Protecting Net Neutrality and the Open Internet

Chris Riley

22

(Updated May 6 with additional notes; see below.)

In January, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order that prevented Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from blocking and discriminating against edge providers, including any website operator, application developer or cloud service provider. We called the court’s ruling “alarming for all Internet users.” As Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker and then-CEO John Lilly put it in 2009: “Nondiscriminatory access to content is what created the miracle of the Internet. It must be preserved.”

Today, Mozilla formally filed a request with the FCC to take a new path forward. We are asking the FCC to modernize its understanding of Internet access services, and apply its statutory authority for Internet data delivery services in a consistent and complete way. With our proposal, the FCC would be able to shift its attention away from authority questions once and for all, and focus instead on adopting clear rules prohibiting blocking and discrimination online.

The FCC is currently planning to propose new rules that would allow ISPs to charge edge providers for prioritized access over others. Open Internet advocates and media have been very critical of the agency’s strategy. We, too, are concerned that the FCC’s approach would not adequately safeguard the open Internet. Innovation and competition require nondiscriminatory access for all edge providers to end user subscribers, without blocking, throttling, or prioritizing one option relative to others.

Even if the FCC’s current plan is adopted and survives court review, and even if Chairman Wheeler stands ready to use the FCC’s full authority to establish stronger protections later, should they become needed, Internet users and developers cannot know whether future FCC Chairs will maintain vigilance. In contrast, clear authority and meaningful, enforceable rules would provide lasting certainty.

One of the biggest obstacles to overcome is authority, and how to get past limitations put into law several years ago. Our petition tackles this challenge head-on:

  • Last-mile, terminating access Internet routing is currently understood to include one type of commercial relationship: between an ISP (Comcast, in the sample image) and an end user (Carol, in the image), connecting the end user to all Internet sites. We are challenging that understanding and proposing a modernization.
  • We ask the FCC to recognize that technological evolution has led to two distinct relationships in the last mile of the network: the current one, between an ISP and an end user, which is unchanged, plus a “remote delivery” service offered by an ISP to an edge provider (Dropbox, in the image), connecting the provider to all of the ISP’s end users.
  • In the key to our argument, we then ask the FCC to designate remote delivery services as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act.
Mozilla proposes the FCC recognize two services within Internet access: local delivery connecting each end user to all edge providers, and remote delivery connecting each edge provider to all end users.

Mozilla proposes the FCC recognize two services within Internet access: local delivery connecting each end user to all edge providers, and remote delivery connecting each edge provider to all end users.

Categorizing remote delivery services as telecommunications services is consistent with the guidelines set by both Congress and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and would give the FCC ample ability to adopt and enforce meaningful net neutrality. With clear authority and effective rules, ISPs would be prevented from blocking or discriminating against any edge provider, whether on a wireline or wireless network.

The path we propose is grounded in a modern understanding of technology and markets, and drawn from the perspective of Silicon Valley, where so many of the Internet’s inventions have originated. Mozilla’s proposal would help ensure that the Internet continues to be an innovative and open platform, central to our individual growth and our collective future.

We plan to continue working with policymakers and thought leaders on Internet policy to develop and advance these ideas over the next few weeks. We expect there will be ample opportunity for public comment on our idea, among others, and we encourage everyone to join in the conversation. Stay tuned to this blog, and to the Wiki page we’ve put up on this issue, to learn more and to find ways to get involved.

May 6 Update: Based on the input we’ve received about this proposal since announcing it, we felt it would be useful to clarify a few things that seem to cause some sporadic confusion:

  • Our petition asks the FCC to use Title II, but it isn’t reclassification, because it wouldn’t reverse existing precedents.
  • We are not asking the FCC to apply Title II to peering and interconnection, only last mile remote delivery services.
  • Our petition would not impose obligations on technology companies, but instead would safeguard them by clearly delineating services.

22 responses

Post a comment

  1. Rebeldawg wrote on :

    I think this is the best solution to the net neutrality issue as it will prevent greedy ISPs from discriminating against any traffic on the internet and also prevent them from charging streaming services such as netflix “preferred” access to their customers just so the ISP can make even more money.

    Reply

  2. Craig Cruden wrote on :

    I think the best solution would be to recognize the limitations to a fully dynamic free-market competitive internet delivery system within the local municipality. Basically the cost of infrastructure, and the density required of the customers limits the ability to have a fully competitive marketplace within the local municipality since any new entry could easily be forced out because if the inabiility to get a dense enough customer base. Therefore the most you’re going to end up having is something like a duopoly, which in many cases does not provide competition since it is in neither companies interest to compete that way and they become comfortable just splitting up the territory and having a fat profit margin. On the other hand where it is feasible for new entrants to compete, that part of the network does not require the same oversight. Decades ago they had the same situation in the phone service provider area, and the solution chosen was to break up the monopoly (or duopoly) but breaking up local and long distance relationships into two different services. This same solution can be applied to the internet service provider relationship. The local ISP (which often uses public land to string wires to houses) should be required to connect up any local service lines at full speed unmetered speed (with limited network management to relieve congestion where technically necessary) with a local public exchange (or multiple for larger municipalities). Actual services providers such as TV, phone, or internet would be able to plug into the public exchanges. The local provider would be able to also offer these same services using the same public exchanges. The local network usage would however not be able to discriminate between that companies services and other companies services. This type of marketplace would likely have the same duopoly or monopoly of local lines, while allowing for a much more dynamic marketplace for services (likely 10+ service providers). A consumer could then choose any of those service providers for internet service outside of the municipality, and any video or phone suppliers. Long haul service providers such as Cogent, IX Reach, Level 3 could connect up their services to the public exchanges as well. This type of solution is already used with public exchanges like AMS-IX for business solutions, so it is not a new type of solution or a business unfriendly solution….

    Reply

    1. Anonymous wrote on :

      Read this: http://www.teletruth.org/docs/ShortSCANDALSummary.pdf

      Sure, infrastructure is expensive. BUT YOU’VE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. Read the page I posted above for more information.

      The ISPs need to deliver what they have been paid for (and paid handsomely, I might add). And yes, running fiber to every house is expensive, that’s why they planned to run large fiber cables through neighborhoods and then connect individual houses to it with both fiber and copper wiring to lower the cost. Essentially the same principle as your municipality and local ISP plan.

      I don’t think adding more businesses to the mix is a viable solution, as ISPs and other telecomm companies have already shown time and time again that they don’t care about their customers; they care about their stock price and bottom line.

      Here’s that link again: http://www.teletruth.org/docs/ShortSCANDALSummary.pdf

      And feel free to do your own independent research on the matter too.

      Reply

      1. Craig Cruden wrote on :

        It is not “adding” more companies into the mix it is understanding that there are some infrastructure things that by their very nature does not facilitate a functioning market economy where businesses compete — similar to the fact that you cannot have more than 1 or 2 roads to your house. I also don’t think government run businesses are a solution to every solution. You basically accept reality and regulate the local connection because there is no way of creating a functioning market — which is providing a pipe to your house be it electrical, communications, gas lines etc. You create a junction that all companies can use that infrastructure in a nondiscriminatory manner to provide services at the point where the market can and will function. Basically the local and long haul are operated as separate entities even if a company has it’s hands on both sides. You could go a step further and have the local lines held in a trust and the local lines would be maintained by private companies which are authorized to maintain it, but I don’t think it is doable in the US at this time, so a regulated local monopoly/duopoly is a reasonable compromise. At that junction (AMS-IX like) you would have a very competitive market with easily more than 10 competitors being able to offer services – and would not need as much regulation. You could have bandwidth by demand (more costly) bandwidth guaranteed (pre-commitment), different companies offering different bundled packages – or even individual video services (tv stations) allowing individual subscriptions – the possibilities are actually wide ranging.

        Reply

  3. Backwards wrote on :

    I think I’m missing something. If you’re regulating peering relationships, you are regulating the Internet.

    I’ve forgotten who is supposed to win by this, but I’m pretty sure that no one would, perhaps Google aside… they’re pretty deep into government.

    If Netflix pays some nominal fee to use an ISP CDN or locate a cache in its network, how does that hurt anyone? They were paying 3rd party CDNs before, this is cheaper, and they’re the main user, by volume, of the Internet, so it’s not like it’s ridiculous for them to help scale it. I realize Google wants free co-location services just because they’re Google. Not that I’m saying you’re Google’s sock puppet just because they pay your bills, but aside from them, whose agenda does “let’s regulate peering” serve? It’s totally cheaper to lease bandwidth than it is to play the government game, and if you’re small, you’re going through some higher level ISP anyway.

    Reply

    1. Chris Riley wrote on :

      I think you’re missing some of the details here. The petition very clearly says that our proposal would apply to last-mile network practices only, and explicitly says that it wouldn’t address interconnection and peering arrangements.

      Reply

      1. Backwards wrote on :

        I’m missing a lot. The entire submission reads like nonsense, but if I follow its convolutions I gather you are asking for increased regulation of the TRANSMISSIONS to the user, but not the CONNECTION to the user (all caps screaming mine). I didn’t understand what the implications of this would be.

        The back-story is that consumer Internet services were classified as information services rather than as telecommunications services because the Internet let you do stuff that wasn’t making a phone call (eg, use an encyclopedia, find an address, play a game). Your argument is that, while you don’t want Internet connections to be considered title whatever telecommunications services, you want each individual transmission from each website or P2P user or NTP server to be considered its own telecommunication service (“remote delivery service”) that the ISP is responsible for on the last mile. From the ISP’s perspective, each packet might be a unique service, as IP doesn’t have a notion of a connection and only some networking gear looks beyond the IP header to other protocols (deeper packet inspection typically costs money and introduces latency). Would an ISP be forced into deploying DPI gear to validate service delivery?

        Putting aside my skepticism over the existence of these virtual delivery services, what protections does this afford to legitimate services? What does it gain? Who has standing?

        What protections does it afford to spam, DoS, exploit scanning, etc? (They’re services to someone.)

        Today, there are many situations in which packets will be dropped by the network. If each packet is a protected service is this okay?

        Reply

  4. Anonymous wrote on :

    How does the “for a fee” part of the definition of “telecommunications service” fit into all of this? Seems like you’re recommending the institutionalization of the “double-dipping” by ISPs that you seem to be opposing.

    Reply

  5. Larry Ortega wrote on ::

    Internet providers are “common carriers”. The Internet is providing the same service as did/do US Postal Service and the landlines. Both these services were regulated and as such the Internet because it is being used in this manner should also be regulated the same, as “common carrier”.

    Chris Riley: we have a very successful program we run out in California: One Million New Internet Users, OneMillionNIU.org. I would like to talk with you off-line to see how we might lend our support to the Firefox proposal. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

    Reply

  6. Tara wrote on :

    I think this proposal could work. Be praying that the FCC will listen to yah.

    Reply

  7. Chris Johnson wrote on :

    Your diagram for this proposal is completely obtuse and confusing. The explanations aren’t much better. Only after reading the whole article and all of the comments did I even have a vague idea of what you’re getting at — and I used to be in the ISP business. The FCC members and politicians are a whole lot less technically savvy than me or the rest of the audience here. You’re really got to greatly improve the clarity of your proposal and diagram if you hope to get any traction.

    Reply

  8. payton wrote on ::

    May the government will listen to the advice and do something to prevent the bad things happen

    Reply

  9. John Johnson wrote on ::

    Oh Mozilla, your heart pure as Vanilla. If it wasn’t for you, I’d move to Timbaktu.

    Reply

  10. Michael Elling ( wrote on ::

    Mozilla and others should start with terminology that reflects function and role. What is referred to as edge providers really sit at the core of the network and benefit from tremendous scale of competition in the WAN (wide area; long-distance) over the past 30 years. (I know Internet folks would like to think the WAN was created by ARPA, but the commercial foundations were developed in the 1980s and is a good reason had a 10 year head start.) Transit rates in the WAN are $0.0000004 to send a voice minute anywhere in the globe. This number continues to decline 30-40% annually. Video costs are just 2 decimals to the left. All of these app and content cos reside in datacenters of enormous scale in the core of the network; like enormous “switches”.

    The real “edge” access providers are the incumbent mono-duopolies in the MAN (metro, or mid or last mile) whose voice termination and transit costs are $0.001 and declining 5-10% annually. This has been going on for 10 years since Brand-X and (un)divestiture; hence the spread or arbitrage. Where there is competition, like GoogleFiberKC (synchronous gbs for $70), the cost is $0.00001. And that is early days, without the benefit of scale from SMB, enterprise, wireless offload and backhaul. The point being that both absolute and relative costs between WAN and MAN are not very different (maybe 1, at most 2 decimals) when fiber enters the picture and the diversity of demand at the edge also gets scaled.

    Net neutrality, interconnect, peering, etc.. are all related. Comcast is trying to push the WAN/MAN demarc towards the core just like AT&T used interconnect exclusion zones 100 years ago. Same story, different terms. The issue (since 1996, and even earlier) is how to introduce competition in the last mile ensuring MAN costs are driven down and how competitive markets clear marginal consumption efficiently; which they clearly have demonstrated they can. In fact net neutrality as a concept is both a contrived notion and a farce; invented by those who choose to ignore the history of the 1980s-90s. Everyone is “just talking” and not using data and objective analytical frameworks and terminology that can be consistently applied to all types of information, applications, networks and users over the past 170 years.

    Reply

  11. Dave Sanford wrote on ::

    Allowing content companies to pay Internet service providers for special access to consumers is not the right market solution. The right market solution is to have consumers pay more for more bandwidth.

    Allowing ISPs to charge content providers for preferential treatment will allow various large parties to game the system – whether it is the ISPs or the content providers gaming the system – this will not translate into market driven consumer choice as well as simply causing consumers to pay more for what they want. I believe that causing large Internet content players and ISPs to decide will allow them to charge consumers more – rather than being directly subject to consumer market forces – which will allow us to vote with our dollars. Some people would choose to pay less and receive less bandwidth and I think that is a good thing.

    Reply

  12. Zane wrote on ::

    Another fight against the greedy ones that are trying to stop freedom and the internet. In some way you could consider this a breach in the freedom of speech act, mostly because some others will have a higher authority than you.

    Reply

  13. Yo Dude wrote on :

    Hey, Mozilla,

    Here, read this: Filing by Tejas Narechania and Tim Wu in 14-28: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017611807

    Also this: http://ammori.org/2014/05/13/net-neutralitys-legal-binary-an-eitheror-with-no-third-way/

    You said:
    > In the key to our argument, we then ask the FCC to designate remote delivery services as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act.

    My question: How is classifying every single web page as Title II supposed to be *better* than regulating the ISPs as Title II?

    You also said:
    > Our petition would not impose obligations on technology companies, but instead would safeguard them by clearly delineating services.

    I’m having a hard time believing that.

    What are “remote delivery services”, by your definition?

    *Reads the whole filing*

    Ok… So, are you arguing (or trying to argue) the same thing as the Tim Wu guy (who I essentially agree with), but are only focusing on the “response” part? Your blog post makes it sound really confusing, like a site like reddit, or Mozilla, or MyCatBlog would be subject to Title II, which would really piss me off (I’m not a data carrier or an ISP! It’s my website, I can block whoever the hell I want! Get your regulations out of here!).

    So, from your filing, it sounds like you’re not asking to classify “remote delivery services” like Netflix or DumbSite as Title II, but -the ISP’s delivery- of remote services as Title II? Eg, the actual sending of the data from point B (the server) to point A (the ISP’s customer)?

    Damn, you guys write like crap.

    Tell me – why would an ISP have any obligation to deliver data for someone who isn’t paying them to deliver it? They don’t. EverySiteEver is not the ISP’s customer. It is the existence of the ISP’s customer, whether they want data delivered to, or from, or to and from them, who creates this obligation. Are you saying that EverySiteEver should be paying the terminating ISP for the service of delivering data so as to create this obligation? Because that’s what what you’re arguing would seem to imply.

    The other filing (the one I linked) is a lot better. Read that and then post some clarifications as to what it is you’re actually asking for. Because what I’m reading right now? After reading the whole thing, I -think- I get it, and I’m hardly one to shy away from technical jargon, (for example, stuff like this is pretty straightforward: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middleman/ ), so that’s not the problem.

    Reply

  14. Ryan Rardin wrote on :

    This proposal has one fatal flaw. There is a loophole that allows ISPs to keep throttling traffic to services that compete with their own offerings in the same area. Reclassifying ISPs in general as common carriers is the only way to fix this, with protection for spam filters and Internet security of course.

    Reply

  15. Laura wrote on :

    Can someone explain to me how (or if) this new definition of a Remote Delivery Service would impact the recent agreements between Netflix and Verizon and Netflix and Comcast?

    Reply

  16. Tom Gledhill wrote on :

    Got a reply from Tom Wheeler chairman FFC

    Thank you very much for contacting us about the ongoing Open Internet proceeding. We’re hoping to hear from as many people as possible about this critical issue, and so I’m very glad that we can include your thoughts and opinions.

    I’m a strong supporter of the Open Internet, and I will fight to keep the internet open. Thanks again for sharing your views with me.

    Tom Wheeler
    Chairman
    Federal Communications Commission

    Reply

  17. Lauren Saine wrote on :

    Your analysis is brilliant. Thank you. I am an ICT policy analyst and only recently realized I did not understand how net neutrality works for small online businesses. In going to local tech meetups, I’ve found that even many established companies have never given a thought to the “A” relationship, let alone the “B.” I would only suggest you make future Exec Summaries more like the blog post — super-easy UX. These things reach a wide audience, and small tech entrepreneurs (and everyone) need to understand the mechanics of how the rules might affect them. Thanks again for the awesome work.

    Reply

  18. Advatejoggedo wrote on :

    elukib isabelmarant.com ntdwew Isabelmarant phqrbo Isabelmarant.Com nnmcaa http://isabelemarant.org zcfdns Christian Louboutin Store nyc hwhouo Christian Louboutin Store nyc ffvpoq christian Louboutin Nyc zkxepi http://christiannlouboutinnyc.com ph Jordan 8 se Air jordan 8 uw jordan Retro 8 rv http://jordans8online.com foipqb louis Vuitton india online rhlkma louis vuitton india online xrlcrv Louis vuitton Bags India drlpbw http://louisvuittononlineindia.com leddqk Authentic Louis Vuitton Handbags zikkea authentic louis vuitton handbags qgpzce Louis vuitton Authentic pbyewz http://authenticlouisvuittonlvhandbags.org ki Jordan Retro 5 hx Jordan retro 5 xc jordan retro 5 yy http://retro-jordansforsale.org eaybrt christian louboutin new york blgxgu christian louboutin new york jxgzah Christian Louboutin New york bvszln http://christiannlouboutinnewyork.com jftbsv france Jersey world cup 2014 fpofes france world cup jersey 2014 zhzufr france World cup 2014 Jersey cwcvkz http://franceworldcup2014jersey.com ie jordan retro 3 ng jordan 3 iq jordan 3 ta http://jordans3sale.org nk Jordan 11 mp jordan 11 kv Air Jordan 11 my http://jordan11-forsale.org xm jordan 1 flight yb Nike air Jordan 1 ph Air jordan 1 kf http://airjordan1online.org fttkss Louis Vuitton Outlet Store sikudi Lv Outlet Store tqxeje Louis vuitton Outlet Store ffttpy http://louisvuitton-lvoutletstore.com ci Jordans For sale kd Cheap Jordans for sale rh Jordans For sale kv http://jordanshoesfor-sale.org xeysbk eluxurylouisvuitton.net ckrqty eluxury And Louis Vuitton mbaqtf authentic Louis vuitton eluxury npxuud http://authenticlvtoneluxury.org szgjiz louis Vuitton Belt Men gtaqem Louis vuitton men bags furycr louis Vuitton Men Bags tpzjkh http://louisvuittonmenbags.org smicvm Discount jimmy Choo ichkhd Discount jimmy Choo gpkigo discount jimmy choo rwcjbt http://discountjimmychooa.com hrrnbe longchamp handbag mbthqo longchamp handbags yhuqzo longchamp handbags xwzymy http://longchamp-handbagssale.com ocmgpb Louis Vuitton california oryowr louis vuitton outlet store in california pubwiu louis vuitton California vcsuwk http://lvoutletincalifornia.com eixvgq isabel Marant fur lzdujq isabel marant fur coat oggbrr isabel marant fur mberwz http://isabelmarantfur.com zhwroz jimmy choo australia bivfkc Jimmy choo Australia revmls jimmy Choo shoes australia sqbcko http://jimmy-choolaustralia.com ukpojz Fake Louis Vuitton Bags thbycd Fake Louis Vuitton Bags mzqufu fake louis vuitton sqpthm http://fakelvlouisvuitton.com gpqpns Jimmy choo Online Store xsvyho jimmy Choo outlet stores lhscyk Jimmy choo Stores pguifg http://jimmychoosatores.com stjhmp Isabel marant Sneakers unefue isabel marant sneakers vbkkih Isabel marant Sneakers iyomwb http://isabelmarantesneakers.com sgpiwi Louis Vuitton Online Shopping pzmecs louis vuitton shop online ztvgzj louis Vuitton shop online sojblb http://louisvuittonlvshops.com veyfmv cheap Jimmy choo shoes bvgcty cheap Jimmy choo ygximv cheap Jimmy choo fisgyd http://cheapjimmychoosahoes.com hngryd isabel Marant bobby sjjtzr Isabel Marant Bobby Sneakers grthjd Isabel marant Bobby pfriqm http://isabelmarantbobby.org rduypz Jimmy Choo Dubai fiuheb Jimmy choo Outlet bbmpsx Jimmy choo Sale xvibnk http://jimmychooadubai.com ryqfsa cheap Isabel marant blzdvj Cheap Isabel Marant gxqwau isabel marant sneakers cheap lkqlyo http://cheap-isabelmarant.org gp jordans Shoes lu michael Jordan Shoes rj Jordan shoes kh http://cheapjordans-shoes.org xq Jordan six rings fg 6 rings jordans ye 6 rings Jordans sh http://6ringsjordans.org nkqioz second Hand louis vuitton Uk kazofb second Hand louis vuitton Bags iztxfo Second hand Louis Vuitton bags mvrhzi http://secondhand-louisvuitton.com gzqqlw Designer Isabel Marant rtzmbk Designer Isabel Marant qeezer Isabel marant Designer obfnle http://isabelmarantdesigner.org pfdamn isabel marant outlet brdjat Isabel marant Outlet Online zlxilx outlet Isabel marant kkssra http://isabelmarantioutlet.net iq New Jordans 214 nn New Jordan Releases 214 xs new jordans 214 kw http://newjordans2014.org oxzayp Jimmy Choo Shoes Cheap cetefi cheap jimmy choo bvegkz Cheap Jimmy Choo rbxvfs http://cheap-jimmychoosahoes.com tbfvlo Isabel marant Bracelet xozhfe bracelet Isabel marant nckyxc isabel marant bracelet xtykdt http://isabelmarantbracelet.com ukojcu Lv montreal dtjdaw Louis vuitton Montreal Ogilvy mrvivi louis Vuitton in montreal iczany http://lvmontreal.org anderd jimmy Choo motorcycle boots On sale hkekcx Jimmy choo On Sale otimrx jimmy choo shoes on sale zvvyhr http://jimmychoosahoesonsale.com olgjmp jimmy choo outlet online dsghft jimmy choo shoes outlet adwrfc Outlet jimmy Choo ekqebd http://jimmychoosahoesoutlet.com hapije Goyard Bags Online omjyrz Goyard Bags Online vgianm Goyard Bags Prices nptxat http://goyard-bagsonline.org pwxglw isabel Marant new york Store tplrfb Isabel marant New York store jimaqg isabel marant new york wiayad http://isabelmarantnewyork.com wxunxa isabel Marant shoes sale ancbdg isabel Marant shoes 214 eyniew isabelle Marant shoes vgpciw http://isabellemarantshoes.com ikkguw Louis vuitton In Las vegas rvlvsb louis Vuitton las vegas Outlet bxrfgd las Vegas Louis Vuitton eiybls http://louisvuittonlasvegasoutlet.org mb jordan 6 zv air jordan 6 tq Air Jordan 6 qy http://jordans6sale.com fifxih louis vuitton artsy bag xiwsdo Louis Vuitton Artsy Mm emiizu Louis Vuitton artsy bag cptosy http://louisvuittonartsybag.org jybtqo louis Vuitton tote bag vsycsv louis Vuitton totes xgvwpx Louis vuitton Tote Bag bwhopf http://louisvuittonlvtote.com hmqxaa jimmy Choo new york yiluxo jimmy Choo new york fxykuj Jimmy Choo New York Store jfdwyr http://jimmychooanewyork.com xpbgst Where to Buy Isabel marant Sneakers ngsuhi where can i buy isabel marant sneakers bldzfy where to buy isabel marant sneakers knhbdi http://buyisabelmarantsneakers.org gvzxrx Lv Bags On Sale ptdarn Lv Bags On Sale xzfkid Cheap lv Bags vowxze http://cheaplvbags-onsale.com nq cheap jordans tk cheap jordans ge cheap Air jordans xd http://jordans-forcheap.org uesstm Replica Lv Handbags cujymc Lv Handbags On Sale gplucf Lv handbags On Sale lfwmtk http://cheaplvhandbags-onsale.com ckurxp michael kors outlet online zkcino michael kors outlet online ybfacl michael kors Outlet online ooskuw http://www.iogkf.ca/michaelkorshandbags.php hvquch jimmy choos yqmzzn jimmy Choos on the Treadmill qhndnc jimmy Choos and tennis Shoes hhsgeq http://cheapjimmychoosa.com oz Air Jordan 13 jy jordans 13 xu jordan 13 rx http://jordan13-forsale.org tg Air jordan 4 Retro aj Air Jordan 4 kl Air Jordan 4 br http://jordans4outlet.net xbmssc louis vuitton Sale Melbourne cxcyin Melbourne Louis Vuitton kjevmz louis vuitton in melbourne vlvrtl http://melbournelouisvuitton.com wf new Jordan releases yu new Jordans 214 pd new Jordans 214 rt http://new-jordanshoes.org nxkevh Louis Vuitton factory bojfuq louis vuitton Factory Outlet online bwmjnc louis Vuitton Factory iyztlw http://lvfactoryoutletonline.com pjgmmz Isabel marant Top byaqta isabel marant top uzboqu isabel Marant embroidered top hsryxg http://isabelmaranttops.org chydnw fake Louis vuitton luggage puocac Replica Louis Vuitton Luggage fcunck fake louis vuitton luggage ijznxy http://replicalouisvuittonlvluggage.com mcufiw Isabel Marant Poppy Suede Pumps nikkta isabel marant pumps hfbtdz isabel marant poppy suede pumps wuauzn http://isabelmarantpumps.org la royal Jordanian yp Royal Blue jordan shoes ss Royal jordanian jb http://royal-jordanian.org hbhwne louis Vuitton outlet store Online eyupgl Louis vuitton Outlet Store online rmoqkn Louis vuitton outlet online store owpcku http://cheaplvoutletstores.org mrlhhz cheap Jimmy choo futxsl Jimmy Choo Shoes Cheap ilraid Cheap jimmy Choo dfsilu http://cheapjimmychoosahoesuk.com gwmrng Isabel Marant Polyvore fewrhf Polyvore isabel Marant xwynmi isabel marant etoile polyvore dscoug http://isabelmarantpolyvore.com mxqjmp christian louboutin Las Vegas dtbwfj Christian louboutin las vegas tpafoc Christian Louboutin las vegas dabnns http://christianllouboutinlasvegas.com ctlxhu discount louis vuitton gllvlf Discount louis Vuitton bamxwp Discount Louis Vuitton Handbags wcjrew http://discountlv-louisvuitton.com typjjn Louis vuitton outlet miami mmydrh Louis Vuitton outlet miami Fl rryvgk Louis vuitton in miami eqovcg http://miamilouisvuitton.com rlgckr poppy isabel marant iwaeim poppy Isabel marant qagjjo poppy Isabel marant odtoaa http://isabelmarantpoppy.org gy Air jordan 5 tg Air jordan 5 ys Air jordan 5 pb http://jordans5online.com jrvqwz jimmy choo shoes outlet temtpl Jimmy choo Outlet Online yygiec Jimmy Choo Shoes Outlet eumane http://jimmychooaoutlet.com lfbxhr Cheap Louis Vuitton lahemn Cheap Lv Bags gzmgmw cheap louis vuitton handbags kslkau http://cheaplouisvuitton-lvbags.com cfsgcx louis vuitton South Africa catalogue qozzbh louis vuitton South Africa catalogue wwuyso louis Vuitton south africa Prices abzldt http://louisvuittoninsouthafrica.org twlnev christian louboutin los angeles hfougo Louboutin los angeles xtgiju christian Louboutin los Angeles uuafur http://christianllouboutinlosangeles.com lx Air Jordan Release Dates co Jordan Release Dates ks jordan Release hg http://jordansreleasedates.net

    Reply

Post Your Comment