What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
101 Comments
- alapoet, on 07/22/2008, -3/+132A major boo-hiss to AT&T for actually testifying AGAINST Net Neutrality at the hearing!
"The money doesn't exist" to build bigger and better pipes? I call b.s. AT&T has the money. They just want to throttle competition and shut out the little guys -- and to censor content. - schroeder, on 07/23/2008, -1/+80These companies were given billions of taxpayer dollars with the promise of building these "bigger and better pipes" that should have been completed a few years ago. Almost none of this has happened.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Q2W6-InCIXwJ: ...
"We estimate that $206 billion dollars in excess profits and tax deductions were collected — over $2000 per household. (This is the low estimate.)"
They have (or had) the means to do this. I am certain that they still have the capabilities to fulfill their obligations. If they want to tier the internet and throttle traffic, then they should by all means give our money back so maybe we can invest it in a company who will build what was promised. - leerayIG88, on 07/23/2008, -2/+29Free the Internet!!
- danfef, on 07/23/2008, -2/+27The next time you call your local pizza place for delivery your phone company will offer to connect you to a competitor first. How would you feel as a business owner when the phone company is redirecting potential customers. why should the phones be any different than the internet?
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -5/+25Actually they(AT&T) want to be able to weed out other communications companies entirely. They want regain exclusive ability to extort money from every super corp to S-corp so they can do insider trading. They were responsible for the last Great Depression, before Judge Green said enough.
- jbmcb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+19If the FCC had any guts, they'd give the major ISPs a choice:
1 - They can just deliver packets from one end to another with no mangling or monitoring beyond simple logging, as they do with voice communications (which is just data now anyways) and they can keep their common carrier status - meaning they are fully indemnified from anything nasty happening on their networks
2 - They can mangle packets, redirect DNS, monitor user activity, inject ads - do whatever they want - but they loose their common carrier status, meaning anyone can sue them for aiding in the commission of wire fraud, prostitution, sex crimes, copyright violations, cracking, etc... and they are criminally liable if they allow ANY of it on their networks.
Oh, and either way, if they use their monopoly status to muscle out any smaller competitors, they are guilty of unfair trade practices and will be fined accordingly.
Of course, the FCC has little backbone when it comes to telecommunications, so they'll fold like a linen shirt. - Greengoo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+191-800-DOMINOS
Hello, this is your ATT operator, would you like to call Pizza Hut?
... No?
Are you sure? Pizza Hut is delicious!
...I called Dominos...
How about Hungry Howies?
(3 Hours Later)
Alright, I'll connect you to Dominos now. You will be charged 28cents for every minute this call has lasted. - GorfTron, on 07/23/2008, -0/+17I saw KFC too. But then, I'm on drugs.
- ksgant, on 07/23/2008, -0/+14How about a group to push for the FCC having no say at all in any Internet affairs and turn it over to someone else...as we've seen what they've done with television and radio.
- TomFrost, on 07/23/2008, -0/+12You... you think the Federal Communications Commission should be weighing in on oil companies?
...you can get back to me by using an oil message. - BaudiIROCZ, on 07/23/2008, -2/+14***** THE FCC!!!
baba booey baba booey! - screamingjoker, on 07/23/2008, -3/+14Groups urge KFC to keep Interstate Open? Huh wah?
- cawpin, on 07/23/2008, -0/+10AT&T not only has the money, but they were given it years ago and they, along with the rest, have continued to try to keep people off "their" pipes.
- schroeder, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11If they cut back the tax in order for these things to done and they are not done, they should pay those taxes retroactively. Those breaks were for a purpose. This is money they made that they otherwise would not have that should have been used for development and implementation. Even if the numbers aren't exact, the issue is still there.
- TomFrost, on 07/23/2008, -3/+12The internet is a shared commodity. AT&T may own some of the servers, but they do not own THE internet. The point of net neutrality is making sure companies like AT&T aren't able to destroy what they DON'T own by using what they DO as a weapon.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9And keep in mind, AT&T is the major sponsor of this year's Democratic National Convention. Who do you think the Dems will listen to then when the new Congress is in session?
- seventoes, on 07/23/2008, -1/+10AT&T was also responsible for 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.
- bmatherlyjr, on 07/23/2008, -4/+12While I am all for net neutrality; I don't think it's the governments job to ensure it. Allowing the government to sneak in and handle this issue will have disastrous consequences. Today they enforce 'net-neutrality' tomorrow they enforce 'censorship'. Give the government an inch they will take the whole hundred yards. I say; let the free market enforce net neutrality. If your ISP is throttling traffic, take your money else where. Or better yet find some start up capital and start your own competing service, there are other options possible we don't need to whine to the FCC every time something needs to be done, with radio, television let alone the Internet. So I am not anti-net neutrality I am anti-government enforced net neutrality.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8I'm sure if I call the AT&T PR department, I would get the same explanation.
- TomFrost, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9You're illustrating my point perfectly. Let's say I take your advice, I start my own ISP, and I intend to allow access to the entirety of the internet. Even if I have all the money in the world, I *can't do that*. AT&T owns a fair percentage of the main hubs that route and filter connections for the entire internet as a whole. If they set a filter on these hubs to disallow access to youtube, my ISP can't provide access either since it would be FORCED to use those hubs.
And you can't come back with "then buy your own hubs," because that's impossible. The point of the internet is that all of these machines are interconnected. No matter how many hubs I set up, they're still communicating with AT&T's. They're still subject to AT&T's filtering.
THIS is what I'm talking about. AT&T does not own the internet, and so they should not be allowed to change it as they see fit. It's like saying that since I own my land and everything on it, I should be able to take all the oxygen out of the air there and store it in massive containers underground, for as long as the land exists. Should I be allowed to do that? I own this block of space, I own the machinery... but yet I wouldn't be allowed to do that, because it would lower the quality of life of the people who use that air -- that shared commodity. It's a much broader analogy, but it's the same concept. - EVogel, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9AT&T is also the reason George Bush doesn't like black people.
- smacksaw, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7Break up the ISPs that have other businesses. That's it.
- lenninct, on 07/23/2008, -4/+11Net Neutrality FTW!!!!!!!
- Ymeg, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6We make fun of politicians.
We mock their terminology, lack of understanding, the "series of tubes"
We know they do not understand the infrastructure they are handling.
But then we go around and trust this government to correctly enforce net neutrality?
This is not the governments function. - inactive, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8To those thinking of charging bandwidth useage fees here is a basic rule of thumb:
People stop watching cute puppy skateboarding videos when they have to worry about a megabyte per month fee.
My point is that The cable companies are the only ones with constant income while most websites are just hoping to see money down the road. (YouTube still hasn't turned a profit for Google)
If they make it so we had to pay for bandwidth before those new companies start making revenue would strangle the new things popping up on the web. This is a new marketplace, let it grow. - TheHolyFatman, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7Verizon is against it too, and stands to profit if they do not ensure net neutrality.
- tHeSiD, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6oh my god! that's the most out of place and the most irrelevant reply ever!
wtf has FCC got to do with oil prices? - scubaninja, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5[citation needed]
- akeosh, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8Im sorry but when did the USA get controle of the WORLD wide web.
- UtahApocalyse, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8You all are fools, having the Government involved is what got us to this point. How about allowing free markets? I know that I along with 90% of Comcast Internet subscribers would switch to ANY other company in the area that offers Unlimited/Unrestricted access. I would even pay more, at a lesser speed for such access. But NOOOO we cant have that option DUE to the already present Government regulations...... when will you understand that 'Net Neutrality' is STILL regulation and Government control?
- SteaminTmann, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6I panicked for a second.... "They're going to close the internet!!!! nooo!" and then it all made sense.
- Jade10145, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5To All in this thread- I pretty much agree with everyone here
But I think an issue that needs to be raised is that, sad to say, people are to stupid, or dont want to be bothered to shop around for an ISP even if their is one avaliable. Even if there were better alternatives out there I dont think many people would switch to them because there just used to ***** service and dont want to bother doing something about it For example, think about the amount of advertisments you see, you even see advertisments when you are paying for a product, say going to the movies. But people just seem to accept it. Its almost like poison, if you give a large enough the dose the person dies immediatley, but if you slowly dose the poison they never notice it until its to late. Sadly, I think people will just get used to this bull ***** from their ISP's, without realizing its a slippery slope.
I wouldn't say that government regulation is the answer, but I think if you leave it to the free market, the free market is to ignorant to make changes. Especially considering the choices we now have.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Internet closed! Due to aids.
- SugarCoatedSalt, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6they limit my internets and I swear to god I will take up arms.
they can wire tap me, they can search me without warrant, but they can never and I mean never limit my internets. - homercles337, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Well, your tax dollars paid for the current one. This was a huge gift to the telecoms from Congress. Now they want more? Greedy *****.
- latrosicarius, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4schroeder - absolutely correct. nuff said.
- island, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Somehow I don't think many of us are trying to do anything about this, even if we could.
Sucks sitting back with your 3G iPhone on AT&T funding this mess.
I'm guilty. - umbrellainabin, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6***** THE RIAA
***** THE MPAA
***** THE IFPI
***** THE BFI
***** VIACOM
***** COMCAST <
***** MEDIADEFENDER
***** AT&T <
***** THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
***** BUSH - BongoShack, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6*****.
I dropped Comcast AND AT&T last month.
Switched to my local cable company and Verizon. - wufoo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5***** you if you bought an iPhone with AT&T. Seriously.
- danfef, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5Last Friday Rogers in Canada started redirecting invalid dns requests to their own advertisement filled search pages with no real way to opt out. not only that they display a mock up Internet Explorer error page to MAC and Firefox users. unbelievable.
- UtahApocalyse, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5actually that is primarily due to already in place regulations and laws that work to prevent small companies, while benefiting the large (lobbyist holding) mega companies. If you think add even more regulation and government control will serve to help the issue you must not know government very well.
- Greengoo, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I wish I had a local cable company. The only feasible high-speed internet I can get is comcast...
bleh. - funkyloki, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3But isn't that the same thing? The telcos were given latitude in their pricing (which means they could charge more) and given a break on taxes (which I am quite sure they did not pass down to the customers) with the understanding that the monies gained would be used to build infrastructure. They were allowed to make excessive profits as long as they stuck to the commitments they made to the states. They did not stick to those commitments, nor would they ever have been able to,and they knew this going in.
Whether we gave them billions of dollars in subsidies, or we limited regulations so they could make billion of dollars more in profit than they would have been able to under regulation, that is the same thing. And since we did this with the understanding they would fulfill their part of the bargain, and they most certainly did not, that would be considered fraud. Just my $.02. - phike, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4No you're not.
- danfef, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I caught this when it happened last week. Their "opt-out" is not real and still forwards to a mock up page. Rogers employees have now been advised they will be disciplined for giving out any method other than the Rogers opt-out.
I did call Rogers.. twice this week and the first time they told me I had spyware and should scan my computer... very knowledgeable. The 2nd call directed me to the link I could click that would opt out. all that does is forward you to their "internet explorer" error page.
There are ways around it using alternate DNS servers such as OpenDNS. Ive already posted articles on it but its a joke that we have to jump through these hoops for a service that we PAY for. - Shoebox639, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Let me provide an analogy for net neutrality: Roads.
Say you want to visit a friend somewhere. You'll most likely get there by roads. Most roads are free access to everyone, why? Because they are maintained by the government. You pay your share of the road fee through taxes. Now imagine if roads were all owned by private enterprises. They have every right to say and enforce as many restrictions on the roads that they own as they like. Maybe open up wider roads to places that pay them more money, or completely shut down roads to places people barely visit.
And there you have it, internet access needs to become a public good. How? Now that is an interesting question, because the internet is international and what governing body will preside over world wide internet access? These are hard questions but consider the alternative, a world where ISP's freely throttle the internet, which they have every right to do. It might not seem ethical, but they have every right to restrict access through their machines. For the same reason that roads are a public good, so should internet access. - t0x2c, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4AT&T did WTC?
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3The internet is like a sidewalk, open to all traffic with private property attached to the end.
- danfef, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5The servers may be theirs but the Internet does not belong to them. They do not have the right to interfere with normal browsing.
From now on if you ping dsfasdfasdfasdf.google.com it returns a Rogers Ip address. This also interferes with my local WHOIS since every possible domain name that could ever be thought of is already registered to Rogers according to their network. -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
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