What is Digg?408 Comments
- PATSCRU, on 10/11/2007, -8/+214"The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue."
How the hell am is the market supposed to solve the problem when i only have 1.5 choices for broadband (Timewarner cable or DSL). Seriously people the market isn't God and i'm getting ***** in the ass here. - HughManBeing, on 10/11/2007, -37/+236Damn it!
Go to: http://www.savetheinternet.com
Impeach Cheney
http://impeachcheney.org/?utm_source=rgemail
Shut Down the private for profit Federal Reserve System
And Re-investigate the 9/11 crap. Thanks. - LittleDas, on 10/11/2007, -8/+110I joined Digg just so I could digg this.
On that note, this is f*cking corrupt, just another example of a public institution siding with business interests over the best interests of the people.
I bet someone got a yacht for this one. - redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -10/+90HOLY *****! Since when do the telecom companies charge websites for internet access?!
- useraccess, on 10/11/2007, -2/+68I smell a rat!
Feds: Hey, can we stick a black box into your network so we can view every piece of data that goes over the Internet?
AT&T: Sure, if you let us make a wad of cash by charging sites to be seen on the Internet.
Feds: Deal!!!
Big Business + Big Government = Your Big Brother - KarthVader, on 10/11/2007, -4/+70I am slowly feeling the need to move out of the U.S.
- NeoRicen, on 10/11/2007, -37/+103The free market at work.
Libertarians really need to realise their ideas a just flat out bad and will lead to more things like this in other areas.
I'm not advocating communism I'm just saying a flat out free market is more harmful, SOME regulation is necessary. - conspireagainst, on 10/11/2007, -6/+71omfg we should revolt
- gcauthon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+63This isn't a free market. The cable companies didn't create their regional monopolies all by themselves. They had a lot of help from the government.
- SOS84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+59This issue is fundamentally about letting the cable companies to find a source of revenue without actually earning it. I guess the old saying, "to make money you have to spend money." no longer applies. You can bet that our country will drop a few more notches in the bandwidth rankings in the next year. Pathetic.
- mikelieman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+58That is, of course, the crux of the matter.
We, as ISP SUBSCRIBERS *already* pay to have the bits carried from A to B.
And the Website ops *already* pay their ISP to have the bits carried from A to B.
Now, it's the people in the middle, who just can't give up the POTS billing model. - Typhoon2009, on 10/11/2007, -2/+56I wish us Americans were motivated enough to actually do ***** about this.
Go ahead, bury my comment. You know damn well as I do that the most we'll do is make angry blog posts about this while the corporations continue to exploit us like the god damn sheep we are. - deathweaver108, on 10/11/2007, -10/+64Ron Paul is in favor of this decision btw
- hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -6/+55doesnt a big business already have enough advantages over a small/new business
without making their websites work faster as well - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+51f-in bastards are totally out to destroy any type of equal chance in the USA. this is a caste system of the clever haves and the ten bazillion bozo have nots. the ONLY thing the US Dept. of Education does is manage the prolonged screwing of people with university debt. Did 'ya know the Director of the US Dept. of Education has a Bachelor's degree in Political Science? That's it, that's her top credential. TEAR BushCo DOWN NOW. NOW!!!!!
- hadak, on 10/11/2007, -4/+45The Internet is a global network. Since when do American companies get to decide how a Global Internet is accessed?
I say, deliver me from fascist dictators. - viciouspoultry, on 10/11/2007, -2/+42Net Neutrality will just cause lobbyists to come into Washington and get more regulation, either case is a win for large corporations (either AT&T/Verizon, or Google/Yahoo) and a loss for American people. What we need to do is get rid of the corporate oligarchy that America is currently experiencing and go to a truly free market where there are no large corporations spewing their money into the government and getting what they want.
- cliffzdude, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40Most people have access to one or two broadband providers, a monopoly or duopoly at best. Two competing firms (duopoly) is just about as bad as a monopoly. When you get THREE players on the field, it seems things usually heat up. As such, the idea we'll let the "free market" sort this is without merit, in the mean time. However in the future if the AT&Ts start to shape their traffic I'd see more WISPs come into play and competition would truly heat up.
I truly hope that every content provider on the planet earth gives the middle finger to ANY ISP that tries to charge for priority. Then as their customers leave (where they can) the idea will not look quite as nice... - blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37It's also the people in the middle who donate millions to politicians so they can get exploit the system.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+39I believe that the average internet user will not know the implications of this decision. However, the millions of digg users do have some pull, in that they can inform everyone they know. This is how we will establish net neutrality.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32Yeah, take away free speech, privacy & a just judicial system, no problem. Threaten our internet access & you've got our attention. Seriously how ***** up has this country become?
- Dgen_X, on 10/11/2007, -8/+37Thank you for leaving it at re-investigate 9/11, because even those who don't agree with the conspiracy theories should agree that there needs to be a proper investigation
But I can't digg you up because it was completely off topic... - faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30Do you mean a coup d'état? I disagree with the FTC's decision, but I don't see how it's a coup d'état.
- Gannoc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25This explains the first broadband rip-off we paid for:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00186
Now we're about to enter the 2nd. Amazing. People simply aren't aware of what happened. - carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30their ideas aren't flat out bad. it's the extremeism in their ideas that's bad. you have to have some socialistic and some capitalistic aspects in a market that requires large centralized providers. otherwise you end up with terrible service by lack of competition by either government or corporate monopoly depending which way things are run.
- Gannoc, on 10/11/2007, -6/+29I'm not going to attack you or anything, because smart people are often fooled by info like this. This is a fake grassroots "blog" site run by The Mercury Group. The Mercury Group is a PR/Political firm that was hired by the telcoms to scare people into taking down Net Neutrality.
The second article on this page: "http://handsoff.org/blog/net-neutrality/net-neutrality-endangers-net-security/" should make you suspect the entire site.
Telcoms want to change Net Neutrality so they can charge popular sites more money. That is it... Finally, if you think that the telcoms are telling the truth... and they need this money to fund the next generation of Internet services, please take a look at the broadband rollouts in this country. 10 years ago, they claimed that they needed exclusivity to be able to afford broadband rollouts. That's why you can't get a different ISP through your Comcast pipe. The result? We have some of the highest rates and lowest service in the industrial world. - lukehh, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26July 4. The day the internet died.
- Zotamorf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24Hey! FTC! Over Here!!!
We, the consumers, ARE the Market. There is no market without US! Listen to us. Serve our needs. For once. - terminalpariah, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26Exactly. The economy is going to be controlled by *someone*. It can be a cartel/monopoly that is answerable only to its shareholders, or it can be a government which is answerable to the public. It's just much, much more profitable to give up on competition, band together and set some minimum pricing rules.
- dagnome1984, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20It's not a free market when cable companies are granted monopoly protection by local municipalities. There is no reason why you can't have more than one cable provider when in some places you have four choices when it comes to electrical service. You make the cable infrastructure commons and then ISPs are charged for the access, there by giving you choice.
- Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Is anybody seriously surprised? The American regulatory agencies have pretty much abandoned any pretense of regulation.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19oh, they spent some money. but not on anything like infrastructure, it was spent on "campaign contributions"
- deathweaver108, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23digg me down all you want.... but it is true
- compgeek7889, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21this sucks
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16they had help from officials they bribe you mean.
- gargantuan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15oooooh a letter. They rigged your ***** elections! They have Guantanamo Bay! They are in charge and they will do exactly as they please. THEY DON'T GIVE A ***** ABOUT YOUR LETTER!
- modifiedbears, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12How does that change the fact people have very limited choices and the market shouldn't be allowed to decide when in most areas it's a monopoly?
- wolfkeeper, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Yeah, free market. The telecom companies were doubtless free to bribe the FTC to make this decision.
- Trutholder, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16I'm sorry to tell you buddy, but i work for Timewarner cable and when the new modems for Docsis 3 come out, they will increase prices for everyone.
- misconstrued, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Ron Paul doesn't want the government to regulate or tax the Internet at all. If you actually read the bill you'd see that the precedent it sets is very dangerous. The government has a tendency to give bills like this names that are the exact opposite of the bill really ends up doing. e.g. Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, etc, etc...
- blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Which explains the corporate government abandoning anything that reduces cost of entry.
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13This is not my coup de thé.
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14faithhealer, my friend.
this is the US version of the great chinese firewall taking effect. in true US fashion, the government has outsourced it to corporation. - rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Here is what I wrote to the FCC on savetheinternet.com before I found out you had to give them your name, email, and physical address. If someone wants to send it under their name feel free. Or If someone can point me to someplace on the FCC site for submitting this, tell me where.
"I am not an economist and have only lightly researched this subject however I would like to voice my concern. I can not say I am 100% for network neutrality as philosophically I do believe in the least government regulation as possible; However, I cannot say I am 100% against network neutrality either, as philosophically I do believe in the least obstacles to free and open communication and information as possible.
Here are a few quick points to consider:
First, the fourth freedom stated in the 2005 FCC statement is "consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."
It seems to me that while a lack of net neutrality may increase the amount of competition for network providers (by allowing them to differentiate there services more) it would decrease the amount of competition among content providers (by making entry into the market and access to the public harder to achieve). The competition afforded to content providers must be balanced against the competition afforded to network providers in this issue. It seems to me that network neutrality would increase (or rather maintain) the amount of competition among content provider more than it would decrease the amount of competition among network providers.
Second, I am not entirely familiar with the specifics of informations services versus telecommunication services and/or common carriers, but it seems to me that an information service would involve a broadcast or multi cast network structure where as a telecommunications service would involve a point to point network structure. So (as general examples, but not to claim you have jurisdiction over these examples) while broadcast television, radio, and libraries would constitute information services, any transfer of information that is specifically requested by one person or entity to be sent or received by one person would constitute an act of telecommunication and the transferrer would be a telecommunication service and/or a common carrier.
Simply stated, I do not know enough to recommend action, however should you decided to not allow for some form of network neutrality, I urge you to pay very close attention to the effects and state of competition in the content provider market and value the health of that market over the health of the network provider market. The internet is a true wonder of the modern world, and the effects of regulation, as well as non-regulation, should not be taken lightly." - dagnome1984, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16If this went Ron's way the cable companies and the phone companies would not have gotten huge government handouts and we wouldn't be in this mess. For once they would've of been forced to *gasp* compete instead of having the government bank roll their businesses.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I'm not trying to be the harbinger of bad news but in the last 10 years when has the public's opinion on a subject really mattered to the government?
- pebcake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11It's not a bloody free market in the first place! The telecoms and cable companies are *government-granted monopolies* This is why they are subject to all sorts of regulation in the first place!
- wolferz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13@neoricen
Actually I see myself as a libertarian and I agree with you. However, the problem here is that there is no free market to begin with. With just a handful of companies having control over the majority of the internet infrastructure in the US and the fact that all of them play nice together so they can keep prices high it is only thanks to semantics that it can't be called a monopoly.
It would be better if regulation had been used to enforce the presence of a free market rather than trying to fix one of the many symptoms that resulted from its absence. - dalexandruz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11governments dont like to see good source of information reaching ppl in the u.s thats not government propaganda(tv stations). governments like to hide their crimanality behind national security. they dont like free speech.
- whataboutdave, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11I'm all about the market, but net neutrality is a special case. There is only one internet, and it is vital to many people's lives and livelihoods. It's more like a our planet than a commodity like oil shale or corn.
Their argument that with net neutrality there would be no incentive to improve is absurd - if you don't improve the speed and reliability of your network, you you are going to loose customers to your competitors. Competition itself is the motivator for improvement.
This decision just locks out small start-ups and allows for too much "editorial" work on the part of the companies. I'm not okay with that. I pay to have information delivered, not to be filtered.
I will speak with my wallet. I'm not above sharing Wi-Fi with my whole neighborhood. -
Show 51 - 100 of 411 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is