How The "Net Neutrality" Coup Happened - WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum

hellblazer · 12-22-2010, 01:43 AM

Read it and weep.. this is incredibly sinister. This is what Communists do.

Quote:

The Net Neutrality Coup
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.
By JOHN FUND

The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.

The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

For a man with such radical views, Mr. McChesney and his Free Press group have had astonishing influence. Mr. Genachowski's press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free Press. The FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.

Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that helped the lobby invent the purported problem that net neutrality is supposed to solve. They then fashioned a political strategy similar to the one employed by activists behind the political speech restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill. The methods of that earlier campaign were discussed in 2004 by Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, during a talk at the University of Southern California. Far from being the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, Mr. Treglia noted, the campaign-finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by foundations like Pew.

"The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot," he told his audience. He noted that "If Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it'd be worthless." A study by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan website dealing with issues of campaign funding, found that of the $140 million spent to directly promote campaign-finance reform in the last decade, $123 million came from eight liberal foundations.

View Full Image

Martin Kozlowski
After McCain-Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in the effort began shifting their attention to "media reform"—a movement to impose government controls on Internet companies somewhat related to the long-defunct "Fairness Doctrine" that used to regulate TV and radio companies. After McCain- Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in that effort began shifting their attention to "media reform" movement. In a 2005 interview with the progressive website Buzzflash, Mr. McChesney said that campaign-finance reform advocate Josh Silver approached him and "said let's get to work on getting popular involvement in media policy making." Together the two founded Free Press.

Free Press and allied groups such as MoveOn.org quickly got funding. Of the eight major foundations that provided the vast bulk of money for campaign-finance reform, six became major funders of the media-reform movement. (They are the Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers's Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.) Free Press today has 40 staffers and an annual budget of $4 million.

These wealthy funders pay for more than publicity and conferences. In 2009, Free Press commissioned a poll, released by the Harmony Institute, on net neutrality. Harmony reported that "more than 50% of the public argued that, as a private resource, the Internet should not be regulated by the federal government." The poll went on to say that since "currently the public likes the way the Internet works . . . messaging should target supporters by asking them to act vigilantly" to prevent a "centrally controlled Internet."

To that end, Free Press and other groups helped manufacture "research" on net neutrality. In 2009, for example, the FCC commissioned Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society to conduct an "independent review of existing information" for the agency in order to "lay the foundation for enlightened, data-driven decision making."

Considering how openly activist the Berkman Center has been on these issues, it was an odd decision for the FCC to delegate its broadband research to this outfit. Unless, of course, the FCC already knew the answer it wanted to get.

The Berkman Center's FCC- commissioned report, "Next Generation Connectivity," wound up being funded in large part by the Ford and MacArthur foundations. So some of the same foundations that have spent years funding net neutrality advocacy research ended up funding the FCC-commissioned study that evaluated net neutrality research.

The FCC's "National Broadband Plan," released last spring, included only five citations of respected think tanks such as the International Technology and Innovation Foundation or the Brookings Institution. But the report cited research from liberal groups such as Free Press, Public Knowledge, Pew and the New America Foundation more than 50 times.

So the "media reform" movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That's quite a coup.

papajohn56 · 12-22-2010, 01:51 AM

This will likely get challenged. I don't trust the FCC, nor do I trust ISPs like Comcast.

Here's the issue with our system. The way cable companies have been allowed to operate for the purposes of laying wire is monopolistic. State and federal authorities have allowed for only one cable operator in regions, granting them a total monopoly.

With the phone system it's a bit different; since it's classified as a utility, anyone can operate an ISP over the phone system. This is why you often see in larger cities, 4-5 DSL operators, but only one cable operator. Cable has a government sponsored monopoly. If they're the only broadband ISP in town, as happens with many rural areas, they 100% monopolize, so no matter how much they squeeze people, they still have to pay it. Not a true free market.

Never trust the state, but true net neutrality would occur if the FCC and states would stop giving their blessing to cable monopolies.

iPwnNoobs · 12-22-2010, 01:59 AM

this shit has me LIVID. Seriously what happened to legislative bodies actually fearing their constituents.

papajohn56 · 12-22-2010, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPwnNoobs

this shit has me LIVID. Seriously what happened to legislative bodies actually fearing their constituents.

the FCC chairmen are appointed, so no fear there

jryan21 · 12-22-2010, 02:57 AM

Streets are watching:

https://www.eff.org/related/9375/blog

Garrett · 12-22-2010, 04:08 AM

when are people going to start rioting when the government does these thing. You know, like they do in France

BluAffiliate · 12-22-2010, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrett

when are people going to start rioting when the government does these thing. You know, like they do in France

You first my friend.

-God- · 12-22-2010, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrett

when are people going to start rioting when the government does these thing. You know, like they do in France

You've got to love the French and their willingness to stand their ground. All other countries are pussies <strikeout>in comparison</strikeout>; all mouth and no trousers.

Garrett · 12-22-2010, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -God-

You've got to love the French and their willingness to stand their ground. All other countries are pussies <strikeout>in comparison</strikeout>; all mouth and no trousers.

+rep

flysarescary · 12-22-2010, 06:19 AM

stfu hellblazer you fucking retard

please put a .40 through your brain

HardSale · 12-22-2010, 09:16 AM

There isn't an an aspect of life these liberal fucktards don't want to control in some way. This shit will be reversed when the new congress rolls in.

JMan1234 · 12-22-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papajohn56

This will likely get challenged. I don't trust the FCC, nor do I trust ISPs like Comcast.

Here's the issue with our system. The way cable companies have been allowed to operate for the purposes of laying wire is monopolistic. State and federal authorities have allowed for only one cable operator in regions, granting them a total monopoly.

With the phone system it's a bit different; since it's classified as a utility, anyone can operate an ISP over the phone system. This is why you often see in larger cities, 4-5 DSL operators, but only one cable operator. Cable has a government sponsored monopoly. If they're the only broadband ISP in town, as happens with many rural areas, they 100% monopolize, so no matter how much they squeeze people, they still have to pay it. Not a true free market.

Never trust the state, but true net neutrality would occur if the FCC and states would stop giving their blessing to cable monopolies.

You got that right. My 10mbps connection is $66/month, If I want to upgrade to their 20mbps plan, it's $86/month. The larger city 5 miles away has many lower cost broadband plans available.

HardSale · 12-22-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMan1234

You got that right. My 10mbps connection is $66/month, If I want to upgrade to their 20mbps plan, it's $86/month. The larger city 5 miles away has many lower cost broadband plans available.

It's a good thing we live in a country that allows you the freedom to move to the larger city 5 miles away.

Products and services have different costs in different places. It isn't the government's role to equalize costs across the country.

What are the rents and real estate values of that big city 5 miles away? What about their taxes?

If there is a better way to offer that low priced broadband you want and still make a profit, it sounds like an awesome business opportunity you should jump on.

nkobend · 12-22-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -God-

You've got to love the French and their willingness to stand their ground. All other countries are pussies <strikeout>in comparison</strikeout>; all mouth and no trousers.

having lived in fucked up france for a while I can tell u first hand that the frogs are a sleazy good for nothing bunch of lazy peasants with the work ethics and morals of a bag of weasels on acid.

They 'stand up' when they can smash someone else's windows and not get caught. Bunch of fucking cowardly sociopathic bullies - its ingrained in their fucked up froggy culture.

You may remember a little 'action' a while back where the frog 'willingness to stand their ground' saw them abandon the rest of us to deal with saddam without their fucked up froggy tanks that have 1 forward gear and 4 reverse ones.

and dont get me started bout the fucking belgians

Rexibit · 12-22-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardSale

If there is a better way to offer that low priced broadband you want and still make a profit, it sounds like an awesome business opportunity you should jump on.

There is a better way, it's call competition. Without competition, there is no reason for that company to spend extra money to develop or implement new technologies that will not only increase their customer's speed while decreasing their monthly subscription, but also increase the total amount of bandwidth the company has on their network.

Why should a cable or phone company run more lines or increase their infrastructure if they can just increase the price of their service each year for the same bandwidth, knowing their customers have to pay it?

The TVA in Tennessee does this. They've upped their prices 9 times since March. Yes, while they are mainly an electricity company, they sell broadband and cable lines, which increases everyone's costs. Hell, the CEO just got a $3m raise this year while some of their customers had to drop service because they can no longer afford it and are going without electricity. But, there is no competition in the area.

My point is, in order for our country to be on par with other nations and progress, these monopolies in power and telecommunications need to stop. They work hand in hand to stifle innovation.

There's no reason (other than the governments being bought off) for our country not to be able to have 100mbps connections to every home, if not 1gps, and pay what we are right now. They do it in Japan and other countries. Image what services could be provided if that speed was standard. You could be watching blue ray movies from your TV, and who knows what else.

JMan1234 · 12-22-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardSale

It's a good thing we live in a country that allows you the freedom to move to the larger city 5 miles away.

Products and services have different costs in different places. It isn't the government's role to equalize costs across the country.

What are the rents and real estate values of that big city 5 miles away? What about their taxes?

If there is a better way to offer that low priced broadband you want and still make a profit, it sounds like an awesome business opportunity you should jump on.

I wasn't saying that the govt should regulate price. Simply complaining about the high cost I pay, nothing more.

hellblazer · 12-22-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -God-

You've got to love the French and their willingness to stand their ground. All other countries are pussies <strikeout>in comparison</strikeout>; all mouth and no trousers.

The French riot if their benefits or pension are cut, or if the education fees go up. It's nothing like this. The people rioting are stooges for the Marxist unions, how can any retard think the two situations are similar?

Garrett · 12-22-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

The French riot if their benefits or pension are cut, or if the education fees go up. It's nothing like this. The people rioting are stooges for the Marxist unions, how can any retard think the two situations are similar?

I think you are missing the point of what I meant. The difference is the French will riot when the government starts getting out of control, shifting the balance of power back to the people

Quote:

That government is best which governs least

I can't even begin to imagine how many more laws there will be in 20 years with the way things seem to be headed. The people of America need to band together and bitch slap the government on a lot of issues. If not, they will force more and more laws onto us...and one day we will be left holding our cocks wondering WTF

Garrett · 12-22-2010, 12:21 PM

Also Hellblazer, do you read about current events and dream about politics all day long?

bmorecali · 12-22-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardSale

There isn't an an aspect of life these liberal fucktards don't want to control in some way. This shit will be reversed when the new congress rolls in.

there all the same and have the same agenda

kingofsp · 12-22-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkobend

I can tell u first hand that the frogs are a sleazy good for nothing bunch of lazy peasants with the work ethics and morals of a bag of weasels on acid.

Now that made me LOL.

greenleaves · 12-23-2010, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexibit

There is a better way, it's call competition. Without competition, there is no reason for that company to spend extra money to develop or implement new technologies that will not only increase their customer's speed while decreasing their monthly subscription, but also increase the total amount of bandwidth the company has on their network.

Why should a cable or phone company run more lines or increase their infrastructure if they can just increase the price of their service each year for the same bandwidth, knowing their customers have to pay it?

The TVA in Tennessee does this. They've upped their prices 9 times since March. Yes, while they are mainly an electricity company, they sell broadband and cable lines, which increases everyone's costs. Hell, the CEO just got a $3m raise this year while some of their customers had to drop service because they can no longer afford it and are going without electricity. But, there is no competition in the area.

My point is, in order for our country to be on par with other nations and progress, these monopolies in power and telecommunications need to stop. They work hand in hand to stifle innovation.

There's no reason (other than the governments being bought off) for our country not to be able to have 100mbps connections to every home, if not 1gps, and pay what we are right now. They do it in Japan and other countries. Image what services could be provided if that speed was standard. You could be watching blue ray movies from your TV, and who knows what else.

+1 if I had any left today.

Amazing to see such coherent and logical writing next to the emotional, degrading, logically devoid grunt like language that hellblazer spews.

papajohn56 · 12-23-2010, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardSale

It's a good thing we live in a country that allows you the freedom to move to the larger city 5 miles away.

Not an option for everyone, i.e. Farmers.

hellblazer · 12-23-2010, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenleaves

+1 if I had any left today.

Amazing to see such coherent and logical writing next to the emotional, degrading, logically devoid grunt like language that hellblazer spews.

You utter fool. Both you and Rexibit(and possibly others) accept blindly the premise Genachowski and the "net neutrality" posers put forward - that a problem exists and that they are solving the problem.

You're not asking yourselves the obvious question.

If they really manufactured evidence for the net neutrality "problem" and then funded several different groups to commission studies, if they explicitly stated that they had to make their activism appear organic and real, if this entire problem doesn't even exist in the first place, what law just got passed? I swear some of you are just plain retards sometimes.

What we just saw was a coordinated group of people who began a very successful campaign that purported to fix a "problem" that these same people created out of whole cloth. And none of the liberal retards here wonder why? What is their goal? How are they going to use this new law? What comes next?

kingofsp · 12-23-2010, 01:06 AM

Also, I'm on team hellblazer on this one. Well, minus the mean-spiritedness. It's Christmas time, after all.

Rexibit · 12-23-2010, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

You utter fool. Both you and Rexibit(and possibly others) accept blindly the premise Genachowski and the "net neutrality" posers put forward - that a problem exists and that they are solving the problem.

I don't know why you are calling me a fool for pointing out that competition drives innovation and progress, which decreases costs for the customer and provider while enabling new services and new uses for old ones to happen.

I wasn't discussing net neutrality, just discussing one of the results for allowing monopolies to exist and go unchecked.

I'm with you on crazy stuff happening under our noses, but no one can deny that the carriers are a problem with messing with people's service - there's a reason there have been lawsuits against companies like Comcast.

hellblazer · 12-23-2010, 02:00 AM

Great summary on what this will do.

Quote:

The Toilet of Neutrality

I am going to take a break from my usual cynical postings to discuss something very, very import, Net Neutrality. I do not think most people understand just how this could impact their lives directly. There are no words I can use to better express this point... THIS INVOLVES YOU.

Now there are many reasons Net Neutrality isn’t a popular topic. First off, the name is just stupid. If you are looking to support something, Net Neutrality just isn’t something that rallies the troops. The name needs to be sexier, or more frightening, or both! Maybe something like “Naked Megan Fox Anthrax Terrorism”. While a bit long, I think it is very intriguing, and I know I would open and email with that subject! Fine! We’ll just stick with Net Neutrality.

I am going to be a little crude here, but I think this explains net neutrality better than most places have. Net Neutrality is a toilet.

Now imagine you have a toilet, which I assume most of you do. Now imagine what you do with your toilet. You urinate and release bowel movements into it (see I can be professional about it!). Now imagine the company that owns/operates your town’s sewer pipes. They maintain them and make sure your little presents get from your toilet to the treatment plant, and don’t end up on your lawn or your car. They handle the movement from your house to them. That is why you pay a water & sewer bill. They move your packets.

One day the sewer company decides that too many people are using the toilet. It’s becoming cumbersome for them. So they have two options. One lay more pipes. Two they can start charging more. Option two, defers people from using the toilet as well as allows them to make more money. You can see right off the bat where this issue is headed. You’ll have some people pooping in buckets in the closet and others, with dispensable incomes, flaunting their high brow toilet use. It just gets worse from there.

Because the sewer company is the only one of it’s kind in your town, they can pretty much rule unchecked, because you don’t have an option. You want excriment out of your house, then they are the only salvation you have.

The sewer company is now loving the extra money coming in. They didn’t have to do anything different to their pipes, and their revenues are increasing. As happens with most companies, they get greedier.

You wake up one morning, and find that the sewer company is now charging you different if you urinate than if you had a BM. Their excuse is that it is easier to transfer urine through the pipes than solid waste that could potentially congest the sewer network. From that point on you are paying two separate rates to transfer waste.

With all this extra money, the sewer company decides to invest in a little R&D. They have the technology to not only tell whether it’s solid or liquid waste, but what food product you consumed originally. The CEO of the sewer company now can tell exactly what you ate. With little haste, the company puts this information to use.

The CEO of the sewer company and the CEO of Burger Hut make a deal. Burger Hut agrees to pay for every flush of the toilet if the waste was originally a Burger Hut product. So you, trying to save a little money, decide that it’s actually cheaper for you to eat every meal at Burger Hut than to pay to flush the toilet. From now until the company reaches another deal, you can only eat from Burger Hut, unless you want to pay for the privilege of indoor plumbing.

So now let’s head back to the beginning. Instead of a sewer company, it’s an internet service provider. Randomly, let’s say Comcast. Hypothetically, let’s say Comcast is trying to make as much money as it can with as little advancements and improvements to it’s system. They decide, to charge you by each individual packet you are sending and receiving, similar to the old texting plans. Every web page you try to access is twenty-five cents.

They see that they are making so much more money this way than the old $45 a month plan, that they decide to charge you by what you are doing online. If you are watching a video it’s fifty cents. If you are IMing its ten cents a message. If you are illegally download... well you won’t be, because they will stop providing you with service.

Let’s take this one step further. Comcast now decides to partner with a content company. Any old one will do. How about NBC? And the type of partnership will be... let’s say buying it outright. So now Comcast gives every person who subscribes free access to all of NBC’s great programming like... well, all of it’s programming. With this amazing deal (which just seems amazing because you’ve been paying fifty cents per video) you just can’t watch programs from ABC, CBS, FOX, Viacom, or even YouTube. Well you can, if you decide to pay $3 per viewing. What are you going to do then? Are you going to pay $3 to watch the “Dramatic Chipmunk” or are you going just going to take the free option of watching only reruns of “The Sing-Off”?

If you are anything like me, the majority of my video viewing is done online. All of the network shows I watch, I watch on Hulu. In fact, I prefer it. I can live a carefree life, where I am not bogged down by network schedules and “primetime”. Even more so than the traditional networks, I watch a lot of new media broadcasts; my favorite being those from Twit.tv. Most of my video consumption is either Hulu or Twit. I am going to divulge a little secret. I watch about twelve hours of video between the two. The split is three and a half hours with Hulu and about seven and a half with Twit. Only one of the shows I watch with Hulu is NBC. That means in this hypothetical situation, I would be paying for ten and a half hours of video that I am now able to access for free by paying for internet access.

This is how it affects you. Are you willing to give up three quarters of Hulu? All of YouTube? All of the podcast you watch? Maybe I am being unfair. It’s exactly like renting movies from iTunes. You all do that right?

This isn’t 1999, or even 2004! Nearly all of us have high speed internet, and now huge corporations want to send us back to the 56k era where internet video and audio were just pipe dreams, because they don’t want to move forward. In this era of Web 2.0, we all know that you upgrade your machine, switch from myspace to facebook, and keep up with the times. Why can’t corporations do the same? There is a lot of money to be made in advancements and new ideas, but it’s easier to stay the same.

This affects all of you, everybody reading and every one who’s not. Just like in the sewer analogy, if you are willing to sit back and let the big corporations tell you what to do, they’ll just make you eat shit.

LotsOfZeros · 12-24-2010, 05:21 PM

We can only hope for further advancements in technology to come along and somehow put corrupt businesses like Comcast on the endangered species list.

lukep · 12-25-2010, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LotsOfZeros

We can only hope for further advancements in technology to come along and somehow put corrupt businesses like Comcast on the endangered species list.

-The problem with that thinking is that the companies that bring us this new tech could be just as bad or worse than comcast.

-Anyway, the tech exists elsewhere (like Japan and Europe) but bad laws are in the way. New laws usually don't fix old laws; they just add crap on top.

Our system sucks because we can't simply point to bad laws and say "replace that... It stinks."

12-22-2010, 01:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
iPwnNoobs Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: uswest.battle.net Posts: 1,517 iTrader: 2 / 100%	this shit has me LIVID. Seriously what happened to legislative bodies actually fearing their constituents. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

12-22-2010, 02:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
jryan21 WF Premium Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 4,601 iTrader: 0 / 0%	Streets are watching: https://www.eff.org/related/9375/blog Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

12-22-2010, 04:08 AM	#6 (permalink)
Garrett music LOUD Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,851 iTrader: 10 / 100%	when are people going to start rioting when the government does these thing. You know, like they do in France Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

12-22-2010, 06:19 AM	#10 (permalink)
flysarescary Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 713 iTrader: 0 / 0%	stfu hellblazer you fucking retard please put a .40 through your brain Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

12-22-2010, 09:16 AM	#11 (permalink)
HardSale Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 295 iTrader: 2 / 100%	There isn't an an aspect of life these liberal fucktards don't want to control in some way. This shit will be reversed when the new congress rolls in. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

12-22-2010, 12:21 PM	#19 (permalink)
Garrett music LOUD Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,851 iTrader: 10 / 100%	Also Hellblazer, do you read about current events and dream about politics all day long? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

12-23-2010, 01:06 AM	#25 (permalink)
kingofsp WF Premium Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 4,934 iTrader: 37 / 100%	Also, I'm on team hellblazer on this one. Well, minus the mean-spiritedness. It's Christmas time, after all. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ W4 - Pretty much the only good affiliate network left.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What has happened with ESTDOMAINS, INC.?	andreyknure	Hosting & Domains	0	10-16-2008 12:32 PM