Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2010, 06:59 PM  
healthpellets healthpellets is offline
Long Live John Galt
 
healthpellets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: On the edge of reason
Casino cash: $5000
Net Neutrality: Let's have a discussion

Taco John brought us THIS THREAD earlier today, and I don't want clutter a 5th Amendment thread with a general discussion.

So let's discuss net neutrality.

What is it?

Quote:
When dealing with any form of network, be it telephone service, cable television or the Internet, there is often a business philosophy called network neutrality at work. When dealing specifically with Internet issues, the term is usually shortened to net neutrality, but the basic principles are still the same. Net neutrality refers to the non-discriminatory nature of essential Internet components such as servers, ISPs and transmission lines. In the eyes of an idealized Internet, all users have the right to send and receive packets of information equally. The principle of net neutrality makes this possible. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-net-neutrality.htm
Basically, it comes down to one evil or the other. On one hand, we have the government step in to regulate and "enforce" net neutrality via the FCC. While the FCC currently doesn't have the authority to do so, they are working with legislators to introduce a bill to expand their authority.

On the other hand, we have the current situation which is where the Telecommunications industry has control of the product they supply, and they theoretically allow open and unfettered access to all web traffic.

So far, we've had a few instances of Telcos shaping traffic of heavy bit torrent users, which was only found out after subscribers became suspicious and investigated it for themselves. Most ISPs, in their user agreements, state their right to limit access or shape traffic should they deem your use derogatory to their network.

So where do you come down on this? Government involvement or status quo?

IMO, thus far we're talking about solving yet to be seen problem with preemptive government intervention. While i'm not a fan of the theoretical restrictions that could be placed on internet traffic by ISPs, it thus far seems to be the lesser of two evils for a couple reasons. 1) most people have at least two choices for internet access (yes, i realize that not everyone does, even in metropolitan areas), and that number should continue to expand with technological development; 2) there are a couple of ways to get to sites should your ISP decide that you don't need to visit those sites (TOR and Haystack are a couple currently available options).

Discuss.
Posts: 1,869
healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 06:31 AM   #46
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6325
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe View Post
I work for the largest ISP (by certain measures, it's somewhat subjective) in the world and it's STILL a tough issue for me.

Certainly, nobody wants their ISP to hamper traffic in an effort to boost their own profile.

However, there's just no way I could ever agree with allowing the government to step in an regulate it. They call it "neutrality" and it's anything but.
We do it with public utilities, and they remain neutral.

No matter who you are, when you pay for water and power, you get what you pay for. You don't have to pay for a deluxe "fast lane" to get my power delivered reliably. More to the point, if You are running a power plant, You may have to contribute to the transmission costs of the power, but You don't have to pay a special extra fee to deliver your power to customers. And do you know why that is? Regulation.

These industries are heavily regulated, and in many cases, the water utility is run by the local municipality, not by a private company. Further, they're neutral. They treat every customer the same, and simply make them pay for usage.

The fact that ISPs can't properly manage their capacity and now have to demand that content providers who are not their customers must now subsidize the ISP's customers simply because the ISP cannot deliver the promised capacity at the agreed upon price is not an argument for less regulation. It's a sign that the ISPs are horribly managed businesses that probably need more government oversight until they can get their shiat together.

And remember, these companies are already heavily subsidized. Look at your bill one day. See a Universal Service Fee. Or for homeowners, the "Federal Subscriber Line"

Those were suppose to pay for companies upgrading and providing fast internet. They never did, like they promised.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 06:34 AM   #47
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6325


__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 10:24 AM   #48
GloucesterChief GloucesterChief is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Jan 2013
Casino cash: $6459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
We do it with public utilities, and they remain neutral.

No matter who you are, when you pay for water and power, you get what you pay for. You don't have to pay for a deluxe "fast lane" to get my power delivered reliably. More to the point, if You are running a power plant, You may have to contribute to the transmission costs of the power, but You don't have to pay a special extra fee to deliver your power to customers. And do you know why that is? Regulation.

These industries are heavily regulated, and in many cases, the water utility is run by the local municipality, not by a private company. Further, they're neutral. They treat every customer the same, and simply make them pay for usage.

The fact that ISPs can't properly manage their capacity and now have to demand that content providers who are not their customers must now subsidize the ISP's customers simply because the ISP cannot deliver the promised capacity at the agreed upon price is not an argument for less regulation. It's a sign that the ISPs are horribly managed businesses that probably need more government oversight until they can get their shiat together.

And remember, these companies are already heavily subsidized. Look at your bill one day. See a Universal Service Fee. Or for homeowners, the "Federal Subscriber Line"

Those were suppose to pay for companies upgrading and providing fast internet. They never did, like they promised.
Having worked for an ISP, in fact one of the largest who also owns lines. Yes, yes they are. It is a slow process due to a number of things but they have been introducing faster speeds as a advantage over their competitors.

Also, most power companies and water companies have a government sanctioned monopoly. They aren't really concerned with how they treat you because its not like you can go somewhere else. I remember during big storms it would sometimes take Pepco more then a week to restore power. This wasn't out in the boonies either.

When I moved to Texas I was amazed at what the power companies do to get business because there isn't a government sanctioned monopoly. They advertise and make up promotions to get business.
Posts: 1,550
GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 11:10 AM   #49
htismaqe htismaqe is offline
What? What?
 
htismaqe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chiefsplanet
Casino cash: $8084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
We do it with public utilities, and they remain neutral.
In most municipalities, public utilities don't have any competition at all, so you're comparison really isn't valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
The fact that ISPs can't properly manage their capacity and now have to demand that content providers who are not their customers must now subsidize the ISP's customers simply because the ISP cannot deliver the promised capacity at the agreed upon price is not an argument for less regulation. It's a sign that the ISPs are horribly managed businesses that probably need more government oversight until they can get their shiat together.
Net neutrality isn't about bandwidth utilization or conservation. That's a simplistic, half-baked argument for the misinformed.

The REAL reason TWC wants to hamstring Youtube is because they OWN A COMPETING MEDIA COMPANY. Why do you suppose Comcast invested so much in NBC Universal? Verizon owns RedBox, don't you think they would prefer their users watch RedBox instead of Netflix?

At the heart of the issue is whether or not ISPs should be able to prioritize their own IN-HOUSE media services over services provided by their competitors. It's a common practice in the hardware and operating system markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
And remember, these companies are already heavily subsidized. Look at your bill one day. See a Universal Service Fee. Or for homeowners, the "Federal Subscriber Line"

Those were suppose to pay for companies upgrading and providing fast internet. They never did, like they promised.
You're obviously misinformed about the USF, too.

The large telcos and cable providers, the ones that control the majority of the Internet backbone and share the vast majority of the residential subscribers, don't see a dime of the USF. They pay into the USF. For residential customers, they pass that on as a fee. For large enterprise customers, they often end up eating it because big companies don't want to pay it.

The USF is there to provide equal access to communications for rural and under-served communities. 90% of the USF goes to rural, independent telephone companies and municipalities who provide internet service.
Posts: 61,766
htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.htismaqe is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 06:12 PM   #50
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6325
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe View Post
In most municipalities, public utilities don't have any competition at all, so you're comparison really isn't valid.
Are you saying there is a healthy, competitive, low start up cost environment for providing internet service?

In most municipalities, monopoly's don't have any competition at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe View Post
Net neutrality isn't about bandwidth utilization or conservation. That's a simplistic, half-baked argument for the misinformed.

The REAL reason TWC wants to hamstring Youtube is because they OWN A COMPETING MEDIA COMPANY. Why do you suppose Comcast invested so much in NBC Universal? Verizon owns RedBox, don't you think they would prefer their users watch RedBox instead of Netflix?

At the heart of the issue is whether or not ISPs should be able to prioritize their own IN-HOUSE media services over services provided by their competitors. It's a common practice in the hardware and operating system markets.

This is about companies wanting someone who isn't their subscriber to pay for an optimized route for service they already promised to provide and haven't fulfilled.

And even concerning your statement, what other business claims that they should be allowed to leverage their monopoly position to forcibly pass on their costs of doing business to companies they compete with?


Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe View Post
You're obviously misinformed about the USF, too.

The large telcos and cable providers, the ones that control the majority of the Internet backbone and share the vast majority of the residential subscribers, don't see a dime of the USF. They pay into the USF. For residential customers, they pass that on as a fee. For large enterprise customers, they often end up eating it because big companies don't want to pay it.

The USF is there to provide equal access to communications for rural and under-served communities. 90% of the USF goes to rural, independent telephone companies and municipalities who provide internet service.
Citation needed.

Cause From here:

Quote:
Take a look at your phone bill and you'll see a charge -- typically a few dollars a month -- for payments to the "Universal Service Fund." That's the umbrella program covering various ventures, including Lifeline, that are designed to make telephone communications universally available to all Americans.
The government requires most telecoms to pay into the fund. The carriers then typically pass the costs on to their customers as a monthly surcharge.

Last year, Lifeline accounted for 20% of the $8.1 billion Universal Service Fund distributed to support connections for rural areas, schools, hospitals and low-income individuals.

...

Tracfone now has more than has more than 4 million subscribers in its Lifeline program, called SafeLink, and collected $452 million last year from the program's subsidies. That's twice what it took in two years ago, and far more than any other provider. (The runners-up, AT&T (T, Fortune 500)and Sprint (S, Fortune 500), each collected around $274 million.)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/26/tech...e-free-phones/

That sure doesn't sound like At&t isn't getting a dime.



And then there is this:

Study: Half of telecom subsidy goes to phone company overhead

http://thehill.com/policy/technology...medium=twitter
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 06:35 PM   #51
xbarretx xbarretx is offline
The Freeze!
 
xbarretx's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gardner, KS
Casino cash: $75035
I signed them both and sent a lengthy letter to the FCC.

http://www.fcc.gov/page/fcc-establis...ernet-comments



https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...tates/9sxxdBgy

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...riers/4MrqLTlV
__________________
p.s. - VonneMarie is ALL woman!
Posts: 2,665
xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 06:43 PM   #52
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $6972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Citation needed.

Cause From here:


http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/26/tech...e-free-phones/

That sure doesn't sound like At&t isn't getting a dime.
Out of the $8.71 billion USF ... $274 million is chump change.

You REALLY don't want to argue with Htis on this... he will make you look even dumber than you normally do.
Posts: 14,723
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 06:44 PM   #53
DaveNull DaveNull is offline
Veteran
 
DaveNull's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Villa Straylight
Casino cash: $5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
You REALLY don't want to argue with Htis on this... he will make you look even dumber than you normally do.
Harumph. Don't mess with the media center crowd.
Posts: 1,241
DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.DaveNull would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 06:46 PM   #54
planetdoc planetdoc is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $5000
whitehouse petitions are useless. They are just a means for people to blow of steam without really doing anything to make a difference. I also suspect all of this info is added to your profile (i.e. which topics you petitioned regarding and what digital info you provided).
Posts: 1,989
planetdoc has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 06:48 PM   #55
planetdoc planetdoc is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe View Post
The REAL reason TWC wants to hamstring Youtube is because they OWN A COMPETING MEDIA COMPANY.
tl;dr: its about Big Cable stopping the cordcutting trend.
Posts: 1,989
planetdoc has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 06:49 PM
xbarretx
This message has been deleted by xbarretx.
Old 04-28-2014, 06:58 PM   #56
xbarretx xbarretx is offline
The Freeze!
 
xbarretx's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gardner, KS
Casino cash: $75035
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc View Post
whitehouse petitions are useless. They are just a means for people to blow of steam without really doing anything to make a difference. I also suspect all of this info is added to your profile (i.e. which topics you petitioned regarding and what digital info you provided).
Only info I provided was my name and email...you think the NSA doesn't already have that? As for useless petitions, that might very well be true. However, any means of generating awareness is not useless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc View Post
tl;dr: its about Big Cable stopping the cordcutting trend.
They can't stop it. There continuing to put people over the line that marks the I love my cable and it's just not worth it. They can throttle all they want in the end. With crap speeds, that will just mean we all need to stop paying for more bandwidth since we won't be able to use it.

Plus I concur with hitsmaqe, on what the issue is really about. However, that type of approach will end up hurting the broadband providers themselves. It's just more greed, we don't get free broadband do we? Thus we have already paid for any service they deliver to my home with plenty of icing on there cake. Plus, companies also pay for there connectivity (e.g. Netflix). The problem isn't bandwidth, the problem is crap ISP's drove so many customers away and continue to do so, thus as gross revenue decreases there trying to make up for there own F up. They got mad because there business model essentially created things like netflix. There too much bloat with cable. They could ala cart it but always make it too costly. The reason netflix accounts for the majority of all US bandwidth it's a testament to the level of stupidity running the cable industry.


Lastly, I don't get the fuss from anyone complaining about the additional regulation since things were fine before Verizon won there case in court. The additional reg didn't ruin your any of your days did it? From the business side, I worked for the largest telecomm provider in KC .....in Regulatory Reporting. I knew exactly how much money was collected for the USF and TRS funds and from which states they were collected. I also know the exact regulatory differences between a telecommunication service provider and a broadband provider. The point is, would there be some additional cost if from a legal entity point, all of this company's broadband providers were reclassified as telecom providers? Of course....but the kicker is that there already filing to all 50 states and there PUC's (public utility commissions) and the federal govt. for many of the legal entities in there corp structure. All it would mean is someone in network flips a switch to track data traffic usage differently and each of there annual filings get another 5 -10 pages in there total report. Also, if I was still doing it, all I would do is simply data mine a bit more for the necessary financial info needed at a state and federal level. The only reason your Comcast's of the world don't want to be called a telecom provider/information service provider is because they can get away with a lot while the govt turns a blind eye. Or at least the govt overlooks a lot than it otherwise might not.
__________________
p.s. - VonneMarie is ALL woman!

Last edited by xbarretx; 04-28-2014 at 08:23 PM..
Posts: 2,665
xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 08:32 PM   #57
HonestChieffan HonestChieffan is offline
Country Santa Year Around
 
HonestChieffan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
Casino cash: $7282
Loneguy represents the exact mentality of the progressives. If you voted for Obama then you voted for government control and monitoring of the internet.

Sucks

But true
__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Come home to Jesus Dave. Come home.
Posts: 28,582
HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 08:42 PM   #58
xbarretx xbarretx is offline
The Freeze!
 
xbarretx's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gardner, KS
Casino cash: $75035
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan View Post
Loneguy represents the exact mentality of the progressives. If you voted for Obama then you voted for government control and monitoring of the internet.

Sucks

But true

Seriously though, the point isn't to have big brother step up to the plate. The point is to stop companies from ruining innovation and free speech online.
__________________
p.s. - VonneMarie is ALL woman!

Last edited by xbarretx; 04-28-2014 at 08:53 PM..
Posts: 2,665
xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.xbarretx has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 09:46 PM   #59
dirk digler dirk digler is offline
Please squeeze
 
dirk digler's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clinton, MO
Casino cash: $6595
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe View Post
You're obviously misinformed about the USF, too.

The large telcos and cable providers, the ones that control the majority of the Internet backbone and share the vast majority of the residential subscribers, don't see a dime of the USF. They pay into the USF. For residential customers, they pass that on as a fee. For large enterprise customers, they often end up eating it because big companies don't want to pay it.

The USF is there to provide equal access to communications for rural and under-served communities. 90% of the USF goes to rural, independent telephone companies and municipalities who provide internet service.
That is not entirely correct. The company I work for gets the USAC grant(which is funded by the USF), which in turn we send money to AT&T for our MPLS service and then they get reimbursed by the federal government.
Posts: 48,532
dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 11:03 PM   #60
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $6150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
It's good to see that someone finally updated this ancient thing. I remember back in 2003 when they were first pushing this scare graphic. Ten years later, we still haven't seen anything like it come into existence.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,886
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.