Slashdot Mirror
Musicians Demand the Internet Stay Neutral
eldavojohn writes "124 bands — including R.E.M., Sarah McLachlan, and Pearl Jam — and 24 music labels are sending a clear message to keep Net traffic neutral. The Rock the Net campaign wants all traffic to be equal instead of allowing providers to charge a fee for certain pages to load faster than others. These musicians are the latest to join the Save the Internet campaign, which has the chair of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in its camp. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., spoke at the campaign's kickoff. I think it's obvious that musicians (especially independents and small labels) will find themselves with the short end of the stick if they are asked to pay a fee to have their music streamed as fast as larger bands or even corporations."
Well, if REM says so, then it must be a good thing. That really helped me solidify my stance.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
I'm all for net neutrality, but did they really believe that their opinions matter?
Britney is leading this celebrity crusade.
.. from rehab.
She raises her fists in the air and says, "No! we will not stand for this!"
I think one of the best things I noticed about this article is the news site it is taken from. Not Wired online, not the Register, not any of the usual, tech-oriented news sites. CNN is read by the technoelite and the public in general. The entire Net Neutrality issue needs to be in the public view-space.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
... is when bands, especially those who have made it already and don't need more money (I'm talking to you R.E.M.), just dump their records labels and publish their music freely. They can ask you for a contribution if you like, or for you to come to their shows. Here's an example from the Netherlands, all their music for download as long as you "promise to let all your friends listen to it".
In general, I think if you want to be an artist, then you want to have as many people as possible to have access to your material, and if can also make a buck, it's an extra. Otherwise you're just an "entrepeneur" (I quote Rock the Net) and part of the system that aims only for consumers' money, and you should not complain.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Not more Net Neutrality crap. I have to love /.'s double-stance on this. First they decry ISPs for not disconnecting clients that have been botted - then they demand that laws get passed to prevent that.
Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to implement QOS? Do I have to give up decent ping times on VOIP calls solely because the idiots next to me absolutely have to BitTorrent the latest episode of American Idol? Should someone sending spam be given equal priority to the 'net as someone trying to send emails to colleagues?
Net Neutrality means throwing up our hands in the air and allowing the Internet to become a useless mess of spam and viruses since the power to handle them would be stripped from ISPs. It means giving up on streaming video and audio. It means giving up on VOIP.
I don't think it's worth it. Why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to pay more to get a better connection?
"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do. I studied psychiatric history, which somehow proves something about drugs." -Tom Cruise
"They are well known people with large followings"
But large followings for doing _what_, exactly?
Why should I take medical advice from, say, the local mechanic or car repair advice from the local doctor? Or, for that matter, any advice from Paris Hilton?
OK, there's a good argument that everyone's email or web traffic ought to be the same, but for some applications you really do want the net itself to not be totally neutral. For example telesurgery, where a surgeon conducts operations remotely through the use of a robot, and where you really don't want packets getting delayed and are willing to pay for the elevated service. Do we really want such applications blocked (or made unreasonably hazardous) just because of poorly written regulations that are attempting to prevent possible future abuse? Would it not be better to break up the big telco monopolies instead and so allow competition to work in customers' favour?
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
And in other news, Mice demand Cats stop chasing them.
Yawn.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Considering that Slashdot is owned by the VA Software Corporation, do you think it's funny that it is portrayed as being a fighter for the independent etc. etc. Or is it possible for a corporation to not be evil all the time?
And somebody needs to come up with a better name for it than Net Neutrality.
Something like...
'Uncrippled Internet'
As in...
'Don't support a crippled internet!'
'Stop a crippled internet!'
'Verizon wants to cripple your internet!'
paintball
CrippleNet.
paintball
Please tell us what zookeepers and botanists think about net neutrality next. Thanks in advance.
They make most of their money from concerts.
What you're saying is a bit like me expecting to not only go to work and get a paycheck, but also to videotape myself working (typing at my computer all day, not very interesting) and sell that to millions of people. I'm already getting paid.
I realize this isn't the case for everyone, just pointing out that some bands on that list (Pearl Jam?) could give their CDs away and still make obscene amounts of profit.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Um, because it will? Just because the government is regulating something doesn't make it inherently worse off. Like how they regulate the roadways so you have to drive on a particular side (depending on which government is doing the regulating). Don't let your distrust of government regulation make you write off the matter. It isn't the regulation that is inherently bad, it is the misuse of the regulation.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
Unfortunately, when you've got drooling hoards of zombies (or fans, same thing) willing to do anything you even hint at, your opinion DOES make a difference.
But in our capitalist society, it doesn't matter enough to change anything. If companies (the RIAA included, despite their inability to cope with technology) can make more money by destroying the net they'll do so in a heartbeat. The only thing that has stopped them is the uncertainty of whether they really WILL make more money or not. It's entirely possible that charging even more for net access will piss people off so badly that they invent another internet and drop this one. It might be satellite, or wifi-linkup, or something we've not dreamt of yet. But it would happen eventually.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
That's one opinion, but you don't have a way of knowing exactly what these bands are doing with their money either. Who says R.E.M. isn't spending a good bit of money on other charitable causes and interests? Maybe they are, and maybe they're not. But it's certainly possible.
Quite a few bands were hugely successful for years, only to become completely irrelevant if they stopped putting out material and decided to live off their past success. Maybe R.E.M. and others like them feel that they need to keep putting out new singles and albums, because they can do more good with a constant revenue stream coming in than if they call it quits?
I agree that it might be a nice gesture for successful major-label bands to all dump their labels and go independent. But in the grand scheme of things, that might not really mean a lot anyway. The really *critical* change happens when the new, up-and-coming bands succeed despite never signing with those big labels!
I think it's obvious that musicians (and too many other people) don't know how the Internet works.
Nobody "owns" the Internet. If some ISPs or backbone companies decide to limit bandwidth to certain sites, then they will simply lose business to the service providers who don't limit bandwidth.
And what would prevent musicians and their fans from using P2P techniques for distributed streaming?
The whole "threat" is nonsense.
I'm so glad, musicians — the real experts — are finally weighting in on this issue. Why are the FAG still quiet, I wonder?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Most of the people who want "net neutrality" probably don't want to ban QOS outright.
This is what I think ISPs should be prohibited from doing:
1.Discriminating or throttling or blocking based on source/destination addresses (and that includes forcing companies like google to pay more if they want full speed over the ISPs network)
2.Applying any kind of throttling based on port number. QOS is fine (that is, giving VoIP packets priority over BitTorrent packets) but throttling is NOT. If a network link is 1.5MBps and no-one wants to send traffic other than BitTorrent traffic over that link, the BitTorrent traffic should be able to use the entire 1.5MBps link (obviously if someone starts sending VoIP packets, then the network link wont accept as many BitTorrent packets and the BitTorrent download will slow down). This would specifically prevent the (increasingly common) practice where ISPs give you 1.5MBps or whatever speed but no matter how perfect the network conditions, BitTorrent or Emule or whatever else is limited so it can never go over 128KBps or 256KBps or whatever. Write in an exemption for cases where there is a direct threat to the network or to another network (e.g. someone spewing out packets as part of a DDOS attack)
These measures would still allow ISPs to completely block ports used by malware as well as measures like blocking port 25 to cut off spam zombies. And it would allow ISPs to apply QOS so that your VoIP packets have higher priority than the BitTorrent packets. But it would prevent ISPs from deciding that if you access CNN.com you can have the full 1.5MBps speed (assuming the rest of the network can handle that) but if you access YouTube.com or download something over BitTorrent, you cannot ever get more than 256KBps unless you pay extra for it (or google pays extra for it in the case of YouTube)
It's interesting that you draw a parallel to political protests, because the two situations have something in common I think you might have missed.
Of course I can only speak for myself, but when I participate in a protest, I'm not there to change people's minds who don't agree with me. I'm there to make my voice heard, show solidarity with others who do agree with me, and most of all to educate people who might be curious about whatever issue inspired us all to show up and protest. If someone sees me protesting and asks about the issue, I'll happily explain my side of it. Whether they take that as gospel or tell me I'm an idiot isn't important.. what's important is they have more information on which to base their decision. In my eyes, the main point of a protest is simply to let everyone know what you think and why you think it.
If someone is inspired to learn more about the Net Neutrality issue, whether by a bunch of stereotype hippies holding signs and chanting or their favorite musicians throwing in on something like this, surely it's still a good thing that they went and learned about it? Whichever side you take on this or any other issue, educating the masses enough so they can make their own informed decision and then go forward in their beliefs is really the key.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
it won't make it better, it will keep it the same as it was, which i personally feel is a good idea, as it just works.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
You know there was a time that Rock partly meant protest, something your parents
didn't like, something that worried the government and politicians and that is what made
it so appealing. So I guess when a few bands come out against the "man" that makes
news today.
I don't know about the others, but 10 years ago Pearl Jam boycotted TicketMaster on the grounds that their service fees were exorbitant. I've never been a huge fan of their music but I support that band 100% for their support of their fans.
You bring up a great point though. If your favourite band works for the RIAA then you are not their top priority, money is.
Are they hoping "Rock The Net" will be as successful as "Rock The Vote"?
I think the point is that I don't have to pay extra taxes just so I have the privilege of seeing ferraris driving down the streets of my small town. Which makes sense because a ferrari doesn't wear down the roads anymore than some beat up pinto.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...because it is totally correct. In a true competitive landscape where you have a half-dozen choices for broadband connectivity, lack of Net Neutrality wouldn't be a concern. However, if I want broadband, I have exactly one choice: Comcast. We're too far from the DSLAM for DSL, and FiOS won't be coming to Illinois any time soon. So if Comcast starts screwing around with traffic shaping, bandwidth limitation, and the like, I am out of luck, and so is everybody else in my area.
"Let the market sort it out" doesn't work in the case of geopolies.
They are aware that this is the same Internet used to steal food from the mouths of their housekeepers via file sharing right?
These are not the
They're citizens with a stake in the outcome, like you and me. What exactly offends you? That each participant isn't ranting all alone on a street corner? Do they have any less right to get together than the folks who were astroturfing faux-neutrality with a blog ad blitz a few months ago?? Do you believe those guys should "Shut Up And " do whatever it is they do?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And poorly implemented antitrust rulings. Does anyone have a cheaper phone bill because of their "choice" between Bellsouth, Pacific Bell, etc?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
"think it's obvious that musicians (especially independents and small labels) will find themselves with the short end of the stick if they are asked to pay a fee to have their music streamed as fast as larger bands or even corporations." -well, the free market economy already allows this to be true, really. Content Delivery Networks like http://www.akamai.com/ provide a much higher quality of service over the public internet than just sticking it out there on a random webserver. Akamai actually powers iTunes and most big media content with big dollars behind it already. So I agree that the net itself should be free and open, but private enterprise has already created solutions to offer premium delivery for those that can afford it and have a real need.
And for those who missed it:
YouTube Summary of Events: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw
You :-)
Bang and Blame
Bittersweet Me
I'm like most discerning music lovers in that I pretty much know what artists I like and what music (on CD in my case) I am going to buy. Therefore, I'm not going to go buy a particular CD by one artist because it's cheaper than a CD by another artist - instead, I've pretty much decided which CD I want and just go looking for the cheapest place to buy it.
Other than that, I may buy a CD by an artist I've never heard before purely because I'm browsing through a CD retailer's web site and see a CD worth trying based on it being a good price.
And because I'm particularly passionate about the music I like anyway, if some big record company tries to foist a particular artist on me through advertisements, the chances are that I'll ignore it even more and go find something else - only because *I* decide what I will and will not listen to, not some record company.
Unfortunately, we seem to be breeding a younger generation that is programmed to treat music as a "throwaway commodity" like a washing machine, rather than something you carry with you throughout your life. The iPod generation typifies the viewpoint that when you're bored with it, just format the hard disk and start buying some new music.
Me personally, I've got albums that I first listened to 30 years ago on a noisy copied cassette tape through owning on vinyl to now having on CD. Sure, I've MP3ed my CD collection to carry round with me easily but there's no way I'd sell the original CDs, even though they only now get played occasionally on my reasonably good hifi system, because I *LOVE* the artists and albums so much.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Uh, this is a story about a band losing money because people don't want to pay for the ticketmaster fees.
Pearl Jam cares about their fans insofar as it is necessary to keep them spending money.
If it was really about the fans, they wouldn't charge for their music, giving it away as advertisement for their concerts - which in turn would be much cheaper, just enough to keep the bills paid. It's about the money. Nothing wrong with that - I have a job, too. But don't try to make it something it isn't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
More to the point, if your favourite band "works for the RIAA" (or, more realistically, the RIAA works for your favourite band), then you need to find a new favourite band...
We blew it guys, we had the promise of free, unrestricted knowledge - the ability for any man to share his knowledge with another. The freedom to aquire knowledge of any aspect of human achievment, from any culture at any time.
[...]
Wikipedia is the largest collection of ill-informed crap on the face of the planet, an admirable quest that has descended into a miasma of gibberish. It is now no more than a loose collection of opinion that may or may not be right.
I hate to break it to you, but that unrestricted knowledge of man you refer to pretty much IS largely a loose collection of opinion. Also, how do you build a repository of free, unrestricted knowledge while at the same time placing restrictions on the type of information that you gather? Sure, Wikipedia's not the ultimate answer - but certainly it's a step in the right direction, for all its flaws.
You only have to look at the myth of man made global warming to see this in action (and I know I will get flamed for that sentence, but that will only serve to prove I am right).
Nice, I see what you did there. So something like "Well I believe to be true, and if you flame me it only proves I'm right" would give us the blanket right to spout whatever nonsense we like and have it immune to criticism? You complain that Wikipedia is full of nothing more than useless opinion, then you put forward your own equally useless opinion and expect us to accept it as rock solid proof that what you say is true.
I'm not deprecating their stance, just questioning their right to articulate this stance in light of their other actions (or inaction, in this case). In this case, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement, or at least suppose that we are discussing this from two slightly different points of view.
By "keeping issues separate," as you suggest, I fear that I could slip down the slope of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." (i.e., "I support your stance on issue X, regardless of your position on A, B, and C"). Just look at the history of the relationship between the US and Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden for an extreme example of where this could lead. The US agreed with their positions in regard to Iran and Afghanistan, and thus supported them, without considering the implications of their stance on other issues.
I agree this is an overblown exaggeration when compared to the issues of Net Neutrality and the RIAA, but please take it as it is meant in the context of illustrating a point in this argument.
I read the opening line as ""124 brands-- including R.E.M., Sarah McLachlan, and the Pearl Jam..."
Which actually made more sense to me.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
One thing I'm confused on... is IF the ISPs were allowed to charge you a fee for your content to be downloaded faster... and suppose I'm a content provider. Does that mean I'd have to pay a fee to every ISP in the United States? Ug.
And what if I'm a content provider in another country, would I have to pay a fee to all the USA ISPs to ensure my content gets to Americans quickly?
Sounds unreasonable just on the basis of logistics. Add to that the sheer stupid unfairness of it and I don't see how politicians can even consider it.
Isn't this like airlines charging overweight people more for their tickets? Or wait... charging famous people or frequent fliers more?
Bah!
we aren't asking the government to do any more regulating, we are just asking them to make permanent (via legislation) and enforcable (the FCC enforces laws, it doesn't create them) what the FCC was doing prior to selling out to AT&T and SBC. net neutrality isn't a new way of doing things. it the way things were always done in the past. the tiered internet is the new way of doing things.
now that the FCC is owned and operated by the telecommunications industry, we need congress to pass legislation that makes it illegal to stop the earlier (and more effective) practice of net neutrality.
the "hands off the net" stuff is just astroturf by the telco industry to convince the public to let them proceed with thier tiered internet plans. passing real, and enforcable, net neutrality legislation will stop all providers from creating a slowlane to relegate non-paying traffic to. the bill that would gut net neutrality failed to pass (a win for net neutality), but the AT&T merger went thru, which was a defeat for net neutrality as well.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Like how they regulate the roadways so you have to drive on a particular side (depending on which government is doing the regulating).
Oh dear lord I hope they never make a connection between road service and internet.
Legislation for "Wide/Long load" bitflags, mandating which side of the tube american packets must flow on, crosswalks in routers for dialup, IP address clearly visible in the front and end of the packet, speed limits based on state borders (or even better, a national speed limit set to 55kbps), packets must give way to emergency packets behind them.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
I envy your positive outlook. Yet, I find my innate cynicism leaping to the fore.
If you change that "is" to "should be", I'm all with you, with emphasis on the sharing of the why.But in my observations, not only are no minds changed by way of most protesting, but rarely does anyone not already on board ask "why". If the topic comes up, and too often it does in a sort of confrontational or nonconsentual way (someone getting in your face while you are just trying to go about your business), the protester is not often terribly eloquent or articulate. And, people who are yelling don't making me want to listen.
Are you sure the learned about it? One Man's information is another man's propoganda.Most people form opinions with near zero facts and are willing to espose (force-feed) them to others as soon as they formed them. They don't let facts or research get in the way. I mean, if we had a culture of informed opinion I can't even begin to fathom how much better this nation could be - as a place to live in, among other aspects.
Wow... I've drifted into a daydream fantasy, and it's making me tremble with joy. Where people are smart and well-informed. We can trust our fellow citizens to vote sensibly, argue logically, think critically and form opinions from solid information. *sigh*
BLAM!
That's the sound of my heart and soul slamming back to reality.
Ugh
In Nature, stupidity is a capital offense. In human society, too many get off with less than a warning.
The article references the Rock the Net campaign, which has an Online Petition you can sign.
Unfortunately, it appears to be down - I get this stacktrace when I try to sign it:
java.sql.SQLException: [Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]Arithmetic overflow error converting IDENTITY to data type tinyint.o n(Unknown Source)U nknown Source)r rorToken(Unknown Source)e plyToken(Unknown Source)
...
Can anyone else get through? Does this mean that the table is totally full?at macromedia.jdbc.base.BaseExceptions.createExcepti
at macromedia.jdbc.base.BaseExceptions.getException(
at macromedia.jdbc.sqlserver.tds.TDSRequest.processE
at macromedia.jdbc.sqlserver.tds.TDSRequest.processR
to have its traffic owned and limited by large corporations, so you'll have to excuse those of us who remember that fact, and who were there during that time, while we either rebuild an alternative net, or mostly abandon the recreational use of computers altogether for something less corrupt, like basketball or poker.
Actually, many of the bands referenced have been publically telling the record companies that consumers should be allowed to use their music in whatever way they see fit.
I seem to recall that very recently bands like the The Barenaked Ladies have been saying they really don't agree with the practice of suing music fans, or the use of DRM.
Many artists do not agree with the tactics of the RIAA, and are on record as such.
That's a little harsh. Fighting within the system is a perfectly OK way of dissenting; and I wouldn't expect them to give up their paycheques to show solidarity with everyone who doesn't agree with the RIAA.
I think when these artists stand up and say "this is idiotic", a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't be engaging in these conversations get to hear about the issue.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I don't think Pearl Jam had any trouble selling out concerts in the mid 90's. Maybe whoever told me the story had rose-coloured glasses but he seemed pretty confident that Pearl Jam had (for what it's worth) publicly battled with, and then abandoned, TicketMaster due to the high percentage of their take. Maybe that was just a PR move to differentiate them from other bands, but so long as it's in favour of the fans I'll support it.
However, I agree with you 110% that if a musician really cares about his or her fans then they ought to release their music for free. In my opinion music is one of the most powerful human creations of all time but it's nothing to be proud of if it's your primary career. I wrote nearly 20 songs in the 90's and I distribute them all for free. I don't even put ads on the website. That's the only ethical way to distribute music in my opinion.
This is why I want to understand why "the other side" believes what they do just as much as I want them to know why and how I came to my own beliefs.
For a debate to be of any value, both parties should be learning something from it, and for a political belief to be of any value, it should be the result of one's own reasoned processing of as many different sides of the story as one can get hold of. That's why I throw my side into the ring, and that's why it's good to see public figures like these musicians throw in theirs. Not only is it encouraging the debate, but in the case of previously uninspired people who don't normally follow this sort of issue and would have no idea about it without celebrities kicking it into the spoltlight, it lets them know that there even is a debate. This story would never be on something as mainstream as CNN now had the debate not been brewing in the less-mainstream corners of the Internet for so long.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Ya. We were talking about net neutrality at the barber shop last Saturday morning. We're still pretty much half and half, but once we come to a concensus I'll make sure to post it on Slashdot.
I wasn't making an analogy between the roads and the internet (we all know the internet is more like tubes than roads). I was using the traffic laws as a blatantly obvious case where government regulation was needed.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
I can see where you are coming from, but I think your analogy is flawed. The artists != the RIAA (or, rather, the record labels that make up the RIAA) most artists look at the RIAA as being the best way to the top (which it is) and don't question the moral stance, and many have no business capabilities. The truth is, you don't know what the individual artists' views on DRM, the RIAA lawsuits, etc, are. All you know is that they have a contract to get their stuff published with the record labels.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
If their words don't do enough alone, these musicians should set their words to song, and unleash a mighty ballad with the power to solve the world's problems. Just like "We Are the World", only about Net Neutrality, instead of about... the world and stuff...
And who can forget the protest songs of the 1990s and early 2000s? All those protest marches in DC, with the youth of America singing in unison, "This function is void, it takes two parameters..."
But as impressive as those mass protests are, it always comes down to just one person - one person with the spirit and vision to pursue his dreams of peace, love, and music, in spite of all odds. One person to charge out onto the battlefields of the world with his guitar, shouting "Ore no uta o kike!" Hear my song! And put an end to your senseless conflicts. This man will be the leader, and the rest may at first question his methods or his senses but ultimately they'll all be singing his song.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
http://rockthenet.futureofmusic.org/
I'm not so sure that quote is necessarily anti-capitalism. It looks like one of those quites that reveals more about the listener than the speaker. I'm not a big Manson fan, but he is often cleverly ambiguous.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Please resubmit using an analogy based on a series of tubes.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
I have to say, in the end can we really win this one any other way then with our pocket books? I mean if given the choice between a ISP that is net neutral, wont report me to the RIAA and is mostly stable. And you know everyone else, wont we all goto the good one, and thus net neutrality will become a thing of the past?
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Please let this crap discussion die! Now.
I'm glad someone picked up on my literary trick! I did also point out earlier in my article that my opinion is also unqualified, adding another layer of abstract confusion to my statements. Or did I? :-)
I totally agree with you that Wikipeadia is an admirable attempt to catalog information, and it is indeed a step in the right direction. However, it still suffers from a lack of provinence over the sources of it's information. I trust a surgeon to remove my kidney because he is qualified and has a documented trail to prove his ability. I would not trust someone simply because he has a knife and a facemask.