homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.160.102
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >     
Comcast Gets Blocking Law Suit
engine

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 9:53 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

A California Comcast subscriber filed suit against his Internet service provider claiming the company is engaging in unfair business practices because it limits download speeds of peer-to-peer file sharing programs such as BitTorrent.

Jon Hart, the Comcast customer which the lawsuit was filed on the behalf of, bases his claim on an investigation by the Associated Press that reported, "Comcast actively interferes with attempts some high-speed Internet subscribers (make) to share files online." The Electronic Frontier Foundation conducted similar test on Comcast's network and came to the same conclusions. The EFF also outlines nicely how it believes Comcast "interferes" with user traffic and compares it to techniques used by Internet censors in China.

Comcast Gets Blocking Law Suit [blogs.pcworld.com]

Earlier stories
Comcast blocks some Internet traffic [webmasterworld.com]

Comcast says it Slows, Not Blocks, Net Traffic [webmasterworld.com]

 

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 12:29 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Did anyone from EFF or the customer bother reading the COMCAST AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SERVICES that they agree to when they signed up?

Prohibited Uses of HSI. (High Speed Internet)

You agree not to use HSI for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, “Web hosting” or other similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network.


[comcast.com...]

P2P by definition is a network and Comcast quite clearly states you can't host a network from their residential service.

Even if you upgrade to their business plan you need a STATIC IP plan:
xv) unless you subscribe to a Service plan that expressly provides for a static or statically assigned Internet protocol ("IP") address, run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure how you can sue someone because they stop you from violating the very terms of service that you agree to when you sign up for that service!

f1r3b4ll

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 1:03 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Actually, in the U.S. you can sue anyone even if something is expressly outline in a "terms of service." This is how laws and business practices that seem fair on the surface change even though they might not be fair on a broader scale. One immediate problem with this is that Comcast is acting in a somewhat non-democratic sense by having that specific clause in their agreement.

Undemocratic because it is suppose to provide a service to the general public and it does provide it, but you are limited to what you can do with it. The internet is suppose to be a place without limits and equal access to all. So because Comcast provides a service that is in high demand, it feels it can do whatever it wants to people and have a user agreement that benefits Comcast instead of the user. Sure Comcast can cry and say that "that one user" is ruining and hogging up the bandwidth for other people on the Comcast subscriber plan, but this is a very weak attempt at shifting the role of Comcast from villain to victim and it is bull.

This user did something good and I'm glad this is finally getting out there. I,too, have thought of suing Comcast, but not for this issue.

My only problem with this law suit is that it should have been a class-action suit instead of a single entity.

Terms of service and other terms of agreement are only in effect until they are updated either by the company or by the law of the United States whether on a local, state or federal level.

[edited by: f1r3b4ll at 1:10 am (utc) on Nov. 16, 2007]

f1r3b4ll

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 1:09 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

incrediBIL, it is just you.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure how you can sue someone because they stop you from violating the very terms of service that you agree to when you sign up for that service!

Anything can go to court in the form of a lawsuit, however, that does not mean the suit has actual merit.

A lawsuit is simply a formal notice to an entity indicating that they may have done something wrong or might be doing something wrong or something about their practices is just not "right".

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 1:28 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

This lawsuit is frivolous at best and has nothing to do with being democratic, censorship like China or any other thing.

Comcast residential service isn't designed to host web services, has a limited upstream bandwidth, and those restrictions on what you can do are to basically keep the collective upstream pipes from choking if everyone did it.

Knowing something about telecom infrastructure would help you understand that if all your neighbors choked the upstream pipeline running web services then you wouldn't be able to make outbound requests, let alone run P2P file sharing. It's called a "grade of service" and the networks are typically built to handle a reasonable amount of service assuming that only a percentage of customers will use a percentage of the bandwidth during peak hours. If everyone leaves P2P networking online all day every day and the bandwidth starts to continuously spike, we all lose.

Think about highways and rush hour and you kind of get the picture.

I hope Comcast wins because the day I can't connect to the outside world because P2P is choking the pipes because some idiot judge rules in favor of this idiotic lawsuit is when I file MY lawsuit!

FWIW, those of us that want to run file sharing services rent those things called dedicated servers which can be had for under $99. For as little as $60/mo I can park 250GB of data on the web with 1300GB of bandwidth included or for $89/mo I can get 2000GB/mo bandwidth. Better yet, it's a full blown 10mb or greater output vs. the 384kbps output you get via Comcast residential.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 1:29 am (utc) on Nov. 16, 2007]

[edited by: lawman at 11:00 am (utc) on Nov. 18, 2007]

f1r3b4ll

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 2:01 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

It doesn't take any special knowledge to understand that there is a problem with what Comcast is doing.

My point was only to convey that this should have been a class action suit and that this appears to be a legitimate law suit until proven otherwise.

Another point where the Comcast terms of service is not definitive enough is here

Prohibited Uses of HSI. (High Speed Internet)
....for any business enterprise...

Comcast does not explicitly state what is a business enterprise. What is a business enterprise? Is it me running a website and making some money through affiliate ads by renting out space for advertising

-OR-

Is a business enterprise a business as defined in the United States of America?

Another point to consider: Who labels my internet usage business like in nature?

Is it Comcast who decides I am a business?

-OR-

Is it me under the umbrella of United States law that decides I am a business?

Someone running a site for whatever means and is not officially a business has the legal right to do whatever they want on the internet. Comcast is a very unclear as to what they consider a business. I'm going to assume, since Comcast does not specify, that a business is any registered legal entity in the U.S. or D.C that can conduct "business matters".

Lets say I operate a website for leisure and I choose to monetize my site with a publisher program because I want to make money online. I am still not a business because I did not register my website. All I do is operate a website as a hobby. However, Comcast may see it different and decides to tell me that since I am constantly uploading and downloading files to and from the internet, I am acting like a business and should therefore cease my activities because this connecting is for residential use.

As far as I know, the person is being prevented from using Comcast internet for residential use because he is using a big chunk of the internet as it is provided by Comcast and Comcast thinks he might be operating a business.

Comcast has not right to label people a business, especially if they are on a residential line, but use a lot of resources. Talk about major micro-managing on the part of Comcast.

It sounds like the person who filed the law suit has this mentality: "I'm paying Comcast for it and this is what I signed up for, might as well maximize the internet to my advantage."

Is the person wrong in thinking this? Absolutely not.

I do understand the whole "If everybody did it, then the system would crash so we can't let a few people do it" claims, but these are simply appeals to fear and appeals to the majority and of course faulty reasoning and have no merit.

This law suit has merit and I do hope the end result is that Comcast explicitly outlines or updates their terms of service with an asterisk to indicate what a business enterprise is.

(Keep in mind, I did not take a look at Comcast's terms of service, so they may indeed specify what a "business enterprise" actually is)

Also, being undemocratic does not necessarily mean you are denying democracy or censoring someone.

Being undemocratic can mean that you are not acting democratically in a democratic system <-- this is more applicable in this situation.

*Excuse my typos, I don't type like a pro just yet.

moishe

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 2:36 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is Comcast shaping FTP ports? If they are only shaping ports used by programs like Bitorrent, that is those typically used to trade stolen and pirated software, movies, songs and the like, I not sure I see how they are keeping people from making a little money from their web connections. Are they blocking poker sites? Day trader sites?

Nope, just putting the squeeze on thieves it looks like.

my 3 c

f1r3b4ll

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 2:44 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Good point, moishe!

One thing to keep in mind with this situation is that the actions of both parties can and should be officially revealed and possibly judged in a formal setting.

So if indeed the plaintiff is doing something wrong with the Comcast connection, then Comcast can claim a "victory".

This should be an interesting turn of events, but I do hope this lawsuit is not the last of its kind as I feel that the actions of internet providers need intensive legal scrutiny.

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 3:49 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

HUH?

Being undemocratic can mean that you are not acting democratically in a democratic system

Comcast is a business, not a democracy, and the law affords businesses to exercise certain restrictions like "NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE" which in this case is "NO NETWORKS" hosted on residential service.

Heck, MSN and Bell South won't even let you directly connect to the SMTP server on your website but nobody sued over that and it's a much bigger PITA that restricts actual use of real day-to-day activites compared to a bunch of whining file swappers.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 3:49 am (utc) on Nov. 16, 2007]

f1r3b4ll

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 4:06 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)


HUH?

Being undemocratic can mean that you are not acting democratically in a democratic system

Comcast is a business, not a democracy, and the law affords businesses to exercise certain restrictions like "NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE" which in this case is "NO NETWORKS" hosted on residential service.

Doesn't matter that Comcast is a business. What matters is that Comcast is a business in the U.S. which is a democratic system and cannot do what it wants. It should be noted that people cannot do what they want either.

The underlying point in all this is that Comcast cannot tell you how to connect with what you use to connect to the internet.

All people are doing is paying for a subscription to the internet. People are not paying for Comcast to not be able to provide service to other people because one person is hogging up bandwidth.

Bandwidth should be no concern for a customer, this is Comcast's problem. Comcast know it is their problem, so they made the move to restrict internet usage, thereby stepping out of bounds as to what their job is. Comcast is only an internet provider, not an internet provider and regulation agency.

There's already a regulation agency, called the U.S government operating in a democratic system, therefore, Comcast should reevaluate its actions.

You might tell me "No Shirt, No Shoes No Service", but what if I walk into your store in a thong bikini with exposed cheeks and wearing a shirt and shoes and then expect service.

Then what do you do?

Your sign explicitly says, No Shirt, Shoes No Service. I did what you asked, which in this case is pay for the internet connection. Now that I have a shirt, shoes, but I'm wearing a thong bikini, you can't give me service?

koan

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 7:12 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

P2P by definition is a network and Comcast quite clearly states you can't host a network from their residential service.

What about more "legitimate" use of bitorrent technology such as video games updates (I think world of warcraft uses it) or upcoming video technologies set up by the mainstream movies industries to watch high quality movies through the internet?

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 8:13 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I won't continue an irrational argument with no valid counter-points.

I also don't shoot fish in barrels...

f1r3b4ll

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 8:17 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

No valid counter-points, but valid enough to make it as a lawsuit. Yes!

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 9:32 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Not... it'll be tossed, basic contractual law, silliness.

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 12:35 pm on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

...as arrogant and ignorant it is... not reading everything so far...
Am I wrong in thinking they're just blocking certain ports?

You can SET the ports, real time, at will for bittorrent clients.
How is that supposed to prevent anything but the obvious?

...

That aside, this whole 'blobking' thing seems off to me... and has been since I heard the news like two months ago? I'm not sure who they try to please with this move, but it's definitely dumb. AP tested their connections, and it let them through in every third attempt ( I suppose whenever they set other ports than the defaults ). So, who are they doing this for anyway? Perhaps Granny Doe will sign up because there are 'less pirates' on their waters but if you're under 60, you will choose to cancel / not even order a kind of Internet connection that is limited in whatever way. I do mean ANY way.

...

No seriously, please explain, did they decide that certain port ranges are used ONLY by certain software? That's their reasoning? How do they know, do they have access to an International Registry of Ports Used by Internet Capable Software?

What if a baby-monitoring software was using that port?
What if a nursing home or anti-burglar system was using that port?

I'm sure no such stuff happened or is happening, but (such fictional examples) show the unconstitutional nature of this, even if it's included in the terms or service. Not sure of the proper wording but you can't limit anyone in their access / movement...

Duskrider

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 4:07 pm on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe I should sue some fast food joint because they don't put onions on their burgers when every place else does. Maybe I'll sue the local municipality for blocking the main road I use to get to work every morning so the school kids can use the crosswalk without some idiot taking them out. They don't have any right to limit my movement or access to that road.

Typically I would fall on the side of the consumer in a case like this, but I find myself more and more sympathetic to Comcast in this situation. They're a business, and they have every right to run their business however they please. Consumers, likewise, have every right to not agree to those terms and find connectivity elsewhere.

If they want to even block off port 80 then they should be able to do so... since when does basic human rights extend to being able to access the Internet? It would be bad for business methinks, but that's up to the company providing the service. So long as the consumer knows what sort of service they're getting when they sign up, the provider should be able to provide whatever type of service they feel is best for business.

The only real argument I see the customer having in this case is that they were unaware when they signed up for the service that P2P ports would be blocked. Even then I don't understand why they can't just leave and choose another provider. If no other provider exists, then deal with it... such is the nature of business.

5 years ago I lived in the country with no cable or DSL availability. I had to pay an outrageous amount of money for wireless service that wasn't very good, but better than my 28.8 phone line. About one year into the service, the wireless provider cut a RANGE of ports out of the plan. No P2P, no VoiceChat, no IRC. They were the only 'high-speed' choice, however, so I delt with it. Maybe I should've sued them... who knew? Maybe I should've sued Ameritech because I couldn't connect faster then 28.8 on their lines too, which is the only reason I went with wireless.

Oh well, I'm off to find a hamburger joint that doesn't use onions. I'll come back when I'm rich.

[edited by: Duskrider at 4:11 pm (utc) on Nov. 16, 2007]

sgietz

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 7:05 pm on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

If ISPs were as prolific as burger joints, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Lack of competition doesn't necessarily make it illegal, but it allows for more people to become angry and step forward in defense of the lawsuit.

See, if the burger joint doesn't put onions on their burgers, that will upset a handful of people, who will simply go across the street to another dive. If the local ISP starts blocking (slowing down) content, that affects quite a lot of people. Even if the lawsuit gets thrown out, or is lost, it shed the light on the issue. That could open the door for a class action suit.

I would watch this one closely. It's going to set the tone for future lawsuits of this nature.

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 7:07 pm on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

The only real argument I see the customer having in this case is that they were unaware when they signed up for the service that P2P ports would be blocked.

Ignorance is never a defense - just ask everyone booted from AdSense because they did something they didn't know was against the TOS!

Besides, you're right about switching services as they can get broadband from the DISH network, DSL, whatever if they don't like Comcast's rules.

OOOPS! Guess not, the DISH network has the same exclusions...

The Service is for personal and non-commercial use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on a non-EchoStar local area network or wide area network;

[my.dishmail.net...]

digitalghost

WebmasterWorld Senior Member digitalghost us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 7:22 pm on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>Comcast is a business, not a democracy

To add just a bit to that point, America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. ;)

The EFF also outlines nicely how it believes Comcast "interferes" with user traffic and compares it to techniques used by Internet censors in China.

Does anyone think that statement is deliberately inflammatory?

If Jon Hart wants more bandwidth, he's free look for services anywhere he likes. He can get his own full T1. He just has to pay for it.

>>The EFF also outlines nicely how it believes Comcast "interferes" with user traffic

Change 'interfere' to 'manages' and I think the picture is much more accurate.

PowerUp

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 12:30 am on Nov 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

My internet service provider is not ComCast. But I just wanted to air my grouses because......

my internet service provider advertises that the package I am subscribing to... as unlimited access, but they limit my bittorrent download.

digitalghost

WebmasterWorld Senior Member digitalghost us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 12:33 am on Nov 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>as unlimited access, but they limit my bittorrent download.

The first thing that comes to mind for me is that 'unlimited access' does not equate to 'unlimited bandwidth'.

PowerUp

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 1:13 am on Nov 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

The first thing that comes to mind for me is that 'unlimited access' does not equate to 'unlimited bandwidth'.

lets say my package bandwidth is 100Kb/sec.
they would limit my download to maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of my bandwidth.

spikey

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 7:04 am on Nov 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

It won't be long before p2p clients will allow you to run over port 80, 443, whatever. They'll encrypt the data and ISPs won't be able to "manage" traffic.

If p2ps are servers then IM and a myriad of other software are servers. It has little to do with whether it's a server or even whether or not it's legal (you can download copywrited stuff off a web page any day). It's because they want to advertise high speeds but then not provide the infrastructure to support them.

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 8:59 am on Nov 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

It won't be long before p2p clients will allow you to run over port 80, 443, whatever. They'll encrypt the data and ISPs won't be able to "manage" traffic.

With packet filtering, it doesn't matter what port you're using, it's the content of the initial packet that can be stopped.

That's why SMTP can be easily blocked no matter what port it uses.

Thanks for playing.

[edited by: lawman at 10:59 am (utc) on Nov. 18, 2007]

AhmedF

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 6:36 pm on Nov 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Bitorrent, that is those typically used to trade stolen and pirated software, movies, songs and the like

Yay for broad sweeping statements.

ytswy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 8:42 pm on Nov 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

In the UK there are at least two major 100% legitimate content providers that use a bittorrentesk type of distribution - the BBC with iPlayer and Channel 4 with 4OD - they both use a POS bit of almost-malware called Kontiki to distribute their content.

Service caps tend to be hidden deep in the small print - which was fine in the days when users signing up for "unlimited packages" either didn't take advantage of it or were using bittorrent to pirate stuff. That really isn't the case anymore - your granny could get traffic shaped for watching Antiques Roadshow.

As I see it it is a case of broadband providers making promises they never thought they would have to keep, and content providers trying to push the cost of distribution onto the user. Something has to give since someone has to pay for the bandwidth - sensibly this should be the end user, but broadband providers need to be more honest with their adverts before the market can be expected to work this out.

spikey

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 10:10 pm on Nov 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

it's the content of the initial packet that can be stopped

That's why you encrypt it.

Demaestro

WebmasterWorld Senior Member demaestro us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 10:22 pm on Nov 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

incrediBILL...

While that is all stated in the TOS I think it is a stretch to assume that:

1) If one is downloading something from a peer to peer network that they are in turn "hosting" anything. (Fact, you can make it so you don't share the file back and only download it for yourself.)

and

2) That uploading something over the Internet is considered "hosting a network" (Fact, most any IM tool allows for you to share a file and upload it to someone. I wouldn't put that into the category of "hosting a network" either) I don't think the tactic they are using considers that and so really isn't an excuse.

I do get what you are saying, but you are making a blanket assumption that anyone who gets a file in turn hosts it.

To define the action of......

downloading a file once and maybe uploaded it back once

.... as "hosting a network" is a HUGE stretch. Maybe you could call it contributing to a network but hosting it? No...

By the same token having a 10 person chat on MSN messenger and sending a file out to all in the chat would be against the TOS and could be called "hosting a network" we all know that it isn't though.

Also it hasn't been said but the tone of many is that anyone using these services are just a bunch of pirates... that isn't the case though. There are many legitimate files available for download on P2P.

[edited by: Demaestro at 10:32 pm (utc) on Nov. 26, 2007]

balam

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 4:01 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

> Also it hasn't been said but the tone of many is that anyone using these services are just a bunch of pirates...

I really don't know if this helps or hurts the above statement, but..... ;)

I've heard that Bittorrent is the P2P network of choice for lawyers to exchange documents. This is usually mentioned in passing in articles about Comcast. (I'd like a firmer reference, if anyone has one.)

simpsojo

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3506129 posted 2:50 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

I know that Bit torrent P2P sites have legitimate uses like mentioned earlier World of Warcraft uses it for software updates and I'm sure there are many others, What I don't understand is that if it is in the user agreement that it is not a right of the customer to use these services then why is Comcast so persistent with dogging the allegations why not just come out and say that they are using Sandvine to prevent users from running these applications on their network.
I am also of the assumption that if you have a service and people are using that service to its potential or more and it needs to grow due to demand (faster equipment ect.)that is just good business. What is not good business is to say this is all you can have and to prevent you from getting any more we will start cutting you back though you will pay the same as always.

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved