What is Digg?143 Comments
- AriaStar, on 01/09/2008, -3/+34***** company.
- fangorious, on 01/09/2008, -0/+26shouldn't they lose their Common Carrier status?
- Nanobe, on 01/09/2008, -2/+25First they came for the child pornography sites, and I did not speak out, because I did not visit child pornography sites.
Then they came for the malware sites, and I did not speak out, because I did not own malware sites.
Then they came for the pirated materials, and I did not speak out, because I did not download pirated materials.
Then they came for the profanity, and I did not speak out, because I did not use profanity.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. - Rassa, on 01/09/2008, -4/+24Almost as bad as making me read your crappy blog to get the link to the actually story.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/att-and-o ...
2008, the year I revolt against blog spam. - ngmcs8203, on 01/09/2008, -1/+21Some people don't have the option to switch. Living in an apartment sometimes restricts you. Some towns have contracts with ISPs.
- guyro, on 01/09/2008, -1/+20This is a very big step and should be watched carefully. Given how the FCC may be fining Comcast, will they take the chance? Report any signs of filtering you see.
- floridiot2, on 01/09/2008, -0/+18"I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game monopoly."
- WorkingDead, on 01/09/2008, -0/+16Thats fine if they want to, but that should make them liable for what gets through. So, if an MP3 gets downloaded, it will be because AT&T negligently allowed it to happen or was in collusion with the distributor.
- gurudrew, on 01/09/2008, -1/+16You are assuming that there is a choice to be made. Were I live there is no choice. One provider, that's it. Thankfully it's not AT&T, but still.
- wrathofg0d, on 01/09/2008, -1/+11ATT is the only broadband provider in my area. Verizon and ATT won't compete against each other, houses across the street from me can get Verizon as I live right on the city boundry and the next city is serviced by Verizon. Its ridiculous.
- Nanobe, on 01/09/2008, -0/+9You clearly don't understand the definition of "net neutrality"
- whiteknives, on 01/09/2008, -5/+14Fascist bastards.
- boxybrzown, on 01/09/2008, -3/+12Your comment seems to indicate a lack of understanding of several decades of telco monopolies.
- undetected, on 01/10/2008, -0/+9The article says "Let the free market reign." For that to happen, there has to be free market first. In most locations, people don't have a choice as to what broadband provider they can sign up with. That choice must first be there before ISPs are allowed to start censoring or filtering the data passing through their networks.
If my only choice for broadband is AT&T, how do I get to the data that they filter out? - hmunkey, on 01/09/2008, -1/+9The government is made to protect the people (I know they don't always do it, but that's the purpose). A company is made to take the peoples' money.
- ccanni1028, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8AT&T owns half of the network lines running across the country. This won't only be for AT&T customers on an end-user point, it will be at a mid-network level. It doesn't matter who your ISP is, your traffic will still be going through AT&T's network and will still be filtered.
- Nanobe, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7After posting, I realized this could be taken the wrong way. I'm talking about censorship here. Authorities should definitely go after the owners of child pornography sites and everyone involved with them, but *censoring* materials from the ISP side starts you down a dangerous road.
- chadj, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7How about option C. Neither the government or AT&T get to regulate the internet! I don't know about you but I don't trust either.
- Xlr8ed, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8That word,. I do not think it means what you think it means
- geekworking, on 01/10/2008, -0/+7AT&T is also a backbone provider so any filtering would go beyond just their direct customers. Even if you switch to another ISP, you could end up getting filtered anyway.
The other problem is that once one big company takes the jump, the RIAA will use it to put leverage on all of the other ISP's to get them to follow suit. If this becomes a standard industry practice, then there will be no way for you to cry foul when your ISP gets around to doing it. - SiNN4R, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7Word fascist.
- pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -0/+7it's more of a cartel.
- dgh1973, on 01/09/2008, -2/+8The internet is where the free thinkers live, it's the last bastion of free speech. Of course it must be killed or the powers that be will remain threatened by it.
- Genghis1, on 01/09/2008, -6/+12Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality
- GhostsAwake, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9Sounds like Freedom to me!!!!!!
- bjornski, on 01/10/2008, -0/+6No, he's actually right.
Ron thinks they should be able to clamp the info down as tightly as they want. It's THEIR service, not yours. You don't have a RIGHT to it, or any information gained through it. After all, it's not the government censoring you, it's a company, running as it wants.
You have no "right" to see the entire internet, unfiltered, if AT&T doesn't want you to. And he'd do nothing to make them. - xenon221, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6Mediacom is even using AT&T for their upstream provider. This is uncalled for. Let's hope someone puts the 700 MHz spectrum to good use. Not you AT&T, please. Reach out and touch someone else.
- Kratos76, on 01/10/2008, -2/+7Uh, AT&T IS the government.
- Ksilebo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5I guess I'll openly say I'll never use AT&Ts services.
- kd1s, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5When you consider that at&t is the central peering point for most ISP's this spells trouble. We need net neutrality NOW. Our legislators are obviously in the pocket of the carriers on this one, but we need to make them feel the full force of the community.
- SiNN4R, on 01/09/2008, -2/+7People are free to give money to a company. They're also free to not give money to a company. Its when people don't have more than one option that creates problems.
- skinnyskittles, on 01/09/2008, -2/+7very true. in addition to this though, we must stop the companies from getting in bed with the government
- OhBrian, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5Grand parents who "don't get" computers thank AT&T!
- pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6more corporate apologists. go suck an enron.
- tightscrummy, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6That free market fairy tale doesn't work when monopolies or even near monopolies are involved.
- coit, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Uh huh. Is that per month?
- bjornski, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4Not just racist, but objectionable in any form.
They're a private company, they can offer you as much or as little as they want. You play by their rules, or you don't play at all.
Ron Paul would gut the FCC and let Comcast and AT&T keep this ***** up, even on backbone lines that were taxpayer built.
But then under a libertarian government, those initial communications lines wouldn't have been built in the first place. And if they were, they'd be "toll-roads" built by private companies, and not built for the general standard of living of the citizens, but solely for profit.
And the filtering of the internet backbone is NOT a states-rights issue. - hmunkey, on 01/09/2008, -2/+6AT&T isn't even close to a monopoly. I don't think that's the word you're looking for.
- ChaosMotor, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4Oligopoly!
I wrote a post yesterday about Services, Middlemen, and Gatekeepers :http://chaosmotor.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/service ...
And one today about Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems
http://chaosmotor.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/central ...
That addresses some of the how and why on AT&T and Comcast's behaviors lately. - bjornski, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4AT&T is a backbone provider.
If they turn on the filters, a lot of other ISP get affected, if they want to or not.
You really don't know much about how it's set up, do you? - Aero347, on 01/09/2008, -4/+8Do it ya big stupid Telecom.. join comcast in the ****storm.
- SIRBERUS, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4your post still made alot of sense because filtering *is* censoring.
- pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4still don't need net neutrality, huh?
- init100, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4At least they will hopefully lose their common carrier status and thus run afoul of the DMCA safe harbor provisions. This means that if one of their customers manage to slip some unauthorized content through their filters, they can be sued as co-infringers. I sincerely hope they are hit with massive lawsuits from the media industry when it turns out that their filters are worthless.
- ecidnac, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4O-L-I-G-O-P-O-L-Y
- heifetz, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5let them try to filter my 256bit encrypted torrents.
- scottsniperdyne, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5Now all "they" have to do is say your content is racist, and your website will disappear.
- zbeast, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Far as i can tell this is just an opportunity for them to use "filtering" as a way to reduce there bandwidth costs. Oh were trying to stop the pirates and help our customers get the internet there paying for. My words not there but you know this is whats going on. ATT is also trying to get into the music and Movies delivery over your Internet connection as a perineum service. So this filtering thing is totally about them trying to sell you content. It's not about protecting anything. Current att is offering 100mb fiber but here's the catch... You can only use 6mb of that 100mb connection. the other is for there exclusive use for Cable over internet.
This cat smells a rat. - asw20, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3Recently tried to reach skype.com from a hotel. Guess what I got instead? att.com... Looks to me like they're doing more than filtering.
- wil2200, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3aren't these ***** scheduled for a breakup? how about we keep it permanent this time
-
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is