What is Digg?21 Comments
- ncairns, on 12/01/2007, -2/+9Ron Paul opposes net neutrality.
Equivocate and excuse all you want. Tell me about how it's just government regulation, and all regulation is inherently evil. Tell me about how (despite the fact that net neutrality has been around since the Web was born) it will stifle competition and innovation. Tell me about how it's a slippery-goddamn-slope, I don't give a damn.
I've been a computer geek for my entire life. I studied computers and the Internet for my entire academic life. I've worked in the field for my entire professional life across five countries, three continents and four businesses.
My conclusion about net neutrality, a conclusion you'll find is nearly unanimous among the tech community (which includes the vast majority of the Digg community) is that it is - get this - a good thing.
I am not convinced in the least that Paul understands the Internet any better than Ted Stevens. Although not my preferred candidate overall, the one who seems to understand it the best is Barack Obama. - ncairns, on 12/01/2007, -2/+8Yeah, Ron Paul doesn't have a problem with that. His theory is that if people are unsatisfied with their broadband providers, they'll just take the non-option of switching to one of the nonexistent competing services in many parts of the country. Don't worry about the fact that the major telecoms are essentially arms of a single monopoly, or that Paul would seek to lift what regulations we have imposed on them, allowing further collusion and monopolization - because by allowing monopolies to develop, we open up the industry for smaller, competing companies to form and thrive... wait a tic...
- reeder, on 12/01/2007, -0/+6*****, what about corporate forced regulations on the Internet, like with Comcast and their disgusting and illegal attack on P2P traffic.
- ncairns, on 12/01/2007, -1/+7Guess what?
Both Japan and South Korea have this thing called the MIC - the Ministry of Information and Communications. When I lived there I got quite familiar with them. The American equivalent would be this thing called the FCC.
But guess what else? Japan has the fastest, most stable, most available broadband service in the world. South Korea is number two. Their *average* connection speeds are ~60mbps and ~45mpbs, respectively. The average in the States is ~1.9mbps.
Bear in mind, that's the *average* speed in Japan. While I was there, I had a 1gbps fiber line in my house - for less than half what I paid for a 10mbps DSL line in the States.
And you know what the kicker is? MIC regulations tend to be a lot stricter than FCC ones. - ncairns, on 12/01/2007, -1/+6"Until then, let's play it safe and see where the market takes us."
Okay, it's really pointless to argue with you about this if you're going to keep saying things so patently insane. Yes, let us be *safe* by placing our trust in the invisble, mythical free market. It's worked so well in Hong Kong, after all - I mean, they have some of the fastest broadband in the world! Of course, the free market has also yielded in Hong Kong (which has the 5th highest cost of living of anywhere in the world, by the way) a society where (despite being offset by a small population of filthy rich businessmen) the median annual income is now ~$20,000, and where about a quarter of the population is considered impoverished and unable to AFFORD that broadband service, but hey, you can't have everything.
The fact is, net neutrality has existed as long as the Web itself. Every single invention and innovation, every Google and every YouTube, the sum total of the Internet as it exists today came into being because of a NEUTRAL AND UN-TIERED INTERNET.
Most people who oppose it are either grossly misinformed as to what it actually is, paid stooges of the telecom industry, or both.
What I find truly hilarious (and telling of just how ignorant Ron Paul supporters are) is that while they herald the 'new media' the Internet has birthed as the saving grace of Paul's campaign, a bastion of free speech which has given him relevance and a mobilizing ground, they argue to get rid of all that by whoring the Internet out to big business.
And they don't even ***** understand what they're saying. - ncairns, on 12/01/2007, -0/+5"If the internet has been neutral until now, it's thanks to free-market demand for such..."
No, it isn't, actually.
Ever taken a course on the evolution of the Internet? See, it started as a project of the federal government - the ARPANET. From there, various universities started using it as a means to communicate data they gathered in their federally-funded experiments. Slowly we worked our way up to the BBSes, and in 1989 Tim Berners-Lee, with some help, launched the World Wide Web. Since the very first data set was sent right up to now, the Internet has been neutral and un-tiered.
And you know why? Because it wouldn't have worked any other way, up until now. Early adopters of the Web were few and far between for a long time. It was seen very much as a passing fad, and major corporations (although some put a lot of stock in it) by and large were afraid to invest too much time or money in it.
Today, though, things are very, very different. I use a computer every single day. I can't do my job without it. The company I work for cannot function without it. In fact, there is not a single large corporation in the WORLD which can operate effectively without the Internet. They will pay whatever they have to for the best possible connection, because the amount of money they would lose from *not* having that connection greatly outweighs whatever the cost may be. Collusion between the telecoms resulting from impotent and ineffective regulation has yielded an effective monopolization of the industry. If net neutrality fails, the Internet will not be anything like it is today. The telecoms can afford to operate on a non-neutral Internet today because businesses CAN'T afford to operate without the Internet - it has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. - ncairns, on 12/01/2007, -0/+4What a fake argument. Yes, the fact that Japan is smaller than the States means we can't possibly use them as a metric of comparison for the state of our own broadband services! I mean, ignoring that the relative populations and relative GDPs make up for the disparity in geographic size...
Have you ever been to Japan? Tokyo is at least a decade ahead of New York City. Wanna know what has brought them there, and left us in the past?
Funding from the *spooky, evil* federal government. The same goes for Seoul. The federal government has funded the expansion of broadband services, and has given research grants to advance the state of the country. And it has worked. Very, very, very well.
And now you and Ron Paul propose we do away with that funding and those grants entirely. ***** genius. - ncairns, on 12/01/2007, -1/+4Oh please, trying to claim there's no consensus among the experts about net neutrality is like trying to claim there's no consensus among the experts about global warming.
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
Notice the quotes on the side, one's from the dude who INVENTED IP and the other's from the dude WHO INVENTED THE ***** INTERNET.
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 - inactive, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3So congress shouldn't even try because some past legislation didn't work effectively? That's a defeatist attitude, and won't lead to anything getting solved.
- inactive, on 12/02/2007, -1/+3So your excuse as to why we can't have net neutrality laws is that your afraid the telco's will somehow take control of the bill and alter it to how they see fit? Yes we know you vehemently distrust congress but any transparent attempt to hi-jack a bill would be scrutinized in such detail that I think someone might notice...
- hiphoc, on 12/01/2007, -2/+3Where the state is, there is the power to tax; for rulers cannot rule without taxation. As Ludwig von Mises wrote: "The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation." Or as Murray Rothbard put it: "All state actions rest on the fundamental binary intervention of taxes."
Where the state is, there also is the growth of the state. Why does a state’s scope enlarge? One theory is that interest groups seek to use the state’s taxing power for their own benefit. I would like to suggest a complementary theory. When the power to tax is conferred upon rulers, many harmful incentives necessarily are conveyed with it. These encourage the rulers to expand their destructive acts.
Americans have been brainwashed to think taxes are good for the masses. Very Marx like if you ask me, but diggers know the power to tax is the power to kill. The Critters are coming after the web and coming hard. We are kicking their asses in the info war. Keep an eye out folks, be ready for the good fight. If they thought the Amnesty bill outrage got out of hand. Wait till they try to tax the web. You little fat burger eaters out there better get off your ass and get down to your congressmen-as office. Or just vote for Ron Paul!!! As long as we have a fed we dont have true free markets. Bernanke is a price fixer and a bank bailer out'er. SHUT DONT THE FED
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?contro ... - manix163, on 12/01/2007, -3/+3is ron paul ok in the head? just wanna make sure guys
- WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -2/+1@Onetimer: The last decade of congressional legislation (since I've been paying attention) gives me no indication of that. Time and time again, we've been undermined by the very legislation supposed to solve a perceived problem. For this issue especially, I feel our representatives are particularly vulnerable to misinformation.
- WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -2/+1Reply 3: Or, we let state governments regulate ISPs to ensure net neutrality.
- WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -2/+1Reply 2: You do make a good point about how critical the internet has become to our infrastructure, and I would be inclined to agree that there is a *need* for regulation in this domain. My only problem is that I lack faith that our congress is capable of this. It almost seems like we need to increase the authority of regulating bodies such as the ICANN, or form some type of new federal agency, so they can reign in ISPs for our benefit. I just don't think our congress is qualified to enact internet regulation themselves, just because they have zero knowledge of the subject matter, and they will be vulnerable to misinformation from telecom industry lobbyists. There is a need for an EXPERT governing body passing this legislation.
Getting back to US presidential politics, it seems that there is a deep structural problem with the way the heads of the various federal agencies are appointed, currently chosen by the executive administration. It woild really be nice if we could directly vote for the heads of all the federal regulatory agencies, to ensure we get the kind of representation we want on ALL the major issues... - OnGard4Liberty, on 12/01/2007, -2/+1"I am a friend of the Free State Project. Check it out...and if you like it, join and continue the effort!" -- Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.freestateproject.org/intro/ron_paul - WiseWeasel, on 12/01/2007, -3/+1If the internet has been neutral until now, it's thanks to free-market demand for such, since there's been no net neutrality regulation until now. You still haven't addressed the issue of why you think our congress is likely to protect net neutrality with integrity, considering how they're in the pockets of the telecom industry. Regulation will only further the integration of telecom with our federal politics, as they are forced to increase their lobbying and think tank involvement, ultimately hurting the cause you're trying to further. Look, I'm not misinformed about the nature of net neutrality regulation, and I agree that it would be nice if there could be a clean law stating that telecom companies can't interfere with internet integrity, but I see no reason to think our congress is capable of giving us such a law. Do you actually, seriously think our congresscritters know anything about network topology or internet technology, that they would be able to judge on the practicality of whatever solution they're voting on? These guys are so clueless, they'll buy whatever their lobbyists tell them. Ultimately, I bet you would be disappointed by the outcome of this political pressure, if it were successful.
- WiseWeasel, on 12/01/2007, -3/+1So two people think there should be federal intervention, and that makes a consensus? They might as well be the pope for all I care, there is no consensus of any kind. Personally, I'll take the safe route and just keep congress the hell away from the internet as much as possible, until there is a real problem to address that can't be resolved through technical means, like we typically address such problems. The internet routes around corporate and government intervention no matter what they do. If is a real clear-cut egregious abuse of net neutrality that can't be resolved technically, then maybe there's a case for bringing some specific legislation before congress. Until then, let's play it safe and see where the market takes us.
- WiseWeasel, on 12/01/2007, -4/+1OK, so you're saying Japan's government isn't quite as corrupt and inept as our own federal government; what's your point? Japan's population distribution is completely the opposite of our own, and a fast, wired internet is much more feasible in that densely-populated and well-developed small country with high standard of living. Such a network is not optimal for broadband deployment in the US, simply due to the sparse population distribution relative to the size of our economy. The more appropriate solution stateside has to be wireless. The fact remains that we don't currently have the wireless bandwidth needed to run such a network, due to FCC intervention and extremely slow speed of reaction to large changes in communication. I personally have more faith that the market could resolve these issues to our benefit than the FCC, which has proven itself to be detrimental to progress.
- WiseWeasel, on 12/01/2007, -4/+1Not unanimous by any means. Even on slashdot and other geek sites, it's very much divided. Paul does not understand the internet, but he understands the destructive force of congress in the pockets of large telecom companies lobbying for their riders on whatever net neutrality legislation might come their way. Our congress is physically incapable and much too ill-informed on the subject to actually legislate effective regulation. I am absolutely convinced that they will not only fail to prevent whatever it is they want to prevent, but they will end up interfering with progress and competition as well, for the benefit of current campaign contributors in the telecom industry. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. There might be a *need* for network neutrality in principle, but our congress is incapable of providing that solution for us. Our best hope is to fight transgressions in net neutrality in the courts on a case-by-case basis with the help of the EFF.
- WiseWeasel, on 12/01/2007, -4/+1There's no competing service because the FCC has squandered all our radio bandwidth until now. The 700MHz auction will help somewhat, but the structural problem with the FCC and telecom regulation remains. The lack of competition is a direct result of the crappy, outdated, and slow to move set of regulations currently in place.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is