back to article Our vulture listened to four hours of obtuse net neutrality legal blah-blah so you don't have to: Here's what's happening

A year after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was sued for scrapping America's net neutrality rules, the issue finally ended up in court on Friday. The hearing, held in Washington DC, went on for hours. In fact, it went on for so long that one judge jokingly asked one of the lawyers whether he had brought some pizza …

  1. Gene Cash Silver badge
    Pint

    Thank you

    I had to read it 3 times to get most of the details, but I want to say thanks for a good clean writeup.

    A better case for Mr. McCarthy -->

    1. Dimmer

      Re: Thank you

      I agree, good write up.

      The problem is the rule as written did nothing for the consumer. If you can find a copy of it, read it. Completely misleading. It was all about the big providers controlling the internet via the paid for politicians. The next one will be all about the same control just like the last one but with a fresh coat of paint. It will be under the guise of "we are just here to help" and it does not matter who is in charge

      Here is what we all want :

      We pay $x for x speed at x reliability at less than x latency.

      We don't need the FCC involved, it is a simple agreement with the provider. If they slow down another providers content, it is a breach of contract and theft. Sue them. There are plenty of unemployed lawyers out there.

      You guys remember the AT$T unlimited plan? You got unlimited data for x a month. AT$T went back on their contract and throttled customers. This fell 100% under the FCC's jurisdiction. They had regulations in place to deal with it - The FCC did not do squat. Class action lawsuit and BAM problem solved. And not just with AT$T, the other carriers did not try it after that either.

      We don't need the FCC to do anything involving the internet. They already have jurisdiction over the tel cos, and they have not even bothered to find out where the fake caller id calls are coming from, much less force the telcos to forward the originating info to us so we can deal with it. Too much money being made.

      Right now it is like divorce lawyers making sure the couple are mad at each other so they can drag it out for as long as they can. States sue the feds. We are paying for the State lawyers, all of the court cost and the fed side as well. If the telcos are in the fight, we still pay for all of it, taxes and higher phone bills. After you paid all your bills and taxes did you have anything left from you paycheck? We are all getting played.

      1. SImon Hobson Silver badge

        Re: Thank you

        Here is what we all want :

        We pay $x for x speed at x reliability at less than x latency.

        ... If they slow down another providers content, it is a breach of contract and theft. Sue them. ... Class action lawsuit and BAM problem solved. And not just with AT$T, the other carriers did not try it after that either.

        Big problem with that, all the provider has to do is sell you a target speed 100Mbps service - but only guaranteed to be minimum of 10kbps; and with latency target of <1ms - but only guaranteed to be less than 10s; and with target availability of 99.999% but with no guarantee of any availability.

        Great you say, no-one would sign up to that rubbish. Correct, in most of the UK we have a choice of real providers and someone trying that crap would find few takers. But AIUI the state of internet provision in the USA, people would still buy it on the basis that it's better than no connection at all - having the choice of one incumbent since the cable industry did such a good job of carving up the market into several monopolies.

        So having signed up to such a service, you are not going to be able to sue because it's unlikely that they'll fail to provide what they guaranteed.

        This is where Pai's arguments fall down - backed up by the FCC's blatantly false reporting of the market situation to the government committees that oversee such things. If there's no market, then simply requiring transparency won't help - all it means is that the local monopoly would have to describe their bad service accordingly while people would still be forced to buy it. If there were a true market then it would deal with the situation - the cable co's would find themselves competing with providers who didn't throttle (eg) Netflix, and losing. But there isn't, so they won't.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Thank you

          "If there were a true market then it would deal with the situation"

          Exactly. Those who ignore history will be doomed to repeat it.

          The US has been through this before, and solved the monopolist problem with regulation. Carnegie and friends. Then they did the same with AT&T, but not in a sustainable way. And here they are again. Ultimately, a completely free market will always end up with a one or two monopolists. And they will keep falling into this trap for as long as they think socialism is a swear word and shy away from regulation until it's too late. (yes, lots of US citizens associate any form of regulation with "socialism" (by which they actually mean communism), even when it's them that's hurting from the lack of regulation).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Thank you

            "Ultimately, a completely free market will always end up with a one or two monopolists"

            The problem with Internet provision in the US is that the monopolies are not established by free markets (i.e. consumers choosing one vendor over the alternatives) but via local or state authorities putting geographic areas out for tender and accepting one voice provider and one cable provider as generally the agreements were put in-place before consumer Internet access was a widespread service. Once the monopolies are in-place, the providers often engage in anti-competitive measures (i.e. one vendor increases pricing in areas they do not wish to support usually in exchange for the alternative vendor doing the same elsewhere).

            This is why net neutrality is a sideshow for the majority of US consumers and average connection speeds across the US are so low. There are a list of example cities here: https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/1/8321437/maps-show-why-internet-is-more-expensive-us-europe-competition

            In rural locations where there is often little choice, sub-2Mbps speeds will be affordable but faster services (i.e. >25Mbps meaning something faster than ADSL2) will be hundreds of dollars per month and often include full cable/satellite TV packages on top of the Internet costs, to avoid consumers choosing them but allowing the FCC to show them as having high-speed connectivity.

            In my experience (service on Cogent and Time Warner business connections that offered high speeds but often suffered major bottlenecks to other providers i.e. 1Gbps connections where "someone" shaped traffic to 1Gbps AT&T connections in the same city to ~50Mbps during business hours. The AT&T sites could use close to line rate to other sites using Verizon/Sprint/etc), net neutrality is about forcing competitors to reduce interconnect costs for their existing infrastructure investments to benefit newer telco's with little real benefit to end users.

        2. Dimmer

          Re: Thank you

          I agree, a single provider is a problem. No competition, so it won't get better.

          In the early days of the phones, bell could not provide phones to the rural customers. The build out cost would never get a return. So the government subsidized by either giving them tax money collected from phone customers or exclusive areas of operations. Cities did the same for cable builds.

          Even tho now everyone that wanted a phone line has one, where is the Tax money been going for the last couple of decades? During the Obama era there were grants given to provide access for everyone to fast internet to their homes. This money went to the best proposals from the ISPs. Problem was, in typical government fashion,the only proposals approved were the ones between Cities, which we already had plenty of an competition in abundance. The proposals for the "Last Mile" were never funded keeping the local ISP free of competition and us with crappy service - and don't forget, the taxes are still on the phone bill.

          Things have change the cost model a lot recently. With the advent of 4g services and fiber to the cell sites, we now have another option for rural America. I built a 2 hop long haul connection (27 miles) so I could have service 2 years ago. I don't even attempt to maintain it now because I have a AT$T hot spot for $25 per month that provides me with 25mbps on a regular basis. They say it is unlimited and although I don't believe it, but I have not seen it throttled yet.

          The ISPs big city markets are tapped out so major changes have happened in the last year. They are now going after the smaller and rural cities. They are fighting among themselves for the last scraps of the market and it is in their best interest to have the government in control of the internet, which they can control via the courts or politics. (using your tax money by the way) If we can just keep the government out of the internet for another year it will be too late for them to stop the competition.

          That said, there was a good article the Reg did where one of the guys tested the Verizon claim of speed and access.

      2. veti Silver badge

        Re: Thank you

        Separate the ownership of infrastructure from provision of services.

        It's not that complicated. A wire is just a wire. There's no particular reason why the party that rents it to the user should have ultimate control of what goes down it.

        This model works well enough for other utilities, including public highways, mail, electricity, long-distance phone service. What's stopping you from applying it to broadband?

      3. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Thank you

        If they slow down another providers content, it is a breach of contract and theft. Sue them. There are plenty of unemployed lawyers out there.

        How would the typical consumer discover that "another provider['s] content" had been throttled, much less prove it?

  2. W.S.Gosset Bronze badge

    > and the FCC argued that the domain name system (DNS) adds "capability" to the internet, even though it is just a look-up service and doesn't really add any "capabilities" at all.

    Well-lllll... adds significant user capability, in terms of ease of access.* I would argue that (User+TechGubbins) / Cost = InternetUsefulness, and that InternetUsefulness is kinda a key issue under discussion. The court seems to be thinking the same way, too, re public safety aspects of internet access.

    .

    * "Just F*ckin' 216.58.203.110 It!" has no snappy acronym, for example

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      The old paper telephone directories, and the services the phone up and query them, added the exactly ability: to look up numeric addresses given the human-memorable details of someone's name and residence. So are the two not the same in such a legal argument?

      1. Warm Braw Silver badge

        And indeed, the phone networks operated a service (I think it was answered by someone saying "information?") over the network to provide the lookup capability if you didn't have access to a directory for the, possibly remote, geographic area you wanted to reach.

        Later still, some of that work was handled by early voice recognition systems. It can't really be argued that the function was somehow separately provided and not an integral part of the network.

        1. Yes Me Silver badge
          Angel

          It can really be argued...

          It can't really be argued that the function was somehow separately provided

          Of course it can. Lawyers can argue anything. And in this case they're right. The DNS is replaceable; it's what we used to call a value added service. 8.8.8.8 tells me how to find 2a03:2880:f119:8083:face:b00c:0:25de by name instead of by number. If the DNS vanished overnight and was replaced by the new Yes Me Directory service, we'd be fine (and I'd be rich, which is whole point of having a monopoly and exactly why the incumbents are on the FCC side in this lawsuit, and why ATT and the European PTTs were against the original deregulation efforts).

          I'm all for network neutrality in a reasonable form, but actually the FCC is correct - it's a consumer protection and free competition matter, and it should be regulated under consumer protection and anti-trust rules. Not that that's good news for consumers in Trumpland.

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: It can really be argued...

            But that's the problem. DNS from a user perspective is a vital part of an Internet service, ie people don't remember IP addresses, they rely on URLs and resolvers. There's potential for shenanigans, ie blocking or rate limiting DNS requests.. which happens. Question is who would then regulate. 'Services' aren't really an FCC thing, they're more likely FTC, but issues may arise where stuff is interfered with as part of peering/capacity disputes which are more in FCC territory.

            That's been the challenge over the last couple of decades, along with the more traditional 'neutrality' arguments. Those are still highly polarised, ie content providers don't want to pay for delivery, networks may want to charge.. Or have the ability to prioritise traffic based on application, ie VoIP so phones work when there might be congestion. VoIP's possibly the easiest one to regulate at the consumer level, so could allow ISPs to prioritise say, 128Kbps per consumer connection. That's been done on a few networks, with an occasional challenge dealing with prioritising across peering/transit connections.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The only thing that will happen is Ajit Pais brown envelopes will get bigger

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      There needn't be any brown envelopes, and there probably aren't any. There's just the presumption of a sinecure back at Verizon or at one of the other telcos when he leaves the FCC. The former would be illegal and thus risky; the latter is perfectly legal.

  4. John Sager

    So where is Congress in all this?

    This seems to be an opportunity for Congress to get off its butt and make a 21st century law to clarify stuff, rather than expecting the courts to do their job for them. However litigation is The American Way.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: So where is Congress in all this?

      "litigation is The American Way."

      It's a bit more complex than that. The whole system, I believe, has its roots in the English* system.

      The courts sit at the sharp end. The legislature makes the laws but the courts have to interpret them. Whatever's new hits the courts first because it hits individuals (and individual businesses) first and it's the courts to which those individuals have access. The courts will attempt to fit the new reality and law together by setting precedents. They have a lot of experience in that. It's up to the legislature to come along when things have settled a bit and replace what the courts have put together with new law.

      In short, courts tackle things bottom up and legislatures tackle things top down; the first is more responsive and the latter, hopefully, a more general solution. Then the cycle starts all over again.

      The difference between the UK and the US seems to lie in unelected bodies such as the FCC being able to make what are effectively laws without any of the procedures that apply to normal legislatures.

      * English because the system goes way back before the Act of Union, let alone the founding of the US.

      1. Paul Johnson 1

        Re: So where is Congress in all this?

        Actually the UK also has regulations made by government departments. See for example http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/introduction/made, which is the intro to the regulations for car construction. It says:

        The Secretary of State for Transport (hereinafter referred to as “the Secretary of State”), in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 34(5), 40(1), (2) and (3) and 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 now vested in him(1) and of all other enabling powers, and after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with the provisions of section 199(2) of that Act, hereby makes the following Regulations:—

        1. Saruman the White

          Re: So where is Congress in all this?

          Correct, however in this case the Secretary of State for Transport is authorised under the Road Traffic Act 1972 to produce regulations covering a restricted domain as defined in Section 199(2) of the Act. He cannot exceed those powers without having the courts declare the regulations as being unlawful (this has happened, albeit rarely, when certain government ministers tried to expand the scope of their powers).

          In the UK at least this is a fairly common approach when addressing certain dynamic legal issues that may need response times far shorter than is possible by passing primary legislation. Basically if a problem arises that falls under the domain of a given Act of Parliament, but is not covered by existing legislation, then the rules can be quickly adjusted to as appropriate. In fact if really urgent causes (where there is a safety-of-life issue) the rules can be changed within a few days; it can take months (if not a year or more) to make substantive changes to primary legislation.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: So where is Congress in all this?

          "The Secretary of State for Transport (hereinafter referred to as “the Secretary of State”), in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 34(5), 40(1), (2) and (3) and 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 now vested in him(1) and of all other enabling powers, and after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with the provisions of section 199(2) of that Act, hereby makes the following Regulations:—"

          Well I wish he'd ban those fscking super bright headlights that are nearly as bright a s"traditional" full beam, even when dipped!!!

          1. veti Silver badge

            Re: So where is Congress in all this?

            When I learned to drive, I learned it was illegal to use fog lights when there was no fog. Of course I may have learned wrong.

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: So where is Congress in all this?

            "super bright headlights"

            Headlights? These days even the sidelights are a problem.

        3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: So where is Congress in all this?

          "Actually the UK also has regulations made by government departments."

          Yes. Statutory Instruments. The word "statutory" is key. The statute lays down what the minister can do and if the minister oversteps the mark the regulation can be challenged in court by anyone who gets bitten by it. The minister is also answerable to Parliament.

          To whom are these Federal Commissions answerable?

        4. W.S.Gosset Bronze badge

          Re: So where is Congress in all this?

          Every country in the EU is subject to laws created by government departments: the EU Commission creates them and the Council of the EU approves them. Both bodies are wholly public-service appointees and there is NO democratic oversight.

          The closest thing to the US & UK concepts of democracy in the EU, is that the badly named EU Parliament must also agree. So there is a sort of democratic veto there, but that's it.

          To be clear: the UK (until Brexit) is utterly subject to laws created by government departments (EU law trumps UK law).

  5. Jellied Eel Silver badge

    Turf wars

    So FCC vs FTC. Plus lobbying. The whole telecommunications vs information service issue has long been a problem, or solution for lobbying. Which includes lobbying by the agencies because if they get to regulate, then they can grow empires. Or because of the $$$ involved, lawyers and lobbyists get to bill big.

    To my simple mind, it should be a 'communications service'. Define endpoints, ie user to server, user to user etc and then the plumbing that joins them. Then apply regulations to communications, and job done. Except doing that enjoins parties that don't want to be regulated this way. So currently it's been ISPs vs content providers and attempts to regulate just the ISPs activities, and the FCC's baby. Regulating the whole flow would mean content providers would also be expected to behave neutrally, ie can't favour or prioritise some traffic over others. It could also mean FTC/FCC becoming the arbiter in peering or connectiivity disputes, ie traffic dropping due to disputes around interconnect costs, which neither side probably wants. Or would do the usual thing of lobbying and finessing any regulations or rulings in their favour.

    From a user POV, it would make more sense. Users don't care who in the chain is causing the bottleneck, they just want it to work.

    1. willi0000000

      Re: Turf wars

      "...and then the plumbing that joins them."

      would that be some system of tubes?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just do it like..

    The power companies then if he wants it federally regulated, network open to 'power companies', in this case would be isps, then you can pick your isp from anywhere, network operators and exchanges provide spot prices on bandwidth providing competition across the country. Consumers can pick their isp based on prices, services etc.

    Then the government can regulate the providers federally, no throttling, no content restrictions, just charging based on the 'isp' contract for usage.

    So if you want to be a network operator it has to be open to all on fair price agreements.

    I'm not American so don't know if these options are available with power companies there.

    Difficult to implement.

    1. Dimmer

      Re: Just do it like..

      The power companies here do have massive fiber infrastructure, but have stayed out of the last mile. They are providing connectivity between cities, but hardly anyone knows about it. I don't understand why they are only are using it to operate smart meters.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Just do it like..

        "I don't understand why they are only are using it to operate smart meters."

        Probably because the incumbent major ISP found some legal loop-hole banning the power providers from becoming ISPs. Like those places where ISPs have successfully got cities banned from building their own networks.

  7. Donn Bly

    Does the FCC have the authority?

    Regardless of anything else, if the FCC had the authority to create the rule, then the FCC has the power to change or scrap the rule.

    What should happen is that the Legislature should be the ones creating the rules (it is, after all, their ONE job)

    Appointed people shouldn't be in the business of making rules. They should be in the business of implementing them.

    And Kieren, thank you for another balanced and informative article.

    1. Saruman the White

      Re: Does the FCC have the authority?

      Regardless of anything else, if the FCC had the authority to create the rule, then the FCC has the power to change or scrap the rule.

      I fully agree with this statement. The real question is: does the FCC have the power to completely abrogate itself of all responsibility.

      1. Mongrel

        Re: Does the FCC have the authority?

        I fully agree with this statement. The real question is: does the FCC have the power to completely abrogate itself of all responsibility.

        I think it's one thing to say "We made this rule and because of reasons X, Y & Z we wish to rescind it" and something completely different to say "We don't want to deal with this, it's their (FTC) problem now"

        Especially when the abrogation of responsibility aligns exactly with the needs of the group of people who they're meant to be regulating.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      "Appointed people shouldn't be in the business of making rules. "

      Wrong approach, sorry. Authorities are exactly created to be able to make rules within their specific scope - still subject to the Law that creates and regulates them.

      You can't really expect Congress, or any Parliament, to bear the full burden to create each and every specific and detailed rule, often in fields elected people have really no clue about, and rules that may need to change faster than the legislative process allows.

      Do you believe FAA should not make rules about airplanes and pilots certifications, or airspace management, and ask Congress to make them, and then just implement them? Any change to the rules should go under Congress approval? Good luck with it...

      Delegating specific and detailed rule-making to independent experts is not a bad thing at all - it's how you create a working system. Evidently legislative and executive power need to oversee authorities to ensure their work properly - and staff them with the right people.

      The issue here is when authorities are not staffed with independent experts - but with lobbyists promoting the agenda of a single side to increase their profits, at the expenses of the citizens.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: "Appointed people shouldn't be in the business of making rules. "

        "You can't really expect Congress, or any Parliament, to bear the full burden to create each and every specific and detailed rule, often in fields elected people have really no clue about, and rules that may need to change faster than the legislative process allows."

        As far as Parliament is concerned it passes legislation that empowers the relevant minister (in practice, of course, the minister's department) to make the rules. The minister is answerable in Parliament, directly and via the relevant Select Committee, and the rules can be challenged in court if the legislated powers have been exceeded. See the discussion above.

        To what extent, if any, are the Federal Commissioners answerable to Congress?

  8. Amplex

    Ultimately Congress is going to need to act

    A decent article - thank you. Ultimately this is going to have to come down to a rewrite of the Communications Act by Congress. The current set of law is so grossly inadequate in describing the Internet that it leads to a great deal of job security for lawyers while confusing everyone. Of course one has to be careful what they wish for when it comes to Congress rewriting law. The one thing all the large players will no doubt agree on is squashing as much competition as possible.

    1. Jim Mitchell
      Unhappy

      Re: Ultimately Congress is going to need to act

      You would think that if the regulatory agency said something is legally fuzzy, the courts say something is fuzzy, that the legislature would then take a hint and act to clarify the issue. Historically, it doesn't really seem that way. America, eh?

      1. Duncan Macdonald Silver badge

        Re: Ultimately Congress is going to need to act

        The big companies LIKE the rules being fuzzy. It means that they rarely get called out for their actions and if they are then the penalties are usually trivial.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fact?

    "The fact that there isn't a law that reflects the reality of the internet has created a tortuous process"

    Isn't there?

    Conceptually, the internet is pretty much telegraphy on steroids, and telegraphy has been regulated for coming to 200 years now.

    1. LDS Silver badge

      "Conceptually, the internet is pretty much telegraphy on steroids"

      While that is true, there are many specific issue that didn't exist with telegraph and telephone services that must be addressed.

      In some ways it also resemble cable television where you have "content providers" using the comm network to deliver their services and make money, just in a more "uncontrolled" (by comm network owners) way. I can understand ISPs feel they could get a too little slice of the cake - but exactly because in the battle between network owners and OTT service providers the citizen risk to be crushed, specific rules are needed.

  10. iLurker

    Perhaps one day the FCC will wake up and realise what has been the case for years - it no longer has any relevance to the internet.

  11. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

    Ah Chevron

    The Nine Seniles created the Chevron mess by ruling that agencies have a very wide (almost unlimited) latitude to reinterpret the law as they see fit. So the question is do they recognize Chevron was an idiotic decision in which case the FCC gets hammered or does Chevron stand, in which case the FCC can basically ignore its mandated activities. This will need to go to the Nine Seniles.

  12. stiine
    IT Angle

    ... a service that we all use every day ...

    No we don't.

    90% of what I do every day uses the internet only as a transport mechanism to get packets from my work computer (at home) to my company's server (in a data center.) The only parts of Comcast's network that I use are their cables, fibers, routers and electricity. The only Comcast server I actively interact with is their dhcp server.

    The rest of the time, my internet traffic only uses Comcast to reach the internet on the other side of Comcast where I interact with some 3rd party server (aws, google, cloudflare, incapsula, etc). The only interaction Comcast has with my traffic is to auto-decrement the TTL field, and update the SRCMAC, and DSTMAC fields as it passes through their hardware as defined in the BCPs and RFCs.

  13. stiine
    FAIL

    again?

    "You can't just decide one morning to pay an ISP on the other side of the country for internet access, they won't be able to do it."

    No matter what the author says, HughesNet would disagree, and be correct.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: again?

      Shrug. My experience with HughesNet is that they're equally capable of failing to provide adequate service everywhere.

  14. stiine
    Facepalm

    ha

    "If all things were fair, the FCC would be forced – yet again – to go back to the drawing board and develop a system that actually works for the internet."

    Why would they need to go back to the drawing board? It seems to me that simply reverting to the previous set of rules would be enough.

  15. Rich 2

    "Corrupt" doesn't come close

    "On the FCC's side are the cable industry's trade associations: USTelecom, CTIA, NCTA, American Cable Association, and Wireless Internet Service Providers Association."

    That little list alone tells all anyone needs to know about the FCC's independence and "working for the people" remit

  16. User McUser

    The Definition of "Common Carrier"

    It bothers me that people are so dismissive of the Communications Act being applied to the Internet. Sure, the technology underlying the communication system in question these days is completely different than that in 1934 - nobody is arguing otherwise. But the underlying principle - that the companies that own the "wires" can't control with *whom* you communicate nor the *content* of said communication - is what that law is really about. That principle is essentially the same as what is commonly known as "net neutrality" - no Internet service provider should be able to decide what sort of communications I get to have over the Internet. It's none of their concern - their job is to shuffle the bits back and forth as quickly as possible; no more, no less.

    My Internet connection brings me entertainment, news, and personal correspondence in the form of audio, video, text, pictures. It allows me to do business by remote controlling my computer at work and have fun by playing video games with someone on the other side of the planet. I can interact with government services to renew a license plate or pay my taxes. I can buy groceries, order a pizza, pay my bills, and transfer money from checking to savings. Almost everything that I can do in the world at large, I can do over my Internet connection.

    I cannot think of a more apt term for that connection than "common carrier."

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019