What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
95 Comments
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -2/+50THE INTERNETS MUST REMAIN FREE!!!
- GardenMandy, on 07/08/2008, -2/+47Regulation would be a terrible thing. I don't want some company deciding where I get my news.
- tenio, on 07/08/2008, -0/+30for those who want a mirror...
" Net Neutrality: Five Facts Everyone Must Know
Jul 8th, 2008 | Category: News
Net Neutrality facts:
The term net neutrality, unless you’re a tech geek, conjures up thoughts of fair trade, international policy or possibly anti-fishing zones. The root of this meaning, however, applies to all users of the internet whether that you’re an I.T. manager or the casual browser. To clarify the oft confusing technical jargon and slim it down to only the necessary information:
1.
Definition: Net neutrality is not a law; it’s actually a principle that’s applied to residential broadband networks. What this means is that big business telecoms choose not to tier or limit internet website access allowing users full accessibility to the World Wide Web.
2.
Internet Packaging: Imagine paying for internet packages similar to the way you pay for cable. You could have access to CBS.com or ABC.com but if you wanted CNN.com or MTV.com you’d have to pay a premium. Not a pretty picture is it? Fortunately, this is far from the truth and the possibility of this happening is slim to nil. This is something often used by social media websites such as Digg.com and Reddit.com to fan the flames for net neutrality.
3.
Networks are “protecting” consumers: Yes, just like the MPAA is protecting movie goers from file sharing viruses and the music industry is trying to protect the artist. Fact is, if networks throttle the internet your protection is the last of their concern.
4.
The 700 MHz wireless spectrum: Google took a large chunk of this spectrum effectively giving them the opportunity to provide free uninhibited access to users nationwide. The spectrum is used for broadband connection speeds and has been rumored for use on their new Android cell phone OS but could eventually be put to use as free WiFi.
5.
Speed Throttling: ISP’s have recently began offering packages of higher speeds to customers who tend to use more bandwidth; namely gamers and downloaders. This allows those who use the internet for casual daily use to pay for a small and cheaper bandwidth package and charging users who use more bandwidth. This has been met with both criticism and praise from tech geeks and gamers alike, some claiming that limiting bandwidth is a bureaucratic solution while others say they would gladly pay for the added speed. " - c010rb1indusa, on 07/08/2008, -0/+16First rule of net neutrality is that your page must load first.
Mirror Plz - SwitchXFactor, on 07/08/2008, -0/+14How does the internet run out of room? What is the definition of that? Running out of IPs? There are other protocols... Running out of disk space? Pretty sure 1TB drives are 179.99 free shipping on Newegg... Hitatchi is working on a 5TB drive by 2010. How the hell does the internet run out of room? Networks are becoming more and more fiber, and as long as fiber technology keeps growing, the color spectrum for fiber to transmit is limitless... i'm very interested to know where the internet gets bottle necked...
- CyphreDias, on 07/08/2008, -0/+12"Space won't be limited"... Radio Frequency space is very limited. "Frequencies are unlimited"... No they are not. Radio Frequencies are extremely limited.
- sebby2022, on 07/08/2008, -0/+11/Sarcasm?
- soccerman90, on 07/08/2008, -1/+11i enjoy information in list form
- fas2, on 07/08/2008, -0/+10What the hell are you talking about?
- kaelyiesta, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9You lost me at 'paultards'.
Do you really think you are making a valid argument by namecalling? Time and again I find that the most vehemently anti ron paul comments are the ones with little to no substance like yours. It's as if you aren't trying to educate and understand the depth of the issue(as in this case the issue of respecting property rights vs monopolistic control of communication). There are very good reasons to be weary of giving up control to government regulation. Not just morally, or in theory but in practice as well. As we all probably know, the regulators can be lobbied and the biggest lobbyists are the industries which are being regulated. The monopolies over the tier one infrastructure is obscene, but it was created by our government. This alone suggests we aught to be very careful of any further government interference.
I myself would argue for a change to the ownership of the fiber built with our taxes, breaking the root cause of the monopoly (that fiber doesn't belong to those few telecom companies since we paid for it and they broke their contractual obligation how they would spend that money anyhow) So, instead of adding more legislation, I prefer free market solutions, both morally and how they work out in practice, they are better than solutions via higher authority. It's a complex issue, and name calling wont help educate us. Rational arguments will. - franklymister, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10I worry about the neutrality of an article that uses phrases like "fanning the flames for net neutrality," but it seems fairly even-handed nonetheless.
The problem is, I don't see packet shaping mentioned anywhere.
ISPs and telcoms want us to think it's just about offering higher speeds for higher prices, but nothing could be farther from the truth. They want to decide which types of communication are allowed, so that they can make sure IP versions of services they offer for pay (such as video or telephony) can't compete.
They also fail to mention that the telcoms already got BILLIONS of tax dollars and credits to build an infrastructure that they never built - and where did that money go? - sgtpppr, on 07/08/2008, -2/+11Probably because it's not the gov't business to intrude on the free market unless their is collusion or some anti-competitive practice going on.
- cldershem, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8wait? google got the 700mhz? i thought verizon got that.
- Nothlit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7It has nothing to do with whether it is FM or AM or any other kind of modulation. (People often confuse modulation with frequency, when there is no physical relation between the two.) The limitation of spectrum is due to the fact that only a finite band of frequencies propagate reliably over a predictable area, and those are the VHF/UHF frequencies that terrestrial TV and radio have used for decades. These frequencies are in the sweet spot that is line-of-sight, yet travels well through most walls and trees and is not affected too much by rain. Frequencies higher or lower than these tend to have varying propagation characteristics, like bouncing over the horizon (thus causing interference with distant cities) or not traveling very well through structures, thus being useless to people in cities.
- Memnochxx, on 07/08/2008, -4/+11Priority access to websites? Why that's a great idea! Maybe we should put this into effect in other parts of society as well. Maybe all the people with $100,000 cars should be able to get in front of people with cheaper cars. They're at a stop sign and you don't have one? Too bad, you have to slow down so they can get out. Long line at the bank or post office? Well you have to wait for all the important customers to do their business even if they come in after you. I like the sound of it.
- loconet, on 07/08/2008, -1/+8by the carrier's definition, when they can't squeeze more $ out of our pockets.
- sglazier, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7He dropped out of the presidential race a few weeks ago. He also didn't expect to win, he was more running to get more attention to issues that are actually important.
- timberspine, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6mirror?
- eleazar123, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8@WasabiBomb: Net Neutrality is trying to prevent or fix something that the government/regulation created. The government gave these companies municipal monopolies and that is causing the current problem. These companies can charge whatever they want, because they are guaranteed no competition anywhere in the city! We need to remove these "regulations" (free monopoly areas) that already exist and let the market expand naturally. Verizon is already working on removing these exclusive territories, but it is taking them forever to go state to state.
Once these regulations are removed, true competition will ensue and then you will have competitive pricing as well as competitive speeds and features. - ginestony, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6google cache got the text...
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:s8jOJTxJNFUJ: ... - Gorebus, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6Your probably old, so i won't be mean to you... But you don't belong on digg.
- artofficial, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Thats just a myth, you cant get cooties over the internet.
- Zihuatanejo, on 07/08/2008, -1/+66. Comcast is the devil.
- bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4The biggest line of ***** is this idea that we are running out of bandwidth and the internet will crash to a halt unless we "regulate" it. That and the fact that we are suposed to feel so sorry that the telcoms MIGHT have to upgrade their endpoint hardware. ***** THEM! I hope Cisco charges them double AND adds a bitch tax.
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6How about the government instead?
- Memnochxx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4I don't know, I'm a little confused so I'll just say what I want. I want all internet traffic treated equally. Yours is as good as mine and anyone else's.
- DrShotgun, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3When ISPs start throttling certain sites (and there are only a select few ISPs, there's only ususally one cable ISP per region, etc. ), that's certainly anti competitive.
- Kallius, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Huh, I mentioned that part about the billions of tax dollars and credits awhile ago and someone swore up and down that it wasn't true.
- linuxzap, on 07/09/2008, -0/+31997 called. They want their servers back.
- CyphreDias, on 07/08/2008, -3/+6sixsixsixtimer.... Ron Paul did not support net neutrality in the beginning, but he later changed his view. Ron Paul explained that he did not understand the technology very well and that he approached the issue from a property rights point of view. Dr. Paul formerly felt that a company should not be forced to use there own equipment to handle other company's traffic. After Ron Paul was educated as to the invasive implication of Internet two, he changed his policy and began to support net-neutrality. Dr. Paul is of an older generation that was not raised on this new technology and he did not understand the concept. His heart was in the right place in trying to support property rights. Let's just be grateful that Dr. Paul didn't make a bigger mistake such as voting to go to war with Iraq or to enact The Patriot Act.
- 8of12, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3If the mirror text is accurate, then this article has several factual errors. Most notably Google did not win any spectrum in the recent 700 MHz auction.
- BillE3, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5I believe the wireless are using frequencies in the FM band width. It could be there is a limit to frequencies within that band. I am not well versed in electronic engineering.
- Ravenlark, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4I hope so.
- franklymister, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3It was actually $200 billion.
In a nutshell, Verizon, SBC, Qwest, and BellSouth received $200,000,000,000 in higher phone rates and tax perks since the early '90s based on their collective promise to wire fiber optic cable for the United States, which they told Congress would deliver 45 Mbps universal service.
They took the money, and delivered nothing.
http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/01/31/whither-the-f ...
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240. ... - bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Seriously?
Your correct in the essentialy limitless bandwidth of fiber. The technical innovation is mostly in the endpoint technologies such as routers. You replace the endpoint hardware and OH MY GOD IT'S SO MUCH FASTER! They just don't think they should have to pay for this even through they have been soaking people month after month for YEARS. ALL tech companies reinvest back into their business which is why intel keeps putting out new CPUs each month that are cheaper than the month before.
Now the telcom model would be selling an 100mhz pentium processor for $1000.00 while the new Core Duo requires a second mortgage except the differance is that the telcoms haven't invested anywhere near the amount of money as other tech companies. Never mind the fact that endpoint hardware keeps getting faster and cheaper all the time and will continue to. There is no reason for bandwidth not to keep going right along with it and it is for the most part.
loconet pretty much hit it right on the nose. This is a money grab, pure and simple. - bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Except this is a non-issue and completely irrelevant. IP addresses have nothing to do with bandwidth and anyone who pretends they do is an idiot. In fact one of the reasons (but not the only reason) that many DON'T want to go to IPv6 at all yet is so telcoms and data centers can charge more money for IPv4 addresses. It's simple economics. IPv6 will KILL this market overnight.
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3@eleazar123
Reading comments is hard. Why read comments we can demand the gov't give us freedom... I'm sure it will happen if we ask nicely, then everyone will be equal and things will be great like communist russia, and fast like the post office, the courthouse, or the DMV./s - jawagas, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Need some help finding the TV buddy?
- Seizure, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I believe "space" would better be replaced by "bandwidth." Lets face it: current Ethernet tech is not all that great for delivering increasingly ginormous amounts of data. Fios is great, but none of the telcoms have fleshed out networks, and it isn't even an option for most people. And even then Fios will eventually lag behind the needs of file sizes. If telcoms would stop being pigs about it and actually make investments for being able to keep up with peoples' future bandwidth needs, they'd probably see profits in the long run. The problem with being one of the first countries hooked up to the internet is that we have to deal with the old infrastructure, and companies don't see the cost-effectiveness of making expensive large-scale upgrades when they can still milk us on the current setup. Of course the US does have ICANN and therefore basically overrules other nations' opinions about the internet, and that makes us think we're cool, but then having ISPs as private corporations in a capitalist economy means we only get to look enviously at Japan's blazing nationwide download rates (although japan is relatively small so they have less territory to cover and a higher population density, which makes the investment worth it). Short-sightedness is really the problem here, because when what we have really isn't enough even the mighty telcoms will feel the hurt of having to pull massive upgrades without having put a long-term plan down to manage the cost of changes like that.
- eleazar123, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3@userperson: lmao
@Memnochxx: Well, I want it to be equal, but not at the hands of the government (who already screwed up the whole fair playing field part of it). So, we agree on one level at least. - jawagas, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3You can get cooties from Geocites
- eleazar123, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Did you even read his comment? He is saying if a company does something you don't agree with (ie. throttling) then you should switch to another provider that does not do that. That is what we call competition. Eventually the "bad" company will change their policy to match the market, otherwise they will go out of business because all of their customers are leaving. He is not saying ISP's should give priority access to websites. I have no idea how you even came to that conclusion.
- lrdntwnd, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Google didn't win the block they bid on, but they did get the openness rule in place for that block. It requires the winner to keep that block open to any device which is designed to use it.
- antdude, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2http://72.14.205.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2cof ... as well.
- WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2008, -4/+6Uh, which pretty much describes what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent.
- MorganMghee, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Which do you prefer, people who are voted to do the job, someone who answers to us, or some corporate chairman who's only concern are profits, profits he gets from other corporations not individual users.
- bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Nice except they already HAVE a cartel. They are just double dip now.
- JettaMan, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Well, I guess I agree with you. I don't want regulation and I don't want the government coming within 50 feet of the Internet. Once regulations are established, corporations can go to the government and have them impose all kinds of harmful rules that will stifle Internet growth and invention.
- s4g4n, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1We need more TUBES TUBES TUBES!
- opiniastrous, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Simple answer: Senator Ted Stevens was kind of right (though still highly uninformed) when he said the Internet "...is not a big truck. It's a series of tubes, and... those tubes can be filled..."
Whilst wires can effectively allow information to pass through them until they degrade, they can't send everything at once. If they could, Internet connections would be a lot faster. There is also the issue of endpoint technologies as bipolar said. I just submitted an article about a new technology in this category: a switch that could potentially increase Australia's Internet speeds by 6000%.
http://digg.com/tech_news/New_Switch_Could_Increas ...
Essentially, the Internet is beginning to reach a point of high stress because of the sheer growth of users and the way they use the Internet. Rather than viewing simple text and minimally detailed pictures like in the early 90s, today people want to play games, watch videos, listen to music and are expecting higher and higher quality every day. Soon enough people will want to watch HD movies across the Internet without any lag!
Solutions to this problem need to be implemented, but in my opinion the best method would not be to restrict usage, but invest in new technologies and better networks. This is the most expensive option though, which is why telcos try not to think about it. There is a lot of discussion in Australia about a national broadband strategy, and how it should be implemented (Australia has the problem of being the world's most urbanised country, but also having vast expanses of land with commercially unviable populations). Hopefully there will be more governments that look into options like this, and companies like Google that are willing to build new networks and provide free access! -
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is