Was? (Sent from my iPhone...)
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh how people forget how hated ATT was back in the day. > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 17:55, Harry Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> Putting the myriad of issues related to government control, net >> neutrality, increase and dissemination of crapware, botnets, etc I >> actually >> look forward to the increase of speeds across the nation. I live in >> NYC, one >> of the outer boroughs specifically, and it's purely and absurdly >> ridiculous >> that I have to succumb to Time warner's Joke of "High-Speed": 10 >> Mbps Down >> and 512K up. It's laughable that I truly have no other choice and >> if nothing >> else, the plan will provide and mandate Big telco, small telco, to >> deliver >> much higher speeds across the board. Even as we speak there are >> services >> such as Boxee, Vonage, iTunes, bitTorrent, Xbox Live that just keep >> becoming >> more and more prevelant and chewing up bandwidth. And i don't need >> to tell >> you folks how in the world is a 512K line suppose to cope? It's >> only a >> matter of time where Internet truly becomes a utility and it isn't >> a stretch >> that the following makes sense: >> Chief among its goals, the F.C.C. wants future broadband investment >> to be >> targeted to the areas where gaps in service remain. It will direct >> this >> investment in part through the Universal Service Fund, an $8 >> billion-a-year >> program for telephone and Internet access paid through a phone-bill >> surcharge. Over time, the subsidies for Internet will increase and >> those for >> phone will dissipate, with the knowledge that people can make calls >> over the >> Internet. >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> The question was limited, so I answered as asked. >>> >>> Point noted and respectfully disagreed with, except to note that the >>> Constitution is well conceived but poorly written, though it was the >>> best that could be done at the time - perhaps that's where our >>> agreement might lay. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 16:42, Jonathan Link <[email protected] >>> > >>> wrote: >>>> Your set is too limited. >>>> All administrations are about more government, where we can have a >>>> discussion is the degree to which the administration in question >>>> expanded >>>> government. Even going back to Washington. No disrespect to the >>>> founding >>>> fathers intended, it's the nature of the beast. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yup. >>>>> >>>>> Both Bush and Obama are all about more government. >>>>> >>>>> Didn't like either one, and still don't. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:06, Ray <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> And were you equally unhappy during the last administration? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:47 PM >>>>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>>>>> Subject: RE: National broadband >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another huge spending project by our leadership…and government >>>>>> intervention >>>>>> into our private lives. This, like the healthcare bill, is the >>>>>> start >>>>>> of >>>>>> centralized control over our lives. If you think that this is >>>>>> just >>>>>> a >>>>>> method to give poor folks access, think again. This to me is >>>>>> the >>>>>> start >>>>>> of >>>>>> the American version of socialism. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I detest what our current leadership is doing to this country. >>>>>> But, >>>>>> hey, >>>>>> it’s just me…sorry if I offended or took it too far off to >>>>>> pic but I >>>>>> am >>>>>> angry >>>>>> with it all…. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill Lambert >>>>>> >>>>>> Concuity >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone 847-941-9206 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The information contained in this e-mail message, including any >>>>>> attached >>>>>> files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use >>>>>> of the >>>>>> recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient >>>>>> (or >>>>>> authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are >>>>>> hereby >>>>>> notified >>>>>> that you have received this communication in error and that any >>>>>> review, >>>>>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is >>>>>> strictly >>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>>> please >>>>>> contact >>>>>> the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. >>>>>> Thank >>>>>> you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: David Lum [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:39 PM >>>>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>>>>> Subject: National broadband >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts, comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.broadband.gov/ >>>>>> >>>>>> David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER >>>>>> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION >>>>>> (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >>>>> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >>> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >>> >> >> >> >> > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
