140 Comments

Summary:

Netflix submitted an unusually blunt filing to the FCC that blasts Verizon and Comcast, and says the agency should use its “Title II” power to enforce net neutrality.

Netflix launched a new user interface almost half a year ago - but on the new Fire TV, users still get the old UI.

Netflix came out swinging in its submission to the FCC over proposed internet “fast lanes,” arguing Wednesday that this would be a bad idea and that the agency should instead focus on forcing broadband providers to deliver the speeds they promise to their customers.

In its 28-page filing, which coincides with the close of an initial public comment period, Netflix singled out Comcast and Verizon for degrading its movie streams to “nearly VHS quality” and for holding subscribers ransom in a battle over who should pay for upgrades to internet infrastructure.

While many companies — including Comcast — have said the FCC should preserve a “free and open internet,” Netflix’s submission is unusually blunt and specific about the measures to take. Notably, Netflix told the FCC that it should reclassify the internet providers as so-called “Title II” services, which would allow the agency to treat them more akin to public utilities and bar them from favoring one website over another.

The reclassification proposal has so far been a third rail in the debate over how the FCC should address “net neutrality” after its previous rules collapsed in court in January. Comcast and others bitterly oppose reclassification, arguing it will undermine their ability to innovate.

Netflix, however, makes the case that the FCC has no other choice, and points out that two previous attempts at regulating internet providers as “information services” failed due to a poor legal framework.

The company’s filing also highlights the recent controversy over “interconnection points” and who is to blame for congestion points at deeper reaches of the internet that caused Netflix traffic to degrade for Comcast and Verizon subscribers. According to Netflix, the cable giants deliberately failed to maintain these points, with the result that:

“Due to Comcast’s degrading its interconnection points, the first customer received less than 6% of the broadband service she had purchased from Comcast, while the second received only 1%.”

Netflix has been forced to pay tolls to Verizon and Comcast to ensure its traffic flows through, but argued that it shouldn’t have to do so. Instead, Netflix said, the ISPs should have to deliver the internet speeds they promised to consumers — regardless of which website they choose to watch:

It is called the Inter-net for a reason. That is, the Inter-net comprises interconnections between many autonomous networks, all sharing common protocols [...] online applications and services like Netflix are why consumers purchase broadband access services in the first place. If ISPs want online applications to share their costs, perhaps they should also be willing to share their revenues.

The company also took aim at the FCC’s “fast lane” proposal, arguing that it creates a perverse incentive for the ISPs to create congestion so that they can then turn around and demand money for traffic to pass through. Arguing that “no rule is better than a bad rule,” Netflix also claimed that the FCC’s suggestion that it would ban “commercially unreasonable” arrangements would prove unworkable in the real world.

Finally, Netflix also attempted to strike a personal chord with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. The company cited a highly-publicized sketch by comedian John Oliver that compares Wheeler to a “dingo,” and points to a report in which Wheeler’s wife discovers her video is stuttering and asks, “You’re chairman of the FCC, why is this happening?”

The filing also calls for more transparency for the ISP’s and a “rebuttable presumption” test in which they would have to deliver the speeds they promise. Here’s a copy with some of the key parts underlined:

Netflix FCC Comments

  1. If they promised something to their customers they should be obligated to produce. This Third Rail idea sounds suspiciously like insider information that a select few will profit from.
    Leslie

    Reply Share
    1. ‘Third Rail’ is an expression that means a proposal that neither side in a political discussion is willing to make. It gets its name from the electric ‘third rail’ in train systems that people will get electrocuted if they ‘touch’.

      Reply Share
      1. No need for those quotes. People get electrocuted if they touch the third rail in train systems. It’s unclear if they get ‘electrocuted if they ‘touch’ the third ‘rail’ in train ‘systems’.

        Reply Share
        1. Adam’s quotes are correct. Per Oxford Dictionaries, quotation marks are to be used “to mark off a word or phrase that’s being discussed.” Examples provided include:

          What does ‘integrated circuit’ mean?

          He called this phenomenon ‘the memory of water.’

          Next, a hollow spout, known as a “feeder tube,” is placed in the hole.

          Reply Share
        2. Adam’s quotes are correct. Per Oxford Dictionaries, quotation marks are to be used “to mark off a word or phrase that’s being discussed.” Examples provided include:

          What does ‘integrated circuit’ mean?

          He called this phenomenon ‘the memory of water.’

          Next, a hollow spout, known as a “feeder tube,” is placed in the hole.

          Reply Share
          1. His quotes are correct in the first sentence. It’s unclear whether the quotes around ‘third rail’ are correct in the second sentence because that isn’t referencing the words from the article that are being discussed, but a literal third rail in a train system. The quotes around ‘touch’ are very clearly incorrect, because that is, without question, not a word that is being discussed.

            Reply Share
      2. That is one way to look at the third rail. Without the third rail no one is going anywhere! It provides the power to move forward.
        Leslie

        Reply Share
  2. @sw08 here here :)
    Forcing truth in advertising good
    Crony rules and regulations favoring netflix at the expense of others bad

    Reply Share
    1. Nonsense, Netflix needs to be treated just like any other content provider in a real open, neutral net. It’s beyond time for the ISP and internal carriers like Comcast, Verizon and ATT deliver the high speed service we all pay for. They are making money hand over fist off the high prices we all pay to connect to the net. They have lots of money to upgrade and take care of the bottlenecks they create.

      Reply Share
      1. Netflix does deserve to be treated like anyone else… sending 30% of the internet traffic should result in a bill commesurate with that. Netflix should be paying the majority of the large ISPs and routing directly on each of them instead of choking all of the interconnections.

        People half their size pay CDN’s to do that for them. Netflix thinks they’re too big to fail and can force the rest of the internet to accomadate them.

        Reply Share
    2. Netflix McGee Wednesday, July 16, 2014

      What does this mean? I pay for 105mbps from comcast. If I go to speediest.net I get rated at 105mbps, but if I stream a movie from netflix it won’t allow the stream in hi def. if I however use my VPN service to mask my traffic from Comcast and try to stream from netflix, it works! Comcast is throttling netflix, plain and simple.

      Reply Share
      1. or the other way around.

        Reply Share
        1. What does that even mean…

          Reply Share
          1. CocaineCowBoy Thursday, July 17, 2014

            He means that Netflix could be the one causing the bad connection, but i would say that it also happends with youtube. Even if they did cause it, the internet providers should be obligated to give us what we pay for.

            Reply Share
            1. How could you even suggest such a crazy notion? That doesn’t even make any sense.

              Share
            2. It makes a lot of sense since they’re the front runners pushing for net neutrality. I’ve noticed lately on my Roku that every channel that i have works just fine except for Netflix lately. It has had slow load times, and I honestly think they’re trying to demo what it would be like if certain sites were throttled. Or, they’ve pissed off some higher ups and they’re already being throttled.

              Share
            3. That would be stupid. People would drop Netflix if they can’t stream the movies the way they should be. Netflix would have nothing to gain to choke down there own connections.

              Share
            4. FreeTheInternet Saturday, July 19, 2014

              Netflix has a great deal to gain if they can get ISPs to tailor their services to serve Netflix requirements. I love Mr. Hastings comments that Netflix should get a free ride on the Internet. I think he should start arguing that all companies should be able to connect to the internet for free, rather than just his organization. Small business could truly benefit if they did not have to pay for Internet connectivity, or other services like phones, rent, copiers, employee salaries, etc.

              Share
            5. @freetheinternet , How can you say that. Netflix pays for its internet just like the rest of us!

              Share
            6. Mr. Biggelsworth Monday, July 21, 2014

              Noone is getting a free ride, and your misinterpreting what was said. Hasting’s is pointing out that netflix subscribers use an incredible amount of bandwidth, so they should pay more. Hasting’s looks at services like netflix and hulu as a threat because they are loosing money/customers while these services are creating congestion for them. ISP’s see the economy and the $$$ of the internet slipping through their fingers. This is all about shareholder stock and new revenue streams.

              Share
            7. Netflix customers do pay more for high speed. the ISP’s charge more for higher speeds than the slower conections. They are violating their customers trust if they throtte down the speed to less than they are getting paid for.

              Share
            8. The problem with that is this: I already pay for my bandwidth. Data is data, if I am paying for 25 Mbps then the data I am requesting–NO MATTER WHAT IT IS–should flow at or near 25 Mbps. If my ISP cannot deliver that bandwidth to me then they should not be selling that package in my area.

              Share
      2. And the Consumer should be able to sue Comcast and any other provider for not delivering what we are paying for. And it should not have to be a “Class Action” suit we should be able to sue individually and tie up Comcast and the legal system until something is done about it.

        Reply Share
        1. Mr. Biggelsworth Monday, July 21, 2014

          You can sue Comcast, many people due all the time….In small claims court. If your interested I advise you to look up how to track your internet speed. If after a month you see that Comcast’s average is below what is promised take them to small claims court and sue them. Comcast’s lawyers are all for naught in small claims and a little bit of evidence goes a long way. I have a friend who has sued and won against Comcast 9 times for a sum of around 5000$.

          Reply Share
  3. These other commenters are wrong. I feel like I have been sexually assaulted by Verizon and their fees.

    Reply Share
    1. How does someone feel sexually assaulted by fees, lol?

      Reply Share
    2. bicyclebill2000 Sunday, July 20, 2014

      Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to stay connected.

      Reply Share
      1. With everything being electronic these days, the internet and “being connected” are no longer just a luxury. So yes, in the modern world, we virtually HAVE to be connected somehow. Sadly, there are limited options, none of them great.

        Reply Share
  4. Netflix may increase the flow of other traffic on the inter-net by *holding its breath* for common sense from the FCC :/

    Reply Share
  5. Is the FCC working for Comcast and Verizon or the People of the USA???? I pay for it. Give me the Internet Speed that I pay for. Let Comcast do there thing and there will not be an Internet just Comcast Net

    Reply Share
    1. RFO Jefferson Friday, July 18, 2014

      Thanks to the Retardlickons since Reagan, the FCC is working for Comcast and Verizon. Duh.

      Reply Share
    2. This is y i dont give verzion or comcast my money directly or indirectly, bunch of greedy basterads.

      Reply Share
  6. Comcast claims up to X speed, but it’s bullshit because the next tier implies more speed without actually being able to give it to you, just charges you more for potential speed. In my state they are merging with another cable company reducing consumer options even more.

    Reply Share
  7. Note to people reading these comments:

    The ones that are positive toward comcast and verizon are paid commenters. They have been paying marketing companies to comment in their favor across the web on various websites. They have been ousted on a few occasions and it’s quite funny.

    Reply Share
  8. Normally I would be strongly inclined to side with Netflix, however; I can’t help but think to myself: “Is this what the world is coming to?” Are we so spoiled here (in the U.S. in particular) that this is an issue at this level? We have THINGS, but those things aren’t good enough and probably never will be. Meanwhile children are dying in wars that have nothing to do with them…just saying.

    Reply Share
    1. You are saying nothing, corporate shill. A consumer is not greedy for demanding services paid for. Period. We do NOT have it better. We have it worse. The ISP’s argument is even more rediculous because they have received our tax dollars to maintain the very infrastructure they claim to not have the money to fix, TWICE! I can’t even imagine how many MORE children would starve due to the lack of technological innovations in science that would come about from stifling the internet with “fast lanes”. How would it NOT have the same effect on small business as a Walmart coming to town???

      Reply Share
    2. Except those people in those other countries are getting a faster and freedom filled internet connection you corporate hack.

      Reply Share
    3. Edward Kenway Thursday, July 17, 2014

      The rest of the world had 50+MB/S while here in the USA we still had 56K dialup just ten years ago (AOL). Now were putting up with 5-10 MB/S while in Romania they get over 200 MB/S. We pay $100+ for packages that promise 20, 40, even 60 MB/S but in reality we get less than 10 on a good day. You SHOULD be concerned. This greed shit has gone on too long.

      Reply Share
      1. jeffrey james snyder Sunday, July 20, 2014

        NSA is taking all the juice out of the system because of it’s massive spying program.

        Reply Share
      2. Donald J Luchetti Sunday, July 20, 2014

        100% right. Only in America do we throttle or retard tech for the sake of a dollar:(

        Reply Share
    4. The United States has slower internet speeds then the majority of countries in the world, including Syria. It’s okay to complain.

      Reply Share
      1. bicyclebill2000 Sunday, July 20, 2014

        And what is the percentage of households that are connected in the USA, versus the percentage of households that are connected in other countries such as Syria?  It’s like an Interstate highway; if everybody and their kid sister is trying to drive on the same stretch of road at the same time, nobody is going to get anywhere.

        Reply Share
        1. I bet less people in Syria has running water, and it doesn’t mean that those who have it have higher pressure in the pipe.

          Reply Share
        2. Steve Green Sunday, July 20, 2014

          horse dong

          Reply Share
        3. I don’t think the road builders should charge more for the road maintenance because semis drive on it. Comcast just pissed they are loosing tv subscribers to netflix and they are trying to tax them for it. There is no internet”clog”. It is manufactured through throttling.

          Reply Share
  9. Just to be clear, I completely agree with the position of Netflix here regarding net neutrality. But most internet service providers say “up to” x-mbps, so I doubt they have a real legal obligation to provide anything. Of course, the fact that these ISPs don’t seem to be required to specify a minimum connection is, on its own, troublesome.

    The least we can do is what Hungary did in 2008: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/the-federal-communications-commission-reported/

    Reply Share
  10. How do you argue with Netflix case? Comcast advertises “up to 25 mbps” for $29.99/month. They are not delivering on their contract unless they deliver “25 mbps” at least some of the time.

    Of course they have options:
    1) List the internet services to which they are unable our unwilling to deliver 25 mbps.
    2) Add fine print like the drug manufacturers do listing all the reasons why you may not receive 25 mbps. … this fine print must be included in every add that promises “up to 25 mbps” service.

    Easy choices … tell your customers the truth or get out of business.

    Reply Share
    1. “Up to” implies that you won’t get anything OVER 25 Mbps…not that you’ll ever actually get that 25 Mbps. I think if you do a lot of searching, most companies say you are supposed to get at least 65% to 70% of the “up to” speed, otherwise you might as well go down a speed tier and get the lower price. Of course they can always blame outside carriers and providers for the slowdown…and they do…

      Reply Share
    2. But, of course, the rate you can receive also depends on the rate the sender can send. You will not receive 25 Mbps from a www site that has a 10 Mbps connection to the Internet, or a 100 Mbps connection shared by 100 simultaneous receivers. Netflix needs to pay for it’s connection too. That’s what this is about. Netflix is trying to dump some of it’s bandwidth costs onto your ISP bill, instead of your Netflix bill.

      Reply Share
      1. Edward Kenway Thursday, July 17, 2014

        By your logic that would mean that Youtube would have to be charged for half of my bandwith while Netflix the other half because that’s pretty much what my usage is composed of. That’s the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard.

        Reply Share
        1. Good thing you didn’t design the Internet, then, because that’s how it works. Senders pay. As in every other transportation system. No surprise Netflix would like to change this.

          Reply Share
        2. Suppose you wanted to watch live video from a friend at 1 Mbps. Do you believe your ISP is obligated to provide a 1 Mbps connection to your friend’s house because you have already paid to receive 1 Mbps? Or, do you think your friend also must pay for their connection? And, if your friend wanted 10 people to watch, wouldn’t your friend need to pay for a 10 Mbps connection? Get it?

          Reply Share
          1. senders do pay….yes….netflix is paying for it’s connection, but the bandwidth is being reduced between Netflix and the consumers at “bottlenecks” in the ISP’s networks…Netflix is sending at a higher rate than it’s customers are recieving at…when the customer is paying foor that bandwith as well…THAT is Netflix’s beef. if you have a 100Mbps connection, and netflix is trying to send you 100Mb/s of video (on a connection that they are both paying and well within the limits of) to a user that is paying to be able to recieve that bandwidth, and it is being throttled back (as verizon and comcast are doing INTERNALLY, and INTENTIONALLY to reduce congestion while still charging both the end user and netflix premiums for transfer rates that they are not being given, there is a problem. that is netflix’s beef…they pay exhorbitant sums of money for their bandwidth…but it is being held back by the network and the end user experience is suffering from it. I have verizon fios, and my connection struggles to play HD content from netflix, and usually drops to standard def…believe me…that’s not what I payed for a big flatscreen to see. I’m paying netflix and verizon for a service and a connection to carry it….the connection is not delivering as promised…not even close, however if I try to stream high def video elsewhere, it comes in crystal clear and almost instantly…netflix is being throttled back.

            Reply Share
            1. Netflix is being throttled where it attempts to enter the ISP network, the same way your home ethernet traffic would be throttled if it attempted to enter your ISP network through a dial up modem. If you want to put more data into the ISP, you need to pay for a faster connection. That is how ISP’s manage and finance capacity on their networks. Accepting additional data may require capacity build-outs through the entire network, which, you know, might mean trucks rolling out to 100’s of neighborhoods. That costs money. The capacity to receive 100 Mbps from anywhere in the world does not suddenly materialize when you purchase a 100 Mbps connection to “the Internet.” Capacity only appears when someone on the other end also purchases the ability to send at that rate to you. Netflix supposedly accounts for 30% of US Internet traffic. Do you suppose they are paying 30% of the operating cost of the Internet?

              Share
            2. I have Netflix and everything I get from them is in HD. I do not have Comcast or Verizon. I am a small co-op that provides to about 6 counties. Nothing is getting choked out through them, It sounds like Comcast and Verizon don’t have the equipment to handle the amount of information being sent because if I’m getting everything in HD from a local carrier just fine, its obvious Netflix isn’t the culprit.

              Share
            3. Netflix is being throttled? No, my connection to Netflix is being throttled and I am not getting what I am paying for. People in the United States pay a lot more for internet and ours speeds are slow. What are the companies doing with our money? They are certainly avoiding upgrading their network for a faster, better network.

              Share
            4. Tim, Netflix does not contract with Comcast or Verizon for their internet connection, so they are not being throttled at that point. Their connection is being degraded when their service provider has to connect with Comcast and Verizon to provide service to the home user. If they were using either of those two services for their ISP, it would be a simple Service Level Agreement dispute which would be easily resolved. Unlike home users, when a business contracts with an ISP, they are guaranteed a given throughput.

              Share
            5. Thanks Matt for stating the issue correctly. Tim, you don’t sound like a moron and I don’t believe for a second that you don’t understand the illogic of what you’re saying. You sound like a shill, and I WORK FOR COMCAST. That said, here’s why fast lanes are fair: say you built a highway. It’s a toll road because you built it to make money, and that’s ok because we live in America. You charge each vehicle that accesses your road $1. Now a big company moves in. They drive huge dump trucks and they use your road. Their trucks take up half the lanes, cause half the wear and tear and use the space of 3 cars, but you’re still only charging them a dollar per truck. Now you’re making less money than you planned to make when you built the road, which took crazy money to build. Your 3 choices are a) eat the loss, b) raise the toll for everyone, or c) charge the dump trucks more. Your company is profitable and could probably absorb the loss, but so could the trucking company. Which do you choose? The truth is, you could easily sneak in price increases to everyone, a dime a month for ten months, and no one would notice. Instead, you decide to charge the trucks more. Now imagine that all anyone talks about is how many dollars you collect at the toll booth and how you’re such a greedy bastard, not because you decided to charge everyone more, but because you decided to charge the trucking company more. I’m not saying Comcast isn’t greedy, but poor ol’ Netflix isn’t exactly drowning in competition, and their rates aren’t going down either. Ditto Youtube. Seriously, people. Pay attention to the whole argument, not just the side telling you what you want to hear.

              Share
            6. Firstly, the road was built with the full knowledge that it would be carrying lots of dump trucks – in fact its a mostly dump truck road, secondly the tolls are being fully pre-paid for all the dump trucks that travel down the road by the people at the end of the road. What the road company wants to do is extract ‘protection money’ from the truckers even though their tolls have already been paid by the people at the end of the road. Sounds like the road company want to be paid twice for the same service. And why is that the road company’s own trucks always get through on time, but everyone else’s trucks don’t?

              Share
            7. Not sure what you mean by your last statement but your first is irrelevant and your second is wrong. The people at the other end of the road are the cars in my analogy. They are paying for their access. Netflix has the dump trucks and it must pay for its own access. The fact that the road company may be profitable entirely through tolls paid by cars does not mean it doesn’t have the right to charge the dump trucks more. After all, if the dump truck company passes the extra transportation costs on to its customers, you can bet it won’t go back and lower them later if it wins the legal battle. And if they end up negotiating a LOWER rate, it isn’t obligated to pass the savings on to its customers either, and probably won’t. Both companies have a responsibility to be ethical, but both also have a responsibility to maximize profit and shareholder value.

              Share
      2. Absolutely ridiculous. Netflix pays for their end of the connection (to their ISP) and is not trying to get away from that, which should be obvious to anyone. What is happening is that Comcast and Verizon are trying to charge for Netflix to go THROUGH their connections at a fraction of the speed that they promise to their customers. Imagine if every network between you and any website that you visit wanted to charge a “toll” to that website (i.e. the sender)? How many websites would simply disappear overnight? This is what Verizon and Comcast are trying to implement.

        Really, think about it: Netflix already pays their ISP for all the traffic they send on their end. Why should they have to pay AGAIN, for Comcast, Verizon, and every other random network between them and the viewer to relay the traffic?

        How about email, for example? Would you like to have to pay each network hop for each email message that you send?

        Reply Share
        1. “Imagine if every network between you and any website that you visit wanted to charge a “toll” to that website (i.e. the sender)?”

          That is exactly how the Internet works. Do you think people build networks so they can carry traffic for free? Networks only exchange traffic for free when traffic is roughly balanced in both directions, or when the volume is negligible.

          Netflix pays Comcast for the same reason you would pay Comcast if you want to send data into the Comcast network. Most www sites do this through 3rd party aggregators. They pay for a connection to a data center, who pays for a connection to a transit network, who pays for a connection to Comcast. Larger content providers save money by cutting out the middle men.

          Reply Share
          1. Tim, dude, you are an idiot and you sound like a paid idiot of verizon or comcast. You keep saying that netflix has to pay for sending through the ISP, they aready are arent they? Dude anyone can see that V and C are trying to squeeze more money out of Netflix. The fast lane crap is just that, CRAP. It is a way for ISP’s to squeeze more money from content providers and lock out innovation for those with little money. Rich gettin richer….don’t ISPs already make billions? C and V are trying to change the rules on they’re own because if the public truly see what is happening as Netflix has so greatly stated, they will be held accountable. Please ppl don’t let these greedy ppl get away with it! STAND UP AND STATE YOUR CASE PEOPLE!!!

            Reply Share
            1. Chuck, you should actually look up the “rules” you are saying Verizon & Comcast are trying to change. I will explain what Netflix is trying to do. They want to put their data on the Internet for free via their very one sided Open Connect agreements; look it up. This would save Netflix almost all delivery costs on the Internet. They are passing the costs onto ISP’s which try to ask why should they foot the delivery costs for Netflix who is making all the money off this data. Netflix is making tons of money now that they do not use nearly as much of USPS.
              Now you will say that ISP’s are already taking in $$$ from their customers. Correct, but now a minority of customers are taking up most of the ISP’s bandwidth and making the ISP’s upgrade their networks. Now that ISP costs are higher due to a minority of customers, who should pay those ISP costs to upgrade the network? The minority of the customers through the ISP charging Netflix? OR should all customers’ bills go up to fund those minority of customers using Netflix? This is the million dollar question that no one wants to understand… I believe your anger clouded judgment will say that the ISP’s should eat the costs entirely.

              Share
          2. How are Comcast’s benefits?

            Reply Share
          3. When I am able to upload like a thousand high-quality photos to my Flickr account with no hassles in a really small amount of time, but can’t watch a video on Netflix because the thing JUST WON’T LOAD …. tell me how that makes sense.

            Reply Share
            1. Tim is correct about ISP to ISP peering points, transit links are normally balanced with send and receive. Netflix “was” paying a 3rd party for Internet access. That 3rd party was trying to strong arm Verizon & Comcast to pay for more bandwidth to them. Verizon and Comcast ask why should they pay for this 3rd party’s bandwidth especially when it is NOT balanced traffic. This is how the Internet has ALWAYS worked, it’s not rocket science. Cogent, the 3rd party ISP, is who was to profit therefore should foot the non balanced link. Very pure & simple. They refused to do it…
              Netflix also said screw USPS, let’s get a free ride off the Internet and ditch our costs off to the ISP’s. Hastings should shut his mouth and be glad he’s making a much higher percentage now that he’s using the Internet.
              Instead Hastings is trying to get tirade started and get people on his side and it’s working.
              Look at both sides instead of following your hatred of ISP’s.

              Share
      3. Steve Green Sunday, July 20, 2014

        you need to tell people you work for isp s. only they will agree with u

        Reply Share