What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Kimbo Slice vs. a caterpillar. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - The question has finally been answered, and we've got it on tape. See the showdown.
655 Comments
- Tex, on 07/28/2008, -24/+631At least one candidate's paying attention.
- DavidIrons, on 03/13/2008, -21/+531I know most people beyond the college age don't care, but net neutrality is a bigger issue than the media makes it out to be. Props to Obama for having the correct stance on it.
- matt70, on 03/13/2008, -12/+327Keep your corporate greed out of my internet.
- bshock, on 03/13/2008, -18/+255The more I hear from Mr. Obama, the more I'd like to see him as U.S. president.
- wooFmeoWoinK, on 03/13/2008, -7/+180Further proof of the generation gap at work between him and pantsuit.
- radicaldementia, on 03/13/2008, -22/+185I get really annoyed when people (especially of a certain group) go around saying "Net neutrality is regulating the internet, we should not let the government get involved". This is like saying the first amendment regulates free speech by "forcing" it. One of the legitimate roles of the government is to protect the free expression and trade of public information. This cannot be done by turning a blind eye and ignoring the whole situation. The only merit to this argument is we need to make sure net neutrality is done right, with no loopholes for corporations to sneak through.
Without net neutrality, telecoms will be able to implement a tiered internet that pushes out small websites, and the open internet as we know it will soon be gone. - lewhich, on 03/13/2008, -12/+101If you don't understand Net Neutrality, imagine this: Our highways are owned by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.
1. They sign a deal with Houchie Burgers to be the only burger joint from DC to Atlanta (no McDonalds, Wendy's etc.). You must eat only from Houchie Burgers (24.99 for a Fry).
2. They create first-class and second-class lanes with different driving fees.
3. They sell lanes during rush hour ... yes, you must buy a special pass to drive during rush hour
4. Just imagine...
In other news, Japan just launched a saterlite that will give its citizens five times the bandwidth they have now ..which is four times better than ours - nbcaffeine, on 03/13/2008, -9/+88This is one of many reasons why he has my vote in the April 22nd PA primary.
- JesusPickle, on 03/13/2008, -11/+86Simple and to the point.
Brilliant
Obama 08 - NeoRicen, on 03/13/2008, -19/+76Keeping it neutral is allowing companies to censor what they want? And closing it is allowing a democratically elected body to stop them doing it? You are an idiot.
- smackjack, on 03/13/2008, -3/+58This is the original reason I decided to support Barack
by the way, you can see the original speech and 60 minute interview with Larry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo - sctx, on 03/13/2008, -11/+56Obama has just sealed the deal for me.
- coffeebaby, on 03/13/2008, -1/+44 it's not just an issue for you young college-age whippersnappers. some of us over-30 dinosaurs are concerned also.
- motafett, on 03/13/2008, -7/+50The speech that won him this endorsement. http://digg.com/politics/The_Pirate_Party_of_the_U ...
- pintomp3, on 03/13/2008, -2/+43not only that, he actually gets it. he understands why it's important.
- franklymister, on 03/13/2008, -4/+40The MPAA's chief came out in opposition to Net Neutrality, saying it was just something pirates wanted. The cable companies and media companies know how hard it will be to continue to screw people with bundled TV channels and Hulu-like "on demand" services if the internet continues to belong to the public instead of them.
- tvnews, on 03/13/2008, -2/+37A politician that actually knows what net neutrality is? Thats a first. Is this guy under 50 or something??
- m0shen, on 03/13/2008, -1/+33dugg for 'pantsuit'
- bsonline, on 03/13/2008, -6/+37You can probably guess (I'm a digger) who has had my support.
After watching this video, and wandering to a few more Obama speaches, I'm thinking differently. Obama may be the first president I'm really proud to vote for. - ch33sehead, on 03/13/2008, -2/+30stealthc, wtf?
The internet in its current form IS neutral. Do you even know what network neutrality is?
Here are some links for you and others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://savetheinternet.com/ - Glasyalabolis, on 03/13/2008, -2/+30How ***** arrogant do you have to be to believe that there is NO correct stance or answer to any question or issue in existence? Just because there are multiple points of view in the world does not mean that there is _no_ correct answer. The correct answer may be difficult for any human to come up with or even comprehend, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
Get off of your high horse and join the rest of us. - FreddieD, on 03/13/2008, -1/+27For what it's worth, Hillary supports Net Neutrality as well. Not surprisingly, McCain does not.
Find out where your senator stands on the issue: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatemap?state=
And while there is no similar record for Congressmen that I can find, the closest is the vote on the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (Cope Act)" in June of 2006. In this case, the "NAY" vote is a good thing. Find out where your congressman stood: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll241.xml - franklymister, on 03/13/2008, -0/+25Good point. I'm no Hillary supporter, but I will give her credit on coming down (for now) on the right side of the issue.
Her statement is a lot weaker than Obama's, and seems easier to change stance on, though. If you read her statement vs. Obama's, it's clear which person really gets what this is about:
Hillary: "I support net neutrality...The open architecture of the Internet has been the critical element that has made it the most revolutionary communications medium since the advent of the television."
Obama: "It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes. Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes." - norbiu, on 03/13/2008, -0/+24Surprisingly enough, he's only 47. Not a bloody dinosaur like McCain.
- NovaBandit, on 03/13/2008, -1/+24Now go tell 100,000 of your friends!
- lewhich, on 03/13/2008, -7/+30Just imagine if Comcast or Verizon owned the Highways (yes I mean I-95 especially) ...can you imagine how many tolls, first-class/second-class lanes there will be?
A government is created to do just that ... you cannot have everybody making their own rules for what is for what is a necessity. - franklymister, on 03/13/2008, -2/+25Sorry, but "you aren't smart enough to understand" isn't a very good argument. You're playing into the hands of the MPAA.
- FreddieD, on 03/13/2008, -1/+24My comment is a little off topic, but one of the reasons I am an Obama fan is his "lack of experience". To me, lack of experience means that he has fewer favors to pay off once he gets real power. All politicians go into it with intentions of doing the right thing, but corporations have an uncanny way of getting candidates of both parties to do what they want over time.
- TTURabble, on 03/13/2008, -12/+33Enough with the analogies!
Net Neutrality is needed because it has been shown through history that a company or person will do anything and everything they can get away with in order to screw someone else over.
People piss me off with their one semester of economics talking about "free markets will correct themselves" and all that other stuff. But the part of the class they like to forget is the part that talks about the requirements of a truly free market and the reasons why our economy is nothing like the basic models taught in "Intro to Economics." Not only are there extremely high barriers to entry, but in some cases there is municipal regulation in place that limits the amount of people who can service an area. Another issue is collusion within the industry, if one company can block a website then everyone will block the website, prices will match each other, and the startups that do emerge will be squeezed out by unfair trade practices. (i.e. Standard Oil)
People complain about regulation like its the devil, but they miss the distinction between regulation that is good and regulation that is bad. Good regulation helps the little guy (consumer) by allowing him to live on a level playing field, this is what net neutrality does. Even at its most basic form of allowing some QoS but not others, makes sure that I can access whatever I want at anytime. It is not an undue burden on the current telcos and it is a relief for the consumer who might have to worry about accessing their favorite websites without having to switch between 10 different providers or paying a premium.
Some people would say, "They wouldn't do that anyway, block websites, they have no reason to do it." And my response is "I don't care if they would or wouldn't, if I see the ability for abuse to take place I want to correct it before it becomes a problem." - TunaFisu, on 03/13/2008, -2/+21Net neutrality IS regulating the internet. By banning any kind of preferential treatment for packets from sources you like (or dislike).
- theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -2/+21I trust Obama, but I have a nasty feeling that Hillary might make a 180 if she got power.
- SniperSlap, on 03/13/2008, -12/+31Because what happens in the USA ends up rippling through to the rest of the world:
ALL YOU VOTING AGE DIGGERS HAD BETTER VOTE FOR THIS MAN.
Wish I could, but I'm Canadian, and we have a stupid right wing problem too... - inactive, on 03/13/2008, -0/+19Your comment on tier level 5 site "digg.com" is not part of your services agreement. For your convienence, Comcast will automatically charge your account $5 USD. Thank you for your continued submission.
- matt70, on 03/13/2008, -9/+27So was slavery "neutral?"
- LiquidIse, on 03/13/2008, -8/+25Dugg for sound political mindsets
- franklymister, on 03/13/2008, -1/+18If the same media company that is trying to sell you their DRM-laden, ad-infested streaming media is the company that gets to decide which types of data make it through to your computer, you've got a massive conflict of interest.
The MPAA is putting out propaganda that says this is about paying more for faster bandwith. It's not. It's about letting companies decide what KINDS of data come through. Just because they haven't done it yet doesn't mean it's not on their to-do list. - ch33sehead, on 03/13/2008, -5/+21Just like what happened with cable, right?
OH, WAIT.... - SceptreData, on 03/13/2008, -3/+18It's stuff like this that makes everyone love him on the internet.
- cobbs, on 03/13/2008, -2/+17Yo DavidIrons
"I know most people beyond the college age don't care, but net neutrality is a bigger issue than the media makes it out to be. Props to Obama for having the correct stance on it."
Really!! I left college over 10 years I guess I really don't care. Even though it is an intrinsic part of my profession. I can't believe how naive and short-sighted that "dugg" statement is. Most of the people who made and are making the "net" what it is are way past college age... dude. - theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -6/+20Same here. I was looking up info on Ron Paul, and I read that he didn't support net neutrality... did a google search for those who did, Barack was on top.
^_^ I am honestly surprised he was able to get this far, and I hope we can push him all the way. - inactive, on 03/13/2008, -0/+14The media doesn't make much of an issue about it because 1. for the major news outlets, it would be a godsend to the longtail that has been occuring with online news and 2. I don' think a good to almost complete majority are aware, care, or even comprehend it.
- richardhenry, on 03/13/2008, -1/+14Unprofitable websites still pay hosting fees (or someone pays hosting fees) to the hosting providers, who then rent the bandwidth from the telecommunications providers, at a profit to the provider. Your argument is misinformed.
- NikoKun, on 03/13/2008, -7/+20moron... -_-
Restrictions to keep isp companies from unfairly limiting certain services and sites, can only be a good thing. It does not restrict the user, or the sites or services... All it does, is limit the service providers, forcing them to STAY as they are... a door service, not an overruling power. - franklymister, on 03/13/2008, -2/+15If you need any further evidence of what Net Neutrality is really about, look at one of its main opponents - the MPAA: http://digg.com/tech_news/MPAA_chief_Net_neutralit ...
- Jektal, on 03/13/2008, -3/+16Net Neutrality is the standard quo, it's the way the internet works right now.
What's actually up here is legislation which would make it acceptable for high-level ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc) to prioritize traffic on their network based on the host and destination (it's common practice to prioritize based on content, such as web pages, video files, games, etc)
This means that a high-level ISP, say Verizon, could strike a deal with a website, say Yahoo. Then anybody going across one of Verizon's cables (which would be a -lot- more people than just Verizon subscribers due to the nature of the internet) and trying to access a site competing with Yahoo (MSN, Google, etc) would have their speed reduced dramatically, encouraging people to use the Yahoo because Yahoo paid extra for Verizon's "fast lane".
Opponents of Net Neutrality (supporters of the legislation that's been floating around recently to abolish it) say that this is a good thing because it allows companies like Verizon to charge extra for high-bandwidth websites and applications like YouTube or iTunes Music Store, and that this is just a way for the ISPs to compensate for the extra costs required to implement and maintain a fast network.
What they ignore is the fact that the companies who run services like YouTube and iTunes already pay their ISPs based on the amount of bandwidth used. Currently you pay your ISP based on the speed of your connection, and the content providers pay their ISPs for their connection speed and the amount of information they're allowed to send. But those ISPs want to be able to charge the content owners again for "priority service" which equates to a form of extortion since the "priority service" "fast lanes" will only be marginally faster than a regular connection now, but will allow the ISPs to significantly slow down all other traffic.
So the ISPs get all their current revenue, plus a new stream of revenue by charging for different access levels (tiers), PLUS the ability to prioritize one website (such as their own) over competitors, PLUS lower costs (by cutting the speed of anyone who doesn't buy into their high-speed tiers). Now imagine how many lobbyists they've hired for this. - futool, on 03/13/2008, -8/+21I wonder what Billary has to say??? Oh that's right, She'd take both side.
- MacEnvy, on 03/13/2008, -0/+13It's about time we got rid of the Baby Boomer politicians. We'll never move forward with them dragging us back to their beloved 1950s ideal of the "perfect America" (which never actually existed for 99% of the country).
- tillerman00, on 03/13/2008, -11/+24Thattabama.
- inactive, on 03/13/2008, -4/+16It would appear that you are the one that is not informed on the subject. A free market is not an unrestricted market, and an unrestricted market is the LAST way to ensure the internet remains a level and open environment.
Would you care to name "many of the pioneers of the Internet" that are against net neutrality? Yeah. I didnt think so. - archiesteel, on 03/13/2008, -6/+18When governments enforce a level playing field, that's a *good* thing.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 658 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is