That sounds perfect! On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:53 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. >
