We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    Net Neutrality Proposed Changes in the US May 2014

    The FCC is considering changes to the US version of Net Neutrality which they will be reviewing 05/15/2014 and expect to put in place before EOY 2014.

    Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
    The proposed changes (and there have been numerous attempts to change the rules) include some sweeping alterations to this concept as it's implemented in the USA.

    There are several interpretations of what's coming down the internet pipe with these changes.

    QoS Slices (Quality of Service). If you pay more you get more.

    This means that if you want faster uploads or data throughput, you can buy a package from your ISP with the "improved" times.

    It also means that "customers" like, Netflix, Google, Facebook and other mega corporations will be able to buy QoS Slices for their products. Which means you get your streaming movie from Netflix faster. Sounds pretty good.

    But and there's always a but...

    If you are a smaller company who cannot buy a big QoS slice, they won't be technically slower than they are now, but they will surely seem that way.

    Also, if you are a end-user and your ISP wants to charge you more, you will get a nice notice detailing this (provided by the rules) but if you only have one ISP that services your area, you will have little recourse about paying the rate if you wish to remain connected.

    Will Turbine be able to buy a bigger QoS slice than WoW or SWTOR? Would it make a difference? Maybe on the initial download of the program but perhaps not in other ways. Many of the "lag" issues are issues of graphic updates in the PC and not caused by problems with the QoS level of the existing pipe. Even if Turbine buys into a higher QoS slice, the download speed of the client is still a bottleneck. They might be forced to buy into a bigger QoS slice, just to avoid the "appearance" of being a slow connection.

    If every company buys into a bigger QoS slice, the pipeline remains the same as today. The object of this rule is to allow some companies to move their data faster than others. It's a restriction for those who cannot afford to buy in and a big perk to those that can.

    The added expenses for companies like Netflix for buying that big pipe QoS slice will be paid for out of the CEO's bonus? Right? LOL! Someone will pay and it won't be the CEO of Netflix. You can very well guess who will be funding the new Net Not-Neutral Rules to be adopted in the US.



    (* formatting went wonky on the C&P you can check the official FCC blog directly for correct format if it looks odd)

    04/24/2014

    Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules
    by: Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman April 24, 2014 fcc.gov

    There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced regarding the draft Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we will today circulate to the Commission.

    The Notice proposes the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010 and subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit. The Notice does not change the underlying goals of transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by the 2010 Rule. The Notice does follow the roadmap established by the Court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open Internet and asks for further comments on the approach.

    It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year.

    To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted.

    Incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here:

    1. The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be “commercially reasonable.” Acting within the constraints of the Court’s decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is “commercially reasonable.” In addition, the Notice will seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important goal consistent with the Court’s decision. The Notice will also observe that the Commission believes it has the authority under Supreme Court precedent to identify behavior that is flatly illegal.
    2. It should be noted that even Title II regulation (which many have sought and which remains a clear alternative) only bans “unjust and unreasonable discrimination.”



    The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded. That is exactly what the “commercially unreasonable” test will protect against: harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity.

    To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose:

    1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
    2. That no legal content may be blocked; and
    3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.


    http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-reco...internet-rules

    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,949
    Tom Wheeler is a former lobbyist for cable and wireless companies. He's a corporate shill who likely has a cushy job as one of the plutocrats waiting for him once he 'serves' the American people. ISPs in this country already have us over a barrel and we get ######, slow internet in return, but I guess it's never enough for the swine at the trough. Hardly a surprise that our neocon, corporatist President hired this guy for the job. Another victory for the plutocracy.
    solien
    armor-plated since SoA alpha 3
    arkenstone: hall of fire & into the west

  3. #3
    The FCC is expecting to propose a 2 Tier Network Pricing Model on 05/15/2014. There are a number of protests and letters of opposition to the plan but it's likely it will go forward.

    The current FCC problem stems from a 2002 reclassification of broadband as an “information service” not a “telecommunications service". This lead to a Federal lawsuit by the ISPs. The Judge struck down key provisions of the 2010 Open Internet law.

    The FCC 2010 Open Internet law had 3 principles (Net Neutrality)

    1. Transparency
      Internet service providers (ISPs) must be transparent about how they handle network congestion
    2. Blocking
      ISPs are prohibited from blocking traffic such as Skype or Netflix on wired networks
    3. Anti-Discrimination
      ISPs can’t discriminate against such services by putting them into an Internet “slow lane” in order to benefit their own competing services


    The Judge up held rule 1: Transparency but struck down 2: Blocking and 3: Anti-Discrimination

    The FCC could reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service but there would be significant opposition by the ISPs and their lobby power in Congress.

    A de facto form of Tiered Pricing is already in place in the US: Netflix paid Comcast (02/2014) to provide better "direct route" though Comcast networks after their traffic levels passing though Comcast fell off. Comcast stated they where not throttling Netflix but after the agreement, Netfix data now passes through Comcast with less "delay".

    The new tiered pricing in the US is expected to be approved by EOY 2014.


    In contrast, the EU Parliament has moved to secure "Net Neutrality" by passing a law specifically prohibiting tiered pricing (preferential pricing) though out the EU or data speed discrimination. There are some loopholes in the law that could allow a site to be designated as an exception by declaring it to be a "specialized service" but any "throttling" cannot be affect the network as a whole. (04/2014)

    The EU Parliament also removed "roaming charges" applied in different countries by making the EU a single telecom market area.

    The EU laws are expected to be fully implemented by EOY 2014.


    The big stakeholders in the battle are: The ISPs vs Big Data (Google, Facebook, Twitter)
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  4. #4
    The FCC has received more than 1,000,000 communications regarding the upcoming changes to Net Neutrality in the USA.

    The dilemma for the FCC is that the Federal Court struck down the current definition and restriction on pricing tiers as applies to broadband/cable companies.

    The FCC has only 2 options:

    • Remove the 2002 reclassification of broadband from an “information service” back to a “telecommunications service".
    • Allow Tiered QoS Pricing by Court Order.


    There are 2 proposals under consideration by the FCC to avoid QoS Tiered Pricing.

    • Title II of the Communications Act

      This would require restoring the 2002 definition of broadband services as "common carrier" telecommunications service.
      Under "common carrier" cable would be considered a "public utility" and "consumers have the right to access equal services".

      This option would open up all cable markets and remove their quasi/real monopoly status under the "right to access equal services". Which is one reason the were reclassified in 2002.

      It will also be instantly challenged by the cable companies (Comcast, Verizon and AT&T etc).

    • Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act

      Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act gives the FCC authority to regulate broadband on a case by case basis.

      Each cable company would petition for specific pricing tiers, features and unique options. The FCC would have to approve each request individually.

      This would also be challenged immediately.


    The new official proposals are expected to be revealed on 05/15/2014. If adopted, there will be Public Comment until 09/30/2014. Final decision would be EOY 2014.

    There is already a de facto QoS contract in place between Comcast and Netflix guaranteeing Netflix "smoother passage" through Comcast networks. The terms of the contract are not public.
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  5. #5
    The FCC has received 45,000+ comments on their proposals to change Net Neutrality rules after the FCC lost lawsuits brought by the cable companies regarding the limitation on 2 Tier Service Pricing (QoS slices).

    John Oliver did a comedy routine about the upcoming changes on Jun 1, 2014 and posted an edition on YouTube. The video is clocking more than 1.5 million hits but more interesting is that at the end he requests people to submit comments to the FCC site on the issue (www.fcc.gov/comments). The FCC site crashed under the load (June 2 2014).

    We’re still experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system. Thanks for your patience as we work to resolve the issues.
    — The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014
    The routine is rather funny but quite accurate about the effects of the changes. There is strong language (not all of it with bleeps) in the video. I'm posting the link to the video with a fracture in the https header to prevent auto-run, remove the space when you paste it into your browser address page.

    ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=fpbOEoRrHyU


    There are still @60 days left for comments.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oliver_(comedian)
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  6. #6
    There have been some interesting back and forth between Netflix and Verizon that shows some of the issues surrounding the upcoming changes to the rules which will allow 2 Tiered Pricing (QoS slice).

    Recently in the Washington Post wrote series of articles about a message that Netflix showed when their movies "slowed down" and were "spooling" over Verizon networks. The image was captured and posted on a twitter account by a user.

    ht tps://twitter.com/yurivictor/status/473978204852453376/photo/1
    [note: urls are fractured to avoid auto-run. remove the space in the header]

    While the 2 companies are duking it out legally (Verizon sent a cease and desist order to Netflix to remove the message), some of the observations about the situation make the proposed changes even clearer.

    PRO rule change
    • Let Netflix pay for more bandwidth.
    • Their movies take up too much room on the internet.
    • It costs the ISP a lot of money to set up the back end and they should be compensated for it.



    CON rule change

    • Consumers already pay for bandwidth and the infrastructure.
    • Consumers pay for bandwidth performance and when ISPs slow down that performance they have to pay more.
    • Netflix charges a fee for their content and pays fees for internet access. When that access is slowed they have to pay more so their consumers will have to pay so Verizon can make more money.
    • If consumers use service provider X and service provider X has no delays in providing Netflix content but Verizon customers have delays for the same service, all consumers have to pay Verizon more money?



    On another Net Neutrality Front: Sponsored Data

    Mobile Internet may soon surpass Traditional Internet and in some countries it's the only internet access. Mobile Internet uses mobile-data for connection. The treatment and cost of mobile-data varies by country and carrier. Some carriers have limits and overage charges while others have unlimited mobile-data uses or throttle the use after N-amount of bandwidth is consumed.

    Not all countries recognize mobile-data as being in the same category as other connections for Net Neutrality.

    Some companies are using "sponsored data" to offer "free mobile-data connections" as long as you use their service. A sort of ad-ware for mobile data also called zero-rating service (Facebook-zero, Twitter-zero). That the services can provide "free" access to their platforms via "free" mobile data, may lock consumers to that service and it may become the "sole access" path for many users who otherwise could not afford the mobile-data fees/overage charges.

    Mobile data and zero-rating are in the forefront of the fight over net neutrality globally.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Free_Zone
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  7. #7
    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has requested the ISPs, Netflix and others to provide information about the "peering agreement" recently signed and publicly disputed.

    Soon after the Court struck down the existing rules on Net Neutrality early in 2014, Netflix signed an agreement with Comcast to provide "freer" access through the Comcast network system. Verizon wanted a similar deal with Netflix and the negotiations erupted into the public view, however Netflix has now signed an agreement with Verizon. The terms and conditions of these agreements have not been made public.

    There is speculation that Google and other Big Tech, have already signed similar agreements.

    While the term "Net Neutrality" is used generically, there are some very specific legal definitions of what this means in the US. In general, it's not what "we, the public" think it is.

    • Net Neutrality defined by the FCC refers only to the last 1 mile of connection to the premises. This is the only segment of the internet that this term applies to in the US.
    • Peering Contracts are what happens on the backbone and between ISPs. This is the contract area that Netflix, Comcast, Verizon and others are negotiating. Their agreement is no longer "settlement-free peering".


    In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the users of each network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free, "bill-and-keep," or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other in association with the exchange of traffic; instead, each derives and retains revenue from its own customers.

    (snip)

    Marketing pressures have led to the word “peering” sometimes being used to intentionally mislead when there is some settlement involved. In the face of such ambiguity, the phrase "settlement-free peering" is sometimes used to explicitly denote pure cost-free peering.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
    Selected portions of Tom Wheeler's Statement 06/13/2014

    STATEMENT BY FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON BROADBAND CONSUMERS AND INTERNET CONGESTION

    June 13, 2014 FCC.GOV FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER

    (selected bits of the statement)

    At the heart of this is whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide connectivity in the final mile to the home can advantage or disadvantage content providers, and therefore advantage or disadvantage consumers.

    (snip)

    “In reading the emails I receive, I thought this one from George pretty well sums up public concern:

    Netflix versus Verizon: Is Verizon abusing Net Neutrality and causing Netflix picture quality to be degraded by “throttling” transmission speeds? Who is at fault here? The consumer is the one suffering! What can you do?
    “We don’t know the answers and we are not suggesting that any company is at fault. But George has gone to the heart of the matter: what is going on and what can the FCC do on behalf of consumers? Consumers pay their ISP and they pay content providers like Hulu, Netflix or Amazon. Then when they don’t get good service they wonder what is going on. I have experienced these problems myself and know how exasperating it can be.

    “Consumers must get what they pay for. As the consumer’s representative we need to know what is going on. I have therefore directed the Commission staff to obtain the information we need to understand precisely what is happening in order to understand whether consumers are being harmed. Recently, at my direction, Commission staff has begun requesting information from ISPs and content providers. We have received the agreements between Comcast and Netflix and Verizon and Netflix. We are currently in the process of asking for others.
    (snip)
    Full statement located at:

    ht tp://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-statement-broadband-consumers-and-internet-congestion
    (note: URL is fractured to prevent auto-run. Remove the space in the header)


    On a side note: The comments on the upcoming rule changes has now exceeded 123,400. That's up +75,000 comments from 06/03/2014.
    John Oliver no doubt has had some effect.
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  8. #8
    The fight over Net Neutrality, who controls it and what it exactly means is still going strong... more players now entering the arena.

    • June 17, 2014 Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) put forward legislation that basically says that the FCC has the authority to control Net Neutrality and to just Go For It.

      The courts have twice struck down FCC rulings on Net Neutrality and the current status is there are some serious doubts that they have the proper authority.

      The problem dates back about 80 years to the beginning of the use of the telephone (also called a land line for those who do not remember the old Ma Bell phones that were rotary dialed, black and had hard connections to the wall. Sometimes you didn't dial a number, you picked up the receiver and asked for the operator who dialed for you. Or maybe you had a party line where everyone shared the line and you had to ask your neighbor to hang up so you could make a call... they didn't hang up completely they just listened in ala NSA today).

      The 80 years of legal "precedent" was cited by Jim Cicconi an AT&T Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs (June 06, 2014) for why the FCC cannot regulate Net Neutrality and that "we" should trust the broadband companies who have promised not to be "bad boys" for 3 years provided they get to buy some other companies ( AT&T - DirecTV / Comcast - Time Warner Cable).


      ht tp://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/net-neutrality-and-modern-memory/
      (note hyper link fractured to prevent auto-run. Remove the space in the header)

    • On the other side of the aisle in Congress is Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) who introduced a bill in 05, 2014 that would prevent the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a utility.

      "Reclassification" would put the broadband companies back under the Telco standards and in "theory" (Illinois) would re-establish Net Neutrality for the broadband companies.

      However, Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs (June 06, 2014) has made a case that the broadband companies will use a current loophole in the Telecom standard to continue Tiered Pricing anyway. Even if they are reclassified it won't change their plans to offer "peering" contracts which they already have in place and which the intend to continue to expand. While many "peering" contracts are "settlement-free" the new versions would not fall into that category.

      The FCC is already checking into the terms of these new "peering" arrangements.

    • The House Judiciary Committee hearing 06/20/2014 considered the proposal that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) would be a better venue to govern the issue of Net Neutrality than the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) .

      The idea would be that the FCC does what it can and then the FTC would step in a clobber anyone getting "too pricey". This change though would do nothing to prevent non-financial harm by the ISPs like suppressing speech or limiting diversity which would not be covered by anti-trust laws.



    note: Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs made a number of references to a Supreme Court ruling citing the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting opinion in the Brand X case. There are questionable applications of his citations to the issues involved.

    ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni cations_Association_v._Brand_X _Internet_Services
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    18,072
    Interesting read. Thanks!
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  10. #10
    The FCC has announced 2 teams to arbitrate the proposed mergers of (Comcast+Time Warner) and (ATT+DirecTV). While the mergers themselves fall into other categories of general interest like Anti-Trust, Monopoly, Consumer Issues, it's likely the topic of "net neutrality" will appear somewhere in the discussions.

    The issue is both complicated and straight forward. It all depends on which piece of wire or ether you are holding in your proverbial hand.

    • Net Neutrality in the USA is defined as the last 1 mile to the customer premises. There are currently no issues with this portion of the wire/ether.
    • Peering Agreements in the USA happen between ISPs. This was a long standing policy that most previous peering agreements were "settlement-free peering" or "revenue neutral".
      • This changed for the broadband/cable companies when the FCC rules regarding Tiered Pricing/QoS Slices Restrictions as applied to broadband/cable were struck down by the courts.
      • Telecom companies are not affected by the court rulings and the fight is strictly over the broadband/cable charges.


    Now Comcast and Verizon have known contracts with Netflix to provide "freer peering though their systems" for a "fee" and other large content providers like Google, Facebook etc are suspected of quietly settling with the cable companies.

    Many consumers have only 1 choice for internet connections and that is from their cable providers. Many communities, especially smaller ones, sign "single provider" contracts with cable companies to bring services to their towns. Large content providers like Netflix have to pass through the Comcast/Verizon cable system to reach the consumers and consumers have to pass back through the same system to reach FB or Google. The cable/broadband companies are forbidden to throttle end users (the last 1 mile) although they do offer "packages" where you can buy faster upload/download speeds (which the court found to be OK because it was a package deal). However, they can and do throttle father back in the pipe which affects the consumer (movies have spooling time outs) and content companies cannot provide service that consumers paid for in a timely fashion.

    The merger will bring up some of these topics. Comcast and ATT have offered to be "good citizens" IF they get their merger approved. They have not said what the alternative would be if their respective mergers are denied, but no doubt that will be a topic of discussion.

    The Justice Department will get a go at both companies (all four of them) along with the FCC.


    The FCC announcement of the team members, leaders and special appointments.
    ht tp://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0707/DOC-328068A1.pdf
    (url fragmented to prevent autorun. remove the space from the header)
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  11. #11
    The Net Neutrality Wars are taking another interesting turn - this time more focus is on mobile data - that's the way smartphones and phablets connect to the internet when they are not connected to a wifi hotspot/home wifi network.

    The wifi part happens when you are at a store, shop, restaurant or coffee shop that offers "free wifi". The mobile data part happens when you are traveling and tap your smart phone for GPS directions. Some larger applications like Netflix movies can come down on the mobile data too when you turn your tablet over to the kids in the backseat to play app-games or watch a streaming Netflix movie while you make your way "over hill and dale to grandmother's house we go..."

    The latest and maybe somewhat surprising turn, happened when Verizon Wireless decided it was a really good time to tell a lot of their customers that, oops... unlimited didn't really mean unlimited... it was only unlimited until they could get around to making it limited.

    So, this rather brilliantly timed statement happened 07/30/2014 when Verizon posted on their website the new rules to go in effect 10/2014.

    The changes they will be implement are under the guise of "Network Optimization" and affects users on their 4G LTE unlimited access plan. They are planning on penalizing customers in the top 5% of users accessing heavily trafficked sites. This penalty will be to down grade their service for 2 months at a time with recurring downgrades if they pop back up into the 5% category.

    The Verizon Wireless FAQ page is rather interesting and falls into one of those "have you read the privacy policy?" statement laundry lists that no one reads and yet catches everyone with a "OMG I didn't know they did THAT!" when the details emerge.

    Here are some of the more interesting assertions and tidbits:

    • Even though they will be reducing bandwidth access, that consumers have paid for, it's not "throttling". Throttling they claim, happens 100% of the time; all the time. This version is called "Network Optimization" and even though you will be slowing to turtle speed, you are not being "throttled" - except you paid for non-turtle speed and that's another "throttle" worthy of Gollum.

    • The top 5% of data users in any period get the "special treatment". Since you get downgraded when you hit this magic 5%, and percentages being what they are, another unlucky group will get to be the 5% the next cycle. The cycle is monthly and the penalty duration is 2 cycles. So there's a constant rotation of 5%ers going on and on and on. Not so ironically, while currently this applies to customers using 4.7 GB or more of data, the amount of data used is irrelevant for this formula: 5 per cent of whatever is the top amount downloaded is that period whether it's 1gb, 1mb or 1byte, it won't matter. Welcome to the 5% Group.

    • Exceptions are for: The Government (natch) and ... drum roll please.... "business customers who have signed a major account agreement." eg: Show me the Money!!!


    So part of the plan revolves around "a cell site experiencing high demand". Hmmm wonder which sites these are? Can you guess?

    I'll guess:

    • Yahoo (nah)
    • Google (gotta see that google-doodle every day)
    • Facebook (for sure, for sure)
    • App-Games (minecraft, etc)
    • Twitter (oh my tweets!!!)
    • Amazon (looking for a Hachette published book? You won't find it on Amazon - 900 authors censored).



    So, outside of the "can they do that?" question which seems that they can and will, in comes an interesting blast from the FCC... Yeppers, the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has send a demand for answers letter to Verizon Wireless. The letter requests 3 items of explanation.


    1. What is your rationale for treating customers differently based on the type of data plan to which they subscribe, rather than network architecture or technological factors? In particular, please explain your statement that, "If you're on an unlimited data plan and are concerned that you are in the top 5% of data users, you can switch to a usage-based data plan as customers on usage-based plans are not impacted."6

    2. Why is Verizon Wireless extending speed reductions from its 3G network to its much more efficient 4G LTE network?

    3. How does Verizon Wireless justify this policy consistent with its continuing obligations under the 700 MHz C Block open platform rules, under which Verizon Wireless may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the C Block networks; how can this conduct be justified under the Commission 's 2010 Open Internet rules, including the transparency rule that remains in effect?


    It may not seem like much, but it's more than anyone expected and certainly Verizon Wireless didn't expect anything at all.

    ht tp://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/07/network-optimization.html
    ht tp://www.verizonwireless.com/support/information/data_disclosure.html
    (url fractured to prevent auto-run. remove the space from the header)
    The FCC is considering a number of options for Net Neutrality and one of them is to label The Internet a Utility. They are considering if mobile data access methods should be included in the new plan.

    Does it matter if they do or don't? Well, it might matter a great deal.

    Another side show is a fight between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The DOJ wants data held by Microsoft on a server phyically located in Ireland.

    They dropped a warrant on Microsoft for the data but there's small snag: US Warrants are only good in the USA and only within the USA. Ireland is not in the US although a lot of Irish are. So, Microsoft refused to comply with the warrant.
    A judge ruled that Microsoft must deliver the data, even if it's physically located outside of the USA because: You can reach the data and the server from the Internet.

    The US is not the only country redefining internet borders and boundaries, the UK has a new law: DRIP which provides the same requirement of data retention and access, even if the data is located outside of normally recognized international borders or protected under "safe harbor" treaty provisions.

    search words: Microsoft, Irish server, 04/2014
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  12. #12
    Well the Net Neutrality Wars are still In Progress. A quick overview of what's happening.


    • The number of comments have now exceeded the Janet Jackson Wardrobe Malfunction submissions.

    • Current comment period is ending which means a new round of hearings will be held soon (tm).

    • 09/10-11/2014 a number of internet companies protested tiered pricing by displaying an animated "loading/waiting" icon on their sites which was supposed to indicate how long you would really have to wait for the site if tiered pricing happens.

    • Google finally decided that while it could more than afford the price hike for ultra-fast tier delivery that there would be other ramifications they would rather not see happen. So, they've begun their own anti-tiered pricing campaign.

      One possible reason might be, Google becoming a target of the FTC as a monopoly due to it's size, presence and ability to out pay the competition. They really don't want to go there, ever.

    • Some few cities provide 1 gigabyte service to their citizens. These cities either did not like the terms from the cable companies or were too small potatoes for cable companies to be interested in, so they set up their own local services. As they provide 1 gigabyte full service, something the FCC is "requesting" the Big Backbone Guys do as an upgrade for everyone, the Big Backbone Guys have decided to bring lawsuits against these cities and communities and would like the FCC to ban the cities from providing internet access.

      Of course if the Big Backbone Guys win, they will be happy to provide services at greater cost and lower speed if economically viable or maybe not provide the services at all as they were not interested in these communities to begin with. What they do want, is to prohibit any more "leeching" from within their territory. Whether they provide the service or not, they don't want any one else to do it.

    • There are loads of proposals still kicking around about how to fix the mess. No one is going to be happy and there will be Instant Lawsuit no matter how it goes down.

    • The USGov vs Microsoft on the Irish Email is getting to be a Very Big Deal. While it's not under the FCC jurisdiction the outcome of this lawsuit will have a huge impact on the internet. The Big Internet Companies, EFF and others are backing Microsoft, the 3 Letter Crowd is backing the USGov and given previous outcomes and opinions/rulings the Gov has a very strong case.

      • Summary of the case (generic):

      • The USGov has issued a warrant to Microsoft USA for data residing on a MS email server physiclaly located in Ireland. This is normally outside the US legal jurisdiction but this warrant is structured differently and the judge has already ruled that MS has to deliver the email regardless of where it is in the world.

      • Delivering this email to US Officials would violate Irish Laws.

      • The US Gov is claiming "global" authority on any data anywhere on the internet. If it can be accessed by a browser from within the USA, it crosses the US borders and is subject to US laws.

      • The ruling would apply to anyone "doing business" in the USA.

      • This means MS Corporate in Washington State would have to deliver information that they can access in Ireland, Germany, China etc. (This is the test case for the USGov)

      • It also means that a foreign company doing business in the US would have reciprocal problems. The US subsidiaries of Samsung which is a South Korean Company, would be required to deliver information accessible by their parent company in Seoul Korea, to the USGov.

      • If you have a foot print in the USA, the US Gov can reach every subsidiary anywhere in the world.

      • Germany has already declared that if this ruling is allowed to stand they will embargo all US Tech companies from doing business in Germany. Recently Verizon Germany lost their long term contract to provide telecom services to portions of the German Government over concerns about the US data trawl. At that time, Verizon Germany protested saying they were a German Company located in Germany and should not be excluded from the contract. The new posture and warrant type used by the USGov would require Verizon Germany to deliver any and all information from with in their telecom network in Germany directly to the USGov via the portal of Verizon USA and by data the crossing into a browser (being displayed) located within the USA.

      • Both sides have agreed that this case needs to go further up the court chain. The judge's previous ruling did not allow for any appeal at all. The judge amended ruling to allow a finding of "contempt of court" (non compliance) which will allow Microsoft to appeal to the next level.
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  13. #13
    A bit more information about the US Government vs Microsoft Irish Email lawsuit.


    The information that the US Government wants from the email server located in Ireland, is available to them via International Warrants. Nearly every country has a mechanism where a warrant will be issued that originates from outside their borders. In this case the US Government could petition the Irish Authorities for a warrant for this information.

    The US Government says this process takes "too long" and they need to be able to access/react "quickly" to any data anywhere, by-passing the normal international law enforcement procedures and judicial reviews.

    A corollary to this potential change is that other countries could demand the same reciprocal access to information residing in the USA but accessible via a browser located in their homeland.

    US Businesses often tailor systems and programs to specific regions to accommodate customer requirements, local laws and comply with US Import/Export or other US mandated restrictions. If other countries demand the same level of "instant" access by passing normal international legal reviews, a US company "doing business" in that country, might be required to deliver information from US subsidiaries based in the country or directly from the US parent corporation to be delivered to that foreign entity.

    The warrant type in this case, is normally used for "discovery" where each side in a lawsuit provides all the information in their possession to the other. This is typically a 2-way exchange of documentation, meant to provide equal knowledge to both parties and to the courts about the issues under review. With this type of warrant, you cannot withhold any documents or information from the courts, regardless of where that information resides in the physical world or in what jurisdiction the data is located.

    As noted, the Judge in the case has already found in favor of the US Government and that Microsoft must divulge the information. Under normal circumstances, this ruling cannot be appealed and Microsoft would be required to comply with the court order.


    July 31, 2014 Judge Preska ruled the data must be turned over to United States authorities. "It is a question of control, not a question of the location of that information."
    The recent alteration in the findings by the Judge was made so that the court could charge Microsoft with "contempt of court" which would enable an appeal to be filed with a higher court.

    There is no question that the US Government already knows the details of the metadata and the contents of the emails they wish to acquire. The metadata is legally harvested under several Presidential Executive Orders including EO 12333 and Section 215 of the FISA Amendment of the US Patriot Act and other provisions. The contents are harvested under a number of other provisions both internal to the USA and from other supportive countries.

    In this test case, the US Government indicated the contents are related to "drug trafficking".

    ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
    ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_A._Preska
    (see notable cases)
    (url fractured to prevent auto-run. remove the space from the header)
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  14. #14
    The Net Neutrality War Report


    Just when you thought you might be able to forget the US Net Neutrality War - a conflict waged between US Economic Giants ... the Force has decide to SPEAK to us.

    The Force pronounced "support for net neutratity" in the following format:

    • No blocking of requests to legal sites
    • No throttling or slow downs
    • More transparency about connections from source-to-destination not just "their piece"
    • No paid prioritization


    Sound fantastic but wait... wait from the other side of the conflict shouts ring out "HYBRID! HYBRID! HYBRID!" through unofficial leaked documents.

    (The leaker of which is not even under consideration for revealing goverment secrets or looking at a lifetime opportunity at Gitmo with Waterboarding for recreation and Meals by Tube three times daily, transportation to and from the medical center provided - shackles at no extra charge.)

    The Hybrid Plan would re-spec the US Internet into 2 segments: Wholesale and Retail.

    • Utility regulations would apply to Wholesale providers (backbone and transit points)
    • Retail regulations would apply to content delivery (data)


    Wholesale would apply Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to ISPs and the backbone providers.

    • No unfair advantage of one provider over another
    • Paid prioritization would be restricted and have to be approved


    Retail would apply Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the data/content providers.

    There are the 4 million waiting in the trenches for the whistle to signal: OVER THE TOP! Foot placed on the top step, twitter, Facebook at the ready. The courts are preparing to repel the avalanche of lawsuits following the human wave of complaints.



    The Net Neutrality War Report Over and Out. Returning you to your normal internet OMG station:

    Please Select from the following options:


    ISPs providing extra services: 2 MitMs

    • MitM1: Verizon, ATT, TMobile, Vodafone and others are re-writing the headers while you surf.
    • MitM2: A newly revealed MitM were ISPs and owners of some Cisco boxes can "accidently" strip your TLS encryption header from your packet rendering your encrypted email in plain text - no quantum computer needed - just block the TLS start message.



    Finance 101 - 010101010101

    Finance sector banking disarray and splinter-net with SWIFT, the system that tracks international bank transfers being replaced in Russia next year with their own version (other BRICS countries have plans for their own systems too).


    Farmer's Fare

    Monsanto settled $2,000,000 with US wheat farmers for the "discovery" of GMO wheat growing in ordinary wheat fields. A GMO wheat variety that was never approved in the US, supposedly not grown since trials in 2000/2003, and the seed stocks of which were either destroyed or in deep storage but somehow it was found , like ET, mysteriously growing in US fields in 2013.

    Woots! for the farmers! Now what will they do to get rid of those ET wheat plants that are resistant to herbicides? ET Phone Home? Maybe that new GMO potato will do it? Monsanto could insert a wheat killer gene in the potato... nah.. they wouldn't do that would they?


    Fossilized /security_bugs: Archaeology for fun and profit!

    Code:
    Linux		22 years
    Windows 	19 years
    Windows 	17 years
    SSL		2 years
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  15. #15
    In case anyone is still holding their breath for the FCC's ruling - it's coming SOON(tm).

    The FCC announced their intention of issuing a ruling on Net Neutrality in Feb 2015. ETA is Feb 26, 2015. The actual proposals they are going to vote on haven't been disclosed. Rest assured, the lobbying in the background and enormous sums of money are being spent to ensure the "correct" vote will happen. As detailed above, no matter what option the FCC adopts there will be insta-mega-lawsuits to block it.

    Splinter.Net is on a roll too. Google closed some development centers in Russia over a change to their Safe Harbor provisions. Safe Harbor was designed to allow companies to store local data (in this case Russian citizens) outside of the territory (in this case Russia) as long as the company provided all the same security to the data that was mandated in their home country. As more countries are getting annoyed about the NSA+5EYES+Friends getting nosy into their citizens activities Safe Harbor doesn't turn out to be that safe.

    ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ) / IANA ( Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) (IP Address Numbers) is also on the table and looks to be the next (or current) hot potato. These are the master domain name system and master IP Address numbering services currently in place. The USGov has had direct conrtol of ICANN/IANA but that is ending "SOON(tm)". Those in the EU want ICANN/IANA to move there, to be in theory, a less temping item for the NSA, but some countries are planning or have already started their own versions of domain naming should the upcoming negotiation not go their way. Similar to how some countries are building their own cable systems to by-pass the direct internet cable taps of the NSA+5EYES+Friends.

    ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

    ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth ority
    (url fractured to prevent auto-run. Remove the space from the header)

    Take-down requests for data to be removed from the internet, from numerous governments, are on the rise. Generally targeting information they don't want you to know but of course nearly everyone else does. The Security by Ignorance Method.


    Quite a number of the USA's "democratic" allies have passed new laws for 2015 that effectively prevent the publication or disclosure of information those governments don't want their citizens to know about. The NSA does it's best to do the same thing in the USA but occasionally something slips out anyway.


    Australia and New Zealand are having significant internal issues not unlike issues in the USA and elsewhere. For 2015 New Years Australians passed laws that:

    • Allow ASIO officers (their CIA/NSA) to torture anyone they chose with guaranteed immunity

      ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligen ce_Organisation
      (url fractured to prevent auto-run. Remove the space from the header)
    • Allows Australian Federal Police to "break into anyone's house" and they don't have to notify the owner for 6 months or more. If you disclose the break in in you get 2 years jail time.
    • Certain "speech" can be classified in to an undesirable category by nearly anyone with government job and you can be arrested for that too. Advocacy can be classified as "incitement" and a jail cell awaits you.
    • New powers for Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs) allow for additional surveillance of communications including lawyer-client privileged conversations. This can be invoked almost at-will by their law enforcement.


    The UK now has more laws barring publication, disclosure or exchange of information with terms starting at 10 years imprisonment for disclosing or re-publishing information available elsewhere on the internet or even (gasp) originating in the UK. The Information Interruptus Method.

    One amusing thing is that of the 5EYES partnerships, 4 are monarchies. The all sing "Long live the Queen/King" while we in the USA supposedly jettisoned the concept of monarchy in 1776 and 1789. The rest of our "allies" aren't much better and many of their "human rights" records are so bad you can't find a "good report" on your living room floor.

    Also on the Don't Look Now list is the upcoming fight between Microsoft and the USGov. This fight has already been officially "lost" and the USGov "won", but it's on appeal. There's not much chance of a reversal but the important issue is this: The USGov claims 100% jurisdiction over any content, information anywhere on the planet IF you can access it from within the USA. That means any website you can visit regardless of the home-country comes under USGov domination. If you can email or pdf something to the US then that too becomes accessible to the USGov. This would include any corporation data down to their trade secrets (hmm coca-cola recipe?) even if they don't officially have a presence in the USA. Just plain accessible is all that's required.


    We have so much to thank the NSA for...
    Last edited by SabrielofLorien; Jan 06 2015 at 11:34 AM. Reason: odd log out during posting
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  16. #16
    In case any one thought the FCC had forgotten about Net Neutrality, they haven't. The "new rules" are to be voted on Thursday Feb 26, 2015 (a tad later than the original date posted in the topic title).

    That's the good news.

    Now for the bad news. (drum roll please) No one knows what the new rules are going to be.

    Just in case you didn't think you read that right... no one know what the rules are going to be except the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. The other commission members of the FCC don't know, the US Gov doesn't know, Congress doesn't know (and surprisingly they did ask) and of course, "We the People" will be the last to know.

    One thing we do know is that there will be insta-lawsuits regardless what the rules are.

    Well maybe one group does know ... the NSA and 5EYES, after all they pwn the hard drives of the world and all the cell phone SIM cards too. There ain't nothing the Commish has been doing that can't be known by them.
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  17. #17
    FCC Meeting 02/26/2015 Primary Topic: Net Neutrality Vote


    First Vote of the Day: State Enacted Municiple Broadband Restrictions

    FCC voted in favour of overturning state laws that ban municipalities from expanding independent broadband coverage.

    Local governments in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina built their own fast networks. Cable companies objected as "they lost revenue" even though the cable companies did not want to provide this service, they didn't want anyone else to provide it either.

    Under pressure form the cable lobby, some states passed laws that banned similar municipal projects or expanding their service to other communities.

    * FCC VOTED 3-2 TO OVERRIDE STATE INTERNET LAWS.


    Second Vote of the Day: FCC vote on Net Neutrality

    The FCC votes in favor of Net Neutrality and places Broadband back under Title II regulation.

    A great deal of the issue regarding Net Neutrality revolves around Broadband (eg Cable). Some years ago, Broadband/Cable delivered primarily television programs (eg HBO) and won an exemption from regulations that applied to Telcos.

    Over the years since the special exemptions were created, Broadband/Cable and Telcos have blurred their distinctive services and offerings. There is a substantial overlap in what each group offers. The rules under consideration don't affect Telcos, only Broadband/Cable. The question are these:

    • Does Broadband/Cable still require special treatment?
    • Should their original exemption from Telco requirements still apply?


    Broadband/Cable now has the ability to offer everything a Telco can and more. Because they do not fall under the regulations as a Telco, they have had the ability to be "more creative" in pricing. Their latest pricing was to create Premium Priced Tiered Peering Agreement: high-speed/fast passage over their portion of the internet which creates a high speed lane for corporations that can afford to pay the toll fare. This sort of pricing agreement is prohibited for Telcos.

    There is little or no competition within a given market for Broadband. For a large number of consumers there is only one broadband provider in their area and there aren't alternative providers for the services offered. Often municipalities sign "exclusive provider" deals with a broadband company especially if the area is considered "too small potatoes" for normal competitive contracts. In some cases, broadband declines to provide any service at all as in rural districts.

    This results in: "We, the big cable guys, decide where, when and what to give you. If you don't like it, tough patoots. No substitutions allowed and don't even think about looking for these services elsewhere."

    Result of the voting:

    • FCC grants itself greater rule making authority over the internet and over broadband/cable providers.
    • There will be no tiered pricing (aka peering aggreements) allowed. Peering agreements will be revenue neutral as before.
    • Broadband/cable will lose their special exemptions and be governed like the Telcos under Title II of the Communications Act.


    * FCC VOTE 3-2 TO (RE)PLACE BROADBAND UNDER TITLE II.

    Net Neutrality will continue with no differences allowed between data packets. Consumer data will travel at the same speed as the Big Corp data. Data providers (al a Netflix) will not have to pay a cable-ransom to get their services delivered to consumers. Consumers and data providers already pay for their access to the net, so there is no justification for charging data providers extra to connect to their customers.


    What can consumers to expect next?

    • A legal feeding frenzy.
    • A riot in Congress.
    • A fast track request to the Supreme Court.
    • A slow down on data speeds by the cable companies.
    • Wrangling and more legal suits over what to do with the money broadband has already extorted from Big Data services.


    No.. it's not safe yet.
    Whoever says “I” creates the “you.” Such is the trap of every conscience. The “I” signifies both solitude and rejection of solitude. Words name things and then replace them. Whoever says tomorrow, denies it. Tomorrow exists only for him who does not seek it. And yesterday? Yesterday is Kolvillàg: a name to forget, a word already forgotten.

    The Oath: A Novel by Elie Wiesel

  18. #18

    The FCC has decided - more Rules to ensure Net Neutrality

    The document can be viewed here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-332260A1.pdf

    There is an interesting passage inside.

    Greater Transparency: [...]In addition to the existing transparency
    rule, which was not struck down by the court, the Order requires that broadband providers disclose, in a
    consistent format, promotional rates, fees and surcharges and data caps. Disclosures must also include
    packet loss as a measure of network performance, and provide notice of network management practices
    that can affect servic
    e.

    I would love it, if Telia were the first backbone provider that gets fined for their horrible performance.


    Greetings, Polymachos

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Polymachos View Post
    The document can be viewed here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-332260A1.pdf

    There is an interesting passage inside.

    Greater Transparency: [...]In addition to the existing transparency
    rule, which was not struck down by the court, the Order requires that broadband providers disclose, in a
    consistent format, promotional rates, fees and surcharges and data caps. Disclosures must also include
    packet loss as a measure of network performance, and provide notice of network management practices
    that can affect servic
    e.

    I would love it, if Telia were the first backbone provider that gets fined for their horrible performance.


    Greetings, Polymachos
    That link was just the Press Release and of course it will be all sunshine and puppydogs.

    Here is the actual full text (all 400 pages of it): http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...CC-15-24A1.pdf

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload