digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why net neutrality is important [pic]

i7.tinypic.com — why?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Elky25, on 10/20/2007, -9/+519wow what a horrible prediction for the future... reminds me of australias foxtel cable tv :(
    • TheGort, on 10/20/2007, -3/+160future? Comcast is already working on it.
      • compressedaudio, on 10/10/2007, -13/+36subscribing to a package as described in the picture would be like hiring a car that cannot drive on the highways.
        any company that does the kind of thing shown in this picture will loose customers.
        go with the competition!
        unrestricted net access will be as it is now, a unique selling point.
        • Rayor, on 10/20/2007, -13/+76LOSE customers, not LOOSE customers.
          It's not that hard people!
          • wellyuk, on 10/10/2007, -35/+8You understood the point he was making, so where's the problem?
          • wellyuk, on 10/10/2007, -28/+4Err.. as opposed to buying my comment, how about "where's the problem?". You understood the point he was making. He communicated his ideas. Was it not a waste of your time correcting his spelling mistake? I think it was.
          • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Why spelling matters? Oh, I don't know. Failing education in the USA? (Assuming compressedaudio is a US citizen.) It's important to at the very least -try- to write grammatically correct. It's not that hard. (Edit: Let's exclude those who have English as a secondary language. Still, capitalize the first letter of a sentence.. really.. it just makes stuff easier to read.)
          • badjoke, on 10/24/2007, -4/+123 is close enough to pi, you get the idea!

            u can nderstand wut im saying. y shudnt i type like this isnt it the same.

            Spelling is everything...
          • luet, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8You guys suck. Just because he added an extra "o" to lose makes his point invalid? What's wrong with you?!? He probably didn't even mean to type "loose"!

            But if you really are going to attempt to be the grammar police... at least do it without invoking hypocrisy.

            "Why spelling matters? Oh, I don't know. Failing education in the USA? (Assuming compressedaudio is a US citizen.) It's important to at the very least -try- to write grammatically correct. It's not that hard."

            Well it IS pretty damn hard according to your post! Not only was your grammar completely messed up, but you switched your thesis halfway through without any warning. You also ended the post with a completely ambiguous statement... fan-*****-tastic.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"You can't understand what I'm saying, why shouldn't I type like this isn't it the same?"

            It's still legible, it's just a bit messy. He added a single "o", get over it.
          • TheNuminous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Spelling errors can start wars. I wouldn't call a queen a quean if I were you.
          • mhender, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I think queef would be a more serious typo.
          • shaun1018, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I personally think companies need more loose customers.
          • specialkay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it's called a typo, not everyone has the time to proof read blog comments. jesus. isnt there more importan things
        • DDRSkata, on 10/10/2007, -5/+37They won't lose customers if every broadband service operates in this way.
          • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17And yet all it will take is one broadband service that likes money (big stretch) to NOT operate this way and get EVERYBODY'S business.
          • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1If everyone switched to it i would set up my own isp
        • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28What competition... Comcast is the only game in town... -_- At least in most towns were comcast is anyway...
          Thats the problem with cable right now... monopolies...

          If we want to fix things to keep this from happening, we really need to let in more cable companies, and prevent buyouts...
          • asforme, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The problem is that Local Governments are allowed to sell telecommunications monopolies for perks. For example the area I use to live, the only choice was Comcast, the village actually prevented any others from coming in, as a result Comcast gave the public schools and government buildings free service. Net neutrality is more government restrictions on the internet. We need to be taking away government's authority, not adding to it.
          • harksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have one choice for broadband where I live, Charter cable internet. There isn't even DSL offered.
          • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@asforme
            Don't know why you're getting dugg down, you're correct. The legislation, if any, that should be enacted should be to keep the telecom industry competitive. I don't know why people are so keen on solving a problem owing to government regulation with MORE government regulation.
        • Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Though, LOOSE customers certainly has potential...
        • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12"any company that does the kind of thing shown in this picture will loose customers"

          Then why hasn't the Cable TV industry gone under? Where is the cable provider that offers a better way of doing business?
          • wellyuk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Because there's not thousands of rogue cable tv channels that people don't have access to.
          • JHattendorfII, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1there should be
        • JDRay, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1There are plenty (too many?) people subscribed to AOL, and plenty more that get service from MSN. I realize that the pic is implying that these packages will include ONLY those services and (using routing rules) not let you out onto the "regular" Internet. But there are a lot of people that would be happy with that. In a sense, what you mean is that you don't want corporations re-creating closed networks. Why not?
        • Orion682, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Because, that's not "the internet," that's a closed network. It's human nature to find a use for tools that you have. If you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you have a circular saw, every solution involves cutting something off.

          By virtue of the fact that you have access to all of the internet, you'll wind up using alternatives more. You may have signed up to it just to use ebay or amazon, but you might decide to start blogging after reading some blogs. Whereas if you never had access to them, you might not see the appeal.

          And it'd be a major contributor to anti-competitive tactics. Startup companies would likely only be in the highest service tier, and therefore would have their audience massively filtered and throttled, unable to compete with the established empires of the web. Imagine what would've happened to digg if only a small minority could access it to begin with. Note how that picture's example lists Google on a different tier than MSN. What search engine do you think people'd use in that scenario more often?

          Additionally, it'd break the current web horrendously. Every other link would be broken due to interlinking and external links between such "tiers."

          In short:The tiered web is *****.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's not what the tiered web is about. I think what they want to do is direct more services towards "Google" than "John Smith's Anonymous Blog". Kind of like how phone companies let you dial 999 / 911 if you've run out of minutes.

            However, the problem will be that when sites like "John Smith's Anonymous Blog" get on sites like "Digg", or "Google", they'll be very slow.

            They're not planning on shutting off sites, they're planning on diverting less resources to make the sites people use more faster. If you're some corporate big shot who understands little about how the internet works and what makes it so great, it sounds like a big idea. That's why it's our job to prevent it from happening, but to do this we've got to understand what they want to do.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/20/2007, -6/+57Everybody, contact your senator (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ... and send them a link to this pic... maybe this is a simple enough argument for net neutrality, simple enough even our retarded congress can get it...
      • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16sorry, it looks like the ending parenthesis is keeping the url from working right =-/
      • Dustmuffins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34They probably won't understand.
      • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4And lets remind them an election's coming up too! Seriously, this is one of the big issues I see in deciding which senators to vote for next november, especially since one of the senators has out and out stated he's against net neutrality.
      • dementia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm going to pass on that, my senator will think this is a really good idea
      • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, I don't think they'd get it. They would say 'well it looks like cable, and there's nothing wrong with that.'
    • falstaff, on 10/10/2007, -24/+5Just for the sake of argument, how's this different than basic cable vs getting all the premium channels? Cable/satellite companies pay more for accessing some content, then pass that cost along. ISPs pay more for bandwidth to some sites than others. Is there any honest, consistent way to demand net neutrality without also demanding that HBO should be free?

      Most likely, if the large sites wanted to remain relevant, THEY would be the ones paying the bill to ISPs, since few consumers would. It would mean more ads, new forms of proxy servers, but very few people would pay any more than they do now.
      • stoppedcode12, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Why should ISPs get paid by Google? or Yahoo? or Digg? The consumers are paying the ISPs for a service in return, what services are the ISPs offering to these online companies? ISPs don't pay a lot for downloading bandwidth, because most of that cost is being paid for by thses online companies plus, it's not like the ISPs are providing a free service, their costs are being paid for by the consumers.
      • MrTinker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is a common misunderstanding so let me *attempt* to clarify:

        In the television business, the customers pay the content providers (networks) charge service providers (cable and internet companies) who in turn charge end users. Each network would have no way to directly charge end users if all the service providers did was to just provided a pipe to the customers. Also remember that internet access can have different speeds, whereas tv can only have one speed.

        Internet sites have ways to directly charge customers, so if ISP's charge customers for specific website access, customers could possibly be double charged, and websites would be profited on by ISPs who don't pass on a dime.

        Net neutrality gives the customers and content providers more choice to pay for and charge for services as they see fit. ISP's can already tier their bandwidth.
      • Dhalgren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You obviously don't have your own website. I help run a small business and we get a lot of traffic to our website from customers. How much would it suck that in order for our website to be included in a "package" that we would have to pay large sums of money to AT&T, etc. Then, having to deal with telling people that in order to visit our website they have to spend more per month on their internet connection? That's not what the internet is for. The internet is the last bastion of freedom. The last place where the little guy running a company can actually compete with the big guy. It's not perfect, but it's the best there is.
      • hellobastards, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The argument isn't that HBO should be free, a more correct analogy would be that if HBO decided to offer its services for free (ie. Blogger, YouTube, Google, et al) would it be okay for Comcast (ISP) to then say, "Even though this content is offered free of charge, you have to go through us to view it, and we believe that this service is worth more than all the other ***** we give away so we are going to make you pay a premium price for it".

        Ridiculous.
    • Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4To plays devil's advocate, theoretically each of those sites would be able to offer much better services with their bandwidth. But I really don't think that would happen or be worth it.
      • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3obviously people don't like the devil...
      • Dhalgren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You mean devil's corporate shill?
      • GuyHitByTruck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why would they offer better service? Companies would have to pay ISPs money just to get regular performance for those customers, or just to get the site to their customers at all! Websites then have less money to spend on content. Many free sites would become pay sites or simply disappear. Many pay sites would increase fees. Where exactly does service get better?
        Also, think if the ISPs got together and formed a trade organization to impose and collect those fees from site owners. Could we have another RIAA/MPAA on our hands?
    • stronglikedan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20That future is one where I give up on the internet and go outside. I'll use the extra money that I'm saving to *GASP* buy sunblock!
    • cbuddha42, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Ok, I agree this would majorly suck for me and the majority of people on digg. Because we do a lot with out connections, our average prices would probably increase. But, think about your parents or grandparents who just use the internet for email and browsing the big couple news sites. Point is, if the ISP paid for the bandwidth, why shouldn't they be allowed to do anything they damn well want with it? It is theirs. Just because it sucks for you doesn't mean its bad or should be illegal. Anyway, lots of the last mile infrastructure was built with government help, so that would be open to any startup isps that wanted to have a go at proving unlimited internet service for those of us who wanted it.

      Once again, just because the status quo is better for you, doesn't mean it is right or fair and it definitely doesn't mean we should legislate to ensure it continues.
      • simplynix, on 10/24/2007, -2/+7This is why I cannot call myself libertarian. Quite simply, the free market does not correct itself. The only way it ever could is if every company was transparent in their dealings and if consumers had the time to educate themselves about and keep up to date with every company. Without government regulation on business, we would still have monopolies controlling our utilities. How is the market supposed to correct that? Everyone just stop using electricity to send the message that we don't like certain practices?

        As far as the internet goes, we're not talking about just some commodity. This is more like the freedom of the press. This isn't about my grandma only using internet for reading her email, this is about the possibility of AT&T blocking any and all anti-administration content because it doesn't serve their business interest.

        Cost is one thing, content is another.
        • appetite, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Thank you, someone who looks at the reality of market rather than some flawed logic-based argument about the magic of markets. The government is very effective for building infrastructure and meeting basic needs. After that, for profit companies CAN be more efficient. But often, they use anti-competitive tactics, suffer from their own bureaucracy, and lose some of that efficiency to the fact that a good chunk of the revenue goes out the door in profit--not back into the system. Why is Blackwater profitable? Because they skimp on armor for their mercenaries. You call that efficiency?
          • scubasteve377, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3No-bid government contracts are hardly an example of the free market. Blackwater is profitable because, like the most all of the contractors in Iraq, they are payed cost-plus (meaning they spend as much as possible and the government will reimburse them and pay them a percentage of that amount; in other words the more of our money they spend the more they make) and, just like most contractors in Iraq, they are not required to produce satisfactory results to get payed and thus money is spent based on whatever the head of the company feels like spending it on (insane salaries and five star hotel accommodations for their CEO's, a new corporate headquarters in Dubai, a couple of "corporate" Ferrari's, etc.). Body armor for their employees is an afterthought, since their ability to keep their people safe so they can do their jobs, has no bearing on their profits. Blackwater, and the rest of the Iraq industrial complex, is an example of corporatism, which really couldn't be any further from free market capitalism.
          • Myztry, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1"The government is very effective for building infrastructure and meeting basic needs"
            Due to size, resources and ability to change laws. Those advantages are diminishing as mega-corporations become proportionately more powerful in the same ways. The Robocop scenario of a Mega-Corporation buying out a debt ridden major American City is becoming increasingly more realistic.
        • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It is sad to see how many people will criticize the free market, and yet have absolutely no idea what it is. Simplynix, we DO have monopolies running our utilities. Do you have a choice in electric companies in your area? I sure as hell don't. And the monopolies that control your utilities, along with your local ISP, have all been put there by government regulation.

          In a free market, monopolies cannot exist. It simply is not possible. The only companies that survive are those who offer the best service for the lowest price. The free market uses the corporate profit motive to the benefit of consumers through competition, which holds down prices and encourages innovation and good customer service. It is only when the government gets involved and begins regulating capitalism, that monopolies emerge and abuses like the tiered internet become possible. That is called corporatism, and it is the basic opposite of free market capitalism.
          • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I live in Australia, in a major but non capitol city, and I can choose from 6 providers for electricity and 4 for gas. All who feed into the same infrastructure which is strangely owned by a Singapore corporation. Similar with fixed and mobile phones. The only real stand out is water/sewerage/garbage which is a local government monopoly. ANYWAY.
            We very much have a free market, although that market is flawed. Virtual monopolies exist in the form of Supermarkets and other Super Sized businesses. It is common practice for such entities to sell products at a lose to deny competitors sustainability in the market. Loses which are simply recouped by jacking up prices once the competition is eliminated.
            As much as regulation can allow monopolies, lack of regulation also allow monopolies. The free market requires an approximately even playing field. But it is not so. Some of the Corporation are approaching Government size which in itself should worry the Governments... I think that's one monopoly they're not so keen to loose. Their is a pending/imminent need to limit company sizes.
          • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I am well aware of the business practices of many of these corporations, like Walmart here in the States, who sells groceries at cost in their supercenters, in an attempt to drive smaller companies out of business. You seem to be asserting, however, that once they run their competitors out of business, they will have "cemented" their place as the dominant provider of whatever service. This is a fallacy. The moment they begin acting like a monopoly, by raising prices and so on, some new competition will come along and they will lower their prices and the process will begin again.

            For a long time, here in America, Blockbuster was synonymous with video rentals. Then along came Netflix, and with them, a new innovative and inexpensive way of renting movies. Suddenly, the rental giant, Blockbuster, was on the verge of losing out to a small internet start up. Their choices were to compete, or go under.

            Walmart has gotten where it is today by giving consumers what they want: decent quality products at a low price. When the time comes that the decision is made to begin raising prices, a competitor will come along and either Walmart will lower their prices once again, or the other company will become the new Walmart. In either case, we the consumers, will have won. What defines a free market is not the health of the companies within, it is defined by perpetual competition. What makes a monopoly a monopoly, is that it is unchallenged, and this can only occur when the government intervenes.

            As for governments not being keen on losing their monopolies on sovereignty, here in the States, our government has already handed over our sovereignty to private banks, oil companies, and the military and prison industrial complexes. It is really sometimes hard to say who is "contracting" who. But our politicians seem perfectly content with this arrangement, since it has many of them very, very rich.
          • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most people are aware of Corporate practice. I was simply articulating it for the point of the discussion. And I was careful to make the distinction of 'virtual' monopolies. You do fail to recognize that the 'competition' tends to be other supersized companies that are able to withstand predatory pricing. And even so, there is a disturbing trend for the CEO's in the Big Boys Club to undertake practices such as market divvying to avoid the costs that come with competition.
            Companies such as Walmart, or say BigW in Australia are also increasingly sourcing products from places like China. The goods are cheaper no doubt. But that is due largely to the inequity of labor costs based on minimum standards of employment. Local employers are not allowed to subject employee's to conditions with which foreign items are produced. The importation of goods are not regulated, and local producers can't compete equally. The supersized bulk importing virtually eliminates the freight costs that render the abuse of Chinese workers unfeasible. And have no noticed the trade deficit between the U.S. and China. Non regulation isn't always a good thing.
            As for governments selling out. It is a highly disturbing trend and points out a fatal flaw in Democracy. The choice of the lesser of two evils isn't really a choice. And as Corporations increase with influence due to unregulated size and influence, things degrade. The Corporate Motto is hardly "by the people, for the people"
          • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Companies such as Walmart, or say BigW in Australia are also increasingly sourcing products from places like China. The goods are cheaper no doubt. But that is due largely to the inequity of labor costs based on minimum standards of employment."

            Which illustrates very well yet another severe flaw, executed by the government, inherent in the current system of quasi-socialized corporatism. The minimum wage, in America, began as a humanitarian measure to raise the economic well-being of the working poor. Its consequences however have been devastating on the economy. For starters, it has made the American worker noncompetitive and jobs have (for obvious reasons) moved overseas where labor in manufacturing, as well as information technology and other fields, is much cheaper. Which has in turn, made those American companies who do not import goods and export jobs, noncompetitive.

            That, however, is not the only negative consequence of the minimum wage. It also creates inflation while it negates the very purpose of its creation. For example: Say minimum wage is already in place and it is currently $5.50 an hour, but the legislature decides to raise it to $7.50 an hour. Now suddenly, companies like Walmart, have to pay every one of their employees making minimum wage, two dollars more per hour. Where does the money come from? Well, there will be cost-cutting and down-sizing (even more jobs lost), but mainly they will get the money from raising prices. This rise in prices by retailers, manufacturers, and service industries, will, from the bottom up, decimate buying power, leaving those whom the government was attempting to help, in the same (or in quite possibly a worse) situation they started in.

            This is why the minimum wage is not, has never been, and will never be a living wage. It is simply a political opiate to the masses who demand higher wages, but do not grasp the concept that what they should be demanding is a dollar that is worth more. But they don't, and the ill-effects of the minimum wage are just another problem, created by the government, but that will be blamed on the free market, and will likely lead to yet more regulation.

            And what is the problem with so-called "predatory pricing"? Like I said before, a free market is not defined by the health of any single business. The consumer wins while prices are low and when prices go up because of lack of competition, competition will inevitably reemerge and bring prices right back down. As for divvying the market, the profit incentive will eventually lead company's to break their pacts to stay out of each other's respective markets, because, lets face it, the end goal of every corporation is world domination and all is fair in love and business.
          • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I faintly remember something about 'Net neutrality'. LOL. Anyway....
            yes, minimum wages causes inflation. But wealth is relative, and it's the rich that suffer the most from inflation. The poor just end up back where they were. Unfortunately the rich require the poor to stay that way in order to keep the value of their wealth.
            The underlaying problem with earnings is what people expect for their efforts. Maybe the person digging holes all day deserves less than the minimum wages. But personally I see the problem as being the people who produce nothing. The paper shufflers to the 'owners of rights'. The bodies of the Corporate, and the Government for that matter. People devoted to the systems that funnel wealth to the few and keeping the 'underling' masses in their deemed place. Therein lies the problem.
            Simple regulation does not cause bad situations (like monopolies). Bad regulation does. Which is what I think we both agree we have, to different degrees being from different countries. The alternative is chaos. Even markets do not flow freely under complete deregulation. Humans need to be governed for our collective welfare. But we need to be governed correctly.
            Should we be aiming for say China as the lowest common denominator for labor earnings. Do we really want to see our fellow citizens subject to the appalling conditions that entails. Where humans are little more than battery hens whose very lives are disposable due to their being billions of people in line behind them? I think not! Supply isn't the only thing that matters. We should be closing the loop and denying them the benefits of our wealth until they can respect fellow humans past something to 'farm'.
            Predatory pricing solely destroys smaller less 'efficient' competitors. You may not see the harm in that. But it is very harmful to the economy.. Supersized companies disproportionately funnel the profits to the wealthy. The non producers, and away from the workers, the economy. Smaller business lacking in these 'efficiencies' return profits back the workers, the 'poor' and the economy. We should in fact be paying more for products, which in turn pays the higher wages that enable us to spend more.

        • cbuddha42, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1Ok, why shouldn't your ISP be able to block content that does not serve their bussiness interest? If you sign a contract saying you pay c dollars a month to access websites x, y, and z, then why is that a problem. You didn't pay for the right to use their connection for that purpose, so you can't do it. You might also sign a contract which allows you to access any site you want other than a specific list which includes their competators. As long as they are upfront about the access they are providing, I don't see why this is a problem.
      • appetite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It would be horrible for everybody. If Ebay is the only auction site, they can bump their fees up--making it harder to sell your own stuff to other people. Goodbye Craigslist--Hello some exceptionally greedy online classifieds site. If Bank of America is the only online banking, they can hit you with some nice online banking fees. Search for coffee shops on the only available search engine, and only Starbucks shows up. Everytime. It's amazing what free open access to information protects us from.
        • cbuddha42, on 10/24/2007, -4/+1So? If comcast only wants starbuck's data on their networks then why don't they have the right to allow only starbucks data on their networks? It might suck for every single person in the world other than the comcast CEO, but it's still their network so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? If your contract says you agree to pay 20 bucks a month to be able to view sites x, y, and z with download rate of d and an upload rate of u then I don't see why that shouldn't be a legal contract. If you don't want to be limited to sites x, y, and z, then don't sign that contact.
        • biggles7268, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2do you work for friggin comcast or something?
      • Orion682, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm sorry but "if the ISP paid for the bandwidth, why shouldn't they be allowed to do anything they damn well want with it? It is theirs." WHAT? What the hell do you think your ISP bill is for? YOU pay for your bandwidth. Just like Google and Youtube and myspace and EVERYONE PAYS FOR THEIR BANDWIDTH. We do not get the internet for free, so stop acting like getting less for the same amount of money is somehow "A good thing". That's being a poor consumer and entirely ignorant of the subject.
        • cbuddha42, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1Your ISP bill pays for a service. Right now, that service can be the right to use unlimited bandwidth for whatever you want, it can be the right to use a limited amount of bandwidth for whatever you want, or it can be the right to use a limited amount of bandwidth up to a download cap for whatever you want. If any of those 3 situations don't exist, it's the first one as virtually any internet connection limits your upload/download rates either because that's the technological cap or to stop you using more bandwidth than you paid for. If we can limit people in their rate and their total downloads per month, then why should it be unlawful to limit people in where the data they are downloading comes from?

          I understand that it is not the internet you know and love, but there is no reason it should be illegal.

          The you will still pay a bill for a service, but the service will be different. Instead of having a limited amount of bandwidth access to any site you want, you will have a limited amount of bandwidth access to a certain set of sites. It is simply a different contract, and there is no reason we should outlaw it.

          Once again, just because something sucks for you or even consumers as a whole doesn't mean it should be illegal.
          • mattn, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3It's not that it should be illegal, it's that if they're going to charge on both ends and the middle, it's not right that they have a local monopoly.
        • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The ISP's don't provide the internet's content. To charge based on others peoples content would be theft. Which is illegal. It would also deprive the Internet's providers of income. Which is illegal and has damages.
          They do provide limited content in their own sites, and often restrict it, and no one argues that point. The cost for data transfer rarely (if ever) changes if it sourced from outside the ISP network. Their is no extra cost to 'pass on'.
          If the ISP's want to create an Internet's worth of content themselves, or pay license fee's to the content owners, then they can. But that is not the case. And once the ISP starts charging explicitly for the content, it becomes liable for it compliance with the law.
          Legality is extremely relevant to the 'free feed' the carriers would like.
    • devophl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The logical progression to this is exclusive contracts. Yahoo announces today that they are the exclusive search and email engine for Comcast high speed Internet users. Google, Gmail and others will be blocked. NFL.com announces today that they will be available exclusively on Verizon FIOS Internet. If you want streaming NFL games on your PC, you will have to go to Verizon to get it. This is what you see on Cable and on satellite radio. Why not the Internet.

      If you see the Internet as being just another content provider like cable and satellite radio, then expect it to go this route and fast. The only way the Internet survives without neutrality is serious regulation from the government and this is exactly what the opponents of net neutrality hate.
    • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Actually, this picture has nothing to do with 'net neutrality'. This would be an ISP charging end users for data. Net Neutrality is trying to stop companies from slowing down data traveling over there network unless the content provider pays extra. So for example Google sends data (ie it's website) from it's server to you. To get to you the data has to travel over part of time warners network, part of ATT's network, and part of comcast network. Google pays time warner and comcast for faster transfer but not ATT, so the data is slowed down on ATT's network, even though your ISP is comcast. At least that's my understanding of it, but I could be wrong. (and yes, it could be your ISP that is slowing the data down, but they are asking for money from google, in addition to whatever access fees they are charging you.)
      • Crosshare, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, this is a possibility of what net neutrality could protect the internet against. Packet shaping, which they are alredy doing is another tactic that the ISPs can use. Net Neutrality would solve more than just one problem.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11And bittorrent will be how much?????
      • streetr8cer13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hahaha ISPs wont admit to throttling bittorent, you might have to get a seperate line for that one.
    • tommgunn, on 10/24/2007, -13/+3Hey, 'Net Neutrality' isn't such a bad thing for us outside of the States. All it will mean is less ignorant posts on Digg.com by Americans who can't locate North America on the map. :)
      • TheTimmeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, because no ignorant people live anywhere else besides the U.S., right?

        *****.
        • tommgunn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I never said that, did I? I said "less ignorant posts..." not "absolutely, positively, 0% ignorant posts...". The American Education system resembles a 3rd world Education system. The American nation, overall, is not an intelligent country compared to other societies. Fueled by consumerism and capitalism.
      • zenshin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1oops meant to digg this moron down.
    • evanpugface, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2if this actually happened... i'd probably just junk my computer for good. perhaps live a more fulfilling life, free of internet addiction!
      • lotu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would probably just go a buy a dedicated T1 line.
    • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Scary stuff. My Government (Australia) is pro-actively pushing net filters at ISP and end-user level. Their is a need for some users (like kids) but it also could be hijacked by "content providers". Though the web sites AREN'T their content....
      All my web browsing goes transparently through the SQUID web proxy/cache. Good chance yours does too. Anyway, a customer version of SQUID could allow not only kid safe browsing but the situation shown here. And having the source code to FOXnews SQUID wouldn't help any.
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3This could never, ever ***** happen. You are a ***** fool buying into alarmist ***** if you think an ISP is going to one day suddenly stop allowing you to goto any site you'd like on the net. Aside from the immediate customer uproar this would create, they would be sued by EVERY ***** COMMERCIAL WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET, and probably a great deal of non commercial ones, and would likely win on the grounds of lost earnings. They would be destroying the free market in place ont eh internet, and the government WOULD probably step in at that point, lest the nation's economy suddenly take a turn for the worse, seeing as how so many companies - large and small - take advantage of internet services. The impact of such a move on the US, and very probably global economies prevent such a move from even taking place. Unless you subscribe to the idea that the ISP's would like to destroy the global economy - including themselves.

      On the other hand, If the government WERE to get involved with regulating the internet, how long do you think it would be before the FCC started classifying websites, and before there were laws made requiring filters for porn that would prevent you from going to a site unless you could verify your age - and i don't mean by clicking "yes I'm 18 or older". How long before they start freely and openly sifting through your e-mail and monitoring your browsing habits. How long before certain websites are deemed to be suspect and thus a visit to the site, which they could monitor, would result in probable cause to investigate you for a possible crime and have your hardware seized? This sort of stuff could happen WITHOUT government regulation and control, but why give them a ***** head start and more opportunities than necessary?
      • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and that wouldn't happen, for the very reasons i listed. There are too many other companies that rely on the free exchange of data for the limiting of what sites you can travel to to be allowed.
    • kp606, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I looked at this and my stomach dropped. It just fell out and... this is terrible.
      This is no better then if they started charging for borrowing books from the library labeled as "classics".
      This needs to be shot down by someone in charge, now.
  • Johnbinarystar, on 10/20/2007, -8/+372The rates are cheaper than what they would really charge, more like double or triple for the top of the line.
    Bend over World, and thank your crooked politicians for the pleasure.
    • dreagen, on 10/20/2007, -1/+68Just imagine the price for 20,000 websites...
    • mwosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25The wost will be when you need to pay extra to get to [X] site, and then pay that site's fee for using their services. This can get out of hand real fast.

      It'll probably hurt the websites ability to charge for services too. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be as willing to pay for a premium service if I know i had to pay money to get to the damn site in the first place.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Welcome to the toll roads of the information superhighway.
      • Figs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You do pay to see the site already! Or are you stealing your neighbor's wireless...? ;)
    • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I thought they wanted to charge the providers for access to the customers, not the other way around.
      • t0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They might do that, but then once they do that whats stopping them from this?
    • hisXenocide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does anyone know how other countries deal with this problem? I would hope that there's an answer other than government regulation.
      • djlosch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2japan, south korea, and most of europe requires net neutrality.
    • chessmaster2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4wtf?? why is google on the "advanced" internet service plan?????
      • Crosshare, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Because it requires you leaving their safe bubble, without being slammed by 10 ads on every page. Think of AOL's pages versus web pages. It's cheaper and more profitable for them to only have users visit those sights. Also, I knew you were being funny, but I had to make the point anyway.
    • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3A propaganda picture shouldn't take the place of meaningful discussion of the issue. The exact details of a "net neutrality" bill need to be discussed, lest it end up following the path of most every other attempt to enforce price controls on a market, where a commodity that should be freely available is artificially rationed, causing a dramatic drop in the quality of the product offered.

      "Net neutrality" could very well be what is undone, as opposed to preserved, with whichever legislation is paraded under that banner. Take previous examles with the "Patriot Act" and "No Child Left Behind", both of which have incredibly ironic titles, considering their effects.

      Don't let emotions take the place of reason on this issue.
      • TheTimmeh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Exactly. Net Neutrality would give the government a foot in the door to take over the Internet. Ask yourself this question: would you rather have the Internet in the hands of corporations that have to cater to the consumer, or in the hands of bought-and-paid-for politicians and bureaucrats? Sure, with corporations in charge we might see SOME ISP's giving preferred sites more bandwidth, but consumers could easily switch to a neutral ISP, which would force others to become neutral as well in order to keep up. This is the power of the free market. With the government in control, on the other hand, the Internet would quickly become bogged down with censorship, regulations, and so on, and there'd be little we could do about it.

        If you as a consumer want to take your business elsewhere, you can do so immediately. If you want change in the government, however, you have to wait years for an election and hope that the person you vote for doesn't succumb to lobbyists. Me, I think I prefer the former.
      • zeejay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I disagree. This picture sums it up well for the 98% of the population who neither know, nor care, about this issue.
    • tsalti, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Many tech/internet companies wont let it happen. They want their information accessible to as many people as possible. Google in particular has been driven to assemble all of the world's information and archive it, to allow it to be viewed by as many people as possible..
  • H3LLSL337, on 10/22/2007, -11/+682I just woke up and this has made me so ***** depressed. Goddamnit.
    • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4Would anyone actually pay money for a filtered internet connection??? Any ISP that ever tried this would never see one cent of my money. If no one wants to buy their ***** tiered service they won't make any money, and then that will be the last time anyone tries the tiered internet scam.
      This could only happen if people are dumb enough to accept it and pay money for it.
      • jjk7288, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25Yeah, but you have to realize that most people ARE dumb. Most wouldn't even know the difference.
        • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7If they are that dumb, it'll just be one less idiot on the internet.
      • biohazd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26Oh man, you _do_ realize people are indeed dumb enough to pay money for such a service? I think that has to be the most depressing part of all of this.
      • JasonDJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Yeah, who the hell would pay for a filtered internet connection. That's the whole reason AOL never had any users.
      • wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Who would pay for filtered service? Poor people, for whom it's that or nothing at all.
      • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Right now if charter did this i would be forced to pay. I have no option. I either use charter or i don't have internet.
      • raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Most Americans were dumb enough buy the "War in Iraq" and that "Saddam has WMD's" and more recently that "Iran is developing a nuclear bomb" (ZOMG! OH NOE'S!!!) and that Iran wants to "Wipe Israel off the Map", so if Americans are dumb enough to believe this *****, they are surely dumb enough to pay for tiered internet service
      • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"This is outrageous! This cannot happen! This is.. oh desperate housewives is almost on.. I'll protest! I'll write about it in my BLOG! THAT WILL TEACH THEM! Now, television.. must.. watch.. mindless show.. can't.. resist.."

        Ah, pathetic. Wait, I meant apathetic. Oh, whichever.
      • r2pro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They already do with the majority of available cell phones.
    • time4evacuation, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24DIGG this and then go out and VOTE
    • ZeRux, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Is this real? I hope it's photoshopped and not that some ISPs (western from Iran I mean) have such policies.
      • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's definitely made by some editing program. Most likely Photoshop, otherwise Corel Draw. Perhaps even The Gimp.

        Or do you mean "forged" or "faked"? In that case, that's pretty likely, too. The quality of this thing isn't that good, not even for a cheap-ass ISP advert.
    • CMiYC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'm with you. I didn't understand net neutrality until this simple picture.
    • huwy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I woke up 10 minutes ago, and it's the most beautiful day, and i'm off to a music festival in 3 hours...
      Haha, I just realised how addicted to Digg I am. WTF.
      Bye
      • TH3W1R3D, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lol so am I. Here I come Street Scene
  • franklymister, on 10/27/2007, -26/+240Sure, but wouldn't you rather have strict right-wing dogma that allows corporations to do whatever the hell they feel like? Isn't that what freedom's all about? Why do you hate America?
    • Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -10/+45As someone whose family tends to lean right... I have no recourse but to sigh and go cry in the corner as the people I love continue to edge us closer to oligarchy by trying to preserve corporations' 'freedom'.
      • ThndrShk2k, on 10/24/2007, -21/+14Corporations are entities, thus a single 'person' to be said. Their freedom is our freedom. When an american entity is denied it's 'rightful' profit, then it's communism because that person was denied the opportunity to be successful, and their liberties to a full life is limited. This is the epitome of communism, and communism is bad, mmkay.

        Oh, and they defend their 'lost opportunities' with lawyers a single person could not pay for
        'Rightful' profit is of course the money they could have made if people bought their service at their demand
        People are communists for not wanting their service because the entity's demand is stupid
        People are facists for not wanting their stupid services and deny them their espected profit, limiting what they can do and essentiall forcing them to submit their liberties and limit their freedom of corporation.

        So people, why don't you stop being so selfish and just agree with the corporations, you want the internet, they provide it. Stop your ***** whining. ;D
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Thats fine. As a free individual, once the price of the internet reaches the point I'm not willing to pay for it, I'll unsubscribe. Just like I did with cable TV. Price vs. entertainment value on TV has diminished, so I quit watching. When the internet reaches that point, I'll do something else also. Going outside might be fun, who knows.
        • TheGort, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1You can just take a lap top to a coffee shop and bam free internet still.
        • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Are you a moron? "Their freedom is our freedom".. So back in the late 1800's when company's were free from any regulation, that was good? The sweat shops, the 80 hour work weeks... Obscene behavior of companies like Worldcom, Enron, lead you to believe that corporate America should be completely unregulated? Its not a black and white issue dip *****.
          • dclowd9901, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No *****. Even the brightest economists of our nation agree that in order for our "free" economy to work, there needs to be a fair and level playing field. How the ***** is that supposed to happen with multi-billion dollar corporations lobbying for preferential treatment, and using their obtained power to undercut competitors?
          • rikonick, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I think he/she was being satirical. Read the second para again.
        • hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13@msgyrd: Maybe you're happy with just unplugging from the internet; I'm not, and I suspect most people aren't either. At the risk of sounding "communist" (which these days apparently means "rationally critical of unfettered corporatism"), I really do think that the broad availability of the whole internet is important to preserve as a public good.
          • Sibre, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1@hierophantus: Try using the right reply button
          • hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Guess what? There isn't a reply button to msgyrd's comment on my screen. That's why I used the one on the next lowest rung of the thread. But thanks for the dickery anyway.
        • Gtitian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14The problem is that Corporations actually AREN'T people... this is just a legal classifcation that is dangerous and must be abolished... People are people, corporations are machines at best.
        • cawpin, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7Hey dumbass. I think the ;D at the end pretty much said I'M KIDDING HERE.
    • stanleyford, on 10/10/2007, -17/+49The problem is not a free market. A free market would fix the problem, as ISPs that offered services in the manner implied by the picture would quickly be undercut by other ISPs who offered more attractive services. The problem is that government has interfered so much with competition in the market that the only way many people think it can be fixed is by more government intervention (by enforcing network neutrality). If anything, this illustrates the vicious cycle created when government interferes in a market, and is further evidence that markets function best when participants are unconstrained by government regulation.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+20Not when the ISPs also own the infrastructure ... WHICH THEY DO. That's the overarching problem - it's not as simple as just starting up a new open ISP, you have to run new copper/fiber to everyone you serve, and you have to connect to the backbone somehow ... and then you're back to using corporate ISPs.

        The free market is not god. It is not perfect.
        • SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20You're missing the point.

          There are already ISPs out there who could compete if they were allowed to.

          Cable and broadband, however, is given regional monopolies by local municipalities because lobbyists have convinced governments to treat them as a "utility" instead of what they are: a service.

          Just allowing the current companies to compete would eliminate the need for Net Neutrality.
          • dclowd9901, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3But you're assuming greed is not a factor here, when, in fact, with corporations, it is the primary factor.

            Let's assume you're right, and someone does start up their own mom-n-pop ISP that applies standard rates to open internet access. The more their influence built, the more they'd catch the eye of their overpowering competitor, who would swiftly attempt to buy them up. At that point, it'd only be a matter of time before they did, and then we'd be right back to square one.

            Everyone has a price, and that's one of the main pitfalls of laissez faire capitalism.
          • SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Greed," or more properly, rational self-interest is the primary motivating factor in any market system, whether it is free or regulated. I've never assumed otherwise.

            And I'm not talking about any Mom 'n' Pop ISPs. I'm referring to the other companies that exist NOW being allowed to compete for my business, which they cannot do.

            I hate Comcast. Hate them with the blinding passion of 1000 suns. Yet I am prevented, by law, from from engaging in a similar transaction with another company, like Time Warner or even one that has yet to offer a similar service, like AT&T. Why? Does such a regulation benefit me (or any other citizen) or does it benefit the Comcast?

            If Comcast does start a tiered service like the pic suggests, why COULDN'T I take my business elsewhere?
        • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4SweetMercury is right. One way they create defacto monopolies is by local governments requiring than any new cable provider (and presumably ISP or anyone else who wants to lay cable in there city) must provide access to ALL areas of the city, even the ones that aren't profitable. Additionally they have to provide stuff like educational channels, library channels and internet access, and other things that aren't profitable. If ISPs and telecos where allowed to start small, maybe a city block or 2, and gradually grow there business and infrastructure, like in most other markets, this wouldn't be such a problem.
      • davidburns, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Government intervention already exists in the status quo! How is net neutrality ANY different? Local governments license utility companies such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to do business in your area. These same companies are also lobbying congress to remove that franchising right and have it set at a state or national level. All net neutrality does is prevent these companies, which are already ripping you off for service, from the sort of tiered system that rich telecom CEOs are looking to create.

        I can't believe how much kool-aid some users drink regards to net neutrality. They trumpet the glories of free market economies but clearly have no ***** clue what one is if they cite the telecommunications industry as an example.
        • SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8How can you see so plainly the core of the issue—government meddling in the market—and fail so completely to see the proper solution?

          What makes the "government intervention as status quo" so spectacular? The status quo for cable/broadband is GARBAGE, as a direct result of the government's intervention. What makes you think that this same government, which exists at this point to serve only the interests of lobbyests, would somehow do right by the people in this regard?

          This is the endless cycle: government problem --> government solution --> the never ending increase of government.

          The fact is, no one is "trumpeting the glories of the free market" by citing the telecommunications industry as an example. The telecommunications disaster is being cited to show what happens when you DON'T have a free market.
      • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4YES! Exactly. For more info: http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_templa ... (Cable Franchises) http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html (ATTs monopoly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier (This one is just a start. I couldn't find the article about the FCCs definition of common carrier)
    • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -4/+39I would just go with another provider. Oh wait, that's right, i forgot there are no other providers because of the numerous roadblocks set in place by the FCC (the federal government) to stop anyone from entering the market and challenge their government created oligopoly. Well, then I guess it stands to reason that more intervention by the government is the only way to solve a problem created by government intervention, right? Its like a double negative or something like that...
    • emehrkay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Has this been asked about in any of the debates? I'd love to hear how all of the candidates feel about that 'trality
    • drakethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Someone needs to design a Republican Action Figure. He spits out catch phrases when you pull the cord:
      "Thats just hippie *****"
      "Support our troops"
      "Why do you hate the USA?"
      "They will kill us all!"

      etc.
      • coustoe, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1How bout this one.

        You done bitching? Because no one cares.
    • Xondar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I caught a distinct tone of Stephen Colbert in your comment. Good show!
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1FK corporations, I hate having a job and health care. If we would stop corporate welfare I could get money from the state to watch TV and have kids, That would be SWEET, except my personal dignity, price, and independence would force me to hang myself.

      Although I realize not everyone feels that way, which is why I came to work Monday and Tuesday, and part of Wednesday for the state's benefit.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's called this is speculation and fearmongering. If this ***** even tries to go down, net neutrality laws get passed. So just ***** off with your condescending ***** until you have anything that can say otherwise.
  • fisj139, on 10/20/2007, -10/+243If this happens I am going to be pissed
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20Me to but there is no stopping the fascist movement. There won't be any alternatives and even if Google tries to make a free wireless web zone (or whatever they're thinking) other companies would turn around and sue saying it's "unfair" competition. Either that or the Necons will label Google's operators "terrorists" and pass them through the machine.
      • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Could you imagine how pissed politicians would be if they had to pay extra to access google or youtube? Don't forget, they're internet users too.
        • luchid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I doubt they even know how much they pay for cable let alone for their Internet access. They have people to take care of that, and with all the money they get from lobbyers, campaigns and the like I doubt they'd be upset by 50 or so extra bucks a month. So they don't care about matters that don't directly affect them. And even if they did affect them, I'm sure the TelCo mob will line their pockets with "thank you" money that will completely erase any remorse.
        • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What? You think the 50+ old farts give a damn about "the interweb" and its "tubes"? They are afraid of it because they can't understand it. It'll take the current 20 to 30 year old population to modernize the government so they can finally make sure companies don't limit the freedom of large groups of people, such as in areas where only 1 Internet service provider is active, and thus the people there have no choice but to swallow their insane restrictions.

          But what do I care. The Dollar will fall soon, nobody will be able to afford Internet for a long time to come. I'm looking forward to it, should be a nice time to get some good investments started, cheap. Cheers from Europe.
    • OsiVert, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I have seen small groups of internet users take down companies that are trying to rip people off on the tubes. If this type of thing happens I would imagine all of those smart networking people would find a way around it. I mean, just look at what happened when the ipod came out. If there is a digital barrier and enough people pissed off about it, then they will find a way to get around it. Plus, how would this work with foreign countries? It's not like cable tv where every country has their own setup. The internet is global.
      • luchid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I doubt there would be any way "around" filters. You don't have physical access to routers, nodes, NOCs and the like. For instance, let's say they filter everything that doesn't get to or from the list of allowed IP addresses (the ones for the sites in the package you pay for). Comparing that with the iPod/iPhone is incorrect. When you have physical access to the hardware i'ts all so much easier.
    • daridave, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It won't happen. Someone will hack the tubes if they ever try that.
    • frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Drinking doesn't solve anything
  • ruyn, on 11/09/2007, -7/+679Porn $99.99
    • enivid, on 10/20/2007, -2/+55Porn is priceless!
    • jaycie, on 10/20/2007, -0/+58NOOOOOO!!!!!
    • allenthar, on 11/13/2007, -20/+111Oh come on, you're hardly trying! It should be:
      Porn $69.69
      :P
    • screwzluse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32That would pretty much put the profits of ISPs into the stratosphere.
    • eatbeefjerky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Read the fine print - I expect porn would fall under "illegal material" (but of course all the Republican anti-pornography officials would find ways around it and download terabytes upon terabytes of the stuff, then it would make headlines)
      • frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"We need full access so we can see who's accessing it"
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Over 100,000 websites!
    • t3hpwn3r3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Better start stockpiling now...
      • CyanideMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Done... I have downloaded all of the pr0n on the net.
    • dubiousachiever, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12to quote scrubs, "if they took the porn off the internet, there would only be one site left and it would be 'bring back the porn.com'"
      • brainboy77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2dugg only for the scrubs' reference.
    • asskicker32, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wish I could digg more than once. :-(
  • Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -88/+24This is obviously a joke.
    If it were real, the prices would be higher.
  • iakupo, on 10/10/2007, -51/+12Thanks for ruining my day, jerk.

    ;-)










  • guinnessstout, on 10/10/2007, -50/+14The real question is...is there free setup and equipment included?
  • bightchee, on 11/01/2007, -8/+597Who wants to pitch in for erecting a huge antenna to steal some other country's wi-fi?
    • mattmy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+163i have a pringles can and some duct tape.
      • vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+43I have a primestar dish and a USB wifi dongle.
        • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -3/+72heh, dongle...
          • championchap, on 10/10/2007, -3/+66You laughed at Dongle but not "Pitch" or "Erecting" ??
            You win. I'm confused.
        • Sibre, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The USB wifi dongle discussion belongs in the brief porn discussion above I think
      • dorkino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Yeah but you already turned that into a fleshlight
    • valkon, on 10/20/2007, -8/+63Plus 1 for the term "erecting"
    • MrVictor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33That would work well until the elite class just rams a law through to make it illegal to grab overseas wireless. Hooray for unbridled capitalism!
      • drakenlot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Pitch, erecting, dongle, now rams?

        Funniest thread of all time
        • MrVictor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Well, with us geeks at least you know the only place we ram our dongles is into an electronic device.
      • Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And, what, exactly, is capitalistic about the telecoms industry? It is, and always was, dependent upon government support in the form of land grants, subsidization, and the granting of regional monopolies. It's more of a quasi-socialist corporate utility than anything. Capitalist systems are by no means perfect, but blame where blame is due.
      • lavchan, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2What the ***** are you talking about. Do you realise what you just said? You just implied that capitalism would be to blame for getting an obviously anti-capitalist law passed.

        Derrrrrr?
        • tommgunn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Um, no retard.

          The reason such a law would be passed is because US companies would not profit from it, so they make it illegal, then they *have* to go with them.
          • lavchan, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Uh, yeah, that is clear, but it doesn't detract from my point. Did you not notice the sarcastic remark at the end of MrVictor's post? He is blaming capitalism for getting this hypothetical law passed. Telecommunications companies getting a law passed that restricts the economy is not 'unbridled capitalism', it is the exact opposite.
      • justinjstark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"But all of the people stealing internet with a giant antenna are costing us $30 million per year."
      • IRn101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Like China.
    • sotopheavy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+56Google should strait up buy the 700 mhz open it up and be done with it.
      • blueforce4116, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2O yea google is sooo much better than everyone else..they have a log of every search you EVER made. They can even detect and circumvent most proxy's you may be using. Heh if anything google is the next Microsoft.
        • jenrzzz1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Don't be evil.
          I'd feel better with Google behind the wheel than the neocons.
        • Dhalgren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But they haven't done anything bad with that information. They could do a whole lot that would make Google ***** of money, but they haven't. That is why Google is not the next Microsoft. It doesn't mean they never will be, but until they break my trust I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
        • outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2all it takes is for someones son to take over or a buyout
      • mattn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Google may or may not be plotting world domination, but they'd probably be very friendly and cool about the whole thing.
    • blueforce4116, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5YEY lets steal China's internet so we can be censored at every turn....or even better lets steal wi-fi from Mexico where the signal cuts out every 30 seconds. Perhaps we can even steal from Canada where there is no such thing as high speed (well 50 miles N. of the US border anyway...
      • Xondar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Funny, I'm about a thousand kilometres from the border and I'm browsing on my 10 Mbps internet connection.
      • vrillusions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We only need to get a signal from 1 mile N of the border
    • blueforce4116, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2...
    • Trylen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And this is why I enjoy 15Mb cable in Atlantic Canada and you don't, Mock us again why don't ya... oh, right that's a faster connection then alot of US cities and I'm in the Boonies!! HAHAHAHAA!! *cough hack weeeeze* I think I should have that cough looked at..
    • Firgof, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, we could always ask the guys at SETI. If that isn't a big enough antenna, what is!

      ...and besides, what do you think they -actually- do all day, anyway?
  • swgc5, on 10/20/2007, -7/+304This really gets the message across, dugg.
    • bobjrn2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0The only message this gets across is a misconception of "net neutrality." The internet is run by corporate America NOW, and there aren't separate prices for different sites. The only time corporate America becomes corrupt is when it is dealing with the gov (like Haliburton, and people putting their faith in gov auditing with Enron and Worldcom). Net Neutrality is just a way for the gov to grab a hold of the FREE internet before ***** on it.
  • mydigga, on 10/20/2007, -8/+170What package do I need for Digg?
    • plantfood, on 10/20/2007, -1/+55It's bundled with the porn and world of warcraft package.
    • surfacewound, on 10/20/2007, -1/+79Digg would no longer exist since 95% of the people on the "Internet" wouldn't have access to any of the sites its stories link to.
      • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Digg could cache them. They only need to host their servers in a -really- free country. Like, everywhere but the USA and China.
      • tommgunn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+195% my arse, where are you getting your statistics from? No sauce, no credi-bun-ity.
    • gajillion, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8It's part of the Ron Paul election campaign promise package.
    • grimjestor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Digg would fall under "illegal material"
    • donkz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1decent size package
    • duckyinc, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1money saver x10
  • Pureeviljester, on 10/20/2007, -10/+374thx, never really fully understood the "net neutrality" until this picture.
    • rhinopig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Actually, this picture has nothing to do with 'net neutrality' (in the technical sense). This would be an ISP charging end users for data. Net Neutrality is trying to stop companies from slowing down data traveling over there network unless the content provider pays extra. So for example Google sends data (ie it's website) from it's server to you. To get to you the data has to travel over part of time warners network, part of ATT's network, and part of comcast network. Google pays time warner and comcast for faster transfer but not ATT, so the data is slowed down on ATT's network, even though your ISP is comcast. At least that's my understanding of it.
      • Antimatt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14thx, never really understood the "net neutrality" until this comment.
    • frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13We really shouldn't be so black and white about definitions here, it's like a snowball rolling down a hill.
      Let paint a little picture in the form of news clips of how this could happen come about.
      Step 1. In a press release today say youtube is responsible for the most bandwidth on their network feel "some of our customers who don't use [youtube] are suffering poorer service." In a controversial move the company decided that in order to combat this growing problem the best course of action was to charge youtube for access to their customers on the grounds of excessive bandwidth use. A spokesman said "we have decided to act in the interests of our customers and protect them from the rising costs of media access."
      Step 2. ISP A has revised it's policy on media access on the internet today as the bandwidth issue continues to be a problem for them. Earlier today a staement was released saying, "some of our customers are making unfair use of their bandwidth by excessively accessing sites like youtube. In order to ensure fair usage for all our customers we have decided to charge a premium to access youtube enabling us to purchase servers to keep up with the demands of these heavy users."
      Step 3. "After conducting a survey of customer usage it has become apparent that most of our customers only visit a handful of sites. To this end we are pleased to introduce the 'Speedy Gonzalez' package. In this package you get limited web access but you choose the sites you want and get them much faster and cheaper than a normal connection. Join the revolution today." (by the way the Gonzalez reference was deliberate.)
      Step 4. Welcome to the advert in this post.
      • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2(Damnit. I just wrote a very long post and the digg went down and ate my comment. here is the short and simple version)

        Your argument is uses slippery slope reasoning. Additionally net neutrality laws as they are currently laid out would probably only handle step 1 or 'traditional' net neutrality. What we need to do is ask why is this even an issue. The reason is because of the near monopoly like status the telecos hold. To learn more about the causes and possible solutions to the monopolies google 'cable franchise' and 'common carriers' (there should be 2 types, package, and teleco providers regulated by the FCC. I think wiki has info about common carries but not cable franchises) and 'telephone monopoly' (i found a good article by the cato institute about that once but can't remember what i searched for). 'Net neutrality' very well could have unintended consequences (such as making it harder for start up ISP's to enter the market by having to jump through regulatory hoops to prove there 'neutrality' which still might not be guaranteed).
        If you want to stop all 4 possible steps write the FCC and your local and state government about reforming those regulations.

        In short: We need to treat the disease (the telecos), not the symptoms (steps 1 through 4).
        • frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah I totally agree it is slippery slope all the way. I don't believe this will ever come to pass I merely wanted to highlight how easy it could be. The hypothetical ISP would not survive unless all ISP's simultaneously decided to take this course of action, but since they are in competition it couldn't.
        • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here are the links I was telling you to google for (i'm sure there is even more out there). http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_templa ... (Cable Franchises) http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html (ATTs monopoly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier (This one is just a start. I couldn't find the article about the FCCs definition of common carrier)
        • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But see that's exactly the problem. It could come to pass (not guaranteed though) because ISPs AREN'T in (enough) competition and Net Neutrality laws wouldn't stop all of the steps.
    • Sinistocrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And unfortunately, you still don't. This picture is blatant misinformation, and it's sad that everyone is scared into believing this is what net neutrality is preventing.
  • FlyCO, on 10/20/2007, -5/+269where's the Bittorrent package? oh, wait
    • TheGort, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31It was covered by the illegal materials bit because we all know that you can't use bit torrent for anything legal. At least that's what the RIAA and MPAA beleive.
    • jguy584, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28The BT package is capped at 250MB of torrent traffic a month.
      • samuraipizzacat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9NOOOOOO!
      • aznedy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Awesome! It will only take 3 months to download the latest Ubuntu ISO!
  • ModX, on 10/10/2007, -9/+84Why do I get so depressed when I think of the political system currently in place in the US? :(
    • jdubsss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34Because it's THAT ***** UP.
    • diggitydoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12yep, and digging it is not going to help. I think we all need to get off our asses, leave the Aeron chair, forget calling the senators, forget emailing them a form letter about this issue or that and get our freedom on.
      Anyone ever heard of Article 5 of the constitution?

      " Article V of the U.S. Constitution: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "

      There have been 567 state applications for this convention, and each has been denied or vetoed by the congress, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY!
      • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And remember, if your local senators and reps don't do what you think they should, VOTE THEIR ASSES OUT!
        • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Democracy at it's best, politics 101:

          1. Make promises, get elected;
          2. Break promises, lie to stay in office, get fat paycheck for x-years;
          3. Retire somewhere remote.

          Vote all you want. At some point in time even G.W. Bush seemed like a decent candidate. I doubt he made -any- of his promises come true. You'll only end up with the next bad thing for your country. And there's hardly any way to get them out of the office when they are actually in it. You should take a look at the right to bear firearms. It's there for a reason.
  • heepajunk, on 10/24/2007, -18/+101Think of how Fox news controls what people see.
    This situation would be 100x worse.
    • benbfree, on 10/24/2007, -4/+53*FoxNews.com will be a standard with all packages. That way you'll always have access to the *truth*.
      • drakenlot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19and be the permanent homepage, plus popping up whenever you leave it.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That sounds like a bad dream, on par with falling and being stuck somewhere naked.
    • Shawn4168, on 10/24/2007, -18/+5How the hell does this have ANYTHING to do with Fox News? Do you just mindlessly bash them on every single topic of conversation, no matter what it is? Does it really bother you that much that you feel the urge to get your little jab in there at every waking moment??? I know I'm going to get buried for this comment by the same morons that dugg you, but for crying out loud, GROW UP!!!
      • bagelpirate, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7He's saying interwebs news could soon work the same way as TV News, which is horrible.

        I thought that was pretty obvious, and, ***** chill out.
      • Wosat, on 10/24/2007, -3/+2Amen! I'm so tired of these hot-button knee-jerk digg-trolling comments that seem to appear over and over and over again. The grandparent comment doesn't even logically make any sense and it's getting diggs because it's hitting the anti-Fox hot button. Wisdom of the masses my ass.
      • frazw, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Not specifically fox news but partisan ISP's. Sign up for an ISP that does propaganda the way you like it and you are never challenged and you never have to change your mind. It's what Hitler would have wanted.
    • datastorageguy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3As if you couldn't get your news from a variety of other stations, newspapers, and internet. Enough already with the Fox News rants..it's getting old.
      • ThreeDee912, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Uh... If we don't have net neutrality, you won't be able to read these other sources (maybe newspaper, though). Unless you pay extra... Basically taking a step back in technology.
        • Phreakinus, on 06/17/2008, -0/+0and how do you know that? what is your basis for saying this?
    • Crosshare, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Because Digg won't let me reply directly to Shawn4168:

      You have seen everything Murdock owns haven't you? You don't think this will spill into the interwebs over time?
  • Professr, on 10/20/2007, -3/+223If this ever happens, people will create a huge mesh network that will replace the ISP's "internet", and everything will be happy again
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1That would be really difficult and where would the content be?
      • martyFREEDOM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22The homegrown porn on your computer for starters.
      • spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Yeah, what he's describing is some kind of worldwide web of user-created information. That could never happen.
      • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We could use the good ol' radio system again. Of course we wouldn't have satellites working for us, so in order to work around the curvature of the earth we'd need to store tiny bits of the new internet on everyone's computer. That way, the radio-internet would hop from computer to computer, independent on anyone (1 bit of data is stored on thousands of computers, all hooked onto the radio-net) - think of it as one huge bittorrent network, just for the internet.

        Storage shouldn't be much of a problem - hard disks of up to 1 TB are very affordable right now. In a matter of 5 years we'll have hard disks around 10 TB. We could store huge amounts of HTML and graphical data.

        They might make it illegal, but then.. when the cops come knocking on your door, there's your right to defend your freedom from a power-hungry government.
    • spikey04, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28just what I need, over 200 million network adapters just to see the internet :P
    • pabloD, on 10/11/2007, -2/+43um, darknet?
    • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Until the telcos get legislation passed making it illegal to manufacture a device capable of anything other than acting as a gateway for local computers.
      • stoanhart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Open Source FTW!
      • SpectreHelix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At that point, i wouldnt give a flying ***** about what was and wasnt legal about this.
    • peterA650, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0802.11s
    • CCmachined, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://192.168...
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i guess you guys never heard of the BBS network?

      Go watch "Wargames" and learn how computers USED to talk to each other. And how we were all able to access highly secured missile-launching super computers.
    • jimmiss, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They'd never license the spectrum for it.
    • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The government would pay a company to drive around in detector trucks and arrest you for taking profits from their other buddies, but then you would help their other other buddies in the jail industrial complex.
  • WhiteTigerEyes, on 10/10/2007, -34/+7Ummmm... it would be only a short matter of time before a new ISP comes along and re-introduces Internet Freedom. Think about it.. how many company's are now pushing "Talk to a real person" when you call?

    They didn't even try hard in that image... How can you offer Goolge and Yahoo but still restrict access to only "over 200 sites".

    • Lixie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18You mean like how cable companies have come along offering all the good cable channels freely without having to buy their super expensive "Premium Packages"? Oh wait, they haven't.
      • davidburns, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That's a horrible comparison considering that HBO, Showtime, etc. are classified differently in the eyes of the FCC. The FCC would have to start classifying web sites differently if that's the case.
        • DDRSkata, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Is this an unrealistic option? Because it seems like something they would do to me.
      • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Lixie, TV is profit, most websites are non-profit for the user (barring a few ads), so you can't really setup a network where you allow everyone to watch everything - the licensing fees would be way too high. It doesn't cost an Internet provider anything to "allow" you to go to Digg.com though.
        • joot2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It doesn't cost an Internet provider anything..." Nope! But if e.g. Google (who makes bazillions off those "few ads" you mention) pays the Internet provider to give preferred access to their website, the ISPs will certainly oblige. Even if they don't "ban" a website, they can tank it by offering faster service to a competitor.
        • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and how much faster are you talking about? It's not like the average website is going to start loading at 28.8 baud rates again. High speed internet is going to remain high speed internet. It's not really in teh best interests of ISP's to start limiting what their customers can do. I seriously doubt that people will pay $40 a month just to use Myspace. The reason so many people USE myspace is because it's free.

          If you really want the Government to take control of the internet, here's something else that's entirely plausible: Bans on porn. The passing of laws to allow the government to monitor your browsing habits and who your e-mailing. FCC ratings on websites, and the requirement that all PC's sold have some sort of filtering option. People seem to forget that the Government is really really good at taking a simple thing and ***** it up completely. The FCC isn't dealing with the internet because it's a privately provided service... they have no right. If the governemtn starts regulating ***** it opens up a lot of unwelcome possibilities. Besides, this might be a way for ISP's to kill the thing that eats up an estimated 60+% of the total bandwidth available on the internet: Spam Mail.
    • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Think about it.. how many company's are now pushing "Talk to a real person" when you call?"

      About none.
    • delafere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Um how? Using a completely different set of internet tubes?

      The government will regulate DNS hubs, ISP licenses, etc. They'll run it like cable. And the ISPs that still exist will decide what gets "airplay." For reference, see "China."
  • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -20/+8My this NEVER come to pass
  • 8086ed, on 10/10/2007, -33/+17No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Wrong.
    I understand it's a joke, but it's completely missing the point. A lack of net neutrality will lead to the ISPs charging the CONTENT PROVIDERS for different levels of access. Right now, if a consumer accesses google.com, Google's response back doesn't get charged. They still had to pay/are paying for their physical connection to the internet, but their data isn't metered or otherwise charged for on a tiered model. Consumer plans are/have always been/will continue to be on a tiered model, but don't have tiered levels of access. That's not the issue with Net Neutrality. It's the content provider side of things and the stifling of innovation that's the issue.
    • ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Ok...if you charge content providers for access, how do people access the content providers that have not paid for access? That's what the picture is about. Wikipedia didn't pay the ISP enough for use of their bandwidth so the customer has to pay more for that access.
    • rootstyle, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5Its amusing that you are the only one who's comment is correct so far, and you are already getting buried up a storm.
    • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Dude, they will charge anyone they think they can extract money from.
    • kreneskyp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3wrong. content providers DO pay for access and bandwidth. What they don't pay is for priority on the network. Neutrality means all packets are treated equally.
  • Dragonslayer134, on 10/10/2007, -92/+2This is so retarded. It looks like a directv ad only looks like some1 photoshoped all this crap onto the frame. HMmmmm can we say hoax?
    • luxurychair, on 10/20/2007, -1/+40Yeah. Thats the point. He's trying to show us what could happen now that we lost the fight over net neutrality.
    • w1bmw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Wow... ya think? It's not a hoax, it's a parody. It wasn't meant to be real, just a 'look' at ONE version of the what the net MIGHT become if 'Net Neutrality' isn't maintained. The message is, the ISPs shouldn't be prioritizing packets on who they're from or to or what they contain.
    • Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33*WHOOOOOOOOSH*
    • Namco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13How did you figure out how to slay 134 dragons when you can't understand a simple joke? Hmm, perhaps you've never seen one of those package cards that your cable provider gives you because mommy and daddy pay the bill?
      • Identity4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well, i wouldnt say it is a joke. Jokes are funny and make people laugh. All this did was make me cringe and dry heave.
        • Namco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good jokes do that. You ever hear the Hot Buttered Corn joke?
    • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The operative word is satire
    • zombiedepot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You should work for Snopes.
  • TypeEE, on 10/20/2007, -8/+109I think net neutrality is the basis for internet. I don't understand who come up with the idea of tiering websites.