Telcos Close To 'Deal' On Net Neutrality That Gives Them Everything They Want

from the careful-what-you-ask-for dept

Wed, Aug 4th 2010 3:13am — Mike Masnick

Can't say we didn't warn people on this one. Way back in February, we suggested that people pushing for net neutrality legislation were going to be disappointed after the telco lobbyists got done with it. The telcos came ready for battle, hiring hundreds of former government employees, including 18 former members of Congress to lobby on their behalf. Back in June, we noted that the telcos were privately saying they were okay with net neutrality rules, so long as they helped shape them. Then, last month, we noted that, contrary to its promises of transparency and openness, the FCC was meeting behind closed doors in secret with those telco lobbyists.

Well-connected telco-beat reporter Dave Burstein is now claiming that this past weekend, the top broadband lobbyists finalized the deal on their version of net neutrality, with part of the deal being a back-scratcher promise to dump a bunch of money into the campaign coffers of Democrats this upcoming election season:

This weekend, uber-lobbyists Cicconi (AT&T), Tauke (Verizon) and McSlarrow (Cable) are at the FCC to make a final deal on net neutrality, Arbogast and Kaut report. Ivan Seidenberg has put enormous pressure on the White House to intervene, and the rumor is that chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is telling agencies to go along. Seidenberg, who has been to the White House 16 times,made a major D.C. speech suggesting that the business community would throw their money and power against the Democrats in the campaign. NN was one of the specific points he demanded.

Under pressure like that, Julius has already agreed to almost everything Cicconi really wants, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. K & A say there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant.

This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance.

Now, as Burstein notes, this isn't "final," so things could change, but everyone should have seen this coming. Yes, network neutrality principles are important, but fighting for network neutrality and understanding how the political process works are two different things -- and it's been obvious for years that any attempt to enshrine net neutrality in the law would almost certainly be twisted by telco lobbyists.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: lobbyists, net neutrality, telcos
Companies: fcc

57 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jay (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 3:33am

Larry Lessig called it

He discussed how the entire process of debate has gone from the hands of people to those of lobbyists. It's very frustrating to try to debate things when it's so far out of your reach, as to have no say in the outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 5:21am
  
  This is why corporate disobedience is so good.
  Any aspect of society controlled by lobbyists is fair game to exploit, disobey, and ignore. RIAA and MPAA stifling access to back catalogs? Download MP3s and XViDs by the hundreds. Block tethering? Root the phone, do it anyway.
  
  Unfortunately most people do not want to live at the edges, or should have to, so this attitude doesn't really resonate with the populace. Guerrilla warfare in this case, though, is entirely appropriate.
  
  -C
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rooker, 4 Aug 2010 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  I disagree with Mike in that I think we do need a federal law to protect Net Neutrality. Industry self-regulation does not work and the market will not correct for asshole corporate behavior, either because most people are sheep willing to bend over for any kind of abuse or because there is no competition (one asshole telecom vs one asshole cable company per town is not competition).
  
  However, it can't happen with the way our government is run today. The politicians on both sides of the aisle prefer corporate campaign cash over satisfied voters. The people they represent don't matter nearly as much to them as the corporate donors who pay for their reelection campaigns. We went and legalized bribery and this is what we get for doing that.
  
  If people ever want to have their voices heard in Washington again, we need to get corporate money out of the elections. Until that happens, corporations run the country. And since corporations are citizens now thanks to the Supreme Court, actual people are 2nd class citizens. We're the proles now; the megacorps are the plebes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard, 4 Aug 2010 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Everyone agrees man, It's not that the idea is wrong minded. It's the reality, that there will never be a law that goes against corporate interests as long as we have 'political parties' and lobbyists. Opening this can of worms has, and WILL more than likely end with everyone getting less service, for more money, and the question of whether it's legal for them to stick it to us, has been decided in writing. See what I mean? With standard anticompetitive laws enforced, competition would drive service up and prices down. The trend will now be to put an end to unlimited access. That's the obvious unspoken agenda.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 4 Aug 2010 @ 3:38am

Missing bits
"Under pressure like that, Julius has already agreed to almost everything Cicconi really wants, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels."

Okay, what are those loopholes? This story is missing some key bits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 4:16am

The set of people who didn't see this coming and the set of people who have opened a history book are mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 4:40am

Government needs to stay out
This is another thing I dislike about the US government which Obama really needs to fix. The government shouldn't be getting involved in these things. And they should be impartial or rather balance consumer and businesses needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 4:54am
  
  Re: Government needs to stay out
  Exactly. The telcos should just give the US government back all the money they were given (and buy all the land they use at full price) so that they no longer have any debt to society that obliges them to submit to government regulation. Then they need to stop colluding and actually compete for business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:16am
    
    Re: Re: Government needs to stay out
    Then they need to stop colluding and actually compete for business.
    
    They are competing - just not in the way you would like.
    The problem is that providing a "vanilla" internet service doesn't really provide much scope for increasing profits so they are trying to add extra channels for revenue - most of which run counter to net neutrality.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Government needs to stay out
      They are competing - just not in the way you would like.
      
      Yep, true capitalism at work, with laws going to the highest bidder. Don't like the laws? It's a free country, go outbid them!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 8:56am
  
  Re: Government needs to stay out
  Obama can't fix it, Congress has to, and they're not going to give up any of that sweet, sweet money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: Government needs to stay out
  Do you honestly think it's the president's job to fix this sort of thing? No, this isn't his job. It is your job as an American citizen to vote into office representatives that you believe will represent you and YOUR rights. Stop passing the blame on to the politicians when you're the one who voted them in.
  
  Anyway, even if it WERE Obama's job to do this, do you really think he would?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- john cage (profile), 1 Mar 2012 @ 12:17am
  
  Re: Government needs to stay out
  How can Obama help out !!! Government is really involving to solve the issues :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 4 Aug 2010 @ 4:59am

Democracy my foot
Really, why bother with all the election process if this is the result?

It would make more sense, save more time and money for the (so-called) citizens, and be more realistic to have an auction every 4 years. Businesses can make bids on congressmen, the President and so on.

This would do wonders for equal opportunity in government - I bet Black or Hispanic candidates would come cheaper than the white ones and would quickly became the majority.

In this vein, Obama's next campaign slogan could be "Yes You Can Buy a Black President" (or did he use that last time? I forget...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 5:14am
  
  Re: Democracy my foot
  It's almost as if America is not a democracy at all, but a democratic republic. Well, on the books it is. In reality it's probably closer to a Plutocracy or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Yogi, 4 Aug 2010 @ 5:21am
    
    Re: Re: Democracy my foot
    So Pluto isn't a planet - it's a political regime! (I'm on a roll).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Democracy my foot
      Presumably a really big plutocracy would be a Jupocracy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Democracy my foot
        Remember, Demos is a rather small moon ....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: Democracy my foot
    It IS a Plutocracy. For the rich, by the rich.
    
    Geld über alles!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:24am
  
  Re: Democracy my foot
  Perhaps if we can inform the voting public about what's going on our politicians can have a 50% off going out of business sale. Then more people can afford a politician.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 5:28am

Just goes to show..
how thoroughly our government is riddled with corruption and bribery. The White House castigates foreign governments for corruption and bribery while ignoring the rampant corruption in our own government. I wonder just how much money/gifts/drugs/hookers are passed around in order to get what the businesses want? I would think that any federal elected official or regulatory agency is wide open to bribery. Sometimes I wonder if the spooks are also open to it. We're definitely in a plutocracy, not a democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coach George (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 8:27am
  
  Re: Just goes to show..
  "with part of the deal being a back-scratcher promise to dump a bunch of money into the campaign coffers of Democrats this upcoming election season:"
  If you don't like it, vote the B#$T^&Ds out next election cycle.
  This is how a Democracy works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AW, 4 Aug 2010 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re: Just goes to show..
    One set of bastards for another. You act as though there's a real choice in who we vote for. One group says they give you freedom through slavery and the other says that if you don't do what they say you're already a slave, but you have to do it exactly as they say with no choice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JR Smith (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 5:42am

Net Neutrality
As long as we allow this sort of thing to continue, we will always have bad government. Those who noted that we are not a democracy are correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 5:54am

In theory, couldn't a company like Google come along, offer cheaper rates than those offered by big telcos, unlimited access to everyone, and create an entire market based on non-exclusivity?

In other words, wouldn't those participating in this lobbying be digging themselves into a hole?

I can't think of a single service I can live without online if paying more for it is the only option.

I guess I just don't see the big deal with this. It should work itself out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChronoFish (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:27am
  
  Re: You are correct
  You are correct. That is the theory. And it doesn't have to be a "company" - just a widely adopted disruptive technology.
  
  For instance. Why are we "paying" for connections at all? I know "why" - because historically everything was done via landlines. But the technology exists today to buy cheap $30 routers that can connect in ad-hoc mode.
  
  Why not start a new network that simply requires the purchase of an ad-hoc router and build a global mesh network? Have one policy on the network - no walled gardens. Done.
  
  -CF
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re: You are correct
    That would be so painfully slow it wouldn't work. How many hops would it be to Tazmania? Or Indonesia? How would you keep people off your network if every person is acting as wireless back-bone?
    
    The telco's have put a ton of money into the internet, and are largely responsible for how good it is. That swings both ways, as it has fallen behind in the last few years and is on the downswing, but it IS mostly theirs.
    
    They have a right to be concerned about any laws drafting specifically in response to their business, but the behind-closed-doors nature of this makes it clear that they will go above and beyond protecting their interests into leaving themselves more rights than they should have. Because just because the network is mostly theirs, it isn't all theirs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re: You are correct
    "Why not start a new network that simply requires the purchase of an ad-hoc router and build a global mesh network?"
    
    Isn't that how the Internet started? People hosting some sort of content (like a BBS or something) and other people dialing to that server?
    
    That new network would be s*** in the beginning, but as soon as it picked up, boom, Internet 2.0.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 5 Aug 2010 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re: You are correct
    How does the signal get across oceans, farms, wilderness, etc? What's the maximum range of a wireless router, a few hundred feet?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:29am

What are the loopholes?
I agree with those who are saying this post (and the one is sources) is missing some key information. All we know is that there are "rumors" of some White House pressure to make a deal.

I'm not saying (and I certainly wouldn't expect) any such deal to primarily and directly benefit business at the expense of consumers. But, it's a little difficult to get up in arms about it if there aren't any details.

I certainly expect better from TechDirt than just repeating unsubstantiated rumors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:31am
  
  Re: What are the loopholes?
  Wow that came out garbled.
  
  Read that as:
  
  While I certainly would expect that any such deal would primarily and directly benefit business at the expense of consumers, it's a little difficult to get up in arms about it if there aren't any details.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:24am
    
    Re: Re: What are the loopholes?
    I think that's what's upsetting at this point, it's being done in secret.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: What are the loopholes?
  "I certainly expect better from TechDirt than just repeating unsubstantiated rumors."
  
  and exactly what did Techdirt report wrong? If you read the OP, it does mention that they are rumors, and I see nothing wrong with reporting rumors so long as they are reported as such.
  
  and as far as getting upset, we should be getting upset. The govt expects to leave the public out of the legislative process so that when we get upset they can argue that we shouldn't be getting upset since we don't know anything yet? What, we're only supposed to get upset after the laws pass when it's already too late to do anything about it? In the meantime we're just supposed to trust that the govt has our best interest in mind better than we do and hence we shouldn't be allowed to participate? I think not. Getting upset is the appropriate response and it would be nice if more people were informed about this so that more people can be upset and hopefully pressure the govt to stop being so secretive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kurt Johnson, 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:50am

Any doubt now?
There should be no doubt about what our fourth branch of government is -- lobbies. And there is no checks and balances with these people. They are the finger on the scales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chocota (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: Any doubt now?
  HA HA AHA HA, No Doubt my friend, your are 1000% right, Wow, lobbies is our fourth branch of government. Someone here commented, the lobbies should lobby the government to get rid of the elections, so the lobbies (so in this case, Corporate Lobbies) elect presidents and government officials, so they can run USA to their profiting interests, Like the song says "This is the way it is" in USA. Lobbies is proof that USA is ran by Corporations and not the People, that's why I don't vote, it's a waste of time, and nobody tells me if I don't vote I don't have right to speak, 'cause since I pay taxes I get the right to open my mouth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:56am

haha bribery by a new name
usa usa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 6:59am

i think lobbiests should lobby for...
i think lobbiests should lobby for getting rid of elections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:00am

and lobbiests should
and lobbiests should clone richard nixon and make him ht enew overlord
hes bribable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:34am

I have a sneaking suspicion that the true motive behind this is to figure out a way to rig elections and make it harder for non corporate puppet politicians to get elected, kinda like how they shaped MSM and broadcasting spectra to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:57am

I guess "for the people, by the people" is just bullshit.

Since "the people" didn't make this law, and it doesn't benefit them, are they allowed to ignore it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 8:11am

Funny thing that no one noticed or seems to have commented on
This one line "Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant." intrigues me.

The combination of Google launching 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home trial and Verizon Axing the FIOS Expansion happening with in a month of each other make me wonder. What is going on between the search giant and the Verizon? Could this be rolled out on a limited scale, then use the fiber Verizon has laid to the home. If googles trial occurs on the east coast this could well be a possibility.

Also Mike - "peace" should be "piece"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chocota, 4 Aug 2010 @ 8:16am

No Doubt
HA HA AHA HA, No Doubt my friend, your are 1000% right, Wow, lobbies is our fourth branch of government. Someone here commented, the lobbies should lobby the government to get rid of the elections, so the lobbies (so in this case, Corporate Lobbies) elect presidents and government officials, so they can run USA to their profiting interests, Like the song says "This is the way it is" in USA. Lobbies is proof that USA is ran by Corporations and not the People, that's why I don't vote, it's a waste of time, and nobody tells me if I don't vote I don't have right to speak, 'cause since I pay taxes I get the right to open my mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chocota (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 8:40am

You're wrong
Coach George said: This is how democracy works. If it's this way, it's not a Democracy, it's a USA Corporatecracy or USA Corporategovernment, but not Democracy, so you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 9:28am

USA
The best government money can buy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 10:37am

Metallica said it best...
Doesn't matter what you see?
Or into it what you read?
You can do it your own way
If it's done just how I say

Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend
Freedom with their exception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: Metallica said it best...
  Metallica, Weren't they a band when shiny plastic disks were all the rage?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 12:20pm

Money talks
Of course money buys access in DC.

Money buys access in a lot of places.

What I am curious is why anti-IP folks think that the world will change if there are no IP protection laws. Seems like those with access to capital will be able to control the markets under that scenario, too.

Let's say you have a good idea. A big company with deep resources hears about it and beats you to market with it.

It's been often argued here that ideas are easy and execution is hard. So if a company has access to all the necessary resources, they should be able to execute quickly if they are nimble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re: Money talks
  Let's say you have a good idea. A big company with deep resources hears about it and beats you to market with it.
  
  It's been often argued here that ideas are easy and execution is hard. So if a company has access to all the necessary resources, they should be able to execute quickly if they are nimble.
  
  Let's say you have a good idea. A big company with deep legal resources hears about it and beats you up with bogus patent claims.
  
  It's been often argued here that ideas are easy and execution is hard. But if a company has access to all the necessary legal resources, they shouldn't need to execute at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Money talks
    It's been often argued here that ideas are easy and execution is hard. But if a company has access to all the necessary legal resources, they shouldn't need to execute at all.
    
    Is the concept of IP protection wrong, or is it just a matter of the system being abused? People who don't have a legitimate claim shouldn't be able to do this and the system should be fixed to disallow it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: Money talks
  What I am curious is why anti-IP folks think that the world will change if there are no IP protection laws.
  
  What I am curious about is why pro-IP folks think that laws should go to the highest bidder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Money talks
    What I am curious about is why pro-IP folks think that laws should go to the highest bidder.
    
    I suppose until we have strong election finance reform and also rein in lobbyists, everything will go to the highest bidder. But that means more legislation. If it is entirely a free market economy then it probably will be about money, don't you think?
    
    I guess I think corporations will always act like corporations if given the chance. So even if we eliminate IP protection, they will use whatever resources they have to their advantage.
    
    So that's what I am asking. If we eliminate IP protection, won't corporations still use their resources to their advantage? Will the playing field be leveled or will it go even more in favor of those who have resources?
    
    Seems like corporations buying what they want in DC is exactly what they should be doing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 5:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Money talks
      If it is entirely a free market economy then it probably will be about money, don't you think?
      
      I suppose it boils down to whether you think *everything* should be in the market or not.
      
      I guess I think corporations will always act like corporations if given the chance. So even if we eliminate IP protection, they will use whatever resources they have to their advantage.
      
      They will do so anyway. IP laws are just more way, they don't eliminate other ways.
      
      So that's what I am asking. If we eliminate IP protection, won't corporations still use their resources to their advantage?
      
      They will use everything at their disposal, regardless.
      
      Will the playing field be leveled or will it go even more in favor of those who have resources?
      
      Greed knows no bounds. They can never be given "enough".
      
      Seems like corporations buying what they want in DC is exactly what they should be doing.
      
      Like I said, it depends on whether you think *everything* should be for sale. For those who worship money, the answer is obvious.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 4 Aug 2010 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Money talks
        Like I said, it depends on whether you think *everything* should be for sale. For those who worship money, the answer is obvious.
        
        Would you support new legislation that limits contributions to political candidates and limits the access lobbyists can have to lawmakers?
        
        If not, do you see other solutions to corporations influencing laws?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 1:48pm

ANARCHY!
See? I told you so. This exactly why we should get rid of all laws and all government. They always get corrupted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 2:47pm

Yeah it does get uggly some times but there is no other way, at the end of the day the people will need to do something someday to get anything they want. May not happen now, but I'm sure it will happen one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 2:52pm

I think that this may not be so bad, you see companies have a problem with consumers, people can just choose not to spend that much, people could do rotations on ISP's just to piss them off, people can do a lot to hurt them, is just they didn't realize it yet, but here is the thing, even China realized that the white House and Congress are useless, anybody remember when they visited which was the first people they got to see? hint it was not Bush at the time. Since politicians are puppets for lobby people should attack the people who has the real power not the puppets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sprearson81 (profile), 8 Jun 2012 @ 6:25pm

He can't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]