40 ISPs, VoIP And VPN Providers Tell FCC They Like Having Net Neutrality Rules
from the far-from-Comcastic dept
Opponents of net neutrality often claim the rules placed "onerous burdens" on small and large ISPs alike. But when push comes to shove, you'll rarely see any of these folks provide hard evidence of such "burdens." Usually, opposition is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules do, and by a conflation of the rules with nebulous partisan worries that net neutrality somehow represents "government run amok." That confusion is, quite often, courtesy of "insight" on the subject from the likes of Ted Cruz, who has repeatedly tried to insist that killing the popular consumer protections somehow "restores freedom" (citation needed).
But in yet another example of net neutrality's broad support out here in the real world, the EFF this week accumulated a list of 40 or so ISPs, VPN and VoIP providers that would very much like it if the rules remained intact. Noting how the last FCC's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under the Communications Act actually helps them compete with their larger counterparts, the companies note that net neutrality hasn't hurt their ability to develop and expand their networks in the slightest:
"We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet."
Among these companies is California ISP Sonic, one of the few independent ISPs from the early aughts that managed to survive the incumbent ISP gauntlet, and the slow but steady attack on competition that started under former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Michael Powell (we talked with Sonic CEO Dane Jasper about this a podcast last April). Sonic and the rest of the companies proceed to note that eliminating the rules doesn't "restore freedom" for them; in fact most of them worry that the elimination of the rules will have a dramatically negative impact on competition in the market:
"Without a legal foundation to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market, the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability. As direct competitors to the biggest cable and telephone companies, we have reservations about any plan at the FCC that seeks to enhance their market power without any meaningful restraints on their ability to monopolize large swaths of the Internet."
The companies also express concern about Congress' recent decision to kill broadband privacy protections at the behest of giant ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T -- most of which are not coincidentally conducting massive pivots into media and advertising:
"Lastly, we implore the FCC to examine the ramifications of the Congressional Review Act repeal of broadband privacy and provide guidance. We have long championed our customer’s privacy and believe Congress was in error to erode their legal right to privacy. However, the repeal’s detrimental impact on the reach and scope of Section 222’s ISP privacy provisions has resulted in great uncertainty in the market that the FCC could help provide clarity."
The companies' support comes on the heels of similar support for the rules from over 900 startups (you know, the people actually building the networks and technologies of tomorrow). In both instances (privacy and net neutrality), these "onerous regulations" had broad support among consumers and many smaller companies alike, highlighting again how the myopic opinion that "all regulation is automatically bad" is lazy thinking, a violent over-simplification, and incredibly detrimental when it comes to bringing competition to bear on one of the most anti-competitive and complicated segments of American industry.
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: competition, fcc, isps, net neutrality, privacy
Companies: sonic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Opponents are right, of course
Having 40 providers contradict you... that's a really onerous burden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opponents are right, of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you referring to those who profit hugely from the very low capitol gains tax levels? Or maybe you are referring to those who charge a "toll" at every chance they get? Possibly it refers to those who refuse to pay a living wage and therefore rely upon the tax payers to ensure low wage employees are available for hire in the area. Some how I doubt you have thought much about any of these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US New speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US New speak
between the democrats and republicans your rights and freedoms are being eaten away at both ends!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US New speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US New speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sound just like Clapper. Your statements are technically correct on verbiage, but it is also a massive LIE of omission.
Lets take this apart piece by piece.
--"Opponents of net neutrality often claim the rules placed "onerous burdens" on small and large ISPs alike.--
You mean Opponents of "regulation"? You are deceptively altering the narrative. Yes there are people shitting on Net Neutrality, but there are a lot of other shitting on Regulation and NN just happens to be in the crossfire.
--But when push comes to shove, you'll rarely see any of these folks provide hard evidence of such "burdens."--
I know right? The FCC's historical and OPEN directive to operate the Telco's as a giant "Natural Monopoly" is not proof of a fucking thing right? If a donkey kicked you in the face you would come up with some other excuse for why you have a black eye because you cannot bring yourself to state any facts that are inconvenient to your cause or party. So be honest yourself. You are OKAY with monopolies, as long as government is regulating it, which just becomes another "devils deal".
--Usually, opposition is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules do, and by a conflation of the rules with nebulous partisan worries that net neutrality somehow represents "government run amok."--
I read the fucking rules myself! Zero Rating is a bullshit loop hole and the wording explicitly puts too much power into the hands of the FCC for enforcement to "pick and choose" winners and losers in the ISP space. THAT is a fucking problem and NOT what government should be allowed to do!
I want REAL net-neutrality, not more bullshit regulatory doublespeak that allows the FCC to maintain that status quo based on which ISP donates to their coffers.
--That confusion is, quite often, courtesy of "insight" on the subject from the likes of Ted Cruz, who has repeatedly tried to insist that killing the popular consumer protections somehow "restores freedom" (citation needed). --
Okay, I have to agree with you there. Ted Cruz is a fucking tool and grossly ignorant on the subject matter here. But he is hardly the only SIDE spewing misinformation and causing confusion here!
I want REAL net neutrality... not the cocked up Wheeler vision where FCC becomes a fucking ISP Czar agency where they can throw their dick around like a damn tyrant!
All I can say is you guys freaking deserve this mess. You are all like a bunch of idiots that keep poking a fucking bear in hopes it will leave you alone. It makes no sense at all. You are asking for corrupt people to save you from corrupt people! How is this going to work out in our favor? Hint: I never will! The best we can hope for is to be screwed with lube and unlike you idiots... I don't want to be screwed at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think I speak for most people here in saying, we would also like real net neutrality codified in law rather than subject to some ISP Czar as well. But we're pragmatists. And we would have preferred the rules under Wheeler to the realities of what a current congress is likely to produce should they try to write a net neutrality law.
But wanting something doesn't make it so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am NOT making that claim either. One thing I am sure of is that these guys here want a fair regulatory setting in the economy as well.
"But we're pragmatists."
No, I think you have been mentally defeated or just not understanding that you are giving big businesses what they want without realizing it. You are so used to regulation that it scares the shit out of you to consider not having it around.
"And we would have preferred the rules under Wheeler to the realities of what a current congress is likely to produce should they try to write a net neutrality law."
I am in the same boat, but that will NOT stop me from criticizing it for the garbage that it still is.
Businesses would only give us a plate of shit for lunch if they could get away with it. Regulation benefits us by at least putting "some" actual food on our plate, but still mixed in with the shit.
A strong free-market protected by anti-monopoly/trust regulations gives me the option to turn away from any plate I feel is being served with shit. Regulation often will not allow me to do that, because regulation has become the vehicle for which monopolies are established.
"But wanting something doesn't make it so."
Don't I know it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not about "more is better".
It is about not letting the FCC lock you into a single ISP that can rip you off with the blessings of the State!
You keep ignorantly seeing regulation as "salvation for the consumer". Regulation is just another word for LAWS. They can be good or they can be bad! Right now, when you go to a politician to get regulation in, the people you are trying to regulate just buy that politician and then scheme up ways to use the push for regulation to create regulations that help keep them in business and potential competitors OUT OF BUSINESS!
Take the following example!
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2016/02/25/t-sues-city-o ver-google-fiber-proposal/80881870/
This is what you get with regulation and why you are getting screwed! They just word the regulations to sucker you into believing that one up'd those nasty mean businesses!
They are laughing at you all the way to the bank!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha ha... your solution is the incoherent one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have So Many "laternatives" that I can't even "List" them all! Or any f them!
But you "Sycophantic Idiots" always pull this! Where you calim I don't have any "suggestions" just becaue I never have any suggestions!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm quite certain that you are the life of the party and are always invited to the best parties. You are always right and anyone who does not idolize you is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now give me my "Paint" chips!
Every Nation eats the paint Chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because Nacho flavor would be awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, that is NOT the definition of a fanatic. Closed Minded is someone that cannot change their mind and won't shut up.
If you can find me a human being that is not corrupt and will run for office and remain in that position for the rest of their life and be immune from big business waving their money in their face then... yea... I will happily change my mind and give THAT guy Czar power.
The problem is, the idea that giving away my rights to pick and choose who I do business with away to a politician, as a solution. It is not, and it will never be!
All I need government to do is prevent these businesses from creating monopolies, trusts or oligopolies, and regulations that limit new startups from replacing the big terrible turds.
The FCC brought us these monopolies, its not even a secret, they literally said "lets make them a natural monopoly and regulate them as one". This is the end result of regulatory capture, which regulations will drive towards if kept unchecked.
Here is the pattern.
Create Regulation.
Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
Create More Regulation.
Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
Create even More Regulation.
Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win... AGAIN!
What was the definition of insanity again? Trying the same things over and over, but expecting different results? Why do we think that an elected Politician has any reason to serve our interest's when we do not get rid of corrupt politicians? All they need to be is part of a party where they are guaranteed a large number of votes through party sycophancy and the rest is just lying and cheating their way to the remaining votes necessary to win!
Any legal solution that removes the responsibility of the standing public to make smart decisions in the economy will only result it us getting fucked. In most cases, anything other than anti-monopoly & anti-trust regulations results it getting exactly what we did not want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember that one cannot go about calling someone else closed mined without first being closed to their way of thinking. It has been my experience that the most prolific bigots, racists, closed minded, biased, and hypocrites are the ones running around calling others those very things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am beginning to think you are running a scam here. Fess up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every nation Eats the paint chips it Deserve!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still don't think your plate is piled high enough friend. Here... have a few more! You will be ready for a siesta in no time!
bon appétit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that the term regulation has now been bastardized into serving a meaning it no longer serves.
Regulation = Nothing but blessing for the poor to pro-regulation people. It is not.
DeRegulation = Nothing but a blessing for the poor to anti-regulation people. It is not.
People often view DeRegulation as complete destruction of regulation and will ride that lie to the end of the tunnel in hopes they win their ignorant arguments.
In reality, there are very few people that actually want DeRegulation in the way that TD frames it's meaning. I am pro-DeRegulation, but only until we get to anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulation. Those need to be strong and remain for obvious reasons.
The first problem is that even those kinds of regulations are very susceptible to corrupt ass politicians not enforcing those either.
The second problem is the idea that adding more regulations to only be enforced by those same corrupt ass politicians that caused this problem by not enforcing the first ones to begin with is an exceptionally short sighted solution.
It is exactly the same as Comey's "nerd harder" policy on getting a back door installed on all systems where only the "good guys" get the keys.
We are literally asking corruption politicians to "regulation harder" while we are looking at them fucking it all up! Anyone that thinks they can regulation without corruption needs to not be a part of the discussions on this solution.
Everything in law/regulation is corruptible... all rules and regulations need to created with that root principle in mind.
Removing free-market is the same as removing Juries from the Court room and just letting the Judge make the decision!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
De3rgulation = Other thing I just made up
If I misuse "Words", it's Your Fault! It's everyone Else's fault but Mine!
Why won't you sycophantic Idiots show some Personal Responsibility like "I" do? Idiots!
Every Nation eatst he Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Create Regulation.
Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
Create More Regulation.
Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
Create even More Regulation.
Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win... AGAIN!"
Except that there are plenty of examples of regulation that HAS worked. And by 'worked', I mean 'made the situation better than it was'. Of course nothing is perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, some form of net neutrality is better than no form. The problem is everyone's willingness to make a deal with the devil to lose a part of their voice when they should not have to lose any part of their voice. Regulation removes my voice from the economy where now, only the regulators and businesses have a voice. I no longer get to pick and choose who I do business with I get to instead do business with whomever the "government chooses" I can do business with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me get you a broom and a wheel barrow... you got some cleanup to do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said "no regulation"! I said "Regulation is always negative!" Get it righ you Sycophatnic Idiots!
Every Nation eats the paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you can find me a human being that is not corrupt and will run for office and remain in that position for the rest of their life and be immune from big business waving their money in their face then... yea... I will happily change my mind and give THAT guy Czar power.
So, given that this human does not exist, do you have a solution other than screaming at us for not fulfilling your "not idiot" criteria?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
do you have eyeballs to read with? cause that and "other" solutions have already been given plenty of times, but I know your game already.
Ignore all solutions that are proposed, then turn around and say that no one gave you a solution so you can move forward with your idea. It's called being closed minded. You are not interested in any other solution that your own.
I am ONLY interested in solutions where I still get to have a say in matters as a citizen and NOT interested in any solutions where a Politician is deciding my fate where they get to "pretend" to care about me while laughing at us behind "closed doors" as they construct these damnable regulations!
It's one of the reasons I dislike democrats a smidgen more than republicans. At least the republicans are a bit more honest when they state that they are preparing to fuck you! The Democrats are still in bed with big business but hey have fooled their followers into believing otherwise. They are stupid fucking rich and part of that elite and you poor schmucks still fucking believe them when they say they will tax the rich and spend on the poor. It is the most laughable fucking farce in existence and it has been going on since before any of us were born!
sure I do not expect to get very far by discussing this with a bunch of leftists and pro regulation zealots, but I am also here to tell you that you are getting played, BIG TIME! You think you are playing for the A Team, when you are actually scoring for the B Team! Cut that shit out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thats how You can tell how many "Solutions" I have! Because I never give any, and Can't name a Single Time I have actually Done so!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might get lynched and then were would be be without our Paint Chip eating mascot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every Nation eats The paint Chips it deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh, like Sycophantic! I love that word!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wht about Historical Quotes? I know this one Historical Quote that I really loe that shows how Very Very Smart I am, but I don't "know what it means".
Every Nation eats the paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Playing for...? Dude, you spend half your time whining about the two party system and supporting politicians, and your solution is to accuse other posters of supporting a group or system, despite multiple posters and instances indicating that they don't support any of this? Just what the fuck does it take to convince you that not everybody is the regulation-loving, government's-dick-up-the-ass fantasy bogeyman you want everyone to be, just so you can shout at everybody else with a ridiculously overblown sense of self-importance?
You were asked for solutions, given that yes, we agree that relying on a human or human group isn't possible - and what's your reply? More smoke and mirrors about how your cavalcade of berating insults, which repeat the fact that humans are infallible (and the ones in politics, even more so) have somehow magically also contained the solution? That's not a solution; that's the sort of shit any ten-year-old trying to pass himself off as a movie critic can assemble on YouTube, trying to sound minimally intelligent, cryptic and witty!
Naw, mate, this is your game. Blame everything on everyone regardless of which country they come from, how much resources and influence they have at their command, then bitch at them no matter what their response is. Because that's somehow constructive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't like to give citations because it is pointless to attempt to educate a fool that needs people to lead them around by the nose instead of going and learning for their fucking selves!
butt... since I am such a terrible asshole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
"From monopoly to competition
See also: History of AT&T
The important relationship of the FCC and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company evolved over the decades. For many years, the FCC and state officials agreed to regulate the telephone system as a natural monopoly.[52] The FCC controlled telephone rates and imposed other restrictions under Title II to limit the profits of AT&T and ensure nondiscriminatory pricing.
In the 1960s, the FCC began allowing other long-distance companies, namely MCI, to offer specialized services. In the 1970s, the FCC allowed other companies to expand offerings to the public.[53] A lawsuit in 1982 led by the Justice Department after AT&T underpriced other companies, resulted in the Breakup of the Bell System from AT&T. Beginning in 1984, the FCC implemented a new goal that all long-distance companies had equal access to the local phone companies' customers.[54] Effective January 1, 1984, the Bell System’s many member-companies were variously merged into seven independent "Regional Holding Companies", also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". This divestiture reduced the book value of AT&T by approximately 70%.[55]
Internet
The FCC initially exempted "information services" such as broadband Internet access from regulation under Title II. The FCC held that information services were distinct from telecommunications services that are subject to common carrier regulation.
However, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the FCC to help accelerate deployment of "advanced telecommunications capability" which included high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video, and to regularly assess its availability. In August 2015, the FCC said that nearly 55 million Americans did not have access to broadband capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video offerings.[56]
On February 26, 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, thus subjecting it to Title II regulation, although several exemptions were also created. The reclassification was done in order to give the FCC a legal basis for imposing net neutrality rules (see below), after earlier attempts to impose such rules on an "information service" had been overturned in court."
And if you think that shit is a lie, go and fucking edit the damn page making it read the way YOU want it to read.
Don't forget to cite your fucking sources!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One Sanctimonious little snot calling another Sanctimonious little snot out!
I am not sanctimonious I am just trying to slap you silly suckers out of your, ass in the air rape me with regulation, delusions!
Protecting yourself, is YOUR responsibility. You can only farm a small portion of it out to others before you run into farming out your freedom and liberty along with it! This is a basic truth. If you want government to protect you from the big bad business boogie man then you are already getting what you deserve to get. You better run and get to sucking some democrat or republican dick, but good luck with that. They seem to be too busy sucking big business dick to pay you much attention... until election season where you will once again forget that they have been corrupted and screwing you while they trick you AGAIN into paying more attention to that "other bad candidate more worse than I am" gambit every election cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I do admit that it is very hard to convince others that the way I live is nice. They are all stuck in their little Stockholm syndrome settings.
I am a high school drop out and no college, but am blessed to earn a very nice living and surrounded by a few good friends. I am always thinking outside of the box and never listened too. It's odd that I am not a failure in life when so many others who have "figured life out" are not as blessed.
I guess I am just lucky and it colors my bias a lot, but so far my logic has yet to fail me.
My shoulder is fine, but my eyes hurt from watching the rest of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... your solution is to be networked with a few friends that accept you for being a pissy little asshole who insults everyone he disagrees with, and fund you for your lack of qualifications?
The basis of your life situation and its perks are primarily determined because you were lucky? That's a solution? Luck?
Gee, wonder why nobody else believes you have a solution. You're akin to the kind of gamer who charges into a competitive game with godmode hacks, kills everyone with his "I win!" button, then screams at everyone to "git gud". Mature and skilled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we want to get rid of the current flimsy New Neutrality rules, let's get the stronger ones passed first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
they already exist, the problem is they are not being enforced. Nothing will end the net neutrality debate as fast as people being able to pick and choose which ISP's they want to do business with.
In fact those regulations not being enforced is what got most of you to call for more regulation to begin with. What good is more regulation going to fix? They don't have to enforce those either and proven by the verbiage of Wheeler Vision version of Net Neutrality.
The FCC has a long history of supporting Monopolies and in their own words. What does it say about you to say that we need regulation to save us from monopolies when almost 75% of the fucking market is still a damn monopoly BLESSED by the fucking FCC, the same agency you propose to give MORE power to? Do you not realize how stupid that makes you all look?
TD and many of you are so bent over on regulation that you will take anything, as long as it is regulation. Its the same logic as saying... doing something is better than nothing... even when doing that something will be WORSE than having done nothing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I keep saying THE SAME THINGS enough Times, will people Finally recognize my "brilliance"?
Every Nation eatst hte Paitn chips it Desrves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]