[kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy

[Kyle Spaans]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM,  <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:06:03 -0500, Chris Frey <cdfrey at foursquare.net>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:38:28PM -0500, unsolicited at swiz.ca wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:41:44 +0000, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
>>> > It is an attack on our culture and our educational
>>> > development in the name of, not increasing--but maintaining, corporate
>>> > profits.
>>>
>>> That has to be a crock. If you take out streaming or torrents...
>>
>> Take out streaming and torrents?  Are you forgetting that to many people,
>> streaming == "our culture"? :-)  And to many people, cheap bandwidth
>> is fuel for the kind of advancement we have been waiting for, for
>> nearly a decade?
>
> For both you and Kyle - you cut out the "less affluent" part of what I was
> quoting, and I'm thinking with a 60GB cap before additional surcharges,
> you're not affected.
>
> I don't believe that in such a financial situation, video or games has
> much of a place. Or, at least, games taking such bandwidth.

Sorry for misquoting your quote! :^) Not my intention. You're absolutely
right that games is a bad example. So for my next example, let's try
something like MIT OpenCourseWare. Streaming video/audio of lectures,
presumably something that would be of great value to less affluent people
who are trying to better themselves. I guess I'm just trying to point out
that even today there are lots of constructive ways to use your bandwidth
(that are especially constructive for less affluent people, cite "some study
that some person did" from the internet that found that less affluent people
fare better if they have access to the internet -- though wait, that's not the
same thing as arguing that they fare better when they have access to lots
of bandwidth, oops :-P).

> * "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

I agree! Though to be fair, we probably need some lawyers on this list
to defend themselves. :-P