I've been a spamgourmet user for 25 years, and it's been perfect but... Email as designed is fundamentally designed for a friendlier universe and thus easily exploited. To fix this email should deliver ONLY a secure link to its payload that is hosted by the sender. If I send you and email, in your email (or sms or any other delivery protocol) you get a notification: "Fishdan has sent you a message. To read it click fishdan.com/mail?recipient=you@youraddress.com&secretpin=19700101&othersexritything1=foo&othersecuritything2=bar&clientsecurity=&mysecurityclientid=918273123012 etc etc You could even have a thing where if I want to send you a more secure email I require your browser to have a JWT (or whatever) that you only get by answering a second email. Etc etc. Contentlink is evaluated by your email client AND your browser for safety. IF it's an official certification it gets a better trust rating etc. has to match the send of the email and your email reader assigns a trust rating to it that you see when opening the email and again when following the content link.

Yeah, my TV buys are all going to be local cable, which is indeed a remarkable bargain

That is genius! yes please!

I wrote back and they replied insisting that the $50k was a firm number. I had forgotten too that they had approached me about buying advertizing from them several weeks ago and I rejected them because although Boston is the major DMA, my campaign can't afford to pay to broadcast to 5million who are not in my district.

There was no announced criteria previously. It seems most likely that this is a response to my having refused to buy advertising from them, which I did because I'm buying on local cable in my district rather than on a broadcast that reaches 5 million people who are not in my district.

Full disclosure -- it's me
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fishman-For-Congress/238525136213826?sk=wall&filter=12

At least they're getting some money back by selling the disks on ebay :)

Guess I'm not the only one who misses rootshell

I'm with you on this -- the monopoly is completely anti-consumer. The problem is that with significantly lower operating costs, the city will be able to drive the telcos out, and then THEY will be the monopoly. I hate private monopolies but I hate the state as monopoly equally. Simple solution here. Tell the city they cannot collect fees/taxes on the ISPs we're all good. I definitely want the city to come in and bust up the Telco monopoly -- I just don't want one monopoly to be replaced by another.
"
I agree the way the telcos are going about this is wrong though. I'd rather see legislation like: Where municipalities set up their own ISP, they cannot assess city taxes or fees on competing ISPs."

It's all about operating costs -- make those as equal as you can, and THEN let everyone compete.

>provision of communications service

They used that language because it's internet today, and VOIP tomorrow.

>Is a telco or cable company required to keep separate accounts for their internet service?

Geez. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2296405/

>...the bill would say that *ALL* internet providers would be subject to these rules

That is an excellent suggestion, and I agree that would be the perfect wording. On the other hand, I doubt that the current Telcos are collecting much in the way trash and water fees.

Read the senate bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v1.pdf I hate the telcos as much as anyone, but this bill says that when the city enters into the communications business, it should have to pay all the same taxes and fees as private business would, and be burdened with the same oversight. They also say that other fees the citizens pay (trash, water etc) cannot be used to fund the communications business. I don't see how this bill is unfair at all. The telcos are essentially saying "If we didn't have to pay any fees to the city to provide service, we could be competetive." If government wants to set up a business, they should have go compete with other businesses on a level playing field. If municipalities want to open up their own ISP, I am all for that, but then they should stop collecting fees and taxing the other ISPs they are competing with. Municipal government should not be using taxes and fees to provide a commercial advantage for themselves. I think the "level playing field" is actually a good title for this bill, and not an unreasonable request. We're all hopped up on this because it's something that's near and dear to us, but imagine if the city set up a taxi service, but then did not have to pay gasoline tax or hackney licenses. Obviously it benefits the public who uses taxis, but is it fair to the taxi drivers and cab companies that they now have to charge more than the city taxis.

>but that industry is in danger due to poaching from states like Lousiana and New Mexico. >If you live in Texas, write your state representative and senator and get them to support >Representative Dawnna Duke's economic incentive bill. If you live in Louisiana or New Mexico, find some random rep/sen in Texas and tell them how they better not waste any more money on films that make $$$. :)

You don't lose the music -- Microsoft knows full well their DRM is cracked. Their DRM is purely for show and to appease the music labels. And for that matter so is Itunes if you use a record through sound card sort of software. So the MSFT model is MUCH better because it is ACTUALLY as much music as I care to record for a monthly fee.

that's what I meant by better demand. what obama supporter would watch on fox?