 by aruba on Tue Sep 23 03:54:31 2003:

Grex is not in business to make money.  Grex is, among other things, a
charity.  A large part of our charitable mission is to provide some minimal
internet access to people in the Ann Arbor area, and we need dialin lines to
do that.

Of course, that doesn't mean we're in the business of subsidizing the phone
company, either.  We should adjust the number of lines we have to agree with
the demand for them.


#8 of 95 by mary on Tue Sep 23 12:00:08 2003:

Mark, when in October can we make a change or drop our Centrex
contract?  I guess what I'm wondering is if the board needs
to vote on this tonight or whether we'd be having another meeting
before the target date.

My feeling on reading this through, once, is that we drop to
three lines.  Do we still have a staff only dialin line?
Do we need that? 

How do those *who dial in* feel about our dropping to three
available phone lines?


#9 of 95 by scott on Tue Sep 23 12:24:24 2003:

Re 5:  Please don't feed the troll.


#10 of 95 by cmcgee on Tue Sep 23 12:55:07 2003:

I could live with 3 lines, but I'm pretty sure that getting busy signals would
quickly extinguish my behavior of hopping on Grex on a whim.  The "hassle"
of finding a time when I could be sure of getting on would probably lead to
not trying.  Rather than several times a day, I'd probably be on several times
a week.


#11 of 95 by aruba on Tue Sep 23 13:07:00 2003:

I believe she said our Centrex contract runs out on October 20th.

I'm sorry I didn't get this data up earlier.  But I do think we should make
a decision on keeping or dropping Centrex at the meeting tonight.

It seems like a pretty easy decision to me: for a small number of lines, a
trunk hunt is cheaper than Centrex.  We've never used the intercom features
that make Centrex valuable for certain businesses, so it really doesn't
offer us any advantages that I see.


#12 of 95 by dpc on Tue Sep 23 13:17:20 2003:

I dial up, and I think going to 3 lines would be fine.


#13 of 95 by aruba on Tue Sep 23 13:28:57 2003:

I realized there is an error in #2: we pay $19.74 per line now, not $19.81.


#14 of 95 by gull on Tue Sep 23 13:34:00 2003:

I'm not too hung up on the "three or four lines" question.  I think
eventually we will no longer have dialin lines (or perhaps only one),
but I expect they'll be gradually phased out as they get less and less
use.  I think that for now having dialin lines fits with Grex's mission
of being accessable to low-income people.


#15 of 95 by janc on Tue Sep 23 13:49:03 2003:

This staff member feels no need for a staff line.  I haven't used it to dial
in in years.  It is nice to be able to phone people in the pumpkin, and phone
out from the pumpkin, but most staff members have cell phones and you could
dial out on one of the modem lines.

Getting off centrex seems a no brainer.  It gives us no advantages, costs
more, and limits our ability to reduce our lines as needed.

Cutting dial-in lines seems a no brainer too.  They really aren't being used.

I think the questions that need thinking about are (1) cut down to three dial
lines or two dial-in lines? and (2) cut out the staff line?

The other thing to think about is whether we can afford to bump up our DSL
speed.


#16 of 95 by aruba on Tue Sep 23 15:14:27 2003:

I don't have numbers worked out, but my sense is that we are currently
living beyond our means.  So I don't think we should consider bumping up our
DSL speed until
  1) We get on the new machine, and are assured that the DSL line, not the
CPU, is the biggest bottleneck, and
  2) We get some more members.
But, I'll be happy to work up some income/expense numbers for the October
meeting so we can be more analyticl about answering that question.  I don't
have time to do it for tonight.

I've been wondering if we need the staff line as well.  The theory was
always that if some vandal took over Grex and made it impossible to telnet
in, the staff could dial in and fix things.  Is that really something that
might happen these days?  $20/month seems like a lot to pay for that
insurance, if it's not really a practical solution to an attack.

I was thinking, based on Jan's numbers, that we should cut back to either 3
or 4 publicly-accessible dialin lines.


#17 of 95 by robh on Tue Sep 23 15:38:06 2003:

I'd be fine with 3 or 4 dial-up lines.


#18 of 95 by other on Tue Sep 23 18:40:20 2003:

I'm inclined to go with 4, to keep the busy time to less than a minute 
per month on average, primarily because of cmcgee's reasoning.  We can 
always drop another later.


#19 of 95 by gelinas on Tue Sep 23 21:16:40 2003:

I'm also inclined to four lines.  The jump from 0.02% to 0.34% is a big (!)
one, from thirty-three minutes to more than seven hours of busy signals.


#20 of 95 by i on Wed Sep 24 11:07:48 2003:

Does dial-in usage tend to rise in the fall & winter?  (Students back,
fewer warm & sunny hours to play outside, etc.)


#21 of 95 by aruba on Wed Sep 24 13:32:17 2003:

Students all have much faster ways to connect to Grex than through dialup.

The board voted last night to drop Centrex, drop to 4 dialin lines, and drop
the staff line.


#22 of 95 by gull on Wed Sep 24 14:09:56 2003:

Just out of curiousity, how much will this save us per month?


#23 of 95 by gull on Wed Sep 24 14:12:41 2003:

Never mind, just saw the answer in the board meeting minutes item.


#24 of 95 by aruba on Wed Sep 24 15:01:47 2003:

We should be paying approximately $70/month less than we pay now.


#25 of 95 by keesan on Wed Sep 24 16:52:09 2003:

I would go for three lines. 7 hours/month of busy signals, even if it were
all at the same time every day, would still only be 15 minutes maximum wait
(and I cannot imagine the business is always at the same time).


#26 of 95 by mary on Wed Sep 24 17:03:26 2003:

I think that was seven hours of busy signal over *three* months.  
The consensus was we'll drop to four now and then
evaluate how it's going for those dialing in.  We can drop
additional lines, without charge, but there is a $42 fee
to add a line.  I think I've got that right.


#27 of 95 by aruba on Wed Sep 24 19:41:06 2003:

Yup, that's right.


#28 of 95 by twenex on Wed Sep 24 23:03:34 2003:

I hope this isn't the beginning of the end for dialup. I don't imagine I'll
ever use dialup unless i actually move to Michigan (unlikely, since I'm
presently firmly rooted in the UK, or at least the EU), but they're handy for
people who live in Michigan and want to connect when there's a wait for an
Internet line.

I do support the idea of reducing the number of lines, though, since some seem
never to be used; not much point in disagreeing, now that it seems to be a
fait accompli :-).


#29 of 95 by gelinas on Thu Sep 25 02:10:39 2003:

(Board actions can be overruled by the membership.  The Board can also be
convinced to change its own decisions.  It ain't over 'til it's over. ;)


#30 of 95 by davel on Thu Sep 25 12:52:30 2003:

They're more than handy for people who want to avoid the telnet queue.  There
are a number of people who have no other internet access.


#31 of 95 by asddsa on Thu Sep 25 19:35:47 2003:

No wonder jp2 asked about this on m-net.


#32 of 95 by dah on Fri Sep 26 00:53:01 2003:

I know.  I mentioned it.


#33 of 95 by gull on Fri Sep 26 01:55:06 2003:

I haven't actually seen a telnet queue in a long time.  Are they still 
common?


#34 of 95 by gelinas on Fri Sep 26 04:21:53 2003:

I've been put it in occasionally, over the past month.  I don't know why,
though:  when I get on, the actual usage is pretty reasonable.  Right now,
we have "0 waiting, 28 remote + 2 local users; 72 max remote users".


#35 of 95 by scg on Sat Oct 4 02:41:01 2003:

It should be noted that the limit on telnet connections is entirely
artificial, based on the number of users the staff feel Grex can reasonably
support at a time.  Reducing the number of people who can connect via dial-up
lines should presumably therefore increase the number of people allowed to
simultaniously telnet in, by an equal amount.


#36 of 95 by mdw on Sat Oct 4 02:43:49 2003:

That's assuming that telnet users and dial-in users see the same
throughput and delay and present equal loads.


#37 of 95 by cross on Sat Oct 4 03:29:05 2003:

The argument could easily be made that dial-up users use more bandwidth
than network users.


#38 of 95 by scott on Sat Oct 4 12:50:51 2003:

Re 37:  No.  You need to spend some time on the vandal-smacking patrol to
understand where the bandwidth goes.


#39 of 95 by asddsa on Sat Oct 4 15:55:56 2003:

ahahahaha


#40 of 95 by cross on Sun Oct 5 05:50:34 2003:

You misunderstood me.  Actually, the fault is mine; I was unclear.  It
could be argued that dialup users create more system overhead than if
they connected via the network (the cost of handling serial interupts
is high).


#41 of 95 by mdw on Sun Oct 5 06:45:31 2003:

That's what the terminal server is for, to handle serial interrupts.  So
far as grex is concerned, the system and network load is virtually the
same whether people go through dialup connections or the internet.  But
the network load we care the most about is not what grex sees, but just
past the router on the DSL line.


#42 of 95 by scott on Sun Oct 5 13:26:45 2003:

The "serial interrupts" argument might have been true back years ago when we
were still using the multiport serial card.  I vaguely recall that Marcus and
STeve would occasionally argue that point.

The current situation is that modem users connect to our terminal server,
which then gives them a telnet connection to Grex.  Regardless of how the
modems connect, it's never been the modem users who download
eggdrop/bitchx/etc, using up network, disk, CPU, and staff resources.


#43 of 95 by cross on Sun Oct 5 18:22:12 2003:

Good point!  I'd forgotten about the terminal server.


#44 of 95 by aruba on Mon Oct 6 14:26:43 2003:

OK, I called Ameritech and told them to implement the motions the board
passed at the last meeting, as of the date our contract ends, which is
October 21st.  Specifically:

1) Drop the Centrex system and return to a POTS system.
2) Drop 761-3554, 761-3596, and 761-7541.
3) Keep 761-300, 761-5041, 761-3411, and 761-3451, and put a hunt on them,
   in that order.

I asked whether there were any features on those lines that we could drop,
line touch-tone dialing.  The answer was that there was nohing we could do
to reduce the base price, because all of their calling plans are geared
toward people who make outgoing calls, and we don't make any. 

I forgot to ask about any kind of circular hunting.  I realized I didn't
quite understand that - is the hunt supposed to give up on a line that's
ringing open after a certain number of rings, and move on to the next one?
That sounds fancier than what a POTS system can handle.  My gut feeling
is that we'd already given them enough to do anyway, and the chances are
already high that they will screw something up.  So let's wait and get
this change taken care of, and then if we want to add something else, do
it later.

The changes should take place on the morning of Tuesday the 21st.  We may
experience a disruption in service, but hopefully it will be short.


#45 of 95 by scott on Mon Oct 6 16:08:23 2003:

When we added Centrex we also got a new feature where an unanswered line would
move on to the next line in the trunk hunt, after 2-3 rings (settable - nephi
was our Centrex guy and could make changes).  Before that long-time Grexers
would keep a list of phone numbers in case a modem wasn't responding.

We've always had trunk hunt, where a busy line would bump up to the next line
when needed.


#46 of 95 by aruba on Mon Oct 6 20:54:19 2003:

OK, I get it.  We should be back to the old system now.  Since there are
only 4 lines, it should be easier than before to cycle through them
manually, if necessary.


#47 of 95 by i on Tue Oct 7 02:27:23 2003:

Are the first four lines shown by !phones the ones which we have left?


#48 of 95 by aruba on Tue Oct 7 03:41:55 2003:

Yes.


#49 of 95 by malymi on Sun Oct 12 12:46:32 2003:

re #41: yet the in-band file transfer protocols are still disabled for all
but dial-up sessions, with an explanation that no longer `fits'.


#50 of 95 by gelinas on Sun Oct 12 14:00:52 2003:

What do you mean by "in-band file transfer protocols", malymi?


#51 of 95 by remmers on Sun Oct 12 14:51:39 2003:

Probably kermit and zmodem.


#52 of 95 by malymi on Sun Oct 12 20:32:58 2003:

indeed, kermit and x/y/z-modem.  a large datagram presented to telnetd
has no more significant system overhead than one presented to ftpd.


#53 of 95 by gelinas on Mon Oct 13 02:57:00 2003:

kermit and z/y/z-modem weren't designed to be used in telnet sessions.  Use
FTP, if you have a telnet connection.


#54 of 95 by cross on Mon Oct 13 13:03:50 2003:

They weren't designed that way, it's true, but that doesn't preclude their
use.  Personally, I see no reason not to allow kermit and [xyz]modem over
telnet (or any other interactive login service).  If I'm not mistaken, zmodem
at least was designed to run over a packet switched network, and I know
kermit was designed to transfer files over a statically connected network
(pardon the loose usage of terms).  In particular, kermit was designed
to transfer files between a PDP-10 mainframe running TOPS-20 and a PC in
a `directly connected' computer lab.


#55 of 95 by remmers on Mon Oct 13 19:15:03 2003:

Discouragement of kermit and x/y/zmodem on Grex was done at at time when
Grex's internet bandwidth was orders of magnitude less than it is now.
Ftp was noticeably more efficient.  Now that we have a faster connection,
maybe it's time to revisit the issue.  Appropriate topic for the next
staff meeting.


#56 of 95 by aruba on Wed Oct 22 01:14:04 2003:

Well, our Centrex contract ended today, and Ameritech was supposed to drop
three of our phone lines.  I just called them, and they haven't been dropped
yet.  If they're still there in a couple of days, I'll call and hassle them.


#57 of 95 by other on Wed Oct 22 01:46:26 2003:

Ahh, good old Ameriwreck...


#58 of 95 by aruba on Wed Oct 22 16:53:56 2003:

Well, I called our lines just now, and indeed 3554, 3596, and 7541 have been
disconnected.  3000, 5041, 3411, and 3451 are still up, so it looks like
everything went as requested, only a day late.  We'll see when we get the
bill, of course, but so far so good.


#59 of 95 by tsty on Sat Nov 8 09:09:20 2003:

and teh hunt group works JustFine (tm) ?


#60 of 95 by gelinas on Sat Nov 8 13:49:20 2003:

It does now, so far as we know.  SBC had not included 3000 in the group at
first, but that was fixed on the following Monday, IIRC, and tested at the
BoD meeting.


#61 of 95 by aruba on Sun Nov 9 01:31:18 2003:

Right, as far as I know everything's working fine.  We haven't received the
November bill yet.  When we do we'll find out if everything's really all
right.


#62 of 95 by aruba on Fri Nov 14 02:43:20 2003:

I received the phone bill today, and as I feared, they charged us an
installation charge on our four lines.  $42 each.  I made two different
employees promise me they weren't going to do that, so I'll be on the phone
tomorrow morning trying to sort it out.


#63 of 95 by aruba on Fri Nov 14 15:45:47 2003:

I called the old number I used to call to get help with our phone system,
and was told that now that we aren't on Centrex, we have been transferred to
another department.

So I spoke with Beverly in the new department.  (I think it's called
Industrial Information Services, or something like that.)  Beverly told me
to write a letter disputing the installation charges, naming names of the
employees who told me we wouldn't be charged, and fax it to them.  She
said people who work with a project manager on transfers usually don't get
charged installation fees - so whether one is obliged to pay for
installation seems to depend on who you know. 

I do have the full name of one employee who told me there would be no
installation charges, and the first name of the other, with the dates I
talked to them.  Hopefully that will be enough to get a reversal.  I'm
pretty pissed off about this situation.  I did all I could short of
demanding a promise in writing, and I doubt that would have worked.


#64 of 95 by mary on Fri Nov 14 22:29:07 2003:

You're a good and generous person, Mark.  
Thanks for doing this.


#65 of 95 by aruba on Tue Nov 18 16:45:43 2003:

I faxed off a letter to SBC yesterday, requesting a reversal of the
installation charges.


#66 of 95 by aruba on Fri Nov 21 16:24:51 2003:

I called SBC to check that our fax was received, and in fact it was.  It
has been assigned to a billing dispute person.  Turnaround time is about 1
month. 



#67 of 95 by aruba on Thu Dec 4 18:54:02 2003:

I got a fax back from Ameritech today, and while not admitting they did
anything wrong, they did agree to "adjust" the charges that appeared on our
November bill.  So we should be getting a credit of $168 on our next
bill.  That should mean that our December bill will be $0, and our January
bill will be around $12.  In February we'll be back to paying $90/month.


#68 of 95 by mary on Thu Dec 4 18:55:16 2003:

Wow.  Nice, Mark.


#69 of 95 by jp2 on Thu Dec 4 19:01:18 2003:

This response has been erased.



#70 of 95 by mynxcat on Thu Dec 4 19:29:44 2003:

I don't know. You tell us Jamie ;)


#71 of 95 by tod on Thu Dec 4 19:59:37 2003:

This response has been erased.



#72 of 95 by bhoward on Thu Dec 4 23:21:49 2003:

Thanks for sorting this Mark.


#73 of 95 by aruba on Fri Dec 5 02:02:51 2003:

Re #69: Because they have a monopoly, and they don't have to care what we
think.  They do have to care what the Michigan Public Service Commission
thinks, though, so they do just enough that we can't complain to them.

I'll take it. :)


#74 of 95 by twenex on Sun Dec 7 19:03:28 2003:

Thanks for your efforts mark!


#75 of 95 by willcome on Sun Dec 7 19:31:53 2003:

Thanks, Mark!


#76 of 95 by dpc on Mon Dec 8 21:31:00 2003:

Great work, Mark!


#77 of 95 by willcome on Tue Dec 9 01:42:47 2003:

Nice job, mark!


#78 of 95 by naftee on Tue Dec 9 02:27:57 2003:

Amazing stuff, Mark!


#79 of 95 by willcome on Tue Dec 9 04:46:35 2003:

Mark, on the mark, Mark!


#80 of 95 by naftee on Wed Dec 10 04:20:34 2003:

Mark, you make marking a mark to remember.


#81 of 95 by aruba on Mon Dec 15 14:45:05 2003:

OK, I got the phone bill for December, and indeed our account has been
credited $168.  So that's the end of the Centrex chapter of Grex. :)


#82 of 95 by remmers on Mon Dec 15 15:30:21 2003:

May it rest in peace.


#83 of 95 by naftee on Tue Dec 16 04:34:28 2003:

See ya later, Centrex!


#84 of 95 by bhelliom on Tue Dec 16 17:00:40 2003:

*Plays taps on her trumpet*


#85 of 95 by janc on Mon Dec 20 16:34:31 2004:

September 2004
=========================
Users    Hours    Percent
  0:     498.63   70.00%
  1:     175.76   24.68%
  2:      32.86    4.61%
  3:       4.54    0.64%
  4:       0.50    0.07%


October 2004
=========================
Users    Hours    Percent
  0:     511.47   68.83%
  1:     190.18   25.59%
  2:      35.49    4.78%
  3:       5.89    0.79%
  4:       0.01    0.00%


November 2004
=========================
Users    Hours    Percent
  0:     500.20   70.07%
  1:     169.06   23.68%
  2:      39.35    5.51%
  3:       5.17    0.72%
  4:       0.07    0.01%


I think two lines would be sufficient.


#86 of 95 by albaugh on Mon Dec 20 22:05:04 2004:

I'm afraid that I must agree with janc, given those numbers.


#87 of 95 by mary on Mon Dec 20 22:05:52 2004:

Thanks so much for the data, Jan.  I agree that two lines
sounds right.


#88 of 95 by cmcgee on Mon Dec 20 23:18:11 2004:

Yep, even us intrepid dialers can read the numbers.


#89 of 95 by aruba on Tue Dec 21 04:01:59 2004:

Looks like 2 is the right number.  THanks Jan.


#90 of 95 by dpc on Tue Dec 21 16:06:26 2004:

Two looks right to me.


#91 of 95 by i on Wed Dec 22 09:24:03 2004:

Any chance that our current phone #'s can move to Provide.net?


#92 of 95 by mary on Wed Dec 22 13:14:21 2004:

When the Provide rep heard the number he thought it wouldn't be a 
problem.  I'm crossing fingers the phone company agrees. 


#93 of 95 by keesan on Thu Feb 3 22:48:30 2005:

Another knowledgeable grex member suggests a dual-port PCI serial card rather
than USB to serial adaptor for the two modems, as being more reliable.  He
thinks no more than $25 at Circuit City or Best Buy.  We have a USB to Serial
adaptor we could lend grex temporarily (but we want it back to use with our
digital camera in case we run into a computer with no serial ports).


#94 of 95 by cross on Fri Feb 4 04:40:58 2005:

We could do that, too.  It's a bit more expensive, not quite as extensible
(though I'm not sure that matters), and requires opening the grex case.  I
certainly don't think the USB serial ports are any less reliable.


#95 of 95 by jesuit on Wed May 17 02:14:21 2006:

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: