Vonage Fights Minnesota's Attempts To Regulate VoIP 200
rmccoy writes "Vonage said Thursday it intends to fight the first-ever decision by a U.S. state to regulate companies that provide Internet-based phone services. Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission unanimously decided two weeks ago that the New Jersey-based voice over IP (VoIP) provider is subject to the rules and regulations that cover traditional phone companies."
I'd think this would be a federal matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd think this would be a federal matter (Score:4, Informative)
Fight this hard! (Score:2)
Isn't it awesome (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate american "capitalism". (If for some reason you want to call it that)
Corporate Communism??? (Score:3, Interesting)
I prefer to think of the the economic policies of the American Government (which Americans in our not so great wisdom have elected) as Corporate Communism, for lack of a better terminology. I don't think when government does so much to protect Big Business at the expense of all other of societies economic entiites, that capitalism really applies t
Fair enough, no? (Score:3, Insightful)
So... either they should have to follow regulations like any other phone company..... OR... the phone companies should be released from their regulatory obligations, at least with respect to the voip providers, so they can operate on equal footing.
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
The state shouldn't be regulating this.
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:3, Insightful)
So I was wrong, the state isn't off base here. Vonage is just using that fact that it's not analog to avoid regulations. (and some 911 fees)
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:2)
I'd estimate that the overall government take in the US is ~="A LOT".
Gray Davis's hair would only get greyer if California's revenue due to long distance charges vanished in an abstract puff of packets.
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:2)
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:2, Insightful)
Regulation has sure done a lot of good for the regular phone companies eh?
VoIP is a chance to get around the stifling regulations that have turned telephone service into a form of corporate welfare for campaign contributors, and to create a market that will serve the consumer again.
Of course the regulators are going to try and screw it up.
Nope. Software Service != Local Copper Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
So... either they should have to follow regulations like any other phone company..... OR... the phone companies should be released from their regulatory obligations, at least with respect to the voip providers, so they can operate on equal footing.
You ignore a fundamental difference. Local telcos own a monopoly over the local copper cable running to people's homes. As a monopoly they must be regulated, nationalized into a public works, or we are left with a monopoly market running amock (remember, monopoly markets are the least effecient
There is a huge difference between a company that essentially offers a software (or firmware) service over the internet that happens to transmit and receive electrically encoded voice data, and one which owns the local DSLAMS, the local copper running into your home, and can leverage that local infrastructure monopoly in an anticompetative manner if they are not regulated.
The idea that the regulations designed to hold a local telco monopoly in check should apply to a competely unrelated business that provides what is essentially a software service via an entirely different infrastructure (one that entails no monopoly, at that) is ludricous.
One hopes the law is written such that (a) this is a federal, not a state matter and (b) such that telco's are targeted, and broader software services are not.
Otherwise you'll see AIM, MSN Messenger, Jabber, and other services targeted the moment they can provide audio and video conferencing, and seamless communication with old POTS phones.
And that would really chill innovation, as much as any Microsoft monopoly could ever dream of.
Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
Grandparent uses the ol' slippery slope argument w/ regards to AIM and other chat services, but they shouldn't be affected, nor should long distance.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and think before ranting about "Your Rights Online."
Re:Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
No, not fair enough (Score:4, Interesting)
It is rediculous to assume that because the service VoIP companies provide to consumers is similar to the service phone companies provide to consumers, the same regulations will work to govern them. In fact, why should VoIP be subject to regulation at all? The only reason I can think of is: if it is not regulated, it has the potential to destroy the market for traditional switched land-line service. But the question we should be asking is, is that a bad thing? Shouldn't we be moving toward a model where phone companies transform into bandwidth providers and voice communication service is provided over the same connection as everything else?
Re:No, not fair enough (Score:2, Interesting)
That is what John Dvorak thinks should happen.. I would think it would relieve the phone companies of a lot of headaches...see this PCMag article [pcmag.com] for his take on this matter...
All I am saying (Score:1)
I'm not suggesting regulating vonage at all.. I'm suggesting that on some level what vonage is offering is the same as what the telco is offering, and therefore, they should fall under the same regulation with regards to that particular service.. and that very well may mean no regulation.. ie: let the traditional telco be flexible with it's local o
Re:All I am saying (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem is that the phone companies are actually offering two things: the physical network infrastructure, and phone service. The regulations for both are intertwined since they have historically been equivalent, but now one can be offered without the other. Minnesota is trying to apply their combined regulations to a company that is only offering the phone service, and that is just dumb. So we agree that Minnesota's decision is dumb. What is really needed is for separate regulations to apply for phone service and network providers. Traditional phone companies should be subject to both, and Vonage should be subject only to the phone service ones. Also, we agree that existing phone service regulations are probably impractical in a world where phone service is provided over the Internet and they probably need changing (perhaps to the point of abolishing them entirely).
Re:All I am saying (Score:2)
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just the opposite. It's about data, and it's none of the state's business what my data is or what protocol I wrap it in. If they can regulate VoIP data then they could also regulate you capturing a wave file of your voice and sending it by FTP or as e-mail to a friend. And if they can do that then they might as well stick their fingers into everything you send or even everything you do with your computer.
That's John Ashcroft and Homeland Security and Echelon's job, to snoop into every single corner of your life, not the state government's.
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:2)
Just as with traditional telcos, the state should have a right to ensure that your VoIP provider has a reliable network for connecting you to 911. Either that, or the service should not be allowed to be advertised as a direct competitor to your traditional local telco. Actually, it should have to advertise in big bold letters "911 service not guaranteed. Use at your own risk."
If no
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:2)
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:2)
I agree with you on that point. However, in order for vonage to work, they have to interface to the public telephone network. At that point, IMHO, they become a phone company like all the others and subject to the same conditions (both in terms of privilages and in terms of regulations) faced by the traditional phone companies with whom they compete.
I don't think so. (Score:2)
The federal government shouldn't get involved in this. If they do, they better regulate IM, email, and other comms methods.
Regulation to VoIP is foolish... they'd better start with MSN and AOL's IM clients then before attacking someone else.
This seems fair (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This seems fair (Score:2)
They should not regulate VoIP anymore than they regulate in-house phone systems. This is rediculous and an insane attempt for governments to squeeze more money out of our citizens (YES CITIZENS!!) in ANY economy, but especially ours.
We have the internet that should be left alone, and as it has been for years.
This is pathetic.
Not quite the same (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, phone companies are supposed to track where phone calls originate (for 911 dispatchers, for example). That's not going to be possible with VoIP.
There should certainly be some sort of regulations, but simply saying "it's phone service, the same rules apply" is dumb.
Re:Not quite the same (Score:3, Informative)
you sir are wrong.. In fact Vonage offers a 911 service when you sign up these days.
This will probably happen in more states as well they are offering home service. Eventually long-haul carriers like ITXC & IBAS will have to face these problems as well.
Re:Not quite the same (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not quite the same (Score:5, Informative)
Note that this is tampering with phone company equipment which I believe is considered a felony, but that doesn't change the fact that unless a phone company rep goes to that bridge and finds the wires attached, they don't know where the call came from.
Additionally the dial tone that that line carries may be on bridge tap for a line that is not even in the neighborhood you live on. So knowing that the call originated on phone line 218-555-1111 does not tell you that the call originated at the billing address for that line. It tells you that it probably came from that address. Fortunately we do not have that many people stealing phone service.
The way that 911 works, regardless of whether it is provided by a VoIP provider or the phone company, is that the phone number and service address are forwarded to the 911 operator by the appropriate service provider.
-Rusty
p.s. Yes I have worked for the phone company, though I do not do so now. I also happen to use Vonage and live in the state of Minnesota, so I very possibly will be affected.
Re:Not quite the same (Score:2)
Someone stealing service by tapping into your phone line off some bridge tap elsewhere in your telco provider area, who then dials 911 will be reported as your address, even though he or she
Re:Not quite the same (Score:2)
I don't follow your logic here. Even if that's true today (though another poster disputed that), it's not like the technology isn't there.
Sucks... (Score:5, Informative)
I have a feeling that many of the things that make this service cool could be affected by this.
Like:
- Being able to have a number in any area code regardless of where you live
- Being able to plug your phone into any broadband line anywhere and have the same number you have at home.
Those are key and I can see them being screwed by this type of regulation.
Re:Sucks... (Score:2)
Re:Sucks... (Score:2)
This is precisely why treating a VOIP line like a phone line won't work. Telephones are on their own independent circuit and so have advantages for emergencies. VOIP is no more regulatable for telecommunications than SPAM is.
Some people just don't have a clue.
-Ben
I hope they win. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the government starts getting their fingers in this business that is doing just fine competitively, you can bet that I'll start to see loads of fees and taxes being added onto my bill, turning my $27.00 monthly bill into something more like $40.00. And for what benefits? None.
Go Vonage.
Shameless refer-a-friend link to Vonage [vonage.com]
Re:I hope they win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there are benefits, at least for some of it. We need to pay somehow for 911 service, service for schools, libraries, hospitals, the deaf. (I won't attempt to defend the massive subsidies for service to people who choose to live in the boondocks, including the entire population of the State of Alaska, or the replacement profits to compensate local telcos for the loss of the LD gravy.) The problem is, those things should just be paid for out of general revenues (income taxes, etc.). But politicians who pander to the "get rid of taxes" yahoos look for ways to hide the taxes somewhere else, and this is what we get. (No disrespect for Yahoo!, Inc. intended, but they knew the word meant "boorish, crass, or stupid person" when they adopted it as their corporate name.)
Re:I hope they win. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not good.
peter
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2, Interesting)
And where do you thing the giant ag processing companies get the actual crops from? Dispite the dramatic increase in farm size, and the decline in the number of farmers (as more technology is used to farm larger acerages with fewer farmers) Most farms even most of the "corporate farms" are family owned small businesses. Many states have "anti-corporate" farm laws that prohi
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2)
So you're saying that, because they grow our food, they deserve subsidized phone service? You gotta be fucking kidding.
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2)
The POTS line is dying. The amount of time it takes depends on the how much of your money and length of time the government wants to put into the entrenched big guys to keep them going (like this law). The rules and regulations will get much worse for non last mile guys before it gets better.
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2)
Funny, I just rechecked my phone bill, and don't see charges for any of those things there.
Actually, as others have pointed out, the per-capita cost of roads (like phones) is far higher in rural areas. The economics are pretty simple, it costs the same to build a mile of road, but there's far fewer people. Everything's cheap
Re:Cost effectiveness (Score:2)
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2)
Are you willing to go without 911 and other services those taxes provide (without picking and choosing to suit only your desires)?
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2)
As SOON as vonage opens up in my area code (can't see giving my friends a LD number to call) I'm there.
I dont' mind paying reason
Re:I hope they win. (Score:4, Insightful)
Coming soon (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Coming soon (Score:2)
Re:Coming soon (Score:3, Funny)
... you should do everyone a favor and shoot yourself before you spread your |\/|/-\|) 4RT sKillZ any further.
Bass Ackwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, they're trying to treat VoIP as...a regular telephone. Charging them for the 911 setup? What? You want them to be a telecom and pay nebulous telecom fees, ok...why do these fees even exist? By the day I am feeling more and more lost in my own country. Or maybe it's just the world, no one seems to do it significantly better. on any kind of a regular basis.
This nation likes to call itself capitalist, but to me it just looks like a huge pile or regulation, largely designed to create monopolys but not really regulate them - combined with a ton of subsidies, kickbacks, whatever to already large buisiness interests that are also exceedingly anti-capitalist.
Ok to uh, keep on topic, this is ridiculous. VoIP is not the telephone. And why is this Minnesotas decision to make, shouldn't this be at a federal level? Seems like telephony has a pretty large interstate component.
VoIP is the telephone. (Score:4, Insightful)
What Vonage offers is a box that you plug a telephone into, get a real telephone number, and make real telephone calls to and from. It is no more or less a telephone than the telephone you use in your house hooked up to your phone company.. the only difference is the backhaul.
So.. rather than saying "Should vonage be regulated"... the question should be "What is different about Vonage that they should not be bound by the regulation the phone company is? Could the phone company start giving you a cisco VOIP box, a DSL line, and thereby avoid regulation? You bet they can't, cause they are the phone company.. why should Vonage be able to offer something the phone company cannot legally offer?
It's minnesota's decision to make because Vonage is offering phone service to Minnesotans.
Re:VoIP is the telephone. (Score:2)
They can't be. Look - they don't charge any extra for the goodies (like caller id, etc) that come with the line, and the bill doesn't have 150% of the advertised rate for you phone in taxes and misc fees hidden in with the taxes. They say $25.99 you get a bill for something pretty close to $25.99 - thus proving that they have NO relation to a phone company. Were they to be a phone company they would give you the price of $9.95/MO and send you a bill for $135.
Re:VoIP is the telephone. (Score:2)
Because the phone company, at least the local one here, is a monopoly. They OWN the right of way to my house. They have such a thing as right of way because, historically, when the phone companies first started up, there we
Double Dipping taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Double Dipping taxes (Score:2)
There was a time that these taxes applied once to the phone line. I noticed one day the bill went up a fuck of alot. AT&T was charging to put their bill on my phone bill, as well as the same taxes were being billed on both the local telco segment of the bill, as well as the AT&T long distance. On top of that, the same taxes apeared for each 1010xxx number, a series of 3 I used at the time. Needless to s
Re:Double Dipping taxes (Score:2)
That is the crux of the matter. States are going after this because they see easy money. With the decline of land-lines, they are possibly losing some tax revinue (consider that when you travel, do you pay taxes where you are physically located?).
I have a basic land line, no frills, no caller ID, no nothing, for which I pay $11 base rate and $16 in taxes and fees. I imagine that it is only a matter of time before cell phone taxes and fees achieve the same proportion to bas
Re:Double Dipping taxes (Score:2)
Yes, I happen to agree with you 100%. If they want to tax the line, then they should tax the landline. But they shouldn't apply the same tax for your landline as for your long distance service.
They should just pick one end and tax it. Either tax the physical line whether it be landline or broadband, or just tax the carrier. One or the other. I tend to prefer the physical line personaly as that would resolve the issue of being double taxed for just using a diffrent 1010x
Re:OT:Double Dipping taxes (your sig) (Score:2)
Re:Double Dipping taxes (Score:2)
Now imagine you have DSL and Vonage. Now you have two lines, so you pay the taxes twice. Makes sense to me.
If you have DSL but don't use the voice line, then maybe you are a sucker and should switch to cable.
Re:Double Dipping taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
In instances where a company is offering Internet based services that both compete and replace traditional services, it makes sense that such a service would be subject to the same regulatory control as the competition. In this specific case, if you replace your residential phone service with Vonage VoIP service, it seems both reasonable and a matter of public safety that a call made to 911 from your residential phone connect you to local emergency services. As a valuable community service, 911 is funded by fees charged to local phone companies. It seems unreasonable for Vonage to escape paying 911 and related fees that it's regulated competitors can't avoid paying.
Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission does not seem to be overreaching in this case.
Where things get tricky are services that don't outright replace residential or business phone services, but offer a quasi-phone service such as the voice services now being offered as part of some instant message services. At what point do these unregulated services cross the line where they become subject to local public utility commission regulations.
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
Consider WHY we invented public utility commissions for phone, electric, gas, etc, but not for (say) supermarkets: because there are NATURAL MONOPOLIES in the utility business, making it unrealistic to allow multiple providers in a single area
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
Uhh...never had Comcast (actually it was AT&T) cable internet service, have you? Our internet problem took 10 days to fix, and they didn't even acknowledge it was fixed. It just started working. Oh, and Comcast has to fix your digital phone service very quickly if you have a problem, just like the telco.
May
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
In a word, Bullshit. Email coupled with a scanner and a printer can replace the USPS for many run of the mill mailings. That doesn't mean that the USPS should have the ability to regulate. (Yes HR 602P is a hoax, but you are echoing the thinking that could one day make it reality)
At what
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
Can't you be extradiated?
Furthermore, I don't think that if I make a threat against the President that I will be able to escape charges just because I was in a different state.
-BrentRe:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
A threat is a different matter, that is a federal crime. It doesn't matter which state you're in. Only a fool would threaten the President of the country, while still in the country.
LK
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
Duh! You didn't specify that you were talking about commiting a state crime, but not being caught in that state. I guess I'm still not convinced that if I rob a gas station, and flee across the border, that no charges will be able to be pressed against me.
Or that I can slander someone as much as I want as long as I am not in their state. There are probably rules that define where a charge can be filed against be, but not immunity.
-Brent
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
Bullshit yourself. Bad analogy. When I call 911 on my Vonage phone (the one advertised to replace my analog line), I should expect the same service. If I'm going to get the same service, I should have to pay for it just as I did with the local telco. In this case it could literally be a life-and-death situation.
Th
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. If you can dial 911, 411, 611, or 011, it doesn't change the fact that a state has no right to regulate something that does not act within its borders. If they are allowed to do
A clear division... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the point where they interconnect and exchange calls with the POTS network?
Talk only to other net phones, you're a net application. Interconnect net calls with POTS calls as a service to your customers and you're a phone company.
And when I say "as a service to your customers" I'm making a distinction:
If you're selling connectivity to the POTS network to general customers, suitable for replacing local phone service, you're a telco - whether you're doing it over copper, fiber, "cellphone" packet, 802.*, infrared, wires-through-wormholes, or what-have-you.
If you're selling a PBX replacement, hooking up a customer to his own lines for which he's ALREADY paying off a telco and the telco's tax man, you're an equipment/software vendor.
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
The current infrastructure was designed poorly and is being overtaxed. Which is probably why people are looking for ways to replace it. Taxing them will only slow down progress. And they will also be a target for replacement. You can't tax everything. But I guess you can try.
Re:Seems pretty straight forward to me... (Score:2)
Did we learn anything from their deaths?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet! (Score:1)
Taxing packets (Score:4, Insightful)
But consider, what's the difference between a packet of "telephone" voice and a packet of "Internet radio" voice? What's the difference between an Internet radio monolog and a conference call in which one party is doing all the talking? If two people listen live to each others' Internet radio shows, and converse thereby, is it telephony for purposes of taxation? If so, then when is Net radio not a phone call?
The only sane conclusion is: Vocal conversation over the Net may look like a phone call, but it's really something else. It may also look like radio, but it's really something else. Making Internet "phone" companies license themselves as real phone companies do makes no more sense than requiring a broadcast license of Net radio stations.
Re:Taxing packets (Score:1)
This is not about voice over the internet, it's about a telephone service.. the fact that it uses the internet as a transport is incidental.
If they offfered the same service via some kind of newfangled radio or satellite service, they would be subject to the same argument.
Re:Taxing packets (Score:1)
How do you figure vonage's local phone service is different than a normal phone service? this isn't about ip to ip voice chat.. it's about real phone service.
Internet radio is not radio.. it's a differnet thing, agreed...
but Vonage's VOIP service is real, honest-to-god phone service. You get a real phone number, use a real telephone, and can make and receive real phone c
911 (Score:3, Insightful)
Competitors like Packet8 don't offer 911 service and stay away from calling themselves a phone company.
Clearly tho the agenda of the PUC's in PA and MN is to squash VoIP since it is a real threat. Kill it now before it gets to be a monster they cannot regulate and kill.
Hedley
Re:911 (Score:2)
Re:911 (Score:2, Interesting)
They can't have it both ways (Score:1)
Voice Over IP (VoIP) uses the Internet as the common carrier. There are no such privacy rules on the internet. Anyone can legally monitor anyone's Internet traffic (including VoIP phone calls).
If MN wants to claim that VoIP service should be similarly regulated
Re:They can't have it both ways (Score:3, Informative)
Now, it is true that companies can monitor traffic that passes over a network they own (your ISP can sniff your traffic if you're using them), specifically if they are doing it for standard business reasons (like tracking abuse, troubleshooting network problems, IDS', etc)...but th
Encryption (Score:2)
Vonage doesn't allow dirty jokes (Score:2)
Re:Vonage doesn't allow dirty jokes (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they're just setting up a contractual obligation not to use their service for obscene phone calls or planning crimes. That's so they are covered against suits if their customers misbehave.
Why did they do this? Because they believe they AREN'T a phone company (common carrier), and that they thus wouldn't be protected by the laws that keep a phone company from being sued for what its customers send over its wires.
It's about time... (Score:2)
First, I don't think outbound only service, often called PC to phone, should arbitrarily be considered phone service and regulated.
Second, I don't think PC to PC service should be touched at all.
However, from what I've seen of VonAge, they ARE a telephone company and should be treated exactly the same as a telephone company.
Consider, VonAge offers: 911 dialing, Keep your phone number (local number portability), in-coming and out-going calls, 3 way calli
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
Last mile? The whole thing is IP data based. If anything it IS over the copper for the last mile if the recipient does not have VoIP themselves. The only thing this has in common with a telco provider and also the only thing different from from regular data transfer on a computer is you sit on your couch and use it.
What y
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
VonAge is Phone to Phone. It just so happens it goes through a data network and/or a PC in the process.
If it were PC to Phone then you would not be able to rx incoming calls, have a phone # for incoming calls, etc. More importantly, somewhere VonAge has done something to enable it to allow for number porting, so subscribers can totally convert their home phone to a VonAge account and even keep their own phone number.
Explain how that is only PC to Phone? Explain how that is not a regular phon
Re:I'm from the government and I'm here to help yo (Score:2)
Why should they (VonAge) be given an exemption just because they use the Internet for a portion of their service when the service they are offering is identical to a regular phone company? What makes them unique? I'
Re:I'm from the government and I'm here to help yo (Score:2)
Telco started being regulated because they were a natural monopoly, similar to the manner in which a lot of "public utilities" were/are regulated.
First, I am not advocating the removal of regulations on telcos. Your correct, most do have a natural monopoly, especially the copper going t
Want to tax my phone line - stop taxing my DSL! (Score:1)
So what about those cell phones? (Score:1)
I don't know exactly how the government treats cellular providers but it seems to me that everything about the Vonage VoIP phones that is exciting all my colleagues applies to my cellular service. And because I live in Minnesota I'm really liking the stability of my cellular ser
what this really means (Score:1)
But for Internet-to-Internet calls, any attempt at regulation would be futile. In fact, there doesn't even have to be any kind of business involved in the middle.
States can, of course, tax IP traffic or Internet access, but regulations that try to distinguish between different uses of that traffic would be very hard and cost
Double dipping and Lobbyist rants (Score:3, Insightful)
It may have been said here or not, sometimes I don't feel like sorting through the FP's and other trollings.
Wouldn't this be a case of double dipping by the telco's being that they're charging you for bandwidth usage, along with an added cost to using VoIP?
Another thing I would like to point out, is telco's have deep ass pockets, as most of us know. Don't be fooled by their rants on not having enough money for yadda yadda, or being monopolized because it's political propaganda. Telco's who need laws passed often spend enormous amounts of money lobbying politicians to get them to pass these measures. It's definitely about time people got together and lobbied against this type of bs. Is everyone going to wait until the last second until everything is being regulated under some 3rd world like rules that make no sense.
It's Minnesota party politics (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Regulate the People (Score:2)