You want to be head of the department of bribery and skullduggery? Im going to need a good man in that spot, need to get set up to take payments from cash to bitcoin to farmers daughters. Its all about ensuring a fluid customer experience
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > That should do it. selling the plan to the legislative branch should be > easy enough, just offer them a cut. > > I'd also like to get in early and request a cabinet position... I don't > need a cut of the profits, just a job that isn't to much work but has > plenty of opportunities for accepting bribes. > On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Im legalizing pot, therefore i will win > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Since your kleptocracy platform won't be popular, what story will you >> tell in order to get elected? >> >> How will you sell your plan to the legislative branch who will actually >> have to make it law? >> >> I just don't know if this plan has been thought through very thoroughly. >> https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8 >> >> >> >> On 4/15/2016 12:55 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote: >> >> I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits... >> >> >> >> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority? >> >> Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that funny >> business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not >> redistributing that to anybody but me. >> >> I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual infrastructure >> obviously >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds < <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >> >>> It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to >>> content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only >>> delivered to >>> > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the >>> > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense >>> to >>> > me. >>> > >>> > >>> > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something >>> worthy >>> > of any federal attention >>> > >>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> It's a bit of a mess really. >>> >> >>> >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted. >>> >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you >>> >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and >>> >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of >>> >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The >>> >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this >>> >> scenario. >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>> >> >>> >> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider >>> >> > gets >>> >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the >>> content on >>> >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content >>> provider >>> >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently >>> just >>> >> > transiting the service provider network? >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>> j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I have no idea what you just said. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many >>> cases) >>> >> >> to send content feeds. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now. >>> >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we >>> >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. >>> It's a >>> >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops >>> that >>> >> >> will work with their systems. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>> >> >> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their >>> >> >> > infrastructure >>> >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square >>> peg >>> >> >> > into a >>> >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. >>> It >>> >> >> > will >>> >> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler >>> process, so >>> >> >> > thats >>> >> >> > always good. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but >>> thinking >>> >> >> >> this >>> >> >> >> is >>> >> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers. Looks like >>> good >>> >> >> >> stuff to >>> >> >> >> me. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm >>> >> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM >>> >> >> >> To: <af@afmug.com>af@afmug.com >>> >> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/> >>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/ >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> First world problems. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> -- >>> >> >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>> your >>> >> >> >> team >>> >> >> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>> your >>> >> >> > team >>> >> >> > as >>> >> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>> team >>> >> > as >>> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>> team as >>> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.