Net Neutrality Repealed

[dannno]

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Ruleshttps://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

[donnay]

YES!

[Root]

MAGA

[dannno]

Ouch, take that Doug Jones supporters, still happy about that Roy Moore defeat?? :D

Also, a shout-out to all the social media companies that pushed so hard to keep net neutrality while banning content from people on the right from your platform... FUCK YOU :D

[donnay]

MAGA

Slowly but surely. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

The left really worked themselves up into a hysterical lather over this.

[donnay]

The left really worked themselves up into a hysterical lather over this.

Yes because the left love to censor their enemies. Now it makes it harder for them to put out false narratives.

[DamianTV]

Only thing to do now is to wait and see who benefits the most. Keep in mind the very term "Net Neutrality" is a Label that almost as always has nothing to do with what the Label implies. The Patriot Act had NOTHING to do with Patriotism. Affordable Care Act (health) has nothing to do with making healthcare either affordable or healthy. CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) has nothing to do with Protection. This is applied to damn near EVERY phrase both the MSM and govt throw at us, because it heavily impacts the Perception that the majority of people have of whatever is thrown their way.

[nikcers]

Favorite comment I've found so far online-

guise hurry up and go to battleforthenet.com and use the amazon™ contact-my-reps program to bombard them with support for net neutrality! THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR NET AWAY; NOT ON OUR WATCH, REDDIT!!! YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY TO POST AND READ COMMENTS, DO YOU?! OR TO EMAIL YOUR NAN?! THEN DO IT!!!

free and open internet- now and forever!™
email 5 representatives and get ONE MONTH FREE of AMAZON® PRIME!™
this offer has expired.

[timosman]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/5/16738752/google-youtube-amazon-punishing-customers-feud


Dec 5, 2017

Amazon has just responded to Google’s decision to remove YouTube from all Fire TV products and the Echo Show. “Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website,” a spokesperson told The Verge by email. “We hope to resolve this with Google as soon as possible.” YouTube is being pulled from the Show effective immediately, and Fire TV owners will lose out on the popular, essential video streaming app on January 1st.

Google says it’s taking this extreme step because of Amazon’s recent delisting of new Nest products (like Nest Secure and the E Thermostat) and the company’s long-running refusal to sell Chromecast or support Google Cast in any capacity.

But regardless of the public stance each company takes over the next few days, it’s their mutual customers who are unfairly getting jerked around. YouTube is a cornerstone of any living room streaming device, and for Google to suddenly decide to strip it from millions of existing Fire TV owners — assuming no agreement is reached by January 1st — is shameful. YouTube is video on the internet. Period. It’s also home to beloved creators, and Google’s decision will soon rob them of viewers.

...

[shakey1]

Only thing to do now is to wait and see who benefits the most. Keep in mind the very term "Net Neutrality" is a Label that almost as always has nothing to do with what the Label implies. The Patriot Act had NOTHING to do with Patriotism. Affordable Care Act (health) has nothing to do with making healthcare either affordable or healthy. CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) has nothing to do with Protection. This is applied to damn near EVERY phrase both the MSM and govt throw at us, because it heavily impacts the Perception that the majority of people have of whatever is thrown their way.

yup, doublespeak in action.

[Root]

Comcast stock up 1.4%

[Krugminator2]

This kind of stuff is why you can't say the parties are the same. Republicans are better. Not perfect. Better.

[nikcers]

This is applied to damn near EVERY phrase both the MSM and govt throw at us, because it heavily impacts the Perception that the majority of people have of whatever is thrown their way.

https://yoy50.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/william_casey_cia_disinformation_campaign.jpg

[nobody's_hero]

Only thing to do now is to wait and see who benefits the most. Keep in mind the very term "Net Neutrality" is a Label that almost as always has nothing to do with what the Label implies. The Patriot Act had NOTHING to do with Patriotism. Affordable Care Act (health) has nothing to do with making healthcare either affordable or healthy. CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) has nothing to do with Protection. This is applied to damn near EVERY phrase both the MSM and govt throw at us, because it heavily impacts the Perception that the majority of people have of whatever is thrown their way.

I think there were companies who stood to benefit either way. I have very little faith that a lawyer who worked for Verizon pushed this repeal purely out of love for free markets.

Now if he can just push for FCC repeals that actually bring competition into the broadband marketplace, we'll be all set. I've got a feeling Ajit Pai is gonna stop short of that, though.

[nikcers]

I think there were companies who stood to benefit either way. I have very little faith that a lawyer who worked for Verizon pushed this repeal purely out of love for free markets.

Now if he can just push for FCC repeals that actually bring competition back into the broadband marketplace, we'll be all set. I've got a feeling Ajit Pai is gonna stop short of that, though.

I don't see how there won't be more competition unless there is a 10th amendment challenge. If They get democrats in favor of states rights that won't be so bad anyways either.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't see how there won't be more competition unless there is a 10th amendment challenge. If They get democrats in favor of states rights that won't be so bad anyways either.

Yes, well, I've had one broadband ISP provider in my area for the last decade. Probably will have one cable ISP provider for the next decade. I suppose I'm fortunate that Cox Communications, at least in my experience, hasn't treated their customers like utter sh*t compared to Comcast or Time Warner. My father lived in Jacksonville FL and I've heard horror stories of Comcast. But, there are no competitors in my area. Net Neutrality or it's repeal didn't change that.

I might see some difference in how they choose to bill me. But one company in an area changing its billing strategies is not the same as having competition. That's probably been the weakest argument from the pro-repeal side since day one.

[specsaregood]

Yes, well, I've had one broadband ISP provider in my area for the last decade. Probably will have one cable ISP provider for the next decade. I suppose I'm fortunate that Cox Communications, at least in my experience, hasn't treated their customers like utter sh*t compared to Comcast or Time Warner. My father lived in Jacksonville FL and I've heard horror stories of Comcast. But, there are no competitors in my area. Net Neutrality or it's repeal didn't change that.

I might see some difference in how they choose to bill me. But one company in an area changing its billing strategies is not the same as having competition. That's probably been the weakest argument from the pro-repeal side since day one.

Att just started testing high-speed internet over power lines again, specifically to reach rural areas that have existing power lines. I don't know how well it works over long distance but inside a house, it works great. Fast and reliable.

[nikcers]

Yes, well, I've had one broadband ISP provider in my area for the last decade. Probably will have one cable ISP provider for the next decade. I suppose I'm fortunate that Cox Communications, at least in my experience, hasn't treated their customers like utter sh*t compared to Comcast or Time Warner. My father lived in Jacksonville FL and I've heard horror stories of Comcast. But, there are no competitors in my area. Net Neutrality or it's repeal didn't change that.

I might see some difference in how they choose to bill me. But one company in an area changing its billing strategies is not the same as having competition. That's probably been the weakest argument from the pro-repeal side since day one.
The net neutrality bill is deregulation essentially. The text that stands out to me the most is



The commission intends to block any local laws or regulations that “effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.”



So to sum up: states can’t pass anything covered in the 2015 net neutrality order, they can’t pass anything the FCC mentioned but didn’t pass in this new order, and they can’t pass anything that would at all make life more difficult for ISPs


To me this means that the government can't regulate internet access. To me this means that the internet will be able to monetize information delivery. To me this means that your ISP will have more of an incentive to deliver every bit to you because you are paying for the bit, they are not monetizing their network to serve the least amount of data because that lowers the costs the most.

It's kind of like right now the internet is like fractional reserve banking, and they have an incentive to monetize their network so that if everyone tried to use all of their data at once they wouldn't have enough. To me it means that ISPS have an incentive to have a network so that if everyone tried to use all of their data at once they can make money off of every bit delivered, to monetize the data delivery.

[AuH20]

These boobs will sell their last rights away for mere scraps. The millennials as a whole have such a dangerous, short term outlook on things. What is the final recourse when the government finally consolidates all control of the internet and then the aforementioned corporations successfully lobby for that bundled control? Then what geniuses?

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg

[nobody's_hero]

The net neutrality bill is deregulation essentially. The text that stands out to me the most is




To me this means that the government can't regulate internet access. To me this means that the internet will be able to monetize information delivery. To me this means that your ISP will have more of an incentive to deliver every bit to you because you are paying for the bit, they are not monetizing their network to serve the least amount of data because that lowers the costs the most.

It's kind of like right now the internet is like fractional reserve banking, and they have an incentive to monetize their network so that if everyone tried to use all of their data at once they wouldn't have enough. To me it means that ISPS have an incentive to have a network so that if everyone tried to use all of their data at once they can make money off of every bit delivered, to monetize the data delivery.

The main driver of incentives and innovation is competition. Without that, it doesn't really matter how they choose to package and sell their data plans, or 'monetize' if you prefer the term.

I'm a gamer, so I'll use Electronic Arts as a publisher for an example. EA started getting sh*tty when they began publishing half-finished games that fell short of buyer expectations and then releasing downloadable content to squeeze some extra bucks from their customers in order to enjoy the full experience. Monetize? You bet! They monetized the ever loving f'k out of their products.

Now, there's nothing illegal about doing that, but it's generally not good business practice and EA's competitors caught on. Over the years, independent developers have risen up and challenged the major developers like EA, and that is going to be the only thing, if anything, that keeps EA honest. Bona-fide competition. Otherwise EA will fall from the top, deservedly so. EA's days are numbered when someone can design a game from their home and submit it to the Steam community for a greenlight. Relatively speaking, it's one of the easiest markets to enter, especially with crowdfunding where gamers can get involved early in game development and suggest things they would like to see implemented into the games before they are finished and released. The result, in most cases, is a game that is almost perfectly catered to the wishes of the consumer, rather than what some lead designer in front of an isolated office high-rise drawing-board merely *thinks* will sell really well. In the gaming world, it seems the free market is still alive and well.

However, such open competition simply does not exist throughout the ISP world. Barriers to entry have made it extremely cost-prohibitive for upstart ISPs to build into an area where an incumbent ISP is already established. It is precisely these companies who have used the bully-stick of governments over the years to fortify their monopolies, and then complained when government tried to regulate them. Boo hoo I say.

I'm sorry but, you'll never see me waving a banner of capitalist freedom for their sake. When they stop behaving like corporatists, I'll blow the whistle on things like Net Neutrality.

Here is a map of East and West Berlin. Oh, wait—sorry, it's the Los Angeles broadband coverage areas:

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/la_cablecompetition_watermarked.jpg

Let's assume the argument:

Charter serves its area (and only its area) and chooses to enact data package plans.

Time Warner Cable serves its area (and only its area) and chooses to enact data package plans.

Because their service areas do not overlap, they are not actually in competition with each other. If they DID overlap, and one came out with a better data plan than the other which customers supported, then you guys would have a point. The only thing that is going to change anything for the consumer is the FCC coming out and removing barriers that prevent these companies from moving into each other's areas and competing.

I will, with almost absolute certainty, say here and now, that Ajit Pai won't do that. I would even wager that he has received kickbacks from both Charter and Time Warner cable to keep things status quo.

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKrVIwUpKLU

[AuH20]

Keep the fucking camel's nose out of the tent. You know the drill.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RSEP4NTXwk

[AuH20]

Patriot Act, Affordable Care Act, Net Neutrality....I'm starting to see a trend here.

[nikcers]

I will, with almost absolute certainty, say here and now, that Ajit Pai won't do that. I would even wager that he has received kickbacks from both Charter and Time Warner cable to keep things status quo.

I would say that unless the deregulation is fake then things can only get better. With regulation there is no reason to build competing last mile networks, but if we get true deregulation then there will be an internet revolution.

[Root]

Omg my liberal friends are ballistic.

[nikcers]

The main driver of incentives and innovation is competition. Without that, it doesn't really matter how they choose to package and sell their data plans, or 'monetize' if you prefer the term.

I'm a gamer, so

Maximum download speeds aren't something that you are really concerned about. You would probably prefer an internet plan that provides you with the lowest possible latency possible.

[specsaregood]

Maximum download speeds aren't something that you are really concerned about. You would probably prefer an internet plan that provides you with the lowest possible latency possible.

And without net neutrality, they could sell him a gamer option that could prioritize game-specific traffic.

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko7YGLJr0wQ

[fisharmor]

Nothing was repealed.

"Repeal" specifically means to rescind a law or act of congress.
There was no act of congress, there was no law.
Therefore, it was not repealed.

I've been having a field day with my leftist friends saying "Oh boo hoo all of this was done behind closed doors and the will of the people and the will of experts wasn't taken into consideration" and I show up saying "How the hell do you think it got there in the first place?"

[AuH20]

Nothing was repealed.

"Repeal" specifically means to rescind a law or act of congress.
There was no act of congress, there was no law.
Therefore, it was not repealed.

I've been having a field day with my leftist friends saying "Oh boo hoo all of this was done behind closed doors and the will of the people and the will of experts wasn't taken into consideration" and I show up saying "How the hell do you think it got there in the first place?"



Wasn't it an EO that was simply reversed? The whole 'will of the people' argument is kinda toothless.

[nobody's_hero]

And without net neutrality, they could sell him a gamer option that could prioritize game-specific traffic.
As DamienTV says, 'We'll see.' I've got a feeling it will be more of the 'ole cellular phone bill number-shuffle magic show where you don't actually save anything. At least with my phone, I could tell AT&T to go f'k themselves and switch back to Verizon. (then I can watch their magic show, lol). Not the greatest of options, mind you, but it's more options than I have in the broadband industry.

[fisharmor]

Wasn't it an EO that was simply reversed? The whole 'will of the people' argument is kinda toothless.

I remember it being nothing more than FCC fatwa.

[fisharmor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

"Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed.
...
In November 2014, President Barack Obama recommended that the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service.[13] In January 2015, Republicans presented an HR discussion draft bill that made concessions to net neutrality but prohibited the FCC from enacting any further regulation affecting ISPs.[14] On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[3][15][16] On April 13, 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "Net Neutrality" regulations.[17][18] These rules went into effect on June 12, 2015."

[kpitcher]

However, such open competition simply does not exist throughout the ISP world. Barriers to entry have made it extremely cost-prohibitive for upstart ISPs to build into an area where an incumbent ISP is already established. It is precisely these companies who have used the bully-stick of governments over the years to fortify their monopolies, and then complained when government tried to regulate them. Boo hoo I say.



The wired world has defined government mandated monopolies by region - the baby bells. Even worse they got tax breaks and the ability to charge extra fees to supposedly give super fast connections to nearly every home in america. This was to the tune of 400+ billion. A past FCC person has been writing on this for a long time now, he started when it was the "200 billion broadband scandal".

I'm of the opinion if the telcos pay back their 400 billion then they can act as a regular business. Until then they should be forced to act as if the free market actually applied to them. You know there are issues when a company the size of Google can't put fiber into cities.

[nobody's_hero]

The wired world has defined government mandated monopolies by region - the baby bells. Even worse they got tax breaks and the ability to charge extra fees to supposedly give super fast connections to nearly every home in america. This was to the tune of 400+ billion. A past FCC person has been writing on this for a long time now, he started when it was the "200 billion broadband scandal".

I'm of the opinion if the telcos pay back their 400 billion then they can act as a regular business. Until then they should be forced to act as if the free market actually applied to them. You know there are issues when a company the size of Google can't put fiber into cities.

Bingo. I don't even like Google but damn.

When it comes to governance and regulations:

Rule #1: Don't create monsters.

Rule #2: If a monster is created, put it in a cage.

Rule #3: Do not remove the cage unless the monster is dead.

Rule 1: applies to libertarian/free-market principles. It's really where we should be fighting to get back to the hardest. Government should never have started picking winners and losers in the ISP world.
Rule 2: ventures into statism. More government control to fix a problem government created, which has its share of pitfalls. Glass Steagall was a cage. Rule #2 is a sh*tty choice we are often left with once rule #1 has been broken. but just as bad as breaking the next rule . . .
Rule 3: Breaking this rule results in corporatism/crony-capitalism unleashed in full demonic fury, which leaves bad tastes in voters' mouths who misguidedly assume capitalism, not corporatism/crony-capitalism and government sweet-heart deals, is to blame. In my opinion, Ajit Pai broke rule #3 with this vote today. And unfortunately for free market fans, he's made no effort towards respecting rule #1. Like most bureaucrats in D.C., he probably just wants to retire comfortably.

[angelatc]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/5/16738752/google-youtube-amazon-punishing-customers-feud

The drama. I'm on the edge of my seat.

Maybe they could spend $30 on a Chromecast?

[angelatc]

I'm of the opinion if the telcos pay back their 400 billion then they can act as a regular business. Until then they should be forced to act as if the free market actually applied to them. You know there are issues when a company the size of Google can't put fiber into cities.

Who granted the monopolies in the cities - the feds or the cities themselves? Because if it's the decision of the cities, the feds have no business getting involved.

[nikcers]

Maybe if the government regulates the minimum mpg an engine can have in a car they will design more efficient engines. It's not like market forces like rising gas prices will ever be as effective.

[angelatc]

The more I think about it, the more the whine about the Google / Amazon spat ticks me off. If Google has a stranglehold on on-demand video service, then letting Amazon refuse to carry it would open a market up to a competitor.

[kpitcher]

Who granted the monopolies in the cities - the feds or the cities themselves? Because if it's the decision of the cities, the feds have no business getting involved.

The telephone system ones were granted monopoly status by the feds. Cable companies often have exclusive deals within the cities they cover.

[spudea]

Here's a good summary:

https://i.redd.it/68hlcjvp50401.jpg

[nikcers]

The more I think about it, the more the whine about the Google / Amazon spat ticks me off. If Google has a stranglehold on on-demand video service, then letting Amazon refuse to carry it would open a market up to a competitor.
This is what I always think about when they talk about competing currencies to the petro dollar. I really don't think competition would be bad for money, hell Ron Paul said that was the best way to get away from fiat currency. If its good for ice cream then why not everything?

933938231472771072
934104301210828806

[angelatc]

The telephone system ones were granted monopoly status by the feds. Cable companies often have exclusive deals within the cities they cover.

So you're suggesting that the fed should be able to force the cities to behave a certain way?

[nikcers]

The telephone system ones were granted monopoly status by the feds. Cable companies often have exclusive deals within the cities they cover.
breaking up companies like Ma Bell and Microsoft/Intel didn't really help getting rid of monopolies. When the government taxes or intervenes with the market it always makes things worse and slows down innovation. Microsoft was fighting cable TV with the tech they were coming out with. They have manmade diamonds that are better then the natural made ones and the jewelers can't even tell the difference. I never wonder why our tech seems to lag behind other countries.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2EgfkhC1eo

[nikcers]

So you're suggesting that the fed should be able to force the cities to behave a certain way?
Surely there's a role for the federal government to protect liberty?

[seapilot]

As DamienTV says, 'We'll see.' I've got a feeling it will be more of the 'ole cellular phone bill number-shuffle magic show where you don't actually save anything. At least with my phone, I could tell AT&T to go f'k themselves and switch back to Verizon. (then I can watch their magic show, lol). Not the greatest of options, mind you, but it's more options than I have in the broadband industry.

Have you looked into satellite internet? https://www.hughesnet.com/

[angelatc]

Surely there's a role for the federal government to protect liberty?

Not per the constitution.

[nikcers]

Not per the constitution.
SO SAD

http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/USS-liberty-2.jpg

[kpitcher]

Have you looked into satellite internet? https://www.hughesnet.com/

Satellite as it currently is isn't a good replacement for anything other than dialup. Speed of light to a geo sync satellite makes latency a huge problem. Noticeable delays between clicking a link and getting information, gaming isn't doable, telephony has bad delay. Musk has talked about low orbit micro sats, facebook has been playing with high altitude drones, google has been testing weather balloons, but that tech isn't there yet.

The cities that signed exclusive contracts were idiots but that's at least their problem to clean up. It's when a government monopoly like a telephone company won't allow a new company to put lines down that it becomes a troublesome problem. Or the government changes legal definitions so companies can sell you "fiber optic" internet even where there is a copper line going to your house, as long as fiber is within a 1/2 mile of your house.

My electric co-op - which in itself is not all that common - has been putting fiber to customer's homes as they update the electric lines. That's at least a way around the monopolies. This actually was only doable as part of TARP as Michigan used some of those funds to put a fiber ring around the state which companies can tap into.

[Root]

Who granted the monopolies in the cities - the feds or the cities themselves? Because if it's the decision of the cities, the feds have no business getting involved.
The feds created the cable-franchise monopoly systems that the local municipalities (counties). The municipalities keep the incumbents out of the market.

[angelatc]

Satellite as it currently is isn't a good replacement for anything other than dialup.

I. Can't. Even.

[angelatc]

The feds created the cable-franchise monopoly systems that the local municipalities (counties). The municipalities keep the incumbents out of the market.

I understand that. But it appears to me that those First-Worlders weeping because they only have 4 or 5 choices for internet (dial-up, satellite, cable, DSL, Cellular) are insisting that the federales need to come in and take away the rights of the states and lower governing bodies.

Which is dumb, depressing and downright dangerous. But much easier than actually attending a city council meeting, much less running for local office.

[nikcers]

Satellite as it currently is isn't a good replacement for anything other than dialup. Speed
Which is true because of REGULATION. 1 Gbps and 25ms uplink isn't good enough for dial up?

With latency as low as 25ms, SpaceX to launch broadband satellites (https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1383035&start=120)private spacecraft company founded by CEO Elon Musk filed an application Tuesday for satellite space station authorizations with the US Federal ... high bandwidth (up to 1Gbps per user), low-latency broadband services for consumers and businesses in the US and globally,”

[Root]

I understand that. But it appears to me that those First-Worlders weeping because they only have 4 or 5 choices for internet (dial-up, satellite, cable, DSL, Cellular) are insisting that the federales need to come in and take away the rights of the states and lower governing bodies.

Which is dumb, depressing and downright dangerous. But much easier than actually attending a city council meeting, much less running for local office.
I'm using this as a good opportunity to remind these upset folks that it's only because of the government we are in this position.


Only the government has the power to create monopolies. Why do ISP's have monopolies in their respective areas? Because the government grants them this, through exclusive 10 to 20 year franchise agreements which keeps almost all other incumbent & start-up providers out of that marketplace. It makes zero sense to let the same government buffoons who established this cable-franchise monopoly system to create more controls and regulations, because they did such a good job with it the first time?!?


If we really wanted to increase competition in the ISP marketplace, the right way to do it is to get the government out of the way. Allow start-ups to build along any existing right-of-way and new private easement agreements with landowners. This should be plain and clear when a company with resources like Google can't put fiber into cities.

[kpitcher]

Which is true because of REGULATION. 1 Gbps and 25ms uplink isn't good enough for dial up?

The satellite systems Musk is talking about is a constellation of them in low earth orbit, it should work wonderfully for Internet.

The current satellite internet services are in geosync orbits about 22K miles away which means a round trip time to the bird and back is 1/4 of a second each way at best, so 1/2 a second is tied up automatically. Then you add the other quarter second and you can't do realtime. This isn't bad if you're entirely passive, click a link, wait a second, click another. Can't do remote work very well.

[nobody's_hero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg

And so it begins, lol.

[timosman]

The satellite systems Musk is talking about is a constellation of them in low earth orbit, it should work wonderfully for Internet.

Like Iridium satellites on less than 500 miles altitude orbit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation

[AZJoe]

https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48390036_1538887612922745_2968754048661979136_o.jp g?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=69f11980c0d09007cd12adda35206788&oe=5C9A8171