Net Neutrality FCC Vote Today December 14, 2017

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by hmscott, Dec 14, 2017.

  1. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Net Neutrality, the END of the INTERNET? - VisualPolitik EN

    Published on Feb 22, 2018
    In one of the most controversial decisions of last year, on December 14th, 2017 the Federal Communications Commission of the United States decided to end what is known as "net neutrality".

    Since then, United States operators responsible for providing Internet can manage their networks as they see fit, and can even block or reduce access speed to certain web pages, online services and all kinds of applications.

    The measure, promoted by the Republican Party and the Trump Administration, was so controversial that the president of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, has become one of the most unpopular people in the entire network.

    In this video, we tell you why this measure was taken, its negative points, its positive points and the consequences we can expect from it.
     
  2. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    States refile lawsuits to block repeal of U.S. net neutrality
    David Shepardson, FEBRUARY 22, 2018 / 9:51 AM / UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ck-repeal-of-u-s-net-neutrality-idUSKCN1G62F8

    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A coalition of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia on Thursday refiled legal challenges intended to block the Trump administration’s repeal of landmark rules designed to ensure a free and open internet from taking effect.

    The Federal Communications Commission officially published its order overturning the net neutrality rules in the Federal Register on Thursday, a procedural step that allows for the filing of legal challenges.

    The states, along with Web browser developer Mozilla Corp and video-sharing website Vimeo Inc (IAC.O), had filed petitions preserving their right to sue in January, but agreed to withdraw them last Friday and wait for the FCC’s publication.

    The Republican-led FCC in December voted 3-2 to overturn 2015 rules barring service providers from blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content on the internet.

    “Repealing net neutrality will allow internet service providers to put corporate profits over consumers by controlling what we see, do, and say online,” said New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the coalition. Other members of the group include California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

    The attorneys general argue that the FCC cannot make “arbitrary and capricious” changes to existing policies and that it misinterpreted and disregarded “critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses.”

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is confident the order will be upheld, his office said in a statement.

    The White House Office of Management and Budget still must sign off on some aspects of the FCC reversal before it takes legal effect. That could take months.

    Congressional aides say the publication will trigger a 60-legislative-day deadline for Congress to vote on whether to overturn the FCC’s decision. U.S. Senate Democrats, who hold 49 seats in the 100-person chamber, have the backing of 50 senators for repeal, leaving them one vote short of a majority.

    Democrats need 51 votes to win any proposal in the Republican-controlled Senate because Vice President Mike Pence can break any tie.

    Even if Democrats do win a Senate majority, reinstatement of net neutrality would also require a favorable vote in the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a larger majority, and would still be subject to a likely veto by President Donald Trump.

    The repeal of the net neutrality rules was a victory for internet service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N), conferring power over what content consumers can access.

    On the other side, technology companies including Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Facebook Inc (FB.O) have thrown their weight behind the congressional bid to reverse the net neutrality repeal.

    The FCC December order also seeks to pre-empt states from imposing their own net neutrality rules. But governors in Vermont, Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey and New York have signed orders pledging to do business only with internet providers that abide by net neutrality rules."
     
  3. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    California appeals court revives U.S. FTC's case against AT&T
    Diane Bartz, FEBRUARY 26, 2018 / 11:59 AM
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vives-u-s-ftcs-case-against-att-idUSKCN1GA2M1

    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A full panel of a California appeals court ruled on Monday that the Federal Trade Commission may push forward with a lawsuit alleging that AT&T Inc was deceptive in slowing internet speeds to customers with unlimited plans.

    The FTC sued AT&T in 2014 on the grounds that the No. 2 U.S. wireless carrier failed to inform consumers it would slow, or “throttle,” the speeds of heavy data users on unlimited plans. In some cases, data speeds were slowed by nearly 90 percent, the FTC said.

    AT&T had argued that it was exempt from FTC regulation because it is a common carrier. A three-member appeals court agreed, and the FTC appealed to a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That larger court ruled for the agency and revived the lawsuit.

    The lawsuit has been closely watched because critics warned that the prior ruling could leave internet service providers without a U.S. regulator. The Federal Communications Commission in December voted 3-2 to end the net neutrality rules that were designed to ensure a free and open internet and transfer oversight of ISPs to the FTC.

    “Today’s decision on jurisdiction does not address the merits of the case. We are reviewing the opinion and continue to believe we ultimately will prevail,” AT&T spokesman Marty Richter said.

    Both FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai praised the decision.

    Ohlhausen called it “good news for consumers.”

    “It ensures that the FTC can and will continue to play its vital role in safeguarding consumer interests including privacy protection, as well as stopping anticompetitive market behavior,” she said in a statement."

    NRA honors FCC chair with rifle for repealing 'net neutrality'
    David Shepardson, FEBRUARY 23, 2018 / 4:33 PM
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...le-for-repealing-net-neutrality-idUSKCN1G800N

    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The National Rifle Association (NRA) on Friday honored the head of the Federal Communications Commission with a rifle after braving death threats and other opposition as he worked to undo the Obama administration’s 2015 net neutrality rules.

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was honored at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Oxon Hill, Maryland, by the NRA with the “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award,” an honor named for the late actor who was an NRA president.

    The award is a Kentucky long rifle that will stay at the NRA’s museum in Fairfax, Virginia. The NRA was not allowed to bring the weapon on stage, said Carolyn Meadows, an NRA official.

    It was not immediately clear why the NRA was not able to present the long gun to the FCC chairman. The FCC, CPAC and the NRA did not immediately respond to questions.

    A Reuters reporter at the event said there were no visible prohibitions against weapons at the event but metal detectors were present before President Donald Trump’s address earlier on Friday.

    At the event, Pai defended his aggressive approach to undoing numerous telecommunications regulations put in place under former President Barack Obama.

    “Some people urged me to go for sacrifice bunts and singles and try to nibble around the edges — make some minor changes,” Pai said. “But I don’t play small ball.”

    Pai canceled his appearance in January at a large consumer electronics event in Las Vegas after receiving deaths threats, sources told Reuters.

    The repeal of the net neutrality rules was a victory for internet service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N), conferring power over what content consumers can access and allowing them to offer paid fast lanes for certain content.

    On the other side, technology companies including Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Facebook Inc (FB.O) have thrown their weight behind the congressional bid to reverse the net neutrality repeal.

    On Thursday, 22 state attorneys general filed sued to block the repeal.

    Fight for the Future, a group that backs net neutrality, said in a tweet the NRA gave Pai an award that will “allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to censor websites and information about guns.”

    Several corporations have cut ties with the NRA after the group launched a counter-offensive against a student-led campaign for tighter U.S. gun ownership laws after a gunman killed 17 people at a Florida high-school.

    Insurer Chubb Ltd (CB.N) said on Friday that it would stop underwriting an NRA-branded insurance policy for gun owners that covers legal costs in self-defense shootings. Insurance company MetLife Inc (MET.N) ended an auto and home incentive program for NRA members, while several rental car companies announced they were ending discount programs for NRA members."
     
  4. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Say goodnight to net neutrality as AT&T just rolled out 'internet fast lanes'
    By Walter Einenkel, Friday Feb 23, 2018 · 2:32 PM PST
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...y-as-AT-T-just-rolled-out-internet-fast-lanes

    "AT&T spent the better part of last year pretending to shake its fist along with the majority of Americans in support of net neutrality rules being kept. This protesting included CEO Randall Stephenson doing some damage control by slyly asking the Republican Congress to create an “Internet Bill of Rights” that would allow his company to get around the predictable rise in state laws that try to protect their citizens from predatory telecoms, now that telecoms have gotten their way.

    AT&T may also have trouble getting consumer advocates on board. Stephenson didn't provide any specifics, including whether the bill of rights would block controversial "fast lanes" for services and sites that pay broadband companies for preferential treatment.

    "We don't block websites. We don't censor online content. And we don't throttle, discriminate, or degrade network performance based on content. Period," Stephenson wrote.

    Well, that’s good. I guess we should just take your word for it. Or not. As BGR writes today, AT&T sent out some texts to their customers explaining how they are “expanding” their sponsored data program to allow other companies to “sponsor” data. What’s important about this is that their “sponsored” data plan means that companies will pay AT&T in order to have their content streamed on AT&T customers’ devices without hitting against their data plans. As BGR rightly points out, this is the promotion of internet “fast lanes” by almost any definition.

    As of right now, the only three services using AT&T’s sponsored data program are DirecTV, UVerse, and Fullscreen. By a huge coincidence, those are three video services owned by AT&T. “Now your plan includes sponsored data. This means, for example, that customers who have DirecTV or U-verse TV can now stream movies and shows … without it counting against their plan data,” AT&T told customers in a text message earlier today.

    This flies directly in the face of a statement AT&T made just last year, when it was trying to persuade consumers that the FCC’s net neutrality repeal wouldn’t be the end of a free and open internet. “AT&T intends to operate its network the same way AT&T operates its network today: in an open and transparent manner. We will not block websites, we will not throttle or degrade internet traffic based on content, and we will not unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic,” executive Bob Quinn said at the time.

    The next step will be telecoms taking away and throttling your data until the point where you can only afford to stream the data that AT&T gets paid to allow you to watch."
     
  5. saturnotaku

    saturnotaku Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,102
    Messages:
    7,511
    Likes Received:
    3,088
    Trophy Points:
    431
  6. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    AT&T didn’t waste any time abandoning net neutrality
    Chris Mills @chrisfmills, February 23rd, 2018 at 4:18 PM
    http://bgr.com/2018/02/23/att-net-neutrality-wireless-plans-ugh/

    "The body isn’t even cold yet, but AT&T is wasting no time in rolling out new “features” that fly in the face of net neutrality. The company has expanded its “sponsored data” program to prepaid wireless customers, offering content companies the option to “sponsor” their data so that it doesn’t count against users’ caps.

    This, in case you’re wondering, is what you find under the definition of “paid fast lanes” in the net neutrality false promises hall of fame.

    As of right now, the only three services using AT&T’s sponsored data program are DirecTV, UVerse, and Fullscreen. By a huge coincidence, those are three video services owned by AT&T. “Now your plan includes sponsored data. This means, for example, that customers who have DirecTV or U-verse TV can now stream movies and shows … without it counting against their plan data,” AT&T told customers in a text message earlier today.

    This flies directly in the face of a statement AT&T made just last year, when it was trying to persuade consumers that the FCC’s net neutrality repeal wouldn’t be the end of a free and open internet. “AT&T intends to operate its network the same way AT&T operates its network today: in an open and transparent manner. We will not block websites, we will not throttle or degrade internet traffic based on content, and we will not unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic,” executive Bob Quinn said at the time.

    By any definition, offering paid fast lanes to companies constitutes “discriminating” against internet traffic. I’d say that only prioritizing traffic from AT&T-owned companies, or companies willing to pay up, constitutes unfair discrimination, but then again I’m not an AT&T lawyer."

    AT&T's is now saying keeping America safe is dependent on them creating internet fast lanes

    By Walter Einenkel, Thursday Mar 01, 2018 · 12:22 PM PST
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ependent-on-them-creating-internet-fast-lanes

    "As states begin the process of undoing the corporate snow job going on in our federal government right now, big telecom companies like AT&T begin the process of rolling out the very predictable fast lane plans net neutrality advocates warned about—for the last four years. AT&T has been talking out of both sides of their mouth over the past few months, saying they want net neutrality, while spending tons of money to get rid of net neutrality rules. The talking point that big telecoms have pivoted to more and more in the last few months is an “Internet Bill of Rights.” As Gizmodo remarks, this is an duplicitous position to take when you are spending the kind of money that companies like AT&T spend on lobbyists.

    A Bill of Rights for the internet is a common telecom talking point. And it’s common wisdom that their motivation for this may be that their lobbyists will end up writing the federal legislation, just like they routinely write state legislation. Still, with all of the chaos going on in privacy, access to the internet, and security, some sort of guarantee of individual rights sounds in theory like a good idea. What does AT&T say its positions are regarding this type of bill?
    AT&T CEO Bob Quin explains why we need to believe AT&T and big telecoms in a new blog post.

    But no discussion of net neutrality would be complete without also addressing the topic of paid prioritization. Let me start by saying that the issue of paid prioritization has always been hazy and theoretical. The business models for services that would require end-to-end management have only recently begun to come into focus. The rhetoric of this debate has centered on the concept of prohibiting fast lanes and slow lanes on the internet. Let me clear about this – AT&T is not interested in creating fast lanes and slow lanes on anyone’s internet.
    So interesting, because just two days ago it began being reported that AT&T wants to create prioritized data contracts with content producing companies—like websites. But, in AT&T's defense, they are calling it something else and not "paid prioritization." So, in that sense AT&T isn't creating fast or slow lanes on the internet—they're just planning on making people pay them to have access to lanes that won't drive up consumer's bills fast. However, as CEO Quinn warns—the only thing keeping America from falling into a pit of fire are the goodness of big telecom hearts.

    What we do care about is enabling innovative new technologies like autonomous cars, remote surgery, enhanced first responder communications and virtual reality services, which are real-time interactive services that require end-to-end management in order to make those services work for consumers and public safety. Consumers want those innovations and they want them to always work. We have consistently felt consumer choice in this area was paramount. I think we can all agree that the packets directing autonomous cars, robotic surgeries or public safety communications must not drop. Ever. So, let’s address concerns around paid prioritization without impacting those innovations.
    You see, if AT&T can’t have “fast lanes” then grandma dies, children are shot to death, cars drive off highways into hospitals. This is the biggest non-issue in the history of non-issues. What is presupposed here is that our emergency services will and should be privatized, and in doing so, a separate lane—paid for by the magic hands of the marketplace (or your tax dollars)—must exist and we should be ashamed of our Netflix watching, news gobbling bandwidth habits. That’s your business telecoms. Get to it or **** off and let us create those fiber networks ourselves. You want to control it then you have to provide telecommunications on the level promised—not degraded by your need to create larger and larger profit margins every quarter."
     
  7. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
  8. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Charter appeals court loss, still claims it can’t be punished for slow speeds
    New York AG alleges that Charter promised speeds it knew it couldn't deliver.
    JON BRODKIN - 3/2/2018, 11:26 AM
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...l-claims-it-cant-be-punished-for-slow-speeds/

    "Charter Communications is appealing a court ruling that said the ISP must face a lawsuit alleging the company falsely promised fast Internet speeds that Charter knew it could not deliver.

    Charter claims that federal regulations, including the recent repeal of net neutrality rules, preempts the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman against Charter and its Time Warner Cable (TWC) subsidiary in February 2017.

    The New York Supreme Court rejected Charter's motion to dismiss the case on February 16, but Charter is appealing the decision in a state appellate court. (Despite its name, the New York Supreme Court is not the state's highest court.)

    Charter's appeal filed on Wednesday says the court "erred as a matter of law in denying Charter's motion to dismiss the complaint's allegations regarding actual broadband speeds, because those claims directly conflict with the FCC's regime for measuring and disclosing broadband speeds and are therefore preempted."

    Charter still disputes Schneiderman's allegations that TWC's claims of speeds "up to" a certain Mbps were misleading. The "up to" speed promises "are substantiated using the FCC's official methodology for defining and describing actual broadband speed and could not mislead a reasonable consumer," Charter wrote.

    In its appeal this week, Charter also claimed that the lawsuit's "allegations regarding TWC's subjective representations about its network" are just "non-actionable puffery."

    Court “rejected every argument” made by Charter
    By contrast, the state Supreme Court decision said that Charter can be held accountable for promising speeds "up to" a certain amount if there was no chance that customers could get those speeds. The ruling said:

    Defendants' theory is contrary to New York law regarding "up to" claims. Spectrum‐TWC'S argument that consumers should have expected to receive anything less than or equal to the advertised "up to" speeds has been rejected by the Court of Appeals where, as alleged here, the advertised "up to" speeds are functionally unattainable as a result of the defendants' knowing conduct.

    The state Supreme Court decision also said that Charter failed to "identify any provision of the FCA [Federal Communications Act] that preempts state anti-fraud or consumer-protection claims." Charter's claim that the net neutrality repeal order preempts the state lawsuit is contradicted by the FCC's own statement that the commission will not "disturb or displace the states' traditional role in generally policing such matters as fraud, taxation, and general commercial dealings," the court said. (Charter's net neutrality repeal argument related to the FCC rules on network management disclosures rather than the rules on blocking and throttling.)

    After winning the Supreme Court decision last month, Schneiderman noted that the court "reject[ed] every single argument made by Charter-Spectrum in its attempts to block our lawsuit."

    "This decision ensures that our office can continue to hold Charter-Spectrum to account for its failure to deliver the reliable Internet speeds it promised consumers," he said at the time.

    Among other things, Schneiderman's lawsuit accused TWC of providing customers with older-generation cable modems that couldn’t produce the speeds customers paid for. The suit also accuses the company of manipulating speed tests conducted by the FCC in customers' homes.

    Disclosure: The Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which owns 13 percent of Charter, is part of Advance Publications. Advance Publications owns Condé Nast, which owns Ars Technica."
     
  9. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Washington state has passed laws protecting net neutrality
    It’s the first state law to be enforceable against ISPs
    By Thuy Ong@ThuyOng Mar 6, 2018, 8:24am EST
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/1...e-laws-protecting-net-neutrality-fcc-internet

    "Washington has become the first state to pass a law that protects net neutrality, preventing internet service providers (ISPs) from slowing down or blocking online content. Democrat Governor Jay Inslee signed the bill (House Bill 2282) this morning, which prohibits ISPs from blocking legal content, apps, and services. It will also prevent the slowing down of connection speeds, also known as throttling, as well as paid prioritization, where ISPs favor certain traffic that’s beneficial to them.

    “At the core of our action today is consumer protection,” Inslee told The New York Times.“States need to act because under the Trump administration, we have seen citizens, including seven million in Washington, stripped of core protections like the open internet.”

    The Associated Press points out that this is not technically the first net neutrality law (Oregon has also passed legislation), but it’s the first law where violations by all ISPs are enforceable, under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.

    The Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove net neutrality rules in a 3-2 vote back in December. The FCC prohibited state laws from contradicting the decision, so it’s very likely ISPs will sue Washington state over this new law to find out if the FCC does have the power to preempt the move.

    The FCC’s order that killed net neutrality claimed that individual states implementing their own net neutrality laws would cause too much difficulty and confusion if rules were made on a state by state basis. It’s worth noting, though, that the FCC has previously lost on a ruling to preempt state laws that ban municipal ISPs. “The states have a full right to protect their citizens,” Inslee said, adding that he is confident of the legality of the state’s law, according to the AP.

    Since the FCC approved the removal of net neutrality rules, a host of lawsuits have cropped up. In January, 22 attorneys general filed a lawsuit to block the repeal, while New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has signed an executive order that would require ISPs to abide by net neutrality rules despite the rollback. Democrats are also fighting the repeal in the Senate.

    Today we make history: Washington will be the first state in the nation to preserve the open internet with our own #NetNeutrality law. The open internet lives on for Washingtonians. pic.twitter.com/3wsmAycWLN
    — Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) March 6, 2018

    As we’ve previously reported, the FCC’s new net neutrality rules are expected to kick in for the general public on April 23rd. Washington state’s net neutrality law will go into effect by June 6th"


    Washington state passes net neutrality law as states push back against the FCC
    With net neutrality dead at the federal level, some states are now taking the reins to pass legislation protecting internet subscribers from the new norms.
    by Alyssa Newcomb / Mar.06.2018 / 2:14 PM ET
    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...utrality-law-states-push-back-against-n854086
     
  10. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,077
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Entire broadband industry will help FCC defend net neutrality repeal
    NCTA, CTIA, and US Telecom sign up to defend net neutrality repeal in court.
    JON BRODKIN - 3/16/2018, 10:45 AM
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...y-will-help-fcc-defend-net-neutrality-repeal/

    "The biggest lobby groups representing broadband providers will help the Federal Communications Commission defend the repeal of net neutrality rules in court.

    Yesterday, three trade groups that collectively represent every major home Internet and mobile broadband provider in the US filed motions to intervene in the case on behalf of the FCC. The motions for leave to intervene were filed by NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, and US Telecom–The Broadband Association. (Yes, those are the organizations' correct names.)

    FURTHER READING

    FCC must defend net neutrality repeal in court against dozens of litigants

    NCTA represents cable companies such as Comcast, Charter, Cox, and Altice. CTIA represents the biggest mobile carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and Sprint. USTelecom represents wireline telcos with copper and fiber networks, such as AT&T and Verizon. All three groups also represent a range of smaller ISPs.

    As intervenors in the case, the groups will file briefs in support of the net neutrality repeal order and may play a role in oral arguments.

    NCTA's motion noted that its members would once again be subject to "common-carriage regulation under Title II of the Communications Act" if the FCC were to lose the case. CTIA said that its members "would be adversely affected if the [net neutrality] Order were set aside and the prior Title II Order classification and rules were reinstated."

    12 lawsuits against FCC combined into one
    Twelve lawsuits against the FCC seeking to overturn the net neutrality repeal have been consolidated into one case at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuits were filed by more than three dozen entities, including Democratic attorneys general from 22 states, consumer advocacy groups, and tech companies such as Mozilla, Vimeo, and Etsy.

    The Internet Association—a lobby group for Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, and other Web companies—previously announced plans to intervene in order to support the lawsuit against the FCC. The group hasn't filed its motion to intervene yet, though.

    The case could take about a year to decide if it lasts as long as the previous case that upheld the net neutrality rules in 2016."
     

Share This Page