AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-08-14, 11:45   Link #1
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Net neutrality

I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about it, what with the Google/Verizon proposal.

From what I understood of the debate, there seems to be some kind of incompatibility between net neutrality and differentiated services. Which is too bad - different usages (eg VoIP, video streaming, file transfer...) have different requirements. It'd make sense to treat them differently. OTOH, I can understand the fear of big companies stifling small ones. Not to mention the fear of the consumer getting billed for stuff he neither asked nor needs.

Thoughts?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 12:46   Link #2
Ricky Controversy
Frandle & Nightbag
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=ht...1010.pdf&pli=1

The above is a link to the proposal mentioned, for those interested. I'll come back with some feedback on the statement itself later today. It's also worth clarifying that this is in no way effective law yet, it's just Google and Verizon making a statement about what they feel should be done, and which they will attempt to act on to give the notion some momentum.
__________________
Ricky Controversy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 12:51   Link #3
Kafriel
Senior Guest
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Athens (GMT+2)
Age: 25
The only clause that protects consumers is the one on transparency...the rest is just a pile of useless trash that's probably only suggested to be abused. The word "lawful" surely dominates the article...
__________________
Kafriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 13:19   Link #4
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
The main goal of pushing net neutrality is to keep ISPs and content providers from turning the Internet into a cable TV model. I agree with this endeavor and do not wish the Internet to be set up in a tiered service where websites are treated like cable channels.

However, the very nature of the Internet would reject such a model. Even if the ISPs and content providers all united behind the lofty goal of fucking the consumer in the ass, the Internet would find a way around it. Through proxies in other countries or even an entirely-wireless "pirate Internet..."

The internet becoming restricted by private companies is not what worries me. We can find ways around that. What worries me is some of the verbiage stuck into the net neutrality laws that could give the government power over the Internet in certain ways.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 14:21   Link #5
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I'm... unclear on what problem you expect proxies or pirating your neighbor's wifi is going to solve.

I mean, the big issue of differentiated services is that they provide an edge to those who can afford them. It allows them to provide faster service. But commercial sites can't pirate their neighbor's wireless, if only because it lacks the bandwidth to allow them to make it big, and if they can't do that, what's the point? (Also, legal actions... It's harder for them to get away with that sort of thing.) As for proxies, they actually lengthen the trip down the internet metaphorical tubes and introduce more delay and load on the network. What's the point?

Or did you mean our capacities to use the internet to download stuff illegally? Well, yeah, it's not really threatened. But that's not the point, is it?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 14:41   Link #6
idiffer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to idiffer
um...what exactly does that article want to say "in plain language"? i read only "blah blah blah". i mean, really, you expect ISP's to just invent smth to differentiate between legal and nonlegal content in a consistent bug free manner in the near future???
__________________
My posts seem retarted? I invoke the freedomof choice upon thee to choose one of the below.
a) Iím batshit insane or mentally challenged. Nyan!
b) Wasu~p?! *brofist*
c) Your mind is too narrow to embrace my genius, de geso.
d) I was accidentally dropped into a barrel of whiskey, so now I am constantly drunk.
e) Go home and die! Dattebayo!
idiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 14:44   Link #7
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
No, I'm talking about a "second Internet," created through point-to-point wireless connections. It's been brought up in theoretical discussions about totalitarian government restrictions on the "true" Internet. Not talking about stealing software or the neighbor's wifi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idiffer View Post
um...what exactly does that article want to say "in plain language"? i read only "blah blah blah". i mean, really, you expect ISP's to just invent smth to differentiate between legal and nonlegal content in a consistent bug free manner in the near future???
It's not legal vs. non-legal that they really want to differentiate (though I'm sure content gatekeepers would love to do that, but a packet is a packet is a packet and it's hard to tell the difference between them).

The fear is that with "differentiation of services" they could potentially charge you the same way cable companies do--if you want sites that stress their bandwidth more (i.e. streaming video) you'd have to pay more. Like adding on the movie channel package to your cable TV.

This is bad for freedom on the Internet because it'd give certain sites--and thus certain viewpoints and opinions and socio-political leanings--greater priority and visibility than others. Net neutrality in America is focused on making sure all data is treated equally, so that all speech is treated equally and in accordance to the First Amendment. ISPs and content providers don't like this because they consider the Internet to be their property and they should be able to do with it what they want. When it actually belongs to everyone.

While ISPs would likely restrict/charge more for sites that put greater stresses on their networks (to increase profits and reduce costs) the fear is that access could easily be denied to, say, an independent Internet blogger who posts about the ISP's shady business practices. The ISP could use this system to prevent anyone from ever seeing it.

That's the dangerous part, especially if a company with a lot of clout and a mania for secrecy (*coughapple*) just so happened to release a product with a number of fundamental design flaws... and then decided to "convince" ISPs to block negative reviews or investigative reports on that particular product... this is the sort of dangers that a non-neutral Internet can bring.

tl;dr version: The Internet is "open" now, but if the opponents of net neutrality have their way, we can expect the entire Internet to become a "walled garden."
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:03   Link #8
idiffer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to idiffer
thanks for clearing that up, synaesthetic.
but wouldnt it be nearly impossible to control information on the internet, considering its vastness and light speed dynamics?
and how would this effect for example downloading content through torrents? would they block tokyotosho or have ppl pay for it?
__________________
My posts seem retarted? I invoke the freedomof choice upon thee to choose one of the below.
a) Iím batshit insane or mentally challenged. Nyan!
b) Wasu~p?! *brofist*
c) Your mind is too narrow to embrace my genius, de geso.
d) I was accidentally dropped into a barrel of whiskey, so now I am constantly drunk.
e) Go home and die! Dattebayo!
idiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:10   Link #9
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
It's not as hard as you think. ISPs can block traffic to certain sites already; this is how the "Great Firewall of China" is maintained.

There are all sorts of ways around it, of course--the Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it. But if ISPs were able to take punitive measures against people who circumvent their restrictions, it could get pretty ugly.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:25   Link #10
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Or did you mean our capacities to use the internet to download stuff illegally? Well, yeah, it's not really threatened. But that's not the point, is it?
If you have been using the "internet" (which is nothing more than a group of BBSes and MUDs) since the early 1990s, everything is free : all you need is to post a request.

The corporate domination and "their right to squeeze every cent out of us" of many service providers have been the bane of consumers - we have to pay for something that isn't physical and maybe not even needed

Besides, I believe that there will be no need pay for it for the high speed access, since it only applies to surfing. Also, technology sales follows something called price depreciation - otherwise there wouldn't be anything written called "cash flow statements".

A GTS 250 graphics card costs $200 last year I bought it. Now it is only worth within the $90-140 price range. Similarly, since technology improves exponentially over time, price depreciation applies; all we need to do as a consumer is to assess our need and spend appropriately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
tl;dr version: The Internet is "open" now, but if the opponents of net neutrality have their way, we can expect the entire Internet to become a "walled garden."
The Internet is "content based" and has always been free. Google isn't the only search engine on it.

Besides, I think the US providers are catching onto Singapore's ISP corporate styles - provide a shitty plan with half-past-six 2wire modems or cable, market the hell out of it, then when people complain, pretend that it is the consumers' fault.

Followed by staffing their call-in helpdesks with halfwits who know little or nothing about Internet connections and technical systems, then passing the parcel to the understaffed on-site technical department filled with underpaid, overworked technicians running gauntlets everyday.

And the customers, unwilling to pay the $120 termination of contract fee, have no choice but to suck their thumbs till the contract ends. And over the period of the 36 month contract, with each month pricing at $92 for the services and excluding depreciation, the provider earns $3312 per customer over a period of 3 years, taking into account at least 2 disconnections per month, serious lag when playing games with people even in the SEA region and a restricted capability firewall so hard to configure.

I guess the World Cup corporate fiasco last month blew some dirty ideas overseas.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:36   Link #11
yoropa
Director
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
No, I'm talking about a "second Internet," created through point-to-point wireless connections. It's been brought up in theoretical discussions about totalitarian government restrictions on the "true" Internet. Not talking about stealing software or the neighbor's wifi.
In theory? That's how the internet used to be, except not wireless. You'd get a huge string of direct connections between multiple computers. So what you're suggesting isn't just theoretical but actually has been done before and can be done again.
__________________
I question, and get an answer. I question the answer, and get anger. I question the anger, but nothing more is left.
yoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:47   Link #12
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
I am aware of that, but with current wireless standards, we can't reach over an ocean--max range for 802.11n is around 100 meters. And cellular networks are very much a closed network, so they're out.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:57   Link #13
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiffer View Post
um...what exactly does that article want to say "in plain language"? i read only "blah blah blah". i mean, really, you expect ISP's to just invent smth to differentiate between legal and nonlegal content in a consistent bug free manner in the near future???
I don't take all those mentions of "lawful" all that seriously. They could, in theory, perform some kind of deep packet inspection to see exactly what you download (kinda like reading your mail), but, legal ramifications and public outcry aside, I doubt they want the hassle. It'd cost them money, it might make them liable when something goes wrong, and so on.

No, I think they put those there to leave themselves some wiggle room if the government or copyright holders want them to blacklist certain sites. They want to be able to say yes, which would technically be some kind of net neutrality violation. As for how - easy, just drop whatever datagram carries the blacklisted addresses (like reading the address on the envelop and deciding whether to deliver the letter or trash it).


Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
No, I'm talking about a "second Internet," created through point-to-point wireless connections. It's been brought up in theoretical discussions about totalitarian government restrictions on the "true" Internet. Not talking about stealing software or the neighbor's wifi.
Yeah, and if you can do that on the cheap, become an ISP. There's a lot of money to be made in rural areas for something like that.

The truth of the matter is that we don't build and maintain expensive infrastructure for the fun of it. We do it because we need them. The technology for wireless broadband exists, but the initial investments being what they are, it'd be prohibitively expensive for the first adopters. Oh, I doubt they government would let you pull something like that on a big scale - not without paying for the frequency range.

Quote:
It's not legal vs. non-legal that they really want to differentiate (though I'm sure content gatekeepers would love to do that, but a packet is a packet is a packet and it's hard to tell the difference between them).

The fear is that with "differentiation of services" they could potentially charge you the same way cable companies do--if you want sites that stress their bandwidth more (i.e. streaming video) you'd have to pay more. Like adding on the movie channel package to your cable TV.
Yeah, god forbid that you pay for what you consume. (I don't know the pricing scheme in the states, but I have to confess - in France, we don't. We all pay the same price for our internet (bundled with phone, and "cable" TV). I haven't looked at the ISP accounts, but it's likely those who download a lot are thus sponsored by those who only have internet for email and some light surfing. However, I don't see anything shocking about the idea of the guys using more of the system resources putting more money toward its maintenance and expansion than those who'd just have soon have stayed with dialup speeds.) The problem is elsewhere.

Quote:
This is bad for freedom on the Internet because it'd give certain sites--and thus certain viewpoints and opinions and socio-political leanings--greater priority and visibility than others. Net neutrality in America is focused on making sure all data is treated equally, so that all speech is treated equally and in accordance to the First Amendment.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think the First Amendment gives you the right to your own personal soapbox. It just says you won't be molested if you buy or rent one and use it.

Quote:
ISPs and content providers don't like this because they consider the Internet to be their property and they should be able to do with it what they want. When it actually belongs to everyone.
No, it really doesn't. A lot of people own bits of it, but most people don't own any of it. The internet is made of a series of tubes, or rather, lots of cables, routers, and servers. All of which have to be paid for and maintained. It's also made of more intangible things (like websites. It just code and data, but it doesn't fall from the sky. Except maybe in the case of sites on the weather.)

Quote:
While ISPs would likely restrict/charge more for sites that put greater stresses on their networks (to increase profits and reduce costs) the fear is that access could easily be denied to, say, an independent Internet blogger who posts about the ISP's shady business practices. The ISP could use this system to prevent anyone from ever seeing it.
That's veering uncomfortably close to conspiracy theory.


I think it much more likely that it's going to be about money a lot more than about politics. For example, Google and Verizon will sign an agreement, and Youtube will always be much faster than its competition. They won't be blocked, just... slower. As for your blog about how your ISP sucks... nobody will care.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 16:02   Link #14
idiffer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to idiffer
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
And the customers, unwilling to pay the $120 termination of contract fee, have no
thank god we dont have that problem in our country.)) you terminate the contract by not paying the ISP. there is this thing even, if you switch providers, initially you dont have to pay anything. you pay only each month for the bandwidth.


Quote:
ISPs and content providers don't like this because they consider the Internet to be their property and they should be able to do with it what they want. When it actually belongs to everyone.

No, it really doesn't. A lot of people own bits of it, but most people don't own any of it. The internet is made of a series of tubes, or rather, lots of cables, routers, and servers. All of which have to be paid for and maintained. It's also made of more intangible things (like websites. It just code and data, but it doesn't fall from the sky. Except maybe in the case of sites on the weather.)
Quote: end. (sorry, i'm not that good with quotes on forums)

but that doesnt mean that ISP's get to decide what shall be payed for. the ISP of your region doesnt necesserally own the the tubes and servers used to make a certain site they blocked or made available by paying only. they'd have to sign thousands of contracts to get total control, following your logic.
__________________
My posts seem retarted? I invoke the freedomof choice upon thee to choose one of the below.
a) Iím batshit insane or mentally challenged. Nyan!
b) Wasu~p?! *brofist*
c) Your mind is too narrow to embrace my genius, de geso.
d) I was accidentally dropped into a barrel of whiskey, so now I am constantly drunk.
e) Go home and die! Dattebayo!

Last edited by idiffer; 2010-08-14 at 16:16.
idiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 16:17   Link #15
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Actually, in America, everyone does own it.

The US government gave the major telecoms a hell of a lot of money, taxpayer funds, to expand their broadband infrastructures. And guess what? Those telecoms took the money.

That makes it ours.

You take taxpayer money, you take bailouts, you take government funding or subsidies, you can no longer claim to be a private entity.

I'm so sick to death of the "privatize the profits, subsidize the losses" stratagem most corporate entities in this country seem to gravitate to. It's a bunch of horseshit.

If your corporation accepts public funds at all, ever, at any time, you should no longer be considered a private company.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 16:23   Link #16
idiffer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to idiffer
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Actually, in America, everyone does own it.

The US government gave the major telecoms a hell of a lot of money, taxpayer funds, to expand their broadband infrastructures. And guess what? Those telecoms took the money.

That makes it ours.

You take taxpayer money, you take bailouts, you take government funding or subsidies, you can no longer claim to be a private entity.

I'm so sick to death of the "privatize the profits, subsidize the losses" stratagem most corporate entities in this country seem to gravitate to. It's a bunch of horseshit.

If your corporation accepts public funds at all, ever, at any time, you should no longer be considered a private company.
yeah but exactly how much of YOUR money was used? and worth how much have you dl'ed/streamed/whatever in your lifetime?
i'd say that objectively its about time to start paying. subjectively...i want the internet to be open, free and so on.
__________________
My posts seem retarted? I invoke the freedomof choice upon thee to choose one of the below.
a) Iím batshit insane or mentally challenged. Nyan!
b) Wasu~p?! *brofist*
c) Your mind is too narrow to embrace my genius, de geso.
d) I was accidentally dropped into a barrel of whiskey, so now I am constantly drunk.
e) Go home and die! Dattebayo!
idiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 16:54   Link #17
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Actually, in America, everyone does own it.

The US government gave the major telecoms a hell of a lot of money, taxpayer funds, to expand their broadband infrastructures. And guess what? Those telecoms took the money.

That makes it ours.

You take taxpayer money, you take bailouts, you take government funding or subsidies, you can no longer claim to be a private entity.

I'm so sick to death of the "privatize the profits, subsidize the losses" stratagem most corporate entities in this country seem to gravitate to. It's a bunch of horseshit.

If your corporation accepts public funds at all, ever, at any time, you should no longer be considered a private company.
So does that make anyone who takes unemployment benefits or medicare a slave of the state, in your worldview? And what about those taxes companies pay? Does that mean they officially own the government, now?

Besides, it really isn't about your worldview. Legally speaking, you don't own the networks.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 17:10   Link #18
yoropa
Director
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the providerís network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or capabilities consistent with a consumerís choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network.
I'm not comfortable with what I put in bold text there. I know it defines that it can only do those things based on "technically sound practice", but who determines which practices are sound and unsound? There's no definition of that proposed in this document, which means that it's up to the interpretation of the service providers unless otherwise defined. That can be bad. If the network slows down due to congestion, would they be able to pick and choose who gets connection, and thereby eliminate those taking up more traffic (read: people who actually use the internet)?

Sound silly? Here's another excerpt from earlier:

Quote:
Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.
Essentially, this means that although it technically is against this clause to prioritize the internet, they can still do it anyway. So what I pinpointed out earlier and the scenario that is possible under this bill actually would be legally sound practice. I'm not comfortable with that, I doubt any of you are either.

This needs improvements before I even come close to considering it.
__________________
I question, and get an answer. I question the answer, and get anger. I question the anger, but nothing more is left.
yoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 17:22   Link #19
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoropa View Post
I'm not comfortable with what I put in bold text there. I know it defines that it can only do those things based on "technically sound practice", but who determines which practices are sound and unsound? There's no definition of that proposed in this document, which means that it's up to the interpretation of the service providers unless otherwise defined. That can be bad. If the network slows down due to congestion, would they be able to pick and choose who gets connection, and thereby eliminate those taking up more traffic (read: people who actually use the internet)?
No, read: those who don't pay for super extra premium gold service (the price doubles for every qualifier).

I agree, that bit is problematic. OTOH, if it wasn't there, wouldn't that mean you can't appeal to your ISP to help you deal with a DOS attack? Or, for that matter, that they can't defend themselves either? There's got to be a sane middle ground, but it's probably a pain to define properly.

Quote:
Sound silly? Here's another excerpt from earlier:


Essentially, this means that although it technically is against this clause to prioritize the internet, they can still do it anyway. So what I pinpointed out earlier and the scenario that is possible under this bill actually would be legally sound practice. I'm not comfortable with that, I doubt any of you are either.

This needs improvements before I even come close to considering it.
I'm actually ambivalent when it comes to prioritization. I mean, yes, I agree with you that it's open to all kind of abuse. OTOH, it's obvious a file transfer packet can wait more easily than a VoIP one.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 17:30   Link #20
yoropa
Director
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, read: those who don't pay for super extra premium gold service (the price doubles for every qualifier).
Probably both. xD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I agree, that bit is problematic. OTOH, if it wasn't there, wouldn't that mean you can't appeal to your ISP to help you deal with a DOS attack? Or, for that matter, that they can't defend themselves either? There's got to be a sane middle ground, but it's probably a pain to define properly.
It's difficult to define, but it's something that needs to be defined. How long did Google and Verizon spend making this proposal anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I'm actually ambivalent when it comes to prioritization. I mean, yes, I agree with you that it's open to all kind of abuse. OTOH, it's obvious a file transfer packet can wait more easily than a VoIP one.
The problem with this is more tied into that previous excerpt I put in bold in that if they determine that they need to lessen congestion (even if there is none), they can then take actions to reduce your priority, possibly even eliminate your connection temporarily. And again, thanks to lack of definitions and text, it's impossible to know how they're going to utilize this.
__________________
I question, and get an answer. I question the answer, and get anger. I question the anger, but nothing more is left.
yoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.