What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
When Should I Book My Flight Home for Christmas? view!
bing.com - Bing predicts if your fare is likely to fall by $50 or more within 7 days. Shockingly accurate.
74 Comments
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -15/+64If you give me food, a house, health care, internet, and a computer regardless of what I do, you can be damn sure I will sit at home all day looking at porn and masturbating. I'm only a productive member of society because I have to be to fund my auto-erotic habits.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -20/+54Why not? Oh, I don't know, maybe the whole bit about that including a serious amount of government intervention. Why stop at universal broadband? Why not universal healthcare, universal free housing, or hell, why not just redistribute wealth altogether?
- jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27"why don't net neutrality activists ever bring up universal broadband?"
Good question, especially since every american has already paid for it. The telcos scammed us out of 200 Billion dollars to finance universal fiberoptic broadband to every home in america by 2006. But what we need there isn't some new legislation like with net neutrality, it's a federal lawsuit against the telcos for breach of contract. Or maybe a class-action lawsuit by american citizens like you and me, since they owe every person in the country $2000 that they scammed from each of us to install these networks that never materialized. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@mattxb
Here's your proof: http://www.txcable.com/News/frayed.asp
Verizon balked in New Jersey and Florida. AT&T promised, charged for, and failed to delivered in California, Illinois, Indiana, and Oklahoma. SBC, Bell South, Verizon, and AT&T all received millions in federal and state grants and tax abatements for undetermined fiber and broadband rollouts which never happened.
I know a lot of people think John Edwards is a nut, I don't totally disagree. But whatever you think of him, he's right-on on this topic. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15What's really interesting is why the telcos and their paid lobbyists turn this into a infrastructure and regulation debate every time net neutrality is discussed...hiding from the real issues of digital non-discrimination and big telco companies buying laws in their favor. No one is going to disagree that universal broadband would be great, so your " I love babies" tactic is worthless; but everyone who isn't in the telco's pocket should agree that killing competition and allowing price gouging is detrimental. Universal broadband isn't a goal here, just look at the concessions AT&T already made to get their profit increasing merger: "AT&T commits a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service." Since that agreement AT&T's stock value has risen and they've expanded every facet of the company (U-Verse). That shows the agreement should be a universal law protecting the consumers and the telcos could still continue to build their networks significantly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Edwards has been campaigning for this since early 2006. He was one of the first public figures to come out in support. In fact, he has a really strong technology record, including being the author/sponsor of multiple anti-spyware and anti-malware legislation.
http://johnedwards.com/news/newsletter/openinternet20060606/ - relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -3/+14justinmt7: I will walk the easy path and say something stupid because I don't know what I'm reading about!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Joined"???? Edwards has been proclaiming Net Neutrality for a long time now. He even started an online petition and openly campaigned for it in early 2006...
http://johnedwards.com/news/newsletter/openinternet20060606/ - cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You're just bitter about that night back in '92 with Ross Perot in the back seat of a Chevy pickup.
He never called you again. - schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8ghoti06
"Existing antitrust regulations are more than enough to handle any anticompetitive behavior that could *maybe* happen (but haven't)."
One current example of abuse is blocking VOIP services but not those provided by the ISP. Or blocking P2P traffic but most likely not the new Bittorrent pay service or Joost which use P2P for transfer. If they're doing these things now, who know how far this will expand if they're explicitly allowed to. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Why on earth is municipal broadband prevented by law? The system has been gamed.
- fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9ghoti06 is a verizon shill. look at his profile. all he does is comment on net neutrality stories. blocked.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What about a "trial lawyer" who gave up his multi-million dollar practice after his son died in a car accident when a gust of wind blew the car off the road? The guy could have sued almost anyone and one over that incident. What does he say instead... sometimes the wind blows your life in a different direction.
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Those presidential candidates are all the same. They'll say anything to get into your pants.
- punkbutler88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6For anyone who reads this and doesnt know what Net Neutrality is, here is a link to ASKANINJA's video about it.....
http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/05/11/ask-a-ninja-special-delivery-4-net-neutrality - skewer324, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Heck with Hillary and Obama. Edwards is the only candidate that I trust. He makes sense and he's genuine. Yes, he has political angles, but I think it's refreshing to see a candidate actually read up on issues that the constituents care about.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A real analysis of net neutrality
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v19/19HarvJLTech001.pdf
Most people on Digg don't understand net neutrality. - ir6c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Universal broadband would be great. I don't believe that it should be compared to Universal free Housing or Universal (free) health care. Broadband should be available universally but availability should not be confused with government supported.
- SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Call it universal availability of broadband and you might get more takers.
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We don't need Net Neutrality... we need True Telecom Competition.
If one were to have the choice between /n/ DSL companies, and n-1 companies blocked myspace... which company would get the business of the families with teens? it would be the one company that didn't block myspace. - lithuin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ghoti06
Actually, I think you got dugg down because you made a comparison that really has nothing to do with net neutrality, and an argument that those opposed to it could/do use, no matter how twisted around it is. Net neutrality has little to do with providing internet access of any kind to any one. It is simply to ensure fair business practices and prevent companies from abusing their hold over a section of the internet. The argument you made smacks of socialism, which many people are opposed to simply on principal. If the average person equates net neutrality with government control, socialism, and going against the rights of businesses to compete "fairly", it will fail. - Anzat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And you dismiss Obama why? He scores just about as high on the sensible-and-genuine-o-meter as anyone I've ever seen.
And as for "the issues constituents care about," I would admit that Edwards has done the best job appealing to the various pet causes held by the Digg crowd and Daily Kos and others, but to be honest these issues (like net neutrality), while I think they're important, are important only to a very small percentage of voters. I bet 95% of voters don't even know what net neutrality is. I'm glad Edwards speaks up on things like this, but Obama also has a record of handling important-but-not-glamorous issues in the Senate. You don't have any reasonable grounds to say "heck with him." - Kratisto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I live in NC. My vote for Edwards just became inevitable.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I for one welcome our new Multi-Conglomerate Telecom Overlords!
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How can anyone take this jackass seriously. This is a blurb I yanked from the wikipedia article on him.
"Edwards' first important case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. In that case, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse.[7] In 1985, Edwards obtained a $5.75 million settlement in a cerebral palsy case for medical malpractice during childbirth, representing Jennifer Campbell, a five-year-old cerebral palsy patient. This established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.[7] During the trial, it has been argued that Edwards relied more on his verbal skills as a trial lawyer than on actual science. While delivering his summary, Edwards said that "I have to tell you right now – I didn't plan to talk about this – right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence...[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you."[8]" - DreamerZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it seems to me that net neutrality is a law to stop ISP's from limiting internet access to websites/services...which is something that no company has done yet, in fact they would have to be retarded to do something like cause then customers would go to a different ISP.
am i right?
is these just another law we don't need?
i don't think we need net neutrality until ISP's start missing with people internet access. - Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not to mention he was voted biggest douche bag in the Universe.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think most people understand what it is but when the Democrats get their hands on it that will change. It will be twisted to mean that public access means everyone should be able to access the net from their homes. This will mean the Democrats will demand that the working people pay for the internet access for the scum on welfare.
- flowaus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4He's so great. I liked him on Crossing over too..
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hopefully Hitlery does not win she would be a bad thing for the country. The idea of free broadband is even worse.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's a joke dumbass.
- warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So do Hillary and Barak. If a Democrat wins in '08 at least we'll have that.
- justinmt7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh I do know what i'm talking about. Don't get me wrong--I hate it that the corporate world wants to make the internet their own little profiting machine, but "saying what is popular" just to get Presidential primary votes is the wrong reason to be preaching the good news.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Edwards is an *****. They need to put ads up of him channeling the spirits of the CP kids while in court. The guy is just as big a jackass as Kerry.
- mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dont know why I got dugg down, I was being serious
- jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@geekee
We already did pay for it. That was the whole reasoning behind the scam that the telcos pulled on us. The agreement was that they would bring every home in america symmetrical 50/50 mbit connections by 2006, which anybody could subscribe to for a reasonable price.
Are you saying they should not be held accountable? - ffejrey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not a very good one
- fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Upon learning of John Edwards endorsement, the Net neutrality lobby took their cyanide capsules....
- ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More government? Haven't they messed up enough yet? No thanks.
- wiihuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what? do you people not understand logical fallacies? the "point" of akaj's post is the definition of a slippery slope. "we can't have *this* because of the possibility of *all these other things*" that's slippery slope.
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ schroeder
If you're talking about the FreeConferenceCall situation, you should dig a little harder: What's free to that company and its users is actually costing AT&T a lot of money. That's not anti-competitive, that's preventing free ridership. Your other examples aren't examples, and they don't explain why antitrust is not capable of handling any possible problems. - furryplanet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I will NOT VOTE for Edwards!
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Fiber to the home didn't happen because customers don't want to pay for it. If you think 200 Billion will get you free internet, you're clueless. There's a reason for the telcom bust in 2002.
- furryplanet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well... He LOST my VOTE!
- ffejrey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This isnt the "Crossing Over" John Edwards you tool.
- wiihuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@akaji
were you trying to illustrate a slippery slope fallacy? - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1We need to make sure You tube videos involving Hillary get out, seriously amusing.
http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Clinton_ambushed_by_intern_applicant_with_naked_photographs - LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I like Zone Alarm. It's free. Make your computer completely invisible to the net. Doesn't invade your system like Outpost. And is more or less user friendly. Yay.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think some lawmakers are concerned about ISP's and backbone providers engaging in anti-competitive practices. like adding QoS on their own packets while lowering or even blocking the packets of their competitors. For example, Time Warner Cable is an ISP offering their own VOIP; they could give their VOIP traffic priority, ensuring good quality phone calls, while identifying and lowering the priority of the network traffic of competing services like Vonage.
You should note, however, that it is already illegal to directly interfere with someone else's business for competitive gain, so I'm not entirely certain what another law stated that will accomplish for us.
WRT the blocking of P2P traffic, keep in mind that consumers probably would not pay for an ISP that blocked P2P traffic. Generally, the market rejects attempts to put artificial restrictions on usage. That's why the DivX movie disc format failed so miserably. - cybergrump, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If you think that OS X is immune to attack you should read "Symantec Internet Security Threat Report. 11".. During the 6 months the report coverts (last half of 2006) PC's were found to have 39 vulnerabilities taking an average of 21 days to fix. During the same period Mac's were found to have 43 vulnerabilities taking on average 67 days to fix. To give Mac a break here, 12 of the PC vulnerabilities were considered very serious. But what that tells me is that OS X is a least no better than a PC when it comes to hackers gaining access to your machine. It also tells me that Mac users are exposed 3 times longer to known vulnerabilities. What really scares me is that even educated and knowledgeable users (including a lot I know in the IT industry) believe that that their Mac's are bullet proof.
I also remember the first virus I ever saw way back in February of 1988 was on a Mac (aka the MacMag virus or World Peace virus). -
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is