Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes took a swipe at the reliability of blogs today by dissing a report that appeared on Silicon Valley Insider as not "journalism." Speaking at a Sanford Bernstein conference (webcast here), Bewkes denied the truth of the SAI report, which cited a source close to AOL as saying that Time Warner won't proceed with its previously announced separation of AOL's access business.
When asked about this report, Bewkes said "That's fun. That wasn't a news report. That was a blog." Even worse, Bewkes added that "we’re a journalism company…and we always try to position it as to whether we know or any basis or source for it."
Bewkes said he heard about this report while in the shower (which begs the question about how, precisely, Bewkes found out: was the SAI item reported by some audio service he could hear on a waterproof speaker? was he talking on the phone to his lieutenants while soaping up? was there there someone in there with him reading off the Internet?) and briefly wondered if it were true. "I was taking a shower and gee I thought what if it’s true."
SAI's Peter Kafka (not Henry Blodget, the author of the original item) took note of this insult. Writing about the Bernstein conference, Kafka said "Jeff took time to pee on our earlier report."
In another admission, Bewkes said that AOL probably overpaid for social networking service Bebo, for which it paid $850 million. "Which is not to say that this will work out to be a good idea. We may have overpaid as many critics have said."
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 3:46 PM | Print | Comments (2)Wow. Wired's Kevin Poulson claims to have conducted an hour-long interview with two hackers, "Defiant" and "EBK," who are claiming responsibility for taking down Comcast's main website and email for over five hours on Thursday. The two claim to be juvenile deliquent, high-school drop-out teens (18 and 19 year-olds) who belong to an underground group called Kryogeniks.
Defiant and EBK say they exploited a flaw at the domain management console at Network Solutions to gain control over 200 Comcast domains, although Network Solutions disputes this claim. They are simultaneously euphoric over the publicity that their hacks created and frightened that they will soon be identified by authorities and arrested.
They also claim to have called Comcast's main technical contact to let him know that they had taken over administrative control of the domains and after the Comcast employee scoffed at them, they ramped up their effort by redirecting traffic to servers under their control. Both claim they hacked into the cable operator's site because of Comcast's "shitty" service and deny that Comcast's well-publicized P2P interference was a motivation behind the attack.
Obviously Wired's Poulson believes that both Defiant and EBK are responsible for the attacks and was directed to the two by another member of Kryogeniks. It's only a matter of days, if not hours, before we find out if Defiant and EBK are going to jail for a very long time.
If Poulson can find these two guys, you'd better believe that Comcast, and the FBI, can too. One commenter to Poulson's post even published the name, address, cell phone number and IP address for Defiant's father -- and it looks legit.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:04 AM | Print | Comments (0)Comcast CEO Brian Roberts shed more light this morning on why Comcast invested $1.5 billion in the new Sprint-Clearwire WiMax venture, saying that he was dazzled by a 50-Mph trial run of Clearwire's WiMax service that he and fellow investors took before they plunked their money down. Speaking at a Sanford Bernstein conference (webcast) Roberts said "we went on some test drives that were very exciting and three-way video conference calls were happening and it was astonishing...we were able to watch live video at 50 miles per hour."
The new venture, which will be called Clearwire, "is an unprecedented opportunity," Roberts said, adding that "a lot of smart people are convinced that this will work."
Not only is the technology impressive, but the structure of the deal is also very appealing to Comcast. Comcast gets a "founder's deal" that gives the operator a wholesale relationship with Clearwire. Comcast will not be actively involved in running the show, deferring, instead, to Clearwire's management team. "One thing I will say is that we are experts at joint ventures," Roberts said. "We can safely say that what works best is not have management by committee."
The fact that Comcast and the other cable partners (Time Warner and Brighthouse Networks) will have a roaming deal with Sprint for telephony combined with the participation of Google sealed the deal. "Having Google there and the innovation capabilities of Google...and a roaming deal out of the box, there was no other opportunity that was quite as elegant."
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:39 PM | Print | Comments (0)Update: Wired reports an interview with the hackers that brought down Comcast. If the two teens who claim responsibility for the attack are legit, the motivation behind the Comcast hack was just, well, hatred for Comcast in general and not a statement about the company's P2P policies.
I came across two seemingly unrelated items this morning about nasty hacker attacks. The first is this post at TorrentFreak discussing a malicious hack of Comcast's home page. For a period of time, the hackers appear to have changed the Comcast DNS/WHOIS records to point at a non-Comcast page, resulting in customer misdirection to a non-sensical page and sparking fears that customers' user names and passwords were being filched.
The second item is this excellent explanation by Revision3's Jim Louderback about his company's Memorial Day weekend outage. Revision3 was brought down by a denial-of-service attack by digital media entertainment company ArtistDirect, which runs an anti-P2P technology subsidiary called MediaDefender.
As it turns out, these two attacks possibly share a common root cause: the BitTorrent P2P protocol (not BitTorrent the company). And they should both serve as object lessons about the risks that companies face when they try to mess with P2P content distribution.
Regarding the Comcast outage, TorrentFreak speculates that Comcast got hacked because the top cable operator has throttled and continues to throttle BitTorrent and other P2P protocols as part of its network management procedures. (Comcast has vowed to switch to a protocol-agnostic management system by the end of this year.)
There's no denying, however, that Revision3's DOS attack was directly related to the BitTorrent protocol. The company traced the attack to MediaDefender's servers. Not only did MediaDefender's interim CEO Dimitri Villard and VP of Operations Ben Grodsky admit that their company was responsible for the attack, but MediaDefender had also copped to injecting a broad array of tracking torrents into Revision3's servers for months.
Why would MediaDefender do this and for whom? Well, Revision3 uses the BitTorrent protocol for legitimately sharing large files, including its own music and HD-quality video. MediaDefender gets paid to disrupt P2P networks, counting Sony, Universal Music, the RIAA and the MPAA among its clients.
Louderback doesn't know who was paying MediaDefender to track his company's P2P network or whether the attack was intentional. MediaDefender says that the DOS attack was a mistake, a result of a vulnerability created when Revision3 rejiggered its server.
He does know that the authorities will get to the bottom of this. "Was it malicious? Intentional? Negligent? Spoofed? I can’t say. But what I do know is that the FBI is looking into the matter," Louderback wrote.
Here's what I conclude from both seemingly unrelated attacks: any big company or industry group, whether it's Comcast or Sony or the MPAA, that tries to block or mess with P2P protocols could find themselves in a vicious cycle of payback. Comcast has already learned this lesson the hard way, through the public condemnation of its network management practices and now through a possible revenge-motivated hacker attack. And you can be certain that neither ArtistDirect nor its presumably entertainment industry clients are going to welcome the FBI's investigation.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:41 AM | Print | Comments (1)A flurry of stories erupted yesterday surrounding the announcement that Sony Electronics had signed an agreement with a group of cable operators to adopt the java-based Tru2Way standard that should facilitate faster development of interactive TV services. This pact could also ultimately allow consumers to access interactive TV functions without the need for a stand-alone set-top box.
But a quick scan of the articles and blog posts would leave an uninitiated reader to believe that as a result of the deal, consumers can soon dump their set-top boxes. The headlines and articles all seemed to imply that cable TV set-tops will soon be a thing of the past.
Would that it were. Although cable set-tops, like most consumer electronics peripherals, will probably disappear someday as technological advances make it possible to incorporate their functions into TV sets, no one should expect that these devices will go away any time soon. For better or worse, set-tops are with us for years and years to come.
There are a lot of reasons why we're stuck with set-tops. Here are just a few of them.
1. TV Sets Last Foreover and There are 300 Million Existing Sets in the U.S. Alone: There are almost 300 million TV sets in use in the U.S. and if you haven't noticed, TV sets are durable devices...they take years and years to wear out. Even with the impending digital TV transition, it's going to take a long time for the installed base of TV sets to turn over, meaning that most if not all of the legacy TV sets in use will need some form of digital set-top to get most advanced digital TV services.
Even assuming that 10% of these sets (or 30 million) of these sets get replaced every year, a generous assumption given that the Consumer Electronics Association expects that 32 million TV sets will be sold in the U.S. during 2008, a peak year for sales, it will take at least 10 years to replace all of these sets with TV sets that have built-in Tru2Way technology. (Most other TV makers are studying or planning to sign the same deal as Sony).
2. The Initial Tru2Way Sets Will Take a Few Years to Arrive and Will Cost A Lot, Ensuring Slow-Adoption: Just as "cable-ready" TV sets (which were also touted as not needing a set-top box) carried a premium price when first introduced into the market, Tru2Way TV sets will be a lot more expensive that ordinary digital or HD sets. People hate set-tops, but how many folks will be willing to pay more for a TV just to get rid of a set-top box that they've gotten used to anyway? Probably not a lot and therefore the take-rate for these sets will be low, at least initially. In any event, it's going to take a few years for set makers to gear up on the design, manufacturing and distribution of Tru2Way sets. Don't look for these under your Christmas tree until 2010, at the earliest.
3. Moore's Law (or Something Like It) Will No Doubt Make Early Tru2Way TVs Obsolete Pretty Quickly: Set-top boxes these days are nothing more than stripped-down computers that feature chip-sets and sometimes even hard drives (DVR-enabled boxes). Tru2Way sets will simply incorporate this kind of PC-like configuration into TV sets. As interactive TV applications evolve and the memory and processing speed needed to make advanced applications work increase, it's likely that early Tru2Way TV sets will cease to run whiz-bang new applications very well, necessitating...a set-top box capable of running the latest applications or a new TV set with upgraded circuitry. Most consumers might wait for a while before buying Tru2Way TVs or they might just skip buying them altogether and stay with their set-tops.
4. Set-Top Makers Motorola and Cisco Will Do Everything They Can to Keep the Set-Top Business Going: The two major suppliers of cable TV set-tops, Motorola and Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) aren't going to sit back and watch a huge chunk of their profits swing to TV set makers. You'd better believe that they'll develop more and more features at lower and lower prices to keep their box businesses going.
There are a lot of other reasons that set-tops are here to stay. Although yesterday's deal involves six big cable operators (Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, Cablevision and Bright House Networks) that pass well over 90% of U.S. homes, a lot of small operators (Insight, Mediacom, CableOne and so forth) aren't part of the Tru2Way pact yet.
And it's not clear that the sets will feature built-in hard drives needed for DVR. If not, then customers are still going to need add-on TiVo or equivalent boxes, so why get rid of set-tops in the first place? And will Tru2Way technology get built into all TV models, even small sets? Or just the big devices?
The bottom-line: it's very cool that a big TV set maker has taken steps to incorporate a technology that leads to a world where set-tops won't be needed. But that's far down the road. Set-tops, it seems to me, aren't going anywhere.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:16 PM | Print | Comments (0)Over the weekend, the blogosphere paid a lot of attention to a filing (PDF) made by Google in the $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Viacom against the search giant and its YouTube affiliate. In answering an amended complaint filed by Viacom, Google said that Viacom's complaint threatens the very future of the Internet. "By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for internet communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression," Google told the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Congress intended for web site services and owners to be exempt from copyright infringement liability if they respond to notices of alleged infringement by copyright owners as provided for under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and YouTube fufills Congress' vision for the DMCA, Google wrote.
The real news, however, isn't found in Google's legal filing, as valid as Google's argument might be. The latest bombshell in this litigation is buried in Viacom's amended complaint (PDF), a little-noted document filed on April 24, 2008, more than a year after Viacom filed its original complaint (PDF).
Viacom's amended complaint features a new charge or count against YouTube and Google, one that was not contained in the original complaint: YouTube itself is engaged in direct distribution of copyrighted materials. This new count could be crucial to the outcome of the case because, most experts agree, YouTube really is not responsible for its users' distribution of copyrighted material unless it fails to respond to a take-down request.
Viacom's initial complaint featured six counts of liability, all of which centered on the distribution activities of YouTube's users. These six counts, which are also in the amended complaint are, 1. Direct Copyright Infringement - Public Performance, 2. Direct Copyright Infringement - Public Display, 3. Direct Copyright Infringement, Reproduction, 4. Inducement of Copyright Infringement, 5. Contributory Copyright Infringement and 6. Vicarious Copyright Infringement.
But with this new count (Count IV - Direct Copyright Infringement, Distribution) Google's safe harbor arguments may not be as strong. Why? Because the DMCA only protects web services from infringement liabilities if "the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider" and the storage of the content is transitory and intermediate.
The DMCA was intended to protect service providers from infringement that is a result of the conduct of customers and not the providers themselves. What Viacom is saying now, however, is that YouTube is directly involved in the distribution of the videos, that the site plays an active, not passive, part in the transmission of the material.
How? YouTube itself hosts the videos, YouTube itself plays the videos, YouTube itself sends out emails to people directing them to visit the site and watch the videos. In two new paragraphs (paras. 33 and 34) featured in the amended complaint but missing from the original complaint, Viacom puts it this way: In the revised complaint, which features a new paragraph (para. 32), Viacom puts it this way:
"Users can also download copies of Plaintiff's copyrighted works posted and maintained on YouTube's website using various readily available software applications and devices. These software applications and devices are produced by third-party entities to facilitate the distribution of copies from from the YouTube website to YouTube users. On information and belief, YouTube consciously tolerates or cooperates with such entities in order to permit YouTube users to play downloaded copies of infringing videos on their home computers, laptops, iPods or other devices; YouTube has the technical means to prevent the making or retention of such copies but has elected not to do so. On information and belief, YouTube also distributes infringing videos to third-party business partners that provide new "platforms" for viewing and/or copying the videos.
YouTube also allows any person to "embed" any video available in the YouTube library into another website (such as a blog, MySpace page, or any other page on the web where the user can post material). To do this, the user simply copies the "embed" code, which YouTube supplies for each video in its library and then pastes that code into the other website, where the embedded video will appear as a television-shaped picture with the YouTube logo prominently displayed and a triangular icon that any user can click to play the video. When a user clicks the play icon, the embeded video plays with the context of the host website, but it is actually YouTube, not the host site, that publicly performs the video by transmitting the streaming video content from YouTube's own servers to the viewers' computers.
YouTube also makes it possible for a user to share an embedded video by clicking the word "share" that is displayed with the video. After clicking "share," the user is taken to a location on YouTube's own website where there is a form for entering the email addresses of persons to share the video with. YouTube then sends an email to each person listed in that form with a link that takes the recipient to YouTube's own site to view the video. These embedded videos therefore act as a draw to attract users to YouTube.
Google, of course, can say that YouTube's users are responsible for embedding the videos, that YouTube's users enter the email addresses and that YouTube does not directly select the recipients of the materials and therefore it is still covered by the DMCA's safe harbor protections.
But there is no denying that Viacom has strengthened its legal hand by raising a fundamental question: at what point does YouTube stop serving as a mere passive conduit for its users and become a more active participant in the distribution of materials? Viacom's initial complaint blamed YouTube for helping its users violate the copyright laws through unauthorized distribution -- that complaint was a non-starter because the DMCA is very, very clear that YouTube can't be held responsible for what its users do.
It's another kettle of fish, however, to argue that YouTube is going beyond its DMCA-protected role as an automatic, technical facilitator of content publishing and is actively involved in the distribution of content. It's the best argument that Viacom has developed against YouTube so far.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:50 AM | Print | Comments (4)Cable rebounded from a failed mobile voice joint venture with Sprint-Nextel to form a new alliance with...Sprint-Nextel, which will merge its wireless assets in a new WiMax venture with Clearwire. Comcast, Time Warner and Brighthouse Networks are going to give mobile service another try even though reselling Sprint-Nextel's mobile service under the Pivot co-branded name proved to be a bust.
Our analysis shows that cable really has no choice but to keep trying in the wireless business because without a mobile option, cable could fall behind its telco rivals. During Q1 08, cable's subscription momentum, as measured by revenue generating units (basic video subscriptions plus telco subscriptions plus high-speed subscriptions), was strong, with the top nine companies adding 2.4 million subscriptions to reach a total of 105 million RGUs (not including digital tier subscriptions, which cable operators typically report in total RGU tallies -- we've excluded digital because telcos don't break out digital tier subscriptions separately).
The top four telcos, on the other hand, actually lost 68,000 consumer RGUs during Q1 08, with total combined RGUs dipping to 102.4 million due to ongoing loss in local access lines. But, include wireless subscriptions in the mix and the picture is completely different.
Throw mobile voice subscriptions (not all of which are consumer subscriptions) and phone company RGU's actually jumped by 2.7 million during Q1 08, on par with RGU gains made by cable. With wireless in the tally, telco RGUs topped 242 million by quarter's end.
This comparison may be lopsided precisely because we've excluded cable's digital tier subscriptions and included all of the telcos' mobile service subscriptions, even those that reflect corporate subscriptions. Be that as it may, it's clear that wireless will save the day for phone companies.
Without mobile services, the traditional phone business would be a weak competitor indeed, even though video services are the upswing and broadband subscriptions continue to rise, although growth in high-speed subscriptions is slowing for all network providers. If Verizon and AT&T, in particular, couldn't rely on their vibrant mobile businesses for growth, cable would have nothing to fear in the residential communications business.
Cable, on the other hand, doesn't have a wireless product in its quiver and can count only on video, voice and high-speed data for further growth, although a nascent enterprise business could help propel cable ahead. If cable operators want to keep pace with stiffening telco competition, wireless is obviously crucial to cable's competitive future.
Download the data we used in this RGU analysis, which breaks out the subscription unit data on a company-by-company basis, here. Downloads are free although registration is required.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:10 PM | Print | Comments (0)(Washington, DC) Google co-founder Larry Page said today that Google was the winning bidder in the recent 700 MHz C Block auction...for one weekend, until Verizon topped its 
bid. "We had a long weekend," he said, provoking laughter from attendees at a New America Foundation breakfast here. (Webcast replay.)
Google was responsible for the inclusion of "open access" rules in the C Block chunk of spectrum and had to "put its money where its mouth is" as a consequence, Page said. But Google didn't really want to win or build the attendant wireless network because "it's not our core business." But, "if we are forced to do access, we'll do it," he said.
Page is in town to lobby government officials on behalf of open wireless network rules and to advocate for unlicensed use of "white spaces" spectrum, broadcast TV spectrum currently laying fallow due to FCC channel allocation rules. "We believe strongly in having an open environment," Page said. "It's very, very important to attach any device to the network."
He criticized the current way that the U.S. government auctions off spectrum upfront rather than license it on an ongoing basis. Page said the government could reap untold billions using a similar system for spectrum use, a not-unsurprising idea coming from someone who revolutionized Internet advertising through innovative auction techniques. With 97% of the spectrum currently unused, "I suspect that the government could make a lot of money auctioning off that 97% every second," he said.
Page was enthusiastic about Google's recent decision to invest in Sprint-Clearwire WiMax venture. "They have tremendous assets...you have a lot of opportunity."
Unlike some other wireless carriers, Clearwire is committed to the notion of an open wireless network. "Management of Clearwire is progressive in this way," Page said.
He also criticized the prospect that Microsoft and Yahoo might merge, saying that such a deal would foreclose competition in Internet communications. "We're pretty concerned that the Yahoo-Microsoft merger would close a lot of things, one of them IM," he said. "If Yahoo or MIcrosoft would merge, they'd have 90% of the communications."
"I think that's a really big risk, particularly with a company that has a history of bad behavior," he said, referring to Microsoft's history of antitrust problems. (On the other hand, a Google-Microsoft deal wouldn't raise that many antitrust hackles, Google contends, according to this article in today's NYT.)
In terms of net neutrality (which Page refers to as "open Internet"), his philosophy is a little more nuanced than some of the positions adopted by Google in legal proceedings. Although conceding that the government should regulate where abuse exists, Page didn't seem gung-ho about the concept of imposing net neutrality requirements. "Ideally I think you would have the threat of regulation accomplish this (keeping the Internet open)," he said.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 1:02 PM | Print | Comments (0)Media giant Time Warner unveiled its plan for getting out of the cable business this morning through a complex transaction that will give the parent company $9.25 billion in cash from a special dividend that Time Warner Cable will pay its shareholders. At the same time, Time Warner will be getting rid of TWC's $13 billion debt and in the process slashing its own debt load by a third.
With its new-found financial flexibility, Time Warner will be in a better position to rev up what will be its pure-play content business. During a conference call, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said that the company will use its windfall and flexibility to "make disciplined acquisitions and further investments in our business."
The obvious source of expansion for Time Warner is AOL and the highest-profile opportunity for AOL is its much-discussed deal with troubled Yahoo. But Bewkes wouldn't comment on that prospect. "We can’t talk about what opportunities might exist for us…with the usual suspects who are currently trying to decide how they are going to configure themselves," he said in a clear reference to Yahoo.
Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, will emerge from the separation with a lot more debt. That company plans to float the $10.8 billion stockholder dividend through a new $9 billion bridge loan backed by a two-year $3.5 billion loan from Time Warner in the event it can't convert the bridge loan into longer term debt.
Although it seems like TWC might be getting the short end of the stick, credit ratings agency Fitch doesn't see it that way. Fitch maintained its BBB rating on TWC and said that the company's strong free cash flow generation should keep it stable even with the increased debt load.
During the call, Bewkes offered an historical backdrop for why Time Warner no longer needs its cash-generating cable business. Back in the 80s and 90s, when cable was almost purely a video business, Time Warner needed the guaranteed outlet that cable systems provided and the synergies between content and conduit were strong.
Now, however, cable is "really a full-fledged telecommunications business" and its needs don't fit as well with a content company, Bewkes said. Likewise, Time Warner's content brands don't need cable as much as they once did. "At this point our content brands are very established, very strong, don’t need to the extent…that they did earlier an ownership link with cable."
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:11 AM | Print | Comments (0)(New Orleans, LA) Net Neutrality was a big topic at this year's NCTA show. Congressional staff, FCC commissioners and even the Administration weighed in on the hot-button issue before an audience of operators hoping to hear that no net neutrality regulations would be forthcoming any time soon. And for the most part, that's the message the operators heard.
The highest ranking government official to address the topic was keynote speaker Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Gutierrez said the administration fully supports the industry's right to define "reasonable network management," the latest flashpoint for net neutrality issues, as it best sees fit. "As internet use skyrockets and methods of accessing the Internet multiply, managing Internet traffic has become a nightmare at times," he said. "The rapid pace of change makes it very difficult if not impossible to define what is reasonable network management."
But, like Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Gutierrez thinks that cable operators should be more transparent about what kinds of management policies they put into place. "We believe providers should disclose management practices to consumers," he said.
During a lunch panel featuring top government representatives, one interesting question cropped up: which arm of the government should have jurisdiction over network neutrality. FTC Commissioner Jonathan Leibowitz, in a nod to those who see net neutrality as an antitrust matter, said "we are an agency with jurisidiction" over network neutrality abuses. Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell said that there is "potential for concurrent jurisdiction or overlapping jurisdiction" between the FCC and the FTC.
Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps sees it differently. "It's a very simple approach. Just establish the principle and let it be known that the FCC has jurisdiction," Copps said.
Congress, meanwhile, has the ultimate jurisdiction over this issue but don't expect network neutrality legislation to go anywhere for at least a year, a group of key legislative aides said during a panel discussion. Amy Levine. Senior Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce, which has introduced a net neutrality bill, said that "election year is a difficult year to pass legislation."
But a lot depends on how broadband providers behave. "I think where we go from here depends on what happens in the marketplace," she said. "If the market is looking for solutions, that lessens the need for Congress to act."
A bill sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), which makes net neutrality a matter of antitrust law, will likewise see little traction this year, according to David Whitney, Minority Counsel, Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. Judiciary Committee Senior Counsel Seth Bloom said that although the Committee really believes in the principle of network neutrality, "there hasn’t been a great record of abuse in the marketplace" and "antitrust as a discipline doesn’t like to be highly regulatory or prescriptive."
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:04 PM | Print | Comments (1)
Blogs We Read
