06-Apr-2007 07:11 PM
06-Apr-2007 08:47 PM
06-Apr-2007 11:44 PM
07-Apr-2007 12:18 AM
07-Apr-2007 12:49 AM
07-Apr-2007 01:25 AM
07-Apr-2007 08:49 AM
07-Apr-2007 10:49 AM
07-Apr-2007 11:21 AM
07-Apr-2007 01:17 PM
07-Apr-2007 03:31 PM
07-Apr-2007 03:34 PM
07-Apr-2007 04:08 PM
07-Apr-2007 04:27 PM
07-Apr-2007 09:59 PM
07-Apr-2007 10:23 PM
07-Apr-2007 11:31 PM
07-Apr-2007 11:54 PM - last edited on 07-Apr-2007 11:54 PM
Message Edited by tweets on 07-Apr-200711:55 PM
08-Apr-2007 12:23 AM
07-Apr-200710:59 PM
roberth wrote:
to hole:
multiply £40 by 18 (thats the monthly fee by the length of the contract)
now dont you think after eventually paying for the phone times over by the end of the contract should i have to resort to wayward means to have a fully functional (as intended by the manufacturer ) phone?
i think this is ridiculous and can only come back to bite these networks eventually with persons opting to purchase the unlocked mobile?
now what do u guys think?
08-Apr-2007 12:51 PM