Stop Saying That The FCC Is 'Treating Internet As A Utility' -- It's Not

from the mythbusting dept

Now that FCC boss Tom Wheeler has made it official that he's going to present rules to reclassify broadband under Title II for the purpose of implementing stronger net neutrality rules (details still to come...), the opponents to this effort have come out of the woodwork to insist, over and over again, that reclassifying is "treating the internet as a utility." The cable industry's main lobbyists, NCTA, decried "Wheeler's proposal to impose the heavy burden of Title II public utility regulation...." and AT&T screamed about how "these regulations that we're talking about are public-utility-style regulations..." Former Congressman Rick Boucher, who is now lobbying for AT&T whined that "subjecting broadband to public utility regulation under Title II is unnecessary."

Hell, even those who are merely reporting on the issue are calling it "treating internet as a utility." Here's the Wall Street Journal, NPR, CNET, Engadget and the Associated Press all claiming that the new rules "treat" or "regulate" the "internet as a public utility."

And they're all wrong. While there are some "utility" like aspects in Title II, Wheeler actually made it pretty clear he's not using those sections in the net neutrality rules that he's putting together (though, again, the details here will matter, and we haven't seen them yet). What he's doing here is just using Title II to be able to designate broadband as a common carrier, but just being a "common carrier" is not the same as being a "public utility" -- a point that John Bergmeyer at Public Knowledge makes nicely, by highlighting that there are lots of common carriers that aren't utilities:
Similarly, despite nearly-universal misapprehension on this point, net neutrality is not utility regulation. Net neutrality says that ISPs must, in part, act like common carriers--they must carry traffic in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory way. In some important ways net neutrality falls short of full common carriage, but for these purposes we can concede that net neutrality is common carrier regulation, because even full common carrier regulation is not identical to utility regulation. Lots of things are common carriers--buses, taxis, and delivery services, among other things. While the specifics vary, these services are required to operate in reasonable and nondiscriminatory ways. But no one suggests that the fact that because UPS is a common carrier, it is therefore a utility. Even net neutrality plus a number of the other things mentioned above (universal service, privacy, etc) do not add up to utility regulation.

This misapprehension comes about because the most prominent telecommunications common carriage service of the past--telephone service--also was regulated as a utility. But utility regulation typically carries with it a number of features not present in any current proposals for broadband--most notably, thorough price regulation and detailed local regulation of service quality, customer service responsiveness, and so forth. Public utilities are either publicly-owned, or private companies subject to such public oversight that the distinction between public and private is blurred.
The only reporter I've seen who has actually correctly made this distinction (though there could be others that I haven't seen) is Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica, who actually read what details the FCC did put up and noted that it's pretty damn clear that these are not "utility-style" regulations. Update: And Sam Gustin over at Vice Motherboard also made this point.

Yes, there are parts of Title II that can be used to regulate things as a utility, but Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those. The court ruling from last year that tossed out the old net neutrality rules was pretty clear that if you wanted to treat broadband as a common carrier, you have to do so under Title II, but that doesn't mean that broadband becomes a utility in any sense of the word.

So, please, stop buying into the FUD (even from some supporters) that these new rules "treat broadband as a utility." It's not even close to true.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Shmerl, 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:39am

    What's wrong with public utilities?

    What is the problem with treating ISPs that way? They are utilities which provide essential service, not unlike electrical networks. So why not regulate them as such?

    It probably even makes sense to unbundle them altogether, giving access to the network to competitors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 10:26pm

      Re: What's wrong with public utilities?

      If you dont want to be treated like the power company send me light pulses and not electrical signals.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:46am

    Why ISN'T the Internet a Utility?

    It seems a fair question.

    This is the 21st century. Internet access is approximately as important as a telephone connection. Maybe not quite as important as electrical, gas, water or sewer, or trash collection.

    Internet access now is one of the basic 'utilities' that nearly every home has in order to be functional.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:55am

      Re: Why ISN'T the Internet a Utility?

      I'm actually a bit curious about this as well. Sure I can understand it being undesirable from a business standpoint, but what about it would make it undesirable as a whole?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:47pm

        Re: Re: Why ISN'T the Internet a Utility?

        Some people believe that since utilities are a monopoly they're bad and if there were competition for things like water and electricity, it would be cheaper or the service would be better.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      retrogamer (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:00pm

      Re: Why ISN'T the Internet a Utility?

      I agree entirely. I live in the southeastern, Appalachian region of Ohio (near WV) and we currently have no cell phone reception, one provider of landline phone, one provider of cable/Internet/VOIP (that being Time Warner), and of course no wireless to go along with no cell phone reception. If they let the POTS network go, we will have to rely on a Time Warner monopoly for all communication. If you've ever driven through Appalachia, you'd know satellite is a terrible option due to reception issues with hills and trees.

      The point being, it's almost like there is a reason regulating the old POTS network as a utility worked in the public interest. There are going to be huge swaths of the country left in the dark without more regulation, despite the fact that our energy (coal and natural gas) and agricultural goods are apparently sill valuable and worth subsidizing for the rest of the country.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re: Why ISN'T the Internet a Utility?

        Stop sending food and electricity into the cities where the guys making the 'don't build in low population' decisions live. If they want fresh food and electricity, they shouldn't live in a city. Fair is fair right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Timothy Karr, 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:47am

    Google it

    If you go to Google News and search for "Utility and Neutrality and FCC," you'll see hundreds of stories where reporters refer to Net Neutrality rules as a "public utility regulation." This includes journalists from some of the most credible news organizations in the country. The echo chamber on this is stunning.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:55am

    Well, it might as well be treated like a public utility since they're replacing telephone lines with voip. Without an internet connection, emergency services cannot be contacted.

    So yeah, these assholes need to get their heads out of their asses, from both sides, and start regulating the shit out of broadband.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Daniel Berninger (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:57am

    Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

    Mike,

    I get that you worry the "utility" label represents problematic messaging, so feel free to call the FCC's plans anything you like.

    The core problem remains that imposing Title II on the Internet destroys (if successful) the "legal protections" not just "Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those" entrepreneurs enjoy against FCC regulation.

    The presumption of FCC regulatory virtue underlying enthusiasm for Title II (ironically) owes to these legal protections allowing entrepreneurs to ignore the FCC.

    I organized an FCC ex parte signed by Mark Cuban, Tim Draper, Charlie Giancarlo, George Gilder, Bryan Martin, and Jeff Pulver on this point folks can review at tinyurl.com/notitlteII

    If the FCC succeeds in resurrecting Title II, the ability of entrepreneurs to separate regulated and not regulated activities disappears. The question will require a risk assessment by a regulatory attorney and remain subject to a final determination through FCC proceedings.

    The line will be a function of "Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ..." and the political calculations of every subsequent President or FCC chairman.

    Dan

    ..........................................
    Daniel Berninger
    Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
    e: dan@danielberninger.com
    tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
    SIP HD: dan@danielberninger.com
    w: www.vcxc.org

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      retrogamer (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:03pm

      Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

      Dan, I would like to ask you in response, do you feel that the status quo (where your industry ignores the rural and poverty stricken regions of our country due to economic issues) is acceptable, specifically in Appalachia? The products that you claim "owe their existence" to the status quo do not in fact exist for us, and I'm not sure that they ever will without regulation. That status quo is creating an unbreakable cycle of poverty and driving business away from our region, quite frankly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:08pm

      Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

      Let me put it this way: when over half of the country has exactly one option for not-awful speeds, that's not good.

      When parts of the country aren't being served because it's not profitable, that's actively criminal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:09pm

      Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

      You're joking right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:33pm

      Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

      You claim to be an expert on VOIP and you probably are, but it's well apparent that it's for all the wrong reasons.

      If things continue the way they are then what happens to Joe and his family when their house catches on fire? They live out in the middle out in the middle of nowhere and their only connection to the world, a lan line, was recently cut by the Telcos because it was deprecated in favor of VOIP.

      They were told they would have to pay $50,000 to have an internet connection setup ,since everyone now uses VOIP, but they can't afford it so all they can do is try to keep warm by the flames of their burning home.

      This is why it needs become a public utility because it needs to be for the PUBLIC and not greedy little conniving jerk-offs like yourself.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Daniel Berninger (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:45pm

        Re: Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

        retrogamer and Anonymous Coward,

        What is the connection you have in mind between regulating the Internet via Title II, net neutrality, and broadband deployment in rural areas?

        The FCC does not claim imposing Title II on the Internet speeds deployment of broadband in rural areas.

        Imposing Title II on the Internet will certainly slow broadband deployment in rural areas, but I am not even advancing the argument.

        Dan

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

          I am saying that Title II doesn't go far enough, it should be re-classified as a full utility. The fact that you are taking such issue with these petty, insignificant regulations in comparison with the unjust reality on the ground that Wheeler is still allowing to go unaddressed is laughable. Broadband deployment is not happening - at any pace - in my region. Is it possible to slow a process perpetually at rest? I wonder.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 1:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

          No, Shitty companies will slow rural broadband development. Hell, most major US cities still only have one provider who fits the updated definition of broadband.

          Why is that, I wonder? Could be be because of toxic collusive practices by the major telcos? The key connection between Title II, net neutrality principles and braodband deployment in rural areas is how badly the telcos have acted, effectively quadruple-dipping for the same data. IT's no wonder those five companies often have many billions in revenue, yet are complaining that these things will kill inveatment (that in some cases, hasn't even been mapped yet, never mind deployed.

          Title II is a start on the road, and these thieves and extortionists need to be taken down, through Sherman and RICO suits, if necessary.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          art guerrilla (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 3:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

          bullshit...
          in many to most places, Big Media has carved up the states/counties/cities, and there are NO ALTERNATIVES, per-i-fucking-od...

          further, it is either literally impossible (due to statutory restrictions), or essentially impossible (due to high cost of entry and/or control of rights-of-way/fiber) to start up any kind of competitive ISP venture...

          and -yes- the exceptions DO prove the rule, AND prove that competitors CAN do what Big Media has been promising (AND BEING PAID) to do for decades, and has failed repeatedly...
          they have ZERO credibility, such that if Big Media claims the sky is blue, i am almost certain it is grey and i'm getting pissed on...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      lucidrenegade (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:39pm

      Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

      Considering that the big ISPs brought this on themselves, I find it hard to shed a tear.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:42pm

      Re: Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those ...

      Your paper is full of things that I take a lot of issue with, so I just selected the most general one:

      There exists nothing in the record or daily experience to suggest the need to question the long standing definitions that have left the computing sector, the information technology industry, and the Internet ecosystem beyond the reach of the Communications Act.


      Except, of course, for the numerous anticompetitive and antconsumer actions that major ISPs have been, and obviously intend on not just continuing but expanding on.

      Things like selectively interfering with specific services, intentionally perpetuating their effective oligopoly that ensures that far too many people have no serious options for where they get their broadband service from, ubiquitous spying and even modification of customer data streams (the UIDH fiasco being just the latest fiasco), and on and on.

      Despite the claims of the defenders of the status quo, abuse is widespread. Indeed, if the abuse were rare, there would be no serious popular support for Title II.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 4:34pm

      Re:

      Finally another spammer logs back in.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:01pm

    *kicks some dirt* I wish it was being made a utility...*sigh*

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Beech, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:25pm

    Even if true, how is this a problem? Public utilities are arguably one of the best facets of government. They JUST WORK without any BS.
    I don't have the water company trying to charge me more for a bath than a shower.
    I don't get huge fines for going over my arbitrary gas "cap."
    I don't get a power outage because the power company thinks I'm using too much electricity vacuuming and they think Hoover should pay them because of how many people use their vacuums.
    I don't get denied for phone service because my house is too far from a city, and no one can feel bothered to run the cable to it.

    And really, has anyone argued that having any of these services classified as a "utility" has "chilled investment" in them, or "thwarted innovation"? As far as I'm concerned Wheeler can classify the internet as a Chocolate Chip Cookie and regulate it as such if it keeps Comcast from fucking around with it more than they already have.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      retrogamer (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:32pm

      Re:

      By Dan's logic, the EPA and FDA regulations are REALLY holding back the industries that do consider my region valuable. Surely things would be even better if we just let Duke Energy go back to the pre-regulation days, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_1S4Ya3F64 And if our local factory pork farms could just produce sausage onsite without costly and time wasting inspections done in sterile plants, we'd get more great literary output celebrating it like this, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      John Simpson, 7 Feb 2015 @ 10:16am

      Re:

      Let's compare internet to electricity, gas and water. Those utilities charge by consumption (ie. Kilowatt hours, BTUs, etc.). Internet providers do not charge on consumption, they charge for speed. You have unlimited data from your cable company, but pay for a certain speed. What if the water company gave you unlimited water, but charged for water pressure? Wireless providers have data "caps" but only really offer one speed.

      The end result of this legislation is higher prices for consumers and data plans similar to wireless phones. I don't use Netflix, so I would prefer Netflix of the Netflix user pays higher fees. This law ensures its the customer and not the business.

      How much innovation do you get from your electric company? Smart grid...no. Renewable energy...no. Coal scrubbing...no. My utility needs a third party for electronic billing and payments. How's that for innovation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JWahl, 24 Feb 2015 @ 3:40pm

        Re: Re:

        "Let's compare internet to electricity, gas and water. Those utilities charge by consumption (ie. Kilowatt hours, BTUs, etc.). Internet providers do not charge on consumption, they charge for speed. You have unlimited data from your cable company, but pay for a certain speed. What if the water company gave you unlimited water, but charged for water pressure? Wireless providers have data "caps" but only really offer one speed.

        The end result of this legislation is higher prices for consumers and data plans similar to wireless phones. I don't use Netflix, so I would prefer Netflix of the Netflix user pays higher fees. This law ensures its the customer and not the business."

        The difference, is that unlike water, data packets are not a physical and finite resource. The primary cost for ISPs is installing infrastructure, powering it, and administrating it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:39pm

    I need internet for VOIP. I don't get cellular reception where I live. I hope internet is regulated like a public utility. I need internet to pay my utility bills, look for jobs, and file for government assistance programs. I don't have a car and I live way out in the woods with no cellular reception. So the internet is essential to my existence. I hear Verizon refuses to build and maintain copper phone lines, because they consider wireless cellular to be the future.

    Wireless cellular might be great for voice calls if you get a signal in your area, but it sucks for broadband internet. Wireless cellular costs like $20 a gigabyte to download stuff on the internet. I can't stream Netflix on that, I'd go bankrupt in the first month.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MM_Dandy (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:42pm

    Count myself...

    ...among those who were under the impression that Title II reclassification would bring internet into the realm of utilities, and didn't have a problem with that at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    wereisjessicahyde (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:42pm

    Please stop saying that the FCC has any real relevance outside the US. Nobody else gives a shit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ColinCowpat (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:55pm

    Victory is no closer...

    Remember the phrase every English football fan knows when the National team is playing Germany and leading in extra time: it ain't over until it's over.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    retrogamer (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:58pm

    I would just add two more things:
    1. I was the Anonymous Coward in comment #23, just to make that clear, I have my cookies auto-delete every 30 minutes and didn't realize I was logged out.
    2. To clarify my position, I support both net neutrality and treating the Internet as a utility.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lyle Verbilion, 5 Feb 2015 @ 1:20pm

    digital Rosa Parks in the Fast Lane

    Once the Internet is designated a Common Carrier, can a digital Rosa Parks refuse to sit in the traffic-shaped slow lane?
    Will there be riots? Assassinations? The politicians and Telecoms Co's make it sound so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 2:39pm

    those who are calling this change into a utility are doing so intentionally, not mistakenly. as most of those concerned are crawling out of the broadband company woodwork, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon etc, it suits them to do so because it gives them the excuse to try to blame someone else for what they have been getting away with for years, ripping people off, and an excuse again to be able to try to sue the FCC! no company likes to be shown up at what it has been getting away with. take the ridiculous charges Verizon still have even though they are dropping some by $10/month (whooppee!!) it, like the others, ought to be made to repay the billions gotten in subsidies when it didn't complete ANY of the tasks it should have! that would be worth seeing!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:34pm

    "Hell, even those who are merely reporting on the issue are calling it "treating internet as a utility." Here's the Wall Street Journal, NPR, CNET, Engadget and the Associated Press all claiming that the new rules "treat" or "regulate" the "internet as a public utility."

    Also, USA Today.Yesterday.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 6 Feb 2015 @ 3:29am

    This debacle is a perfect example of people hearing what they want to hear.

    Tom Wheeler has stated, repeatedly, he wasn't looking to turn broadband into a utility.

    But look who is front and center twisting his words around: AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast.

    This is not a coincidence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 6 Feb 2015 @ 12:58pm

    Screaming and whining

    I don't think you need to characterize your opponents as screaming and whining. Just make your point, and leave off the invented tone of voice (unless you have audio or video recordings that actually demonstrate screaming and whining).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Simpson, 7 Feb 2015 @ 9:45am

    Common Carrier

    If UPS is a common carrier, shouldn't we regulate how much they charge for package delivery? They charge different prices for overnight vs. standard delivery. That is the same as a fast lane and a slow lane. Same for Fed Ex and other delivery services. Your argument doesn't hold water.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 7 Feb 2015 @ 10:23am

      Re: Common Carrier

      If UPS is a common carrier, shouldn't we regulate how much they charge for package delivery? They charge different prices for overnight vs. standard delivery. That is the same as a fast lane and a slow lane. Same for Fed Ex and other delivery services. Your argument doesn't hold water.

      Are you saying UPS is not a common carrier? I can't really tell what your point is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JP Jones (profile), 8 Feb 2015 @ 4:28pm

      Re: Common Carrier

      Apples and oranges. There's an actual, physical cost to shipping items, a cost difference between shipping quickly and at the standard speed (in opportunity cost and sometimes aircraft), and people pay per package sent. The pricing reflects the realities of the business.

      You can't compare the two situations. It doesn't make logical sense. It's sort of like saying that it's unfair an Ford Focus driver has to pay the same toll as a Ford F-150 driver because the F-150 driver has to spend more on gas. The revenue stream and situation for the gas stations are completely different from the toll road.

      We pay a toll to access the internet. And now ISPs are telling us we need to pay a gas fee, even though our gas mileage has little to no affect on their business situation. They also want our car company to pay our gas fee, because they should share the burden.

      And for those of us that understand this, we're left scratching our heads wondering why the heck we're paying a toll to go on the road if they're going to charge us for something unrelated to their business expenses. It doesn't make sense.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mizzyw, 27 Jan 2016 @ 8:29pm

    John Simpson, Feb 7th, 2015 @ 10:16am said:

    Re:
    "Let's compare internet to electricity, gas and water. Those utilities charge by consumption (ie. Kilowatt hours, BTUs, etc.). Internet providers do not charge on consumption, they charge for speed."

    They are charging for consumption in certain "test" markets, 300g limit, go over and it's $10 for every 50g even if you only go over by 2g. So Comcast at least in some areas IS charging on consumption as well as speed.

    Known test markets:
    Huntsville, Mobile and Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Tucson, Arizona; Little Rock, Arkansas; Fort Lauderdale, the Keys and Miami, Florida; Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah, Georgia; Central Kentucky; Houma, LaPlace and Shreveport, Louisiana; Maine; Jackson and Tupelo, Mississippi; Chattanooga, Greeneville, Johnson City/Gray, Knoxville, Memphis and Nashville, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; and Galax, Virginia.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.