This article is an awful example of the good work that goes into this site. Please read up on net neutrality and what it really its supposed to do. Fast lanes doesn't mean everyone else will be slowed down by any means. What most of the cable providers are trying to agree on is creating a lane for regular traffic and allow companies to purchase access to a fast lane. This will only really impact video streaming sites like netflix, youtube etc...
Please Appleinsider get your facts straight and do some real research. Here is a link to something worth listening to
Eventually people are going to have to realize that they only reason that these telecom companies are as big as they are is because state and local governments gave them artificially created monopolies.
There would be actual competition between the "wired" providers if it wasn't for the government's meddling the begin with. Government trying to fix a problem that they created is never good for anyone.
So if pro-self-interest is always aligned with what you think it does, then why do we have corporations doing things that you do not like?
It is in all non-comcast employee's interest to demand they provide government employees and everyone else with free internet, but everyone know that such a notion is stupid. Just because you do not realize how overly burdensome government regulations can be does not mean they do not exist.
The government isn't trying to be in control of internet content and distribution, they are trying to stop private companies abusing the control they have over it. It would be like if a newspaper had coupons in it and a newspaper company prioritized the supply of papers to more affluent households or households of a certain race and the government stepped in and said they couldn't prioritize their distribution that way.
The newspaper analogy is ridiculous. Last time I checked newspapers try to sell as many papers as they can. They aren't in a business where they discriminate in order to propagate some ridiculous fashionable high-end image of them selves. MONEY DOESN'T CARE WHO SPENDS IT. Just like corporations don't care who pays it. Get real.
Quote:
That's the kind of thing that happens with transport and everyone is taxed as it's seen an essential service. The government can just charge a tax for installing and maintaining the best cabling and keeping it up to standard and private companies can lease the lines to lower the tax. That way there's minimal digging up of roads and a high quality of connection gets installed regardless of the profitability to the companies installing it. It also means that multiple companies can compete in areas where they couldn't before from small to large.
You cannot really believe that the government would "lease" public infrastructure to multiple private companies. I hope you realize that we aren't talking about frequencies here. How many power companies does the government allow you to choose from? How many private roadways or bridges do you know of? Your artificially creating a "middle-man" that will cause prices to be higher and subsequently cause you to complain when you can't afford your internet bill.
Once this is a Utility, the government can regulate and tax to no end!!
See how Obama (and all of government really) tries to make it sound like something really good, while feeding us poison?
This is only the latest Gruber of a lie to come out of this administration!!
I don't know why you would trust the cable companies who push for more power now that they have consolidated so many of the regional providers. Anyway is there anything specific that spurned this alarmist attitude and justified the use of excessive punctuation?
No end? OMG, that means millions, billions, trillions of dollars per person just like they've done to the water supplies, electric grid and waste disposal systems. Shut them all off and hide in the cupboard, they won't get you in there.
The government employs over 20 million people who also happen to rely on those services. Any harm they do to others in these matters, they do to themselves.
Doesn't it make sense that people who are pro-self-interest and anti-corporatist-government should vote for their own self-interest and against corporations rather than the other way round?
In what way would anyone benefit from not having net neutrality; how is it better as a consumer to not have that?
That "twenty million" figure cited by you employed by our government should give any taxpayer white knuckles. On top of that, Obamacare, more wars this administration is getting us mired in, and so on...it never ends until the money runs out, does it?
My understanding is that that isn't what net neutrality is opposed to ( at least here in Europe). Neutrality is about where the content comes from, not what it is. If the ISP throttles all streams between 6pm-8pm so be it. If they throttle NetFlix or Apple TV streaming and benefit their own solution that's a big problem.
Ummm... nope. President Obama's second point specifically calls out "throttling," saying that there can be no throttling based on type of service:
Quote:
No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
So, an ISP can't "speed up" interactive video at the expense of a file download. All packets have to be treated the same. There's a word for that: poor engineering. And political meddling in technical details.
Eventually people are going to have to realize that they only reason that these telecom companies are as big as they are is because state and local governments gave them artificially created monopolies.
Explain specifically what the government did and when and how that prevented competition.
The newspaper analogy is ridiculous. Last time I checked newspapers try to sell as many papers as they can. They aren't in a business where they discriminate in order to propagate some ridiculous fashionable high-end image of them selves. MONEY DOESN'T CARE WHO SPENDS IT. Just like corporations don't care who pays it. Get real.
It's not just about image in that scenario. If they prioritize an affluent userbase then they can get better returns on their advertising, which generates more interest and profit from advertisers. This is what targeted advertising is all about. With internet distribution, it is about population density:
As the article points out, it makes certain areas less competitive because the telecom companies' drive for their own profitability comes at the expense of the interests of people trying to compete with their own businesses online. It stunts growth in areas by their location.
You cannot really believe that the government would "lease" public infrastructure to multiple private companies. I hope you realize that we aren't talking about frequencies here. How many power companies does the government allow you to choose from? How many private roadways or bridges do you know of? Your artificially creating a "middle-man" that will cause prices to be higher and subsequently cause you to complain when you can't afford your internet bill.
There's the notion again of not being able to afford things. This is the same fear-mongering that goes on with everything that is made public. When has anything made public ever become unaffordable? The whole point of making things that way is specifically to ensure everyone can afford them and everyone has access to them - libraries, parks, museums and so on. Electric, water, waste companies all share a common infrastructure and it's not the case that people can't afford them, it's the opposite. It's when you make everything private that people can't afford things because the companies try to make the most profit that the buyers will let them get away with. There are also cases where the provision of what you're paying for is less profitable for the company like healthcare and insurance - the companies profit more by denying you the service.
If people paid their taxes, the money wouldn't run out. You see how you create a self-fulfilling prophecy? Public healthcare will fail, we'll make it fail and then you'll see how it failed.
Net neutrality will fail, we'll hold back on infrastructure investment and then it will fail all by itself.
So, an ISP can't "speed up" interactive video at the expense of a file download. All packets have to be treated the same. There's a word for that: poor engineering.
I agree with this to an extent but would it be right that you pay for a 50Mbps connection and your connection drops to 500Kbps because you start a download when everyone else is trying to stream video?
ISPs are engaged in throttling and people have seen at least an order of magnitude drop in speed:
Some actually do it a sneaky way in that they freeze up http traffic when they detect file sharing. The outcome this has is that on a shared connection, everyone's internet locks up when someone is downloading (even if they don't use all available bandwidth as they lock based on protocol) so the downloader gets the blame for freezing the connection. As soon as they stop downloading, it goes back to normal. It's quite a smart way to do it because the ISP doesn't get the blame and it helps stop file sharing.
I think that interactive services like VOD streaming, http protocol should get a higher priority than downloads but I don't think that ISPs should be allowed to determine the ratios between them. There should be classes of data by type and multiple services in the same class should get the same priority. This would mean a file download could be throttled vs a streaming video but Netflix can't be throttled in favor of a service provider's own video streaming service and there should be an acceptable ratio between the data classes e.g downloads can only be throttled to 1/3 of streaming. But even this could be anti-competitive between iTunes downloads and Netflix if they aren't put in the same data class.
^^^ I'm not going to quote that entire post to reply.
Marvin, where in the US Constitution does it explicitly state that the states signed on to have the Federal government provide cradle-to-grave care for US citizens?
where in the US Constitution does it explicitly state that the states signed on to have the Federal government provide cradle-to-grave care for US citizens?
First paragraph:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If you promote a system that denies the provision of general welfare (as private health insurance does on a regular basis because it is contrary to the profitability of the company) then you are against the constitution. It never says put corporate profits ahead of the interests of the people.
It actually covers net neutrality too:
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
Different data protocols use different ports so ISPs can't regulate commerce or revenue based on ports. Isn't it amazing how ancient texts cover scenarios that never existed when they wrote them.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If you promote a system that denies the provision of general welfare (as private health insurance does on a regular basis because it is contrary to the profitability of the company) then you are against the constitution. It never says put corporate profits ahead of the interests of the people.
It actually covers net neutrality too:
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
Different data protocols use different ports so ISPs can't regulate commerce or revenue based on ports. Isn't it amazing how ancient texts cover scenarios that never existed when they wrote them.
Your interpretation is clearly at odds with that of the Supreme Court:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.""
Your interpretation is clearly at odds with that of the Supreme Court:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.""
So, you're simply making stuff up to fit your preconceived worldview.
Don't we all:
[VIDEO]
Even the people who wrote their own regulations throughout history did so according to their own worldview. Why treat the opinions of people who lived a long time ago with any higher regard than people who live now? It's because they are now unaccountable for what they said and what they said is unquestionable. Some of these people were slave owners, they lived before electricity, medical advances, electronic communications, computers, advances in transport, aviation. If someone from a remote area of the world with a similar lack of this experience came to write up some laws, their input would be dismissed immediately.
The reason people go back to primitive documents is because the omission of things they never knew about is compatible with the suppression of modern social change. Sexuality was never mentioned in the constitution so it doesn't have to be dealt with. No mention of healthcare. Gee, could that be because their idea of healthcare was sticking a bug on you until you either got better or died.
Documents that existed a long time ago are fine to act as a template for decisions that are made today just like the social structures were templates for the ones we have now. People change over time and so should the regulations needed to govern them.
Even the people who wrote their own regulations throughout history did so according to their own worldview. Why treat the opinions of people who lived a long time ago with any higher regard than people who live now? It's because they are now unaccountable for what they said and what they said is unquestionable. Some of these people were slave owners, they lived before electricity, medical advances, electronic communications, computers, advances in transport, aviation. If someone from a remote area of the world with a similar lack of this experience came to write up some laws, their input would be dismissed immediately.
The reason people go back to primitive documents is because the omission of things they never knew about is compatible with the suppression of modern social change. Sexuality was never mentioned in the constitution so it doesn't have to be dealt with. No mention of healthcare. Gee, could that be because their idea of healthcare was sticking a bug on you until you either got better or died.
Documents that existed a long time ago are fine to act as a template for decisions that are made today just like the social structures were templates for the ones we have now. People change over time and so should the regulations needed to govern them.
Laws are the supposed glue of society (such as it is). If you don't like the laws, you try to get them changed or break or ignore them at your own risk. It's a good thing the Constitution is so difficult to change, because of solid historical reasons. I hope you're not receiving all of your advice from Family Guy.
Also, you sidestepped the fact that you were completely wrong about the General Welfare clause by (paradoxically) blaming "everyone". Just sayin'.
People change over time and so should the regulations needed to govern them.
The mental workings of the average person have, quite honestly, not changed since at least the time of the Roman Republic. What was true then is true now. Or maybe truth is subjective?
The mental workings of the average person have, quite honestly, not changed since at least the time of the Roman Republic. What was true then is true now. Or maybe truth is subjective?
Until the individual becomes technologically absorbed into a Borg-like collective and individual thought is impossible, humans will be the same for the duration of humankind...and every generation will imagine they are the first to discover anything.
No end? OMG, that means millions, billions, trillions of dollars per person just like they've done to the water supplies, electric grid and waste disposal systems. Shut them all off and hide in the cupboard, they won't get you in there.
The government employs over 20 million people who also happen to rely on those services. Any harm they do to others in these matters, they do to themselves.
Doesn't it make sense that people who are pro-self-interest and anti-corporatist-government should vote for their own self-interest and against corporations rather than the other way round?
In what way would anyone benefit from not having net neutrality; how is it better as a consumer to not have that?
Stop being ridiculous!!
Enabling free competition is always best.
Government first allows the creation of this crony capitalism, then wants to help fix it. REALLY?
If there was actual free competition, you would see much better pricing, content, service.
You have this as an example in home/auto insurance, retail products, and local services all trying to be better, cheaper then the many other offerings competing for your dollars.
When you have utilities which don't have to complete as the free market does*, then you get higher prices for worse service and products.
*having a grey market for electricity is hardly competition with all the regs against them.
I do agree some of this is how their products are offered. There can only be so many water/electric lines and so many wanting to invest in large cable networks. However, I would bet that when you peal back the layers, there is more anti-competition than not.
I don't know why you would trust the cable companies who push for more power now that they have consolidated so many of the regional providers. Anyway is there anything specific that spurned this alarmist attitude and justified the use of excessive punctuation?
LOL I don't trust them either, but if pressed, yes, more than any government!!!!
Comments
Please Appleinsider get your facts straight and do some real research. Here is a link to something worth listening to
Eventually people are going to have to realize that they only reason that these telecom companies are as big as they are is because state and local governments gave them artificially created monopolies.
There would be actual competition between the "wired" providers if it wasn't for the government's meddling the begin with. Government trying to fix a problem that they created is never good for anyone.
So if pro-self-interest is always aligned with what you think it does, then why do we have corporations doing things that you do not like?
It is in all non-comcast employee's interest to demand they provide government employees and everyone else with free internet, but everyone know that such a notion is stupid. Just because you do not realize how overly burdensome government regulations can be does not mean they do not exist.
Once this is a Utility, the government can regulate and tax to no end!!
See how Obama (and all of government really) tries to make it sound like something really good, while feeding us poison?
Guys, you really do need to get a grip on reality. You aren't there yet.
1. the government can regulate and tax however it wants. No "utility" designation needed
2. if you think that all government is bad, then read this American's description of his experience in France.
http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me-americans-are-suckers-who-have-themselves-to-blame-for-crappy-broadband/
3. if you think that AT&T and Verizon have your best interests at heart, it's reality-check time
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/NY-AG-Slams-Verizon-For-Killing-DSL-POTS-124888
The newspaper analogy is ridiculous. Last time I checked newspapers try to sell as many papers as they can. They aren't in a business where they discriminate in order to propagate some ridiculous fashionable high-end image of them selves. MONEY DOESN'T CARE WHO SPENDS IT. Just like corporations don't care who pays it. Get real.
You cannot really believe that the government would "lease" public infrastructure to multiple private companies. I hope you realize that we aren't talking about frequencies here. How many power companies does the government allow you to choose from? How many private roadways or bridges do you know of? Your artificially creating a "middle-man" that will cause prices to be higher and subsequently cause you to complain when you can't afford your internet bill.
Guys, you really do need to get a grip on reality. You aren't there yet.
1. the government can regulate and tax however it wants. No "utility" designation needed
Not even the General Welfare Clause permits government to "regulate and tax however it wants." Pick up a book.
Once this is a Utility, the government can regulate and tax to no end!!
See how Obama (and all of government really) tries to make it sound like something really good, while feeding us poison?
This is only the latest Gruber of a lie to come out of this administration!!
I don't know why you would trust the cable companies who push for more power now that they have consolidated so many of the regional providers. Anyway is there anything specific that spurned this alarmist attitude and justified the use of excessive punctuation?
That "twenty million" figure cited by you employed by our government should give any taxpayer white knuckles. On top of that, Obamacare, more wars this administration is getting us mired in, and so on...it never ends until the money runs out, does it?
My understanding is that that isn't what net neutrality is opposed to ( at least here in Europe). Neutrality is about where the content comes from, not what it is. If the ISP throttles all streams between 6pm-8pm so be it. If they throttle NetFlix or Apple TV streaming and benefit their own solution that's a big problem.
Ummm... nope. President Obama's second point specifically calls out "throttling," saying that there can be no throttling based on type of service:
So, an ISP can't "speed up" interactive video at the expense of a file download. All packets have to be treated the same. There's a word for that: poor engineering. And political meddling in technical details.
Dear,hope you alrea?y foun? the one you were lookîng for. Îf you are stîll sîngle, we hîghly recommen? you to try thîs top prîvate ?atîng sîte ?? ?îllîonaîreDatîngUs. ?/Ó/? ?? . Ît's only for attractîve an? wealthy sîngles. Ît's the best an? most effectîve sîte în the worl? to connect wîth, ?ate, an? marry successful an? attractîve people.
Explain specifically what the government did and when and how that prevented competition.
They do what's in their self-interest (profits, shareholders, growth).
It's not just about image in that scenario. If they prioritize an affluent userbase then they can get better returns on their advertising, which generates more interest and profit from advertisers. This is what targeted advertising is all about. With internet distribution, it is about population density:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/25ctcol.html?_r=0
As the article points out, it makes certain areas less competitive because the telecom companies' drive for their own profitability comes at the expense of the interests of people trying to compete with their own businesses online. It stunts growth in areas by their location.
There's the notion again of not being able to afford things. This is the same fear-mongering that goes on with everything that is made public. When has anything made public ever become unaffordable? The whole point of making things that way is specifically to ensure everyone can afford them and everyone has access to them - libraries, parks, museums and so on. Electric, water, waste companies all share a common infrastructure and it's not the case that people can't afford them, it's the opposite. It's when you make everything private that people can't afford things because the companies try to make the most profit that the buyers will let them get away with. There are also cases where the provision of what you're paying for is less profitable for the company like healthcare and insurance - the companies profit more by denying you the service.
If people paid their taxes, the money wouldn't run out. You see how you create a self-fulfilling prophecy? Public healthcare will fail, we'll make it fail and then you'll see how it failed.
Net neutrality will fail, we'll hold back on infrastructure investment and then it will fail all by itself.
I agree with this to an extent but would it be right that you pay for a 50Mbps connection and your connection drops to 500Kbps because you start a download when everyone else is trying to stream video?
ISPs are engaged in throttling and people have seen at least an order of magnitude drop in speed:
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/does-your-isp-throttle-bittorrent-traffic-find-out/
Some actually do it a sneaky way in that they freeze up http traffic when they detect file sharing. The outcome this has is that on a shared connection, everyone's internet locks up when someone is downloading (even if they don't use all available bandwidth as they lock based on protocol) so the downloader gets the blame for freezing the connection. As soon as they stop downloading, it goes back to normal. It's quite a smart way to do it because the ISP doesn't get the blame and it helps stop file sharing.
I think that interactive services like VOD streaming, http protocol should get a higher priority than downloads but I don't think that ISPs should be allowed to determine the ratios between them. There should be classes of data by type and multiple services in the same class should get the same priority. This would mean a file download could be throttled vs a streaming video but Netflix can't be throttled in favor of a service provider's own video streaming service and there should be an acceptable ratio between the data classes e.g downloads can only be throttled to 1/3 of streaming. But even this could be anti-competitive between iTunes downloads and Netflix if they aren't put in the same data class.
Marvin, where in the US Constitution does it explicitly state that the states signed on to have the Federal government provide cradle-to-grave care for US citizens?
First paragraph:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If you promote a system that denies the provision of general welfare (as private health insurance does on a regular basis because it is contrary to the profitability of the company) then you are against the constitution. It never says put corporate profits ahead of the interests of the people.
It actually covers net neutrality too:
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
Different data protocols use different ports so ISPs can't regulate commerce or revenue based on ports. Isn't it amazing how ancient texts cover scenarios that never existed when they wrote them.
Your interpretation is clearly at odds with that of the Supreme Court:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.""
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
So, you're simply making stuff up to fit your preconceived worldview.
Don't we all:
[VIDEO]
Even the people who wrote their own regulations throughout history did so according to their own worldview. Why treat the opinions of people who lived a long time ago with any higher regard than people who live now? It's because they are now unaccountable for what they said and what they said is unquestionable. Some of these people were slave owners, they lived before electricity, medical advances, electronic communications, computers, advances in transport, aviation. If someone from a remote area of the world with a similar lack of this experience came to write up some laws, their input would be dismissed immediately.
The reason people go back to primitive documents is because the omission of things they never knew about is compatible with the suppression of modern social change. Sexuality was never mentioned in the constitution so it doesn't have to be dealt with. No mention of healthcare. Gee, could that be because their idea of healthcare was sticking a bug on you until you either got better or died.
Documents that existed a long time ago are fine to act as a template for decisions that are made today just like the social structures were templates for the ones we have now. People change over time and so should the regulations needed to govern them.
Don't we all:
Even the people who wrote their own regulations throughout history did so according to their own worldview. Why treat the opinions of people who lived a long time ago with any higher regard than people who live now? It's because they are now unaccountable for what they said and what they said is unquestionable. Some of these people were slave owners, they lived before electricity, medical advances, electronic communications, computers, advances in transport, aviation. If someone from a remote area of the world with a similar lack of this experience came to write up some laws, their input would be dismissed immediately.
The reason people go back to primitive documents is because the omission of things they never knew about is compatible with the suppression of modern social change. Sexuality was never mentioned in the constitution so it doesn't have to be dealt with. No mention of healthcare. Gee, could that be because their idea of healthcare was sticking a bug on you until you either got better or died.
Documents that existed a long time ago are fine to act as a template for decisions that are made today just like the social structures were templates for the ones we have now. People change over time and so should the regulations needed to govern them.
Laws are the supposed glue of society (such as it is). If you don't like the laws, you try to get them changed or break or ignore them at your own risk. It's a good thing the Constitution is so difficult to change, because of solid historical reasons. I hope you're not receiving all of your advice from Family Guy.
Also, you sidestepped the fact that you were completely wrong about the General Welfare clause by (paradoxically) blaming "everyone". Just sayin'.
The mental workings of the average person have, quite honestly, not changed since at least the time of the Roman Republic. What was true then is true now. Or maybe truth is subjective?
The mental workings of the average person have, quite honestly, not changed since at least the time of the Roman Republic. What was true then is true now. Or maybe truth is subjective?
Until the individual becomes technologically absorbed into a Borg-like collective and individual thought is impossible, humans will be the same for the duration of humankind...and every generation will imagine they are the first to discover anything.
No end? OMG, that means millions, billions, trillions of dollars per person just like they've done to the water supplies, electric grid and waste disposal systems. Shut them all off and hide in the cupboard, they won't get you in there.
The government employs over 20 million people who also happen to rely on those services. Any harm they do to others in these matters, they do to themselves.
Doesn't it make sense that people who are pro-self-interest and anti-corporatist-government should vote for their own self-interest and against corporations rather than the other way round?
In what way would anyone benefit from not having net neutrality; how is it better as a consumer to not have that?
Stop being ridiculous!!
Enabling free competition is always best.
Government first allows the creation of this crony capitalism, then wants to help fix it. REALLY?
If there was actual free competition, you would see much better pricing, content, service.
You have this as an example in home/auto insurance, retail products, and local services all trying to be better, cheaper then the many other offerings competing for your dollars.
When you have utilities which don't have to complete as the free market does*, then you get higher prices for worse service and products.
*having a grey market for electricity is hardly competition with all the regs against them.
I do agree some of this is how their products are offered. There can only be so many water/electric lines and so many wanting to invest in large cable networks. However, I would bet that when you peal back the layers, there is more anti-competition than not.
I don't know why you would trust the cable companies who push for more power now that they have consolidated so many of the regional providers. Anyway is there anything specific that spurned this alarmist attitude and justified the use of excessive punctuation?
LOL I don't trust them either, but if pressed, yes, more than any government!!!!
I trust FREE COMPETITION!!