President Obama is Not a Fan of Tiered Net Neutrality Policy

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

President Obama is Not a Fan of Tiered Net Neutrality Policy

President Barack Obama 310x

Don't sleep on Barry O, now.

While the FCC sifts through the millions of comments received on net neutrality and the Open Internet concept, United States President Barack Obama decided to re-affirm his own stance on how the World Wide Web should be structured.

The short version? POTUS is not a fan of the tiered Internet infrastructure suggested by the FCC, and ISPs alike.

"My appointee, Tom Wheeler, knows my position," said the President during a town hall meeting in Santa Monica, California on Thursday. "...I can't just call him up and tell him exactly what to do, but what I've been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we're not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet. That ends up being a big priority of mine."

Emphasis added. The President reaffirmed his stance on net neutrality, while the FCC is still in the "back to the drawing board," phase after its slow lane-fast lane ideas were effectively torched by netizens everywhere. The comments also come right as Comcast and Time Warner Cable shareholders gave the duo the green light to merge. Since the merger still has to run the government regulation gauntlet, Obama's comments come at an incredibly crucial time during the net neutrality debate. While there are many facets to the proposed merger, the consolidation of ISPs is indeed a factor when talking about an Open Internet.

The President's remarks could also be a sign that his office is going to be more aggressive in supporting net neutrality during the last two-plus years of Obama's time in office. Pro-net neutrality advocates have pushed the President to be more vocal on the issue, including a former FCC Chairman.

Source: NBC News

Permalink

Yet you appointed a lobbyist for the cable companies to the head of the FCC. You say one thing Mr president but then do another.

So was closing Guantanamo (a priority for the President). We all saw how well that's been taken care of.

He can say he's not a fan and he loses nothing considering he can't run for office a third time. He also doesn't have to do a damn thing, and probably won't. But he'll get credit for it if it turns out to be a positive thing, and if it goes bad he'll have had nothing to do with it. Remember this is the guy who got a Nobel Peace Prize for simply being elected. They'll give him credit for things he had no hand in, and the blame for things that go wrong will go to Bush...
It doesn't matter to me, I've had it with almost every damn politician out there, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican... I don't buy any of their BS anymore because it all comes down to the lobbyists and not the People.
Knowing what I do about Jack Abramoff, there's no democracy here anymore.

Barak Obama:
"...I can't just call him up and tell him exactly what to do, but what I've been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we're not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet. That ends up being a big priority of mine."

I normally don't indulge in Obama-bashing, but where it is merited...
*ahem*

Dear President Obama,

I'm not sure if you've realized this 6 years into office, but you are the head of the executive branch of the US Government, which last I checked, THE FCC WAS PART OF.
You are not only Wheeler's boss, but his boss's boss.
You're at the top of the pyramid. You totally CAN call him up and tell him what to do, and he has to do it.

This is shit that EIGHTH GRADERS have to learn and are tested on. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS!?
You appointed Wheeler to that position so that he can handle part of your job as the executive branch.
If he isn't toeing the line according to your administration's intent, THEN CENSURE OR REMOVE HIM.

Your play, Mr. President.

EDIT: THIS IS NOT THE LITERAL EXTENT OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF AMERICAN POLITICS.
IF YOU FEEL LIKE POINTING OUT THE FUCKING OBVIOUS TO TRY AND LOOK SMART, PLEASE READ MY OTHER REPLIES FURTHER DOWN THE THREAD AND SPARE ME YOUR MINDLESS PEDANTRY.
THANK YOU.

synobal:
Yet you appointed a lobbyist for the cable companies to the head of the FCC. You say one thing Mr president but then do another.

To add to this, Obama is in bed with the cable companies well above and beyond just appointing one of their guys to oversee their actions. I don't think he or his wallet will be especially upset when net neutrality eventually and inevitably goes the way of the dodo.

I sincerely doubt it's a coincidence that this hits the news at the same time as the Comcast/TWC thing has. Or that he's underselling the powers of the executive when people are yelling about executive overreach.

Either way, Obama really doesn't have to do anything right now even assuming his position is entirely legit and not just siding with public opinion. The FCC's proposal went down in flames.

...And honestly, that pretty much seems to be just how he likes it. Not having to do anything while sounding vaguely agreeable, I mean.

Atmos Duality:

Barak Obama:
"...I can't just call him up and tell him exactly what to do, but what I've been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we're not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet. That ends up being a big priority of mine."

I normally don't indulge in Obama-bashing, but where it is merited...
*ahem*

Dear President Obama,

I'm not sure if you've realized this 6 years into office, but you are the head of the executive branch of the US Government, which last I checked, THE FCC WAS PART OF.
You are not only Wheeler's boss, but his boss's boss.
You're at the top of the pyramid. You totally CAN call him up and tell him what to do, and he has to do it.

This is shit that EIGHTH GRADERS have to learn and are tested on. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS!?
You appointed Wheeler to that position so that he can handle part of your job as the executive branch.
If he isn't toeing the line according to your administration's intent, THEN CENSURE OR REMOVE HIM.

Your play, Mr. President.

I don't think you realize the sort of politics you have in your country.

He's the head yes but he has to be very careful. If he comes down heavy on one side the republicans will basically point out the president's favoritism/nepotism , start saying he's dictiaticng rules to the free market like some sort of leader that dictates (they should come up with a word for that). etc. In short. Him showing and acting for onside would turn this into a political fight which would invariably make matters worse.

There's already cries that he's doing too much regulating as is. and these cable companies and their pet isps have a lot of money to buy a lot of friends...In the end he has to think of how the fight would affect not only his presidency but the chances for the next democratic candidate.

It's sort of why for many countries.. net neutrality is sort of an unwritten understanding. It's not legislated but it's understood by all players to be a part of things...No one is going to try to legislate it because as said then it becomes a political fight.

Leaving it unl;egislated works well because an ISP can implement a tiered access on their service sure.. but nothing says their competition has to... in which case the one that doesn't will get all the business that flees the others. So no one does. What makes it a case in your country is that you let it work out that most of your cable companies are just SBU's of a few larger companies...there's more room for collusion.

Your cable scenario is more set up as an Oligopoly. Again... what can obama do about this.. very little changing anything is going to take a sit down of politicians and lawyers and brutha... have you ever seen large groups of either get anything done quickly?

BigTuk:

I don't think you realize the sort of politics you have in your country.

Think what you want.
But you aren't me, and I know exactly how much bile and dirt I could lob at the politics of my own country; but won't here for the sake of brevity.

I'm going to omit your spiel about ISPs because...I know.
Really, I know it all. My work experience as a computer network engineer (and security) has had me do surveying, repair, and even some limited system design for ISPs before.

The business is utterly mundane at the service level, but completely cutthroat above that. I've worked for district managers who have asked me to do things that frankly baffle me from a service provision perspective, but make perfect sense when applied to political schemes.

Pay attention to who leases what lines for whom and from whom, where points of demarcation begin or end (either to provide OR deny service rates; even within the same sodding building!) and you start to get an understanding of how things operate.

It's not even a matter of backbone infrastructure; business backbones are high-grade across the country and easily up to international standards for developed countries. It's the small home and office market that's feeling the burn from the cable oligopoly.
My home is LITERALLY the only one in my neighborhood not on cable because I know just how badly they're fucking everyone.

To say that there's a schism in the grade of quality between SOHO and large business cable service in the US is an understatement; SOHO service is deliberately kept retrograde for a number of reasons; none of which are good for the consumer (reasons that go beyond just pleasing shareholders by limiting reinvestment of profit).

If I haven't made my point clear, I -HATE- the cable companies in the US, and I'm damn glad the closest I ever got was contract consulting and temp work, because I don't know what I would do if I had to engage in their more political bullshit.

The fact that some other outside contractors were laying fiber optic cable all around my region (not my neighborhood though; that line of demarcation is holding firm yet) is the only real bright point I've seen in the service arena since I moved here.

There's already cries that he's doing too much regulating as is. and these cable companies and their pet isps have a lot of money to buy a lot of friends...In the end he has to think of how the fight would affect not only his presidency but the chances for the next democratic candidate.

Well, at least you've touched upon the real reason I'm picking apart Obama's statement.

Obama claims he cannot regulate when he has not only been accused of doing such in the past but has in fact done so.

Yet, the one time when public opinion actually sides HEAVILY with him, he suddenly claims he cannot regulate.
I know it's for purely political reasons, but that won't stop me from mocking or criticizing it.

Devin Connors:
"...I can't just call him up and tell him exactly what to do, but what I've been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we're not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet. That ends up being a big priority of mine."

He'd have done better to keep that blatant lie for himself instead of excreting it after waiting such a long time.
Just wait and see some more. Don't wanna do something rushed while it fucking matters, eh?

Talk is cheap. What's he actually going to do to help Net Neutrality? Him just saying that he's against it a mere month before a big election reeks of trying to pander to the internet crowd to sway some liberal votes.

Bullshit, Obama, you can totally tell him not to royally fuck the already delicate internet policies we have. You are on your second presidential term, AKA less than 4 years away from one of the most secure retirements that doesn't come with a corporate severance package. As long as you don't commit something impeachment worthy you can finally do things, like the right things, that might piss off some of your campaign contributors, fellow Democrats and even the Republicans who aren't counting the days until you're out of office on a giant chalkboard.

There's also this nice little group of people, called Congress, you can ask to start a bill. I'm sure all of them have gotten angry letters from voters about net neutrality, in the past couple years. Even if the bill doesn't make it to you, it will at least out all of the Senators and Reps who are too busy counting their cable lobbying money to pay attention to what's going wrong in this country.

synobal:
Yet you appointed a lobbyist for the cable companies to the head of the FCC. You say one thing Mr president but then do another.

Bingo bango. I voted for Obama but its stuff like this that republicans should be shitting on him for... but ISP's are campaign providers sooo they won't. We just need some classic new deal liberal right now and we got a guy that dips his toe left after looking both ways and making sure that nothing more then a surly looking snail is coming at him.

Atmos Duality:
The business is utterly mundane at the service level, but completely cutthroat above that. I've worked for district managers who have asked me to do things that frankly baffle me from a service provision perspective, but make perfect sense when applied to political schemes.

If I haven't made my point clear, I -HATE- the cable companies in the US, and I'm damn glad the closest I ever got was contract consulting and temp work, because I don't know what I would do if I had to engage in their more political bullshit.

You took the words right out of my mouth, I've turned down job offers in the past to work for one of the big two in favor of contracting at a lower pay to not deal with or be a part of the chicanery these people above the companies working on contract use to get their agendas through, consequences be damned.

While the people i've contracted with have been some of the best co-workers i've had who would stretch what they could do within their contracts to the limit trying to assist the home and small business customers, most (hopefully not all) of the in-house management are just terrible. From forcing the use of outdated and faulty equipment, to hassling customers through their in-house support, to outright lying to them about aspects of their policy or restricting their options unnecessarily to name a few things. It was so common it was just taken as part of the contract.

"Management with screw the little guy if they can."

If there is ANY other option open to you folks out there in internet land, take it and do not give another dime to these corporations...I know I may be whistling in the dark but I try to spread the info to everyone I know with an Internet connection and I hope anyone else would do the same.

Atmos Duality:

Barak Obama:
"...I can't just call him up and tell him exactly what to do, but what I've been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we're not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet. That ends up being a big priority of mine."

I normally don't indulge in Obama-bashing, but where it is merited...
*ahem*

Dear President Obama,

I'm not sure if you've realized this 6 years into office, but you are the head of the executive branch of the US Government, which last I checked, THE FCC WAS PART OF.
You are not only Wheeler's boss, but his boss's boss.
You're at the top of the pyramid. You totally CAN call him up and tell him what to do, and he has to do it.

This is shit that EIGHTH GRADERS have to learn and are tested on. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS!?
You appointed Wheeler to that position so that he can handle part of your job as the executive branch.
If he isn't toeing the line according to your administration's intent, THEN CENSURE OR REMOVE HIM.

Your play, Mr. President.

Atmos, every time he DOES try to throw his weight around, every red party pain in the butt goes and complains the shit out of it, whether it's in their best interest or not. So, when he says he 'can't just', he means 'it stirs up a shitstorm every time I do'. Someone always complains and complains big, and that someone - whoever it is - brings noisy friends, alot of them. I would love for him to shout at the FCC like Eddie Murphy on a tangant, but then that might damage something else in the process. Do I know what? No, but I am pretty sure there's something.

FalloutJack:

Atmos, every time he DOES try to throw his weight around, every red party pain in the butt goes and complains the shit out of it, whether it's in their best interest or not. So, when he says he 'can't just', he means 'it stirs up a shitstorm every time I do'. Someone always complains and complains big, and that someone - whoever it is - brings noisy friends, alot of them.

Well, I'll go out on a limb and say that being the figurehead of a world superpower is going to make one a big target for criticism from EVERYONE over EVERYTHING; regardless of whether or not said criticism is valid.
Being president is unbelievably prestigious, and equally stressful. Look at ANY OF the previous US presidents. They age seemingly 15 years in the span of 8.

As for damaging relationships...
I can certainly think of a few ways how increasing broadband throughput for us horrible filthy plebians would help the economy, and I'd like to hope that might factor in a wee bit more than souring some grapes for the Democrat's campaign contributors.

Of course, that would require Obama to do his damn job rather than letting special interests raid the purse of the general public again, and we can't fucking have that now can we?

Atmos Duality:
Snip

Well, there's criticism, and then there's that suing and impeachment bullshit, and let's not forget the unprecidented and thoroughly idiotic shutting down of the government. Remember, you can make fun of the president, but he's just one man, one man who may be veritably surrounded by collective heads of knuckle.

As for the aging thing...possibly not Teddy Roosevelt, but then he's Teddy Roosevelt.

FalloutJack:

Well, there's criticism, and then there's that suing and impeachment bullshit..

There's worse than that, even. I've encountered them.
Around my area there's a political activist group that LITERALLY, UNIRONICALLY, calls Barak Obama "The next Hitler".
As in, they believe his actions are going to lead to the next holocaust.

And every time election season rolls around, they're hanging out at the polling sites spreading their "message" until escorted away for harassment and loitering.

Though I suppose in fairness, they haven't gotten any media coverage...yet.

..and let's not forget the unprecidented and thoroughly idiotic shutting down of the government. Remember, you can make fun of the president, but he's just one man, one man who may be veritably surrounded by collective heads of knuckle.

I do feel for the guy (or gal, should that ever occur) simply because I've barely had a taste of what's it's like to address the general public and it's quite stressful to say the least.

That said, he's the figurehead of my country and, like him or not, my representative (one of many, anyway).
If he doesn't have the public's interests in mind, I think it's plenty good reason to scrutinize his behavior.

As for the aging thing...possibly not Teddy Roosevelt, but then he's Teddy Roosevelt.

Well yes, he was "the man" as far as US presidents go.

But Teddy Roosevelt also didn't serve his term in the Information Age.
Since his time, we've gone from telegraphs and 2-day press to radio to cinema news reels, to TV, to 24 hour news networks to internet boards to "Tweet what the president just said less than a minute after he said it on my cell phone".

Atmos Duality:
Snip again

The information age has been hell on politics, overall. Anyway, I was just illustrating that people do more than complain, sometimes. A different man might walk in and kick the ass of everybody in the FCC, a thoroughly hilarious punishment when you think about it. This is not what Obama is. He's a friendly social kind of guy. That's pretty much the reason things are happening the way they are, because he doesn't always shove.

FalloutJack:
The information age has been hell on politics, overall.

Well, yes. That's kinda the point.
Stress is much easier to manage when it isn't unrelenting and from (literally) thousands of different sources all at once.

Anyway, I was just illustrating that people do more than complain, sometimes. A different man might walk in and kick the ass of everybody in the FCC, a thoroughly hilarious punishment when you think about it. This is not what Obama is. He's a friendly social kind of guy. That's pretty much the reason things are happening the way they are, because he doesn't always shove.

My personal take is that Obama doesn't want to look extremely foolish for appointing Wheeler in the first place.
(to the general public anyway; anyone that knows the state of the networking business knows exactly how foolish it was to put that particular wolf in charge of the henhouse)

Atmos Duality:

My personal take is that Obama doesn't want to look extremely foolish for appointing Wheeler in the first place.
(to the general public anyway; anyone that knows the state of the networking business knows exactly how foolish it was to put that particular wolf in charge of the henhouse)

That is distinctly possible, and in keeping with how politics generally go. Wouldn't surprise me.

Shawn Crosmun:

You took the words right out of my mouth, I've turned down job offers in the past to work for one of the big two in favor of contracting at a lower pay to not deal with or be a part of the chicanery these people above the companies working on contract use to get their agendas through, consequences be damned.

*snip*

Aye.
Even in this economy, I refused to play any of those sorts of games with customers.
Unprofessional? Perhaps, but if my line of work dictates that I deliberately fuck my customers over (as in, not deliver what was offered), I think I've failed as a member of society.

synobal:
Yet you appointed a lobbyist for the cable companies to the head of the FCC. You say one thing Mr president but then do another.

Welcome to politics and real life, buddy.

gamegod25:

synobal:
Yet you appointed a lobbyist for the cable companies to the head of the FCC. You say one thing Mr president but then do another.

Welcome to politics and real life, buddy.

Welcome? Brother I've been here for ages.

I think they're just gambling on taking so long to actually get anything done about the problem that people will forget that our old net neutrality laws are still gone, so at the moment it's basically a free for all as providers continue to throttle companies and consumers until they agree to unfair, long term contracts that will get grandfathered in on the slim chance that we actually do get a fair set of regulations.

Pardon me if I display my ignorance but the FCC is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, is it not?

As in, several tiers directly under him? Because he's the President? And they work for him?

So couldn't he just, you know, tell his employees to implement these protections instead of just telling people how much of a good idea he thinks they are and they should probably maybe totally happen at some point perhaps?

Because that seems like it would be a bit more useful.

Those are all words, Mr. President...show us action and we'll believe you more.

Obama can't tell them what to do; no President can. They don't serve at his leisure. He nominates appointments, who are then confirmed by the Congress. Appointees can then resign, or be removed by the Congress under specific circumstances. Simply disagreeing with a policy decision does not qualify.

Atmos Duality:

Barak Obama:
"...I can't just call him up and tell him exactly what to do, but what I've been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we're not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet. That ends up being a big priority of mine."

I normally don't indulge in Obama-bashing, but where it is merited...
*ahem*

Dear President Obama,

I'm not sure if you've realized this 6 years into office, but you are the head of the executive branch of the US Government, which last I checked, THE FCC WAS PART OF.
You are not only Wheeler's boss, but his boss's boss.
You're at the top of the pyramid. You totally CAN call him up and tell him what to do, and he has to do it.

This is shit that EIGHTH GRADERS have to learn and are tested on. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS!?
You appointed Wheeler to that position so that he can handle part of your job as the executive branch.
If he isn't toeing the line according to your administration's intent, THEN CENSURE OR REMOVE HIM.

Your play, Mr. President.

This is American politics, not private enterprise, Obama's 'powers' as head of the executive branch all have a million asterisks next to them.

Obviously you know this since you can't really believe Obama doesn't know how the presidency works, so...

Glaice:
Those are all words, Mr. President...show us action and we'll believe you more.

Now I'm only a Dane, and I admit I don't know about the intricacies of US Politics.

But doesn't the power of the US President hinge on Congress? I mean as I understood it, everything the President wants to do has to go through Congress (which I'm fairly certain has a Republican majority these days), and if Congress doesn't like it they can veto it (and threaten with Lawsuits, or Impeachments if the President tries to force it through).

It sounds like the President is more a scapegoat, than a leader of the US Government.

If something goes well. Hurray, Washington knows what they're doing.

If something goes badly. Impeach Obama.

MrFalconfly:

Glaice:
Those are all words, Mr. President...show us action and we'll believe you more.

Now I'm only a Dane, and I admit I don't know about the intricacies of US Politics.

But doesn't the power of the US President hinge on Congress? I mean as I understood it, everything the President wants to do has to go through Congress (which I'm fairly certain has a Republican majority these days), and if Congress doesn't like it they can veto it (and threaten with Lawsuits, or Impeachments if the President tries to force it through).

It sounds like the President is more a scapegoat, than a leader of the US Government.

If something goes well. Hurray, Washington knows what they're doing.

If something goes badly. Impeach Obama.

Its kind of funny but the way you have described makes it sound more professional and "above-board" than it actually is. The US government is effectively broken at the best of times and bat-shit crazy in the worst. Congress is an absolute clusterfuck and the Senate is only marginally above that. We have the lack of term limits, the lack of campaign finance reform, and gerrymandering to thank for all that.

I supported Obama but I've become rather critical of him. And as was mentioned, I am FAR more critical of the opposition that decides to waste time with healthcare and Benghazi instead of targeting things like this.

I could honestly say that I can't see Congress doing anything if this issue was brought up. They seem to be much better at not doing things.

I hope the President takes this issue seriously and continues to be vocal about it.

aliengmr:

MrFalconfly:

Glaice:
Those are all words, Mr. President...show us action and we'll believe you more.

Now I'm only a Dane, and I admit I don't know about the intricacies of US Politics.

But doesn't the power of the US President hinge on Congress? I mean as I understood it, everything the President wants to do has to go through Congress (which I'm fairly certain has a Republican majority these days), and if Congress doesn't like it they can veto it (and threaten with Lawsuits, or Impeachments if the President tries to force it through).

It sounds like the President is more a scapegoat, than a leader of the US Government.

If something goes well. Hurray, Washington knows what they're doing.

If something goes badly. Impeach Obama.

Its kind of funny but the way you have described makes it sound more professional and "above-board" than it actually is. The US government is effectively broken at the best of times and bat-shit crazy in the worst. Congress is an absolute clusterfuck and the Senate is only marginally above that. We have the lack of term limits, the lack of campaign finance reform, and gerrymandering to thank for all that.

I supported Obama but I've become rather critical of him. And as was mentioned, I am FAR more critical of the opposition that decides to waste time with healthcare and Benghazi instead of targeting things like this.

I could honestly say that I can't see Congress doing anything if this issue was brought up. They seem to be much better at not doing things.

I hope the President takes this issue seriously and continues to be vocal about it.

Yeah well.

I grew up with politics that look like this.

image

A: Social Demokraterne (currently has the Prime Minister seat, and are in a coalition with SF and B. Center-left, so on so forth)
B: Radikale Venstre (centre-right. They are basically in the middle of the political spectrum)
C: Konservative (conservative, right wing. A little less right wing than Liberal Alliance)
SF: Socialt Folkeparti (more left wing than Social Demokraterne)
i: Liberal Alliance (right wing. Very heavy about less taxes, more individual freedom)
DF: Dansk Folkeparti (they're called right-wing, but are really left-wing, and are slightly xenophobic and racist)
V: Venstre (despite the name they're actually right-wing, although less than Konservative. They're the main opponent of the current government, and has the greates majority in parliament)
: Enhedslisten (basically communists. Don't know why anybody votes on them)

<---SF-A-DF-B-V-C-i->

Personally I vote Liberal Alliance. And while they're the "far right" party of Denmark, they're far short of the Tea-Party guys in the US.

So a two-party system seems almost comically simple to my eyes.

President Obama is pulling off decent Dilbert impression.

Holy shit, everyone... maybe we can pull back the unhelpful cynicism a bit? Something like net neutrality is an easy position to not comment on, but for the President to make this kind of statement is a good step.

MrFalconfly:

So a two-party system seems almost comically simple to my eyes.

Wow, so yea, our collective heads might explode if we had that many choices. I'll bet you guys have things like debates huh? And the crazy notion of "doing things"? Been a while since we've had such novel concepts.

Liberal Alliance sounds similar to our Libertarians. If there was an official third party they would be it I think.

You are right that its comically simple.

Thanks for posting that, it was interesting. Forgive my self deprecating snark:P

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here