What is Digg?Sponsored by NerdyShirts.com
Buy Nerdy Hoodies - Nerd to Live view!
nerdyshirts.com - Stay with these Nerdy Video Game & Movie Hoodies
59 Comments
- bloodborne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34Very nicely done. Much better execution than those other fear mongering anti-Net Neutrality commericals.
- Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Imho, every single Digg user should be in support of net neutrality. The entire idea of this site is that anyone can submit content, everyone will be able to view it, and the users decide what content deserves more attention, just like the web itself. Digg would have never happened without net neutrality, because if you can't control the content people view, you stand to make less money on older business models.
- halosniper7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25connect to the web by pipes- buried as inaccurate, the internet is made of tubes.
- halosniper7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14^its a joke brew
- kuchino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Time to take the PitchFork out of the Closet and get the Angrey mob going....
- Fetttson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12A++ WILL BUY AGAIN!!
- SonofMaug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Awsome! This is the heart of the matter. We should shove this down Ted Stevens tubes! On the back of a big truck!
- cavemonkey50, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9They want to prioritize their packets over the other ones. For example, Verizon allows their VOIP service full usage of their network, while if you subscribe to Vontage, they give Vontage packets a lower priority. Verizon would allow Vontage to have full access to their network if they would provide some monetary compensation.
So, the whole point of this is to drive their users to their own services or their partners services unless a company would pay to be a partner. It's all about monetary gain. - loup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@TubaTechno
I'm not exactly going to disagree with you, but I do think you're missing one important point. It may not change your opinion, but I just want to make sure you know everything that's going on before you finalize your opinion.
Net neutrality isn't about how much the customer pays, AT&T, Qwest, Comcast, everyone can set their own prices.
I'm going to use Google and Comcast for my examples, I don't really know how either company stands on the issue, I'm just using them for my example.
Google pays for its bandwidth through its own service provider. Then there's me, I pay for my bandwidth through Comcast. What Comcast would like to do is not only charge me, they'd like to charge Google as well for the privilege of having access to me. Keeping in mind that Google is already paying its own service provider for its bandwidth, if they don't also pay Comcast some money Comcast will either slow down the connection from me to google, or block it all together. So really, in this case, Comcast wants to be paid twice for one thing.
The people that support Net Neutrality want to keep this from happening - skiCO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I work for a law firm that is hired by one of the big companies featured in this video and I have been doing a lot of work on this subject over the last few months.
Here's the thing... I am pro net neutrality but the issue is not as simple as this video makes it seem. There are very good arguments on both sides of the issue and when and if any of you actually take the time to read both carefully.... you will realize that neither side is arguing over the same thing. At this point its just a big mess of rhetoric.
Pro NN arguments:
The erosion of net neutrality will have a chilling effect on free speech and the ability for anyone to get their information out on the internet.
NN is required to allow innovative small businesses to succeed based solely on merit and not by the size of their bankroll or corporate influence.
NN is REQUIRED to SAVE the internet as we know it.... among others.
Counter arguments:
Services like youtube, Google, My space, etc... make huge sums of money without paying any back to the companies which spent billions to lay down the infrastructure.
Consumption of bandwidth is rising at a faster rate than the amount of available bandwidth and big telecom has no incentive to speed up the scale and speed of their high bandwidth roll outs (Verizon's FiOS for example) if they aren't going to get any return what so ever on the increased bandwidth usage... among others.
Notice how the biggest and most persuasive arguments do not even address the issues of the other side? Its a mess right now and it is all fear mongering; this video included. Both sides are trying to paint a scarier picture than the other rather than directly addressing each other's arguments. - TekeeTakShak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Agreed - I thank whomever posted this. I actually haven't known what net neutrality is to this day. Dugg!
- Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm going to bookmark that and the next time I'm chatting with someone and I hear, "What's net neutrality?"... I'll just make them watch that. Very well done.
- Meshyf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The problem with that is, some people can't switch to a different company. I can only get high speed internet from Time Warner. I don't live in a big city and the only other option is dial up. Would you make that super simple switch back to the hell hole of dial up? I didn't think so. So lets say you like to play Xbox Live. As of right now you get no lag and love downloading demos, movies, and chatting with your friends. That all works great now, but if the teleco's were to destroy net neutrality and Microsoft wouldn't pay the money to become preferred than it would become slow and bogged down to no end. So it wouldn't be as simple as what you say.
- swoopdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6very good video, I hope this gets the point across to at least some people who may not be familiar with this issue.
- wikk!d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Please wake up from your Utopian view of the Internet, everyone is out to make money."
True, and I support capitalism, so to a point, I'd say "if Verizon wants to give their VoIP packets higher priority over the Vonage, let them... it's their network, and if you have a problem, switch to a net neutral company." Think of it as you owning a book store, and a competitor book store wants to use your building as an entrance to theirs - or something. you wouldn't want that. But this is just to a point. Fact is, many people have only a few choices in their area for broadband. For me it's either Comcast cable, or Qwest DSL. If both of those companies were against net neutrality, I'd be forced to go back to dial up. Not to mention, this stinks a little bit of anti-trust. Sure, i don't think this would ever come to an anti-trust argument, but take into consideration how similar this is to the microsoft / netscape battle. Microsoft allegedly had software embedded in it's OS that made it very difficult to use netscape. The people won there, and we can win here. - Angmar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've got the torches ready.
- Nameless1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You shouldn't concern yourself with net neutrality, Its just a bunch of mambo jumbo.
/waves hand in a jedi mind-trick like fashion. - cinnix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Very interesting. Secretly I already knew what net neutrality was, but didn't realise it, I've been an AOL customer, and 3 (a british cellular network). Both companies have no ***** morales, with their bloody "walled gardens", concentration camps, prison cells... or whatever the hell they call it. It really pisses me off that companies are cashing in on limiting our access.
Another thing thats pissing me off is traffic shaping and ISP's overselling a service, why can't these companies provide a quality product/service that the consumer will be happy with? Rather than executing poorly thought-out idea's to make the quickest buck. Surely if your service reaks of quality, then you get a better repuatation and your customer base grows..... raaaaaaaaaaa. (rant over) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Excellent digger !!!!111 AAAAAAAA+++++++
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was wondering what happens when they move the phones onto a pure IP network alongside the internet traffic. I don't this would not be possible with net neutrality so it would hinder progress in that way.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No, not at all, but it's interesting that you would jump to that conclusion.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@skiCO
What about the principled argument of private property rights? If I owned a pipe I would not like someone telling me what I could put down it, or how to make contracts with my customers. I would not like that because then I would not own it if I could not do whatever I want with it, as long as I don't break my contracts or violate other peoples property rights. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12"fear mongering anti-Net Neutrality commericals"
What? Are you serious? After watching this sensationalized, fear mongering video FOR "net neutrality" you still think both sides do not carry the same tactics?!
With lines like "save the internet" "The End of the Internet?" "Huge Fees", all sensationalism. This whole debate reminds me of the Telecommunications act of 1996. Congress forced local telephone companies to share their lines with competitors at regulated rates if "the failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer." The Act was claimed to foster competition, but instead it led to historic industry consolidation, reducing the number of major media companies from around 80 in 1986, to 5 in 2005 (Wikipedia).
Basically, the government stepped in and told the companies what business standards it should have with "their" equipment. This was supposed to foster competition among companies and allow businesses to have equal ground. What happend? We now have an oligopoly. Thanks government!
I will probably get dugg down for this and rightly so. I'm against the majority. I DO NOT want the government to regulate business. I believe that if AT&T wants to charge consumers a higher rate for the internet, let them. They will suffer because of the backlash of their consumers not willing to pay for it.
The market controls businesses, the government should not. - tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I cannot get on to YouTube. Has it begun?
On Time Warner DSL in Houston. - ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Holy crap... 25 honors in less tham a day amd a half. Very well done lads. And great choice of tunes.
- allholy1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great video. Segregation of the internet == bad.
- nunbot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3that 'yadda yadda' part on their website is where you sign the petition. just digging doesn't actually show that you are in support of it.
- Nameless1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Right. Raise the price of bandwidth. Problem solved.
(i know its not that simple, but in essence thats what i it will boil down into). - wikk!d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's one thing that I don't understand about net neutrality though, perhaps some diggers can shed some light for me. Do these companies want to somehow prioritize their packets over anyone else, via some sort of weird global QoS thing that happens around the world instantly on all routers? Or do they want to build their own networks that will serve there data only (similar to GameRail, http://gamerail.com/ )?
- sotopheavy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Suppose net neutrality fails. Also suppose that telcos create their own internet "fast lanes."
Qusetinon: Would this be done with packet prioritization or with new cables being run across the nation?
If they use the first method (packet prioritization) it would cut into our current bandwidth and slow certain sites (ones that didn't pay) down.
If they laid new cables our internet experience would not be affected. Companies that pay more could offer special HIGH speed service to surfers while other sites would have the usual fast broadband internet speeds.
I could live with the second option but the first is unacceptable.
I hope knowledgeable diggers will correct any misconceptions I may have about the implementation of a "fast lane." - Pyrocet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is incentive to roll out the new services, the USA government is giving them this in tax breaks and such, Verizon's FiOS service was paid for already, and should be widely deployed already, but they just rolled it out to a few trail location then demand more money to finish the job they were paid for.
Sorry for the rant, to me it just looks like the telco's are just laughing all the way to the bank, with our money no less. - Pyrocet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The government we pay for with our taxes has the right to regulate the industry they GIVE OUR MONEY TO! They get god know how much in tax incentives and breaks, to legal monopolies, access to government land for their lines etc.. We've already paid how many MILLION to the telco's for Fiber to the house, now they want more money to do what they have already agreed to? Our tax dollars pay them, then we pay, now they want the sites we visit to pay them, where does it stop? God I hope this message doesn't fall on deaf ears.(Or eyes..)
- dongcha9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great Video with Great Music! Love the Roots!
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yea it is very moral telling companies what to do with their OWN PROPERTY.
Note, I also think the telcos should never have been subsidsed or monpolised in the past. - Zagger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Awesome vid
- skiCO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's that but more than likely they will institute extremely high flat rate unlimited bandwidth plans and lower cost plans that charge by the gigabyte. They are already talking about that even net neutrality advocates are suggesting it (Lessig and Wu for example). Think cell phone plans (500 gigabytes included in your plan per month with an extremely high charge for each additional gig). So its entirely possible that will preserve net neutrality but at the same time will force companies to institute restrictive or costly bandwidth policies.
- tom500k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Big business greed debased radio and TV. Let's act together to save the Internet's neutrality, so it will stay a true forum of free speech, not just a way to sell porno and underarm deodorant.
- kixxster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2awesome, except the whole last bit that was just "visit our website" yadda yadda. I didn't need to be beaten over the head with it. But dugg cuz we need to preserve net neutrality.
- MightyGiant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1R.E.M.F.T.W.
- brokencode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We're going to need Will Smith to stop Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from destroying our internet?
- elCapitanNemo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Agreed, all both sides really want is more money, but the cable companies are the ones who spent billions laying the cable that we connect to the Internet on, of course they want to see some of the money.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Pyrocet
Two wrongs don't make a right. - tom500k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look at history. Big Business ruined radio and TV by buying enough morally challenged congresspeople to give industry control of what should belong to the American people, not a small crew of billionaires.
One analogy: when Ben Franklin set up the postal service, all newspapers, big and small, got the same service for the same rate from the post office. And we got a taste of democracy... - Killabrew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Incredible video. DUGG!
- pylorca, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2great
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yea your own little propaganda machine, that is just as bad as the telcos.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It will definitely have unintended consequences.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This propaganda video is as bad as the telco's propaganda. Stop being such sheep and basing your decision on the companies you trust the most. This video did not have one objection to net neutrality and it relied on the assumption that it would be bad for everyone. What if that was not so?
- WazzaM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Don't give greedy capitalist an inch....
DON"T FORGET ENRON ! - BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3More government regulation is bad. Mmmkay?
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is