Censorship

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Net Neutrality For Dummies

|

Al Gore says that legislation ensuring "net neutrality" is "needed for the revitalization of American democracy." Techno-vegan Moby says without it, the "egalitarian" Internet would disappear. Even Mallory from Family Ties, Justine Bateman, thinks "the freedom to access the site of any organization from Planned Parenthood to the Christian Coalition is going to end."

But just what the hell is net neutrality—and is all that is good and holy about the Internet really imperiled if legislation guaranteeing it isn't passed? Network neutrality is necessary, say its supporters, to make certain that all data on the Internet is treated equally and to protect users from information discrimination on the part of Internet service providers who will slow down or even block access to certain sites.

Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan takes a skeptical look at the growing push for net neutrality legislation and asks Peter Suderman, a Reason associate editor who is closely following proposals on the topic, why Moby and Mallory want the Federal Communication Commission, of all agencies, to regulate the Internet.

Approximalely 4 minutes. Written by Moynihan. Shot and edited by Dan Hayes and Meredith Bragg.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

140 responses to “Now Playing at Reason.tv: Net Neutrality For Dummies

  1. If enacted, Net Neutrality will never be what its proponents want it to be. It will only be a way for the current administration (via the FCC) to regulate speech and invade privacy on the internet.

    Just look at the proposed rules and tell me what you think the government will try to do with them. All of them provide an avenue for the gov’t to insert itself in the middle of the data transaction.

    * Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
    * Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
    * Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
    * Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
    * A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner
    * A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

    1. * Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
      #translation: ISPs can block anything they fear to be illegal–even if it’s not illegal

      * Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
      #translation: police can shutoff parts of your internet at will

      * Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
      #translation: subsidies will be provided to politically connected ISPs to expand into the territory of un-politically favored ones for “increased competition”.

      * A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner
      #translation: ISPs must keep doing what they’re already doing–but with the added burden of keeping records proving that this is in fact the case.

    2. It will only be a way for the current administration…

      And the next! Don’t forget that Bush used all the power the Democrats gave Clinton, and Obama is using all the power the Republicans gave Bush. When deciding what powers the presidency should have, always assume that the next administration will be the worst in history.

      1. Point taken. My beef is certainly not only with Obama or the Democrats, nor did I intend to convey that.

      2. Best way to try to reason with somebody advocating an expansion of government powers:

        “Would you want people in the other party, in the inevitable event that they regain power, to have this power you want to give yourself?”

        …you’d be surprised how often that will send chills of terror down the spines of the garden-variety political activist.

        1. Calvin Coolidge was president during the Clinton administration?

      3. Hence the Iron Law:

        Me today, you tomorrow.

  2. Good morning Suki!

  3. I say this with a staunch history of heterosexuality…Michael…you are an attractive man.

  4. Good to see that heroin addiction working out for Justine.

    1. Heroin, or Meth?

  5. Michael, you might want to mark this NSFW.

  6. I’m a web host and IT guy, so my opinions on this put me at ideological loggerheads with most of my colleagues. Federally enforced network neutrality is one of two things:
    a.) a solution in search of a problem
    b.) an attempt at rent-seeking by content providers on the internet (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc…) at the expense of pipe providers (Level3, AT&T, Verizion), and ultimately the consumers.

    To point (a) – Despite apocalyptic rhetoric by forced neutrality proponents, no ISP is going to ban Planned Parenthood or the Democrat Party from the internet.

    i.) Competition – The government-supported (and in some cases mandated) high speed internet municipal monopolies of the early part of the decade are no longer a real concern. In most cities, there’s at least two high speed internet providers, and people could and would switch if their ISP arbitrarily started refusing to serve content like that.

    ii.) That’s not even what coerced network neutrality is about. The question at issue is whether or not ISP’s should be allowed to prioritize packet delivery for sources originating on their own network of cable as opposed to content that comes from some other ISP’s networks of cable. And we’re not talking about a delay of minutes, or even really seconds, between ISP-content and !ISP-content, we’re talking about the method of resolving the situation where two packets from different sources arrive at the same time, and which one gets to go first.

    iii.) They could do this now, if they really wanted to, but it’s not in their best interests to do so. They’d alienate customers, add a significant burden to their network ops department, risk retaliation from other ISP’s, and would provide ZERO benefit other than fulfilling the personal whim of whoever made the decision to ban Reason.com from the AT&T networks, or whatever the case may be.

    As to (b) – If you’re a content provider like Google, bandwidth fucking _costs_. Like, really really costs. I’m a pissant webhost, and even at my level, bandwidth is pricey as all hell. Google wants their content delivered as fast as possible, and doesn’t want to have to put up with an ISP prioritizing their own packets over Google’s. So, Google goes to Uncle Sam, and says “Prevent them from treating my packets any differently than they treat their own” (despite the fact that inter-network traffic is more expensive than intra-network traffic).

    1. You forgot the third possibility, and probably the most likely:

      Net Neutrality is a way for the federal gov’t to add to it’s arsenal of regulatory codes in order to expand it’s power and reach into the most unregulated telecom market in history.

      1. How else will they be able to force 100 Mb intertubes on everyone?

        I already have insanely high-speed, low-cost internet from Verizon FIOS and I can’t fill the pipe.

        1. But at least you can switch to something 1/20th as fast if Verizon decides to block Reason.com. That sounds like competition to me! Or maybe not.

          1. Wow, it’s almost like services have costs and benefits.

          2. Which exists only because of govt interference in the market in the first place. By all means, the answer to that is piling even more on top of that.

            However, the point still stands that competition is the answer, not regulation.

      2. “[T]he most unregulated telecom market in history” is like the “most libertarian U.S. President in history.”
        Both refer to something not that unregulated or libertarian and both refer to something that happened in the Clinton administration.

        1. Calvin Coolidge was president during the Clinton administration?

    2. So…how much more does it cost Time Warner to move a packet of Google content than a packet of Time Warner content?

      1. No idea. Does it matter, or are you just curious?

        1. Because your argument implies TW content should get priority because it’s some sort of burden to move Google content. Otherwise I’m unclear as to how Google is “rent seeking”.

          Now, when the AT&T VP threatened to extract rents from content providers for access to “my pipes”, *that* seemed like rent-seeking.

          1. Funny you should think that, considering that they *are* AT&T’s pipes.

            You’re nothing more than a renter.

          2. TW should get priority because:

            a.) It’s _their_ pipes, you just lease access to it. They (or AT&T or whoever) own the copper/fiber/wireless transmitters that you use to connect to the Interwebz. They should be allowed to do whatever they damn well please on them. If they’re dicks and it loses them customers, so be it.

            b.) They pay because the Google data comes over a link with one of their backbone providers. I’m not sure what the specific costs are per byte or however the big boys choose to meter their shit, but it’s definitely not zero-cost. The way to think about it is this: You don’t have to pay anyone to move something around in your home network. You do have to pay someone if you want to move data to someone else’s network (via your ISP). Same concept.

            AT&T charging for delivery isn’t rent-seeking in a modern context, it’s just charging for service. Rent-seeking is the use of the state to extract economic rents via coercive power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

            1. If AT&T was given any kind of area monopoly, well, then they are rent seeking. Let’s not lose sight, as much as I hate Net Neutrality, that a lot of ISPs have state granted monopolies. Luckily new tech is putting a stop to that (which is why they want to get NN through as soon as possible, before people have enough choices to say “why would we need NN?”), but the reason people are pissed in the first place is that if you could only get a connection through Comcast, and they wanted to fuck you, it sucked.

              1. Oh, yeah, I don’t mean to try to paper over the long history of rent-seeking on the part of the telcos themselves. ISP monopolies are more often than not municipal rather than state-wide, but there’s still a massive amount of feeding at the public trough going on by those assholes. It just happens to be that they’re on the right side of the argument THIS time, after 8 decades of being a bunch of thieving bitches.

          3. I don’t think you’re getting the technological concept here. Google moves a lot of data, and they have to pay to do that, but AT&T will obviously want to prioritize their own packets; it’s their network after all. Google wants it so that AT&T is not allowed to prioritize, thereby making it more likely that Google data will be delivered faster.

            1. This whole mess came out of ISP’s talking (talking, not actually doing) about double-charging content providers. ie, people are using a lot of bandwidth watching youtube videos, so youtube should have to pay extra to have their videos delivered.

              This is complete bullshit, as

              1) youtube already pays through the nose for their end of the bandwidth.
              2) The only reason that the ISP’s network has value is because of the content that it connects to.

              The net neutrality movement didn’t appear out of nowhere – it was a reaction to a real threat of anti-consumer policy before it was a google-driven rent-seeking initiative.

              That being said… so far ISP’s have realized what a horrible idea this is, and haven’t actually tried it. And even the EFF ( a proponent of net neutrality) is wary of establishing the precedent of having the FCC regulate the internet.

              So, in sum, net neutrality is probably good, largely because it’s essentially what we already have, that has made the internet so great.

              Mandated net neutrality from the FCC on the other hand is kind of scary.

              1. I think the thing about videos is legitimate because the profits could be devoted towards a network based around video. I think soon consumers will be forced to chose between internet which can handle You Tube Hulu and other video sites in high definition or cable tv and when that happens cable will lose its attractiveness very rapidly.

    3. They’d alienate customers, add a significant burden to their network ops department, risk retaliation from other ISP’s, and would provide ZERO benefit other than fulfilling the personal whim of whoever made the decision to ban Reason.com from the AT&T networks, or whatever the case may be.

      Bingo.

      If AT&T blocks Reason then Comcast et al will be busting a gut to deliver it to me and take AT&T’s business.

      If the FCC bans Reason I’d have to get it by satellite from outside the U.S., probably risking arrest.

      Regulation is incompatible with liberty.

  7. Is Moby really that much of a cry baby? Lol. Wow. Why are these celebrities so worried that internet providers will act so differently from television networks? You don’t need equality in television programing, because the market dictates it, even with all the FCC regulations. The internet should fair far better.

  8. Damn, Roid, that’s some good info usefully chunked for digestion by a less-techie (I can’t describe myself as “non” – I used to be a programmer in a prior life). Adding this info to my mental file on “WTF is this net neutrality all about and why should I care”. Thanks!

  9. I have nothing but peaceful intentions in Kamchatka…

  10. STFU Mallory!

  11. I think alternatives to net neutrality will have many of the features and about the same level of results as the “market der-regulation” of energy that California did.

    1. Except for the fact that backbone providers and ISPs already can do this, but don’t, yes, it’s exactly the same thing.

    2. How is that again? I missed the crucial “argument that connects the key piece of discussion to the analogy”.

  12. Oh, and as an addendum, if Google wants to guarantee that its content gets delivered at the same priority as say, AT&T’s customer-only HD video portal, I’m sure it can negotiate an agreement with ISP’s. There’s nothing preventing it, and those kind of agreements are entered into all the time by backbone providers. There are about a dozen or so major backbone providers in the US, and content travels between them all time time. They manage to work out agreements with other providers, and we don’t need federal regulation for that.

    1. But, but… People don’t get along without the government there to babysit them. It just doesn’t happen!

    2. Google actually has made significant investments in its own backbone networks and content distribution networks, in order to reduce their bandwidth costs. They also just announced that they will be deploying 100MB testbed end user networks in certain cities.

  13. “Shot and edited by Dan Hayes and Meredith Bragg.”

    Meredith Braggster-Birney, you mean

  14. Net neutrality is a response to the lack of competition in the internet connection business. DMXRoid said above that most cities have two internet providers, which is better than one, but it really isn’t a market. So I would disagree that lack of competition from years of gov’t-granted monopoly is “no longer a concern”. The good news is that 3G (or it’s successor) and other alternatives will hopefully be in direct competition with wired providers soon.

    I can’t claim to know the magic number of competitors in a market that will erase the damage done by gov’t granted monopolies. I know its more than two, and I suspect we’ll see real competitive progress in the next couple of years.

  15. So what if I want to have the choice of selecting an ISP that offers movies on an affiliated web site that download at a higher speed than other traffic?

  16. I think people worry that if net neutrality fails it will result in paying more money for the same “neutral” service we get right now.

    1. I think people worry that if net neutrality fails it will result in paying more money for the same “neutral” service we get right now.

      1. Over the past four decades the price of internet service has dropped almost as fast as the speed has increased. Why should this trend not continue?
      2. There is one organization which, over the past decade, has actually limited your unfettered access to the internet and would like to limit it much more. That organization is not a service provider. (Hint: Try to use a credit card on a gambling website. Prior to Citizens United try to make a campaign posting just before an election.)

      1. My internet bill has been the exact same (about $50/mo.) for the last decade. I really can’t comment on the prices for internet service in the 1970s or 1980s.

        1. Which brings up a few questions you need to ask yourself:

          1. Are you still getting the same service for $50/month now than you were ten years ago, or are you getting more?

          2. Have you looked at your ISP’s other plans lately? If you’ve been with the for ten years, paying $50/mo for say 3Mbs downstream (which, as I recall, is about par for the course in 2000), never complaining, always paying your bills… If I’m the ISP selling you a service for $50/mo which is only really “worth” $2.50/mo, and you seem happy to pay it, who am I to complain?

          3. Have you looked at other ISPs available to you?

          4. Are you one of the unlucky ones living out in the sticks, where connectivity still remains a problem? If so, there’s not really much you can do other than move, so…

          1. I’ve been in two different markets and the offerings were essentially similar. I suppose I am getting more bang for my buck these days. I’m hoping that the net neutrality debate lasts another year or two and by then there will be more competition.

  17. Here’s a novel approach — let the free markets dictate what they want, not the government.

    If Comcast suddenly blocks reason or decides that yahoo deserves more juice, then I switch to a reason friendly provider, but then the all access providers will make more money and we can’t have that!

    1. Hey, that would be great if I had more than one reasonable choice of provider!

      Free markets work when they’re actually free.

      When they aren’t, we should try to make them more free and in the meantime try to regulate out the worst of their behavior.

      1. And before anyone says that last line doesn’t make sense, I mean “reduce barriers to entry and abolish government-provided monopolies while enacting minimal consumer-protection laws.”

        1. Moral Case: Two wrongs do not make a right. It was wrong to enact laws that made these de facto monopolies. It would be wrong to try to rectify this through further regulation. Furthermore, it is wrong to punish the emerging ISPs for something they had no part it.

          Pragmatically: Government will always make things worse…always! Regulating all ISPs in this fashion will ensure that those monopolistic entities remained entrenched, because upstarts cannot acquire the kind of facilities and hardware to comply with the regulation.

          1. I believe the telecom industry is a strong counter-point to your argument because as cell phones have increased, regulation of telecom companies on the state level has decreased enormously. While regulators in the electricity industry moved with too heavy a hand in “deregulating” electricity, telecom regulators essentially have just stopped regulating many aspects of telecom. Where I used to have to file hundreds of pages of documents to get the simplest policy change approved for a telecom company, a one page filing and telephone call gets the job done these days. I think this model could be applicable to the internet as more competition (via newer technologies) come into the marketplace.

      2. Most insightful comment here. Net neutrality is as much about regulating the internet as the first amendment is about regulating speech: it’s a concept that will *prevent* censorship and will foster competition on the internet. Yes, it rubs against the libertarian grain but we do not live in a libertarian society and Net Neutrality makes the most sense right here and right now.

        Ordinarily competition between ISPs could resolve the problem but while government granted monopolies prevent that, Net neutrality makes the most sense.

  18. Um, where is the pic of Justine Bateman?

    1. Um, where is the pic of Justine Bateman?

      In the video. Not safe while eating.

  19. America has a pathetic amount of competition between broadband providers as compared with such bastions of competition as Scandinavia.

    The only reason we have *any* facilities-based competition is the historical quirk of telephone networks and cable networks, which once needed different plant to provide different services, now providing the same service.

    So, whoop-de-doo, in a few markets you have your choice of mediocre DSL or so-so cable.

    You’re never going to see parallel fiber-to-the-home networks laid down. Where Verizon has installed FiOS, it has established a natural monopoly.

    People like to pretend, especially in these pages, like natural monopolies someone don’t exist anymore, what with the computers, or were a mistaken idea to begin with.

    On the contrary, wire-delivered broadband tends to natural monopoly just as the telephone network did. (I’m aware there were decades of competition between phone companies, and even two-service towns where for many years businesses had to buy a phone on each network. This situation wasn’t stable.) The evidence and the market evolution I see leads me to think that broadband is more like sewer lines than a real competitive marketplace. Though I’m sure someone here is going to refer me to the pertinent passage in Machinery of Freedom which describes how water and sewer lines are properly provided by unregulated private firms.

    We shouldn’t repeat the errors of telco regulation and jump in early, foreclose possible competition and grant legal monopolies to whom we regard as the inevitable winner.

    But, looking at ways to limit the power of the natural monopolist is reasonable.

    At the same time: it very well could be in the future that spectrum catches up with demand and makes regulation obsolete.

    1. At the same time: it very well could be in the future that spectrum catches up with demand and makes regulation obsolete.

      Good of you to point that out, as natural monopolies when they occur do not survive more than a generation before they are replaced by competitors who find alternative means.

      But when you are left with laws on the books they —

      1. hamper the effectiveness of competitors.

      2. prevent alternatives from coming into existence.

      3. never work in the manner their advocates allege they are intended.

      4. are difficult to get rid of.

      5. when taken off the books are replaced with a new set more convoluted than the previous entries to the code to please the current generation of rent seekers.

  20. I think only 1 of these posts understands the nuetrality argument: Google pays through the nose now, as a customer of the pipe providers, and as a peer to the pipe providers. Peering is cheaper, but still costs huige because of thier delivering endless MBs of useless UTUBE crap. They are being thretaned with packet discrimination by the long haul pipe providers since those pipe providers have to haul all kinds of garbage to the ends of the eart and then settle with a pipe provider in uzbekistan for sending more packets than they are taking (IE: $$.) What will happen- literally you saw this last week- is that the GOOD content providers will become network operators with the hopes that they can mitigate thier imabalance between content and distribution so as to not suffer at the hands of the pipe providers. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BLOCKING ANYTHING, DUMBASSES!. TimeWarner and cogent and AT&T, etc all want to charge a premium for transporting this rich content, but none of them have started charging that premium yet.

    1. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BLOCKING ANYTHING, DUMBASSES!

      Not so. The leftists pimping for NN are talking all about that. They heard about it at their meeting, so it must be true.

    2. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BLOCKING ANYTHING, DUMBASSES!

      ray, you are bringing up the technicalities behind the reasons for the net neutrality movement, not the potential consequences of net neutrality. If certain websites and/or search engines don’t ante up, they may be given much less priority. The question is, charging certain sites and search engines for using more juice creating the potential of those costs to be based onto the consumer — is this something that the government should be involved in?

      1. It appears to me net neutrality will just shift the costs of maintaining high speed internet from providers and ISPs, solely to ISPs and the ISPs will jack prices to continue upgrading infrastructure to bring the videos and other interweb crap we all love and hold dear.

  21. While I agree with Reason on this issue, there seems to be a bit of blind-eye-turning to the Comcast bittorrent hang-up-you-can’t-download-free-bible example.

  22. I think there is a need for the Government to regulate hard here. They gave a Monopoly to a bunch of service providers. And that has created a market distortion. Comcast would much rather you pay them $5 for a movie-on-demand than consume a bunch of (all you can consume) bandwidth downloading NetFlix on demand. The incentives are misaligned and Comcast has a market advantage enforced by the government (their monopoly on the pipe to the house).

    In this respect, we have already seen ISPs attempting to institute pricing plans that discourage high-bandwidth use, and the pricing packages seem designed precisely to discourage consuming High Def content over the internet.

    I think the answer is not Net Neutrality laws, but to instead neuter the ISP Monopolies. If you have been granted a Monopoly that delivers data-based services to the house, you must divest all services. That means you can charge the customer however you want for data, but you cannot offer them Cable or phone service. Instead, you must make available your pipe to whichever services the customer chooses. They are merely buying bandwidth from the data provider, and there are no perverse incentives.

    That is the most elegant fix to this government-caused problem, but it will likely be very disruptive. Nevertheless, in the long-run it will limit the damage of monopolies.

  23. Whoa! When did Justine Bateman become the Crypt Keeper?

  24. Why not mention of proposed legislation to require that the ISPs filter data? Seems to me that this is a growing threat.

    It is disingenuous to assert that regulation is unnecessary never mention proposed legislation that corporate America is buying from Congress. If regulation is bad, all regulation, no matter its source, is bad.

  25. Why not mention of proposed legislation to require that the ISPs filter data? Seems to me that this is a growing threat.

    It is disingenuous to assert that regulation is unnecessary never mention proposed legislation that corporate America is buying from Congress. If regulation is bad, all regulation, no matter its source, is bad.

  26. From the early ages of Christian Louboutin.shoemaker extraordinaire,comes a pair of flats,exclusively reedited for Netaporter: the Inseparables Love Flats by Christian Shoes!Though Louboutin himself said these shoes were inspired by the late Princess Diana(“I wanted her to always have love at her feet”)

  27. If you need to look great and feel comfortable,go for a pair of leather boots.They’re classic,never go out of style and will last years.Great for casual wear with jeans and top,or wear them to the office with smart trousers and shirt.Choose from lace ups,pull ons,work wear or Italian leather dress Christian Louboutin shoes.

  28. What is even more amazing is that Louboutin shoes used feathers and hair to make the knot which attached to the sole.His endless creativity adn he used in front of supermarkets in China to find the box of beer cans do heels,trying to use fish scale around Christian Louboutin shoes.

  29. For in the one who can not determine her own preferences is like gold or silver,design one side pair of golden shoes,one side is a silver Christian Louboutin shoes.Each design is flash,as the years went on,his works have become more moderate.”I realized that I more concise design of footwear,”he said,”my shoes are absolutely fine lines even more strongly a sense.”

  30. As many city’s are investing greatly in FTTH for smart grid, would it not make sense (roads/water/sewer) that the fiber backbone becomes part of the city’s infrastructure and becomes an open single source for all providers?
    Allowing more choices not just between Cable and Phone companies, but between multiple cable or phone companies. One fiber structure being used/rented by any and all providers. The could be truely net neutral w/o federal influence. The bottom line winner – the user.

  31. I live in a town where most people don’t even have broadband access, and I must say- we should be focusing on getting broadband in every home in America before we pay attention to the net neutrality debate. The FCC should focus on making broadband affordable and emphasize its potential to close the digital divide.

  32. What about when Verizon censored pro-choice text messages from the organization NARAL Pro-Choice America?

    Verizon provides High Speed Internet DSL Internet service in areas where they provides phone service.

  33. I really love your website, it’s so useful, i’m just sharing for my friends?welcome to my web:http://www.five-fingers-vibram.org/

  34. “George Bush, leave this world alone”… classic…

  35. Heroin, or Meth? Who would you choose?

  36. Good to see that heroin addiction working out for Justine. Just bookmark and tweeted this post.

  37. It is my great pleasure to visit your website and to enjoy your excellent post here.I like that very much. I can feel that you paid much attention for those articles, as all of them make sense and are very useful. Thanks so much for sharing. I can be very good reader&listener; discount cheap jordan shoes , if you are same searching for all to be good.

    http://www.cheapvibramshoes.co…..assic.html

  38. [….]What about when Verizon censored pro-choice text messages from the organization NARAL Pro-Choice America?

    Verizon provides High Speed Internet DSL Internet service in areas where they provides phone service.[….]

  39. sharing for my sharing for my sharing for my sharing for my
    Puma Speed Cat Shoes sharing for my sharing for my sharing for my

  40. This has been very helpful understanding a lot of things. I’m sure a lot of other people will agree with me.

  41. Good informative post. I will visit your site often to keep updated.

  42. A good website recommend to
    you: http://www.goahats.com they sell wholesale new era hats, Monster Energy Hats, Dc Shoes Hats, Red Bull Hats,New Era Caps,NFL Hats And Famous Hats at cheap price.

  43. I think the quality content should be charged. As we can see every day the spam community is growing so it is more and more difficult to get good content on the web. Thanks for sharing bro. http://www.prlog.org/10694933-…..look.html;)http://hirapannashop.blogspot.com/

  44. There is certainly a lot in this article to make you pause for thought. We should all be intolerant of violence towards others no matter whether they are male or female, black or white. It’s an issue that should be discussed even more fully. Navel Rings and belly button rings

  45. vibram five fingers on our shop are of good quality. The five fingers shoes may be your best choice for long walking.We offer vibram fivefingers and vibram shoes.belly button ringsand Navel Rings

  46. Wow what a very thorough post!! I really enjoy reading here so please keep up the hard work!!

  47. Shoes on the bars, peep toes, cuffs and dress shoes are our most precious clothes like to see some of Christian Louboutin Boutique, and through the online store site black outfit.The color coordination, bold color pair of shoes or a group of kind stone fashion designer brands, including Jimmy Choo’s, Manolo Blahnik and Christian Louboutin shoes ? regular favorite.

  48. Shoes on the bars, peep toes, cuffs and dress shoes are our most precious clothes like to see some of Christian Louboutin Boutique, and through the online store site black outfit.The color coordination, bold color pair of shoes or a group of kind stone fashion designer brands, including Jimmy Choo’s, Manolo Blahnik and Christian Louboutin shoes ? regular favorite.

  49. Good to see that heroin addiction working out for Justine.

  50. http://www.af1dunksb.com/
    nke dunks
    nike sb dunk
    nike dunk sb
    Cheap Dunk SB
    Dunk Pro SB
    Nike Dunk SB Premium
    Custom Air Force Ones
    Air Force 1
    Nike AF1
    Air Force Ones
    Air Force One

    http://www.airyeezykicks.com/
    air yeezy
    cheap air yeezy
    air yeezy Shoes
    nike air yeezy
    kanye west air yeezy
    air yeezys
    supra shoes
    kanye west air yeezy
    air jordan shoes
    Cheap Air Jordan
    Air Jordan Retro
    Jordans Shoes

    http://www.edhardyukshop.com/
    ed hardy clothing
    ed hardy t shirts
    cheap ed hardy
    ed hardy shop
    ed hardy mens
    ed hardy womens
    Ed Hardy Accessories
    Christian Audigier Womens
    Christian Audigier Mens
    Christian Audigier Accessories
    ed hardy wholesale
    ed hardy free shipping
    ed hardy online
    ed hardy 70% off
    cheap christian audigier
    christian audigier Ed Hardy

    http://www.edhardyuksale.com/
    Ed Hardy
    Ed Hardy Clothing
    Ed Hardy T shirts
    Ed Hardy Uk
    Ed Hardy Shirts
    Ed Hardy Accessories
    Ed Hardy Sale
    Ed Hardy Mens
    Ed Hardy Womens
    Ed Hardy On Sale

    http://www.supramenshoes.com/
    Supra
    Supra Shoes
    Supra Footwear
    Cheap Supra Shoes
    Supra Sneakers
    Supra Shoes Sale

    http://www.airyeezyshoes.org/
    air yeezy
    nike air yeezy
    air yeezy shoes
    air yeezys
    cheap air yeezy
    air yeezy on sale

    http://www.visvimshoesshop.com/
    visvim
    visvim shoes
    visvim sneakers
    cheap visvim shoes
    visvim shoes online
    visvim shop
    visvim shoes sale

    http://www.Christianlouboutinice.com/
    Christian Louboutin
    Christian Louboutin Heels
    Christian Louboutin Sale
    Christian Louboutin Discount
    Christian Louboutin Wedding Shoes
    Christian Louboutin
    Cheap Christian Louboutin
    Christian Louboutin Boots
    Christian Louboutin 2010
    Christian Louboutin Pumps
    Christian Louboutin Sandals
    Christian Louboutin Singback

    http://www.asicskicks.com/
    asics shoes
    asics onitsuka
    asics tiger
    asics onitsuka tiger
    asics running shoes
    asics shoes sale
    cheap asics shoes
    asics shoes clearance
    asics shoes discount
    asics kicks

    http://www.mbtshoesking.com/
    MBT
    MBT Shoes
    MBT Sandals
    Women’s MBT Shoes
    MBT Walking Shoes
    MBT Sale
    Cheap MBT Shoes
    MBT Outlets
    MBT Anti Shoes
    MBT Sport
    MBT Footwear
    MBT Masai Shoes
    MBT Shoes Clearance
    MBT Shape Ups

  51. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

  52. commission must impose fines or other sanctions against those who may have violated rules.

  53. Very good blog.Thank you for sharing.Best wishes !

  54. I’ve been into blogging for quite some time and this is definitely a great post. I signed up for your newsletter, so please keep up the informative posts!

    Good luck on your blog, and feel free to comment and subscribe to my blog as well when you get a chance: Make Money Online with Dino Vedo.

  55. With features such as arch support, raised toe bars and deep heel cups, the notable Germany brand Birkenstock offer plenty of comfort enhancements, as well as being probably the most legendary shoe brand. Birkenstock shoes conform somewhat to the shape of their wearers’ feet. You can wear Birkenstock sandals and Birkenstock gizeh to everywhere you want to. Latest Birkenstocks are on nearly 50% discount now. Free shipping worldwide!

  56. I suppose your site gets a lot of visitors since the design is so professional looking. I am in the beginning of starting my own site can you tell me who your designer is? Thanks in advance.

  57. I live in a town where most people don’t even have broadband access, and I must say- we should be focusing on getting broadband in every home in America before we pay attention to the net neutrality debate. The FCC should focus on making broadband affordable and emphasize its potential to close the digital divide. is it right?

  58. Point taken. My beef is certainly not only with Obama or the Democrats, nor did I intend to convey that.Michael, you might want to mark this NSFW.

  59. The Air Max 95 features a combination of charcoal grey.

  60. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.
    I really enjoyed reading this post, thanks for sharing. I hope that you keep updating the blog.

  61. nice post learn it very much from here thanks sharing

  62. It is a Nice post i had searched in many of the blogs but not found like this one anyway cheers to all..

  63. It is a Nice post i had searched in many of the blogs but not found like this one anyway cheers to all..

  64. I like that! christian shoes Your post inspires me very much. Good Luck to you!

  65. I like that! Your post inspires me very much. Good Luck to you!

  66. Well said. I never thought I would agree with this opinion, but I’m starting to view things from a different view. I have to research more on this as it seems very interesting. One thing I don’t understand though is how everything is related together.

    http://www.christianlouboutindior.com

  67. Really good article, thank you for sharing, I will always look at the future.I like it very much.

  68. What about when Verizon censored pro-choice text messages from the organization NARAL Pro-Choice America?
    http://www.eccob2c.com/ Ecco Shoes
    http://www.sneakershow.us/ Nike Sneakers

  69. http://www.christianlouboutint…..utin Boots
    thats probley better anyway
    http://www.sneakershow.us/ Nike Sneakers
    nd lastly I have no hope

  70. http://www.christianlouboutintown.com/
    thats probley better anyway
    http://www.sneakershow.us/ Nike Sneakers
    nd lastly I have no hope

  71. http://www.jersey-shoping.com/
    1. The fed is an illegal operation run by the government so its kind of useless to fight it.
    MLB Jerseys
    http://www.purseb2c.com/ Designer Handbags

  72. he fed is an illegal operation run by the government http://www.oilpainting-sale.net/ so its kind of useless to fight it.
    MLB Jerseys http://www.hotsell-edhardy.com/ Ed Hardy

  73. 2 – 3 ounces each. Most people get less. So, that’s about 4 to 6 pounds. Not much. http://www.christianlouboutintown.com/
    http://www.hotsale-watch.com/ Replica Watches

  74. Total Screen Recorder is an easy-to-use video recording application with clean interface.

    helps you backup and transfer SMS messages between mobile phone and desktop

  75. Great post. I’m thinking that’s the best one?.

  76. Thank you very much for your sharing that Abercrombie Clothing . It is very nice. Now i know how to choose brand clothing. You let me know the characteristics of Abercrombie clothing. If i want to buy clothing, i will buy Abercrombie & Fitch clothing. Meanwhile i will wear cheap designer sunglassses to collocation the clothing. It will make me very cool. Thank you!!!

  77. Many thanks for sharing, very nice. Now I know the place which buy cheap goods. It wholesale from china . There wholesale many kinds of goods. Everything to choose for you.

  78. Thank you very much for your sharing that abercrombie jeans . It is very nice. Now i know how to choose brand clothing. You let me know the characteristics of Abercrombie clothing. If i want to buy clothing, i will buy Abercrombie & Fitch clothing. Meanwhile i will wear cheap designer sunglassses to collocation the clothing. It will make me very cool. Thank you!!!

  79. upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.
    I really enjoyed reading this post, thanks for s

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.