What is Digg?110 Comments
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22AT&T has wanted to make money off the internet from the beginning from idiotic tatics such as this. The only thing preventing them from doing things like this, taxing email, adding fees whereever it wants, is the fact that theres so much competition out there.
Taxing webhosts would only kill themselves. They'd be advertising slower speeds for so many websites that will not pay them, and people would seek out alternatives. - hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21This needs so much MORE attention. Its amazing the number of articles related to net neutrality that never made it to the front page.
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Republicans must be stopped? What makes you think democrats aren't as 'bought-and-paid-for' as any other party?
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Despite what you may have been told, the average Republican doesn't like having big telco's messing with their internet either.
Also, it's "politicians", not "Republicans", who are screwing us all over. "Politicians" includes Republicans and Democrats. - lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It's time to legislate AT$T back into fairness. It wouldn't be a bad idea to go after there stock value too. We need to consider a long term strategy to undo this maniacal and profiteering company and the executives that run it.
- hexan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16So exactly what content comes with my AT&T subscription? Exactly nothing. AT&T is bluffing.
This is a sure-fire, no holds barred win for Google and Yahoo. Cable companies pay broadcasters for content. Not the other way around.
Here's the way this will go down:
Step 1. AT&T slows Yahoo down at IP level.
Step 2. Yahoo puts the following message on their home page. "Your Internet is having technical issues. Please call AT&T technical support at XXX-XXX-XXXX"
Step 3. AT&T is doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and pushed from the roof of a tall building.
I used to run an ISP. Trust me when I say this is an unmitigated disaster for AT&T. If people cannot reach bukkake.com or whatever crappy site they want, they don't call the porn site, they call their ISP.
The correct answer to AT&T is "Go ahead".
- ph713, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13
What the parent was getting at is that AT&T (and the others) have been charging us fees for years that were supposed to go towards FIOS and other ultra-high-speed service rollout, which hasn't happened. - lordofhaha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Those who don't have a high speed cable provider perhaps?
- SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11After AT&T has helped the NSA spy on innocent americans they should never be trusted.
- TheBeaver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9That's absolutely right. Just look at the mobile industry. They've created an environment where you have to pay small fees for every text message or photo you send. They learned from the mistakes of the internet that you have to make that power grab really early on before some free system becomes the norm.
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is the same corporation which has built special rooms in at least one of it's locations to house hardware which forwards all internet and phone traffic directly to the NSA and helped them to perform warrantles wiretaps on the American people. This is the same corporation which practicly owns our congress through political donations and lobbying. This is the same corporation that lobbies congress to ban all municipal wi-fi projects which it doesn't have it's grubby little fingers in. This is the same corporation which brings lawsuits against any and all communities who attempt to lay their own fibre-to-the-curb netwroks while refusing to do it themselves (even though they have received public money and tax exemptions in return for promising to do so).
Ma' Bell is back, bigger than ever, and hungry for blood! This monster has grown too large, and with our government in its pocket there is nothing to stop it from devouring us all. Where is our Scyld? Who will destroy this vile modern Beowulf once and for all? - rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7there's a difference between capitalism and a monopoly. and i don't think AT&T's monopoly has a big enough stranglehold to withstand this. the customers simply have better service with alternatives.
- DEFSMAC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7it is sad at&t is nothing more now than a shell of its once great self. they have stopped trying to innovate. with this and the suing microsoft over patent infringement with the 360, and the nsa fiasco they are nothing but greedy, soulless bastards. in my opinion google is on its way to becoming the next bell lab anyways. to hell with at&t.
- myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7An ongoing threat to our freedoms is never old.
- dbldwn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7DSL and Cable Modem are considered "Last Mile." It's not about the last mile, it's about the backbone. Whether you have DSL, Cable Modem, Dial-up, T-1, FTTH, Satellite, etc, your packets still likely traverse network nodes owned by AT&T.
- Ace25, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10hahaha, sorry, but in most places DSL is faster OVERALL. Yes, cable has the capacity to peak higher, but I see it as the turtle and the hare. Your cable may be the hare, ie, you may burst ahead of me every now and then but you get tired fast and then I come strolling along and pass you at a steady rate.
I get 3Mb/768K DSL. My next door neighbor gets 4Mb/1.5Mb Cable and during normal hours (8am-10pm) I get my 3Mb all day long while he might see 3.5Mb maybe 1 minute out of every hour and the rest of the time its more like 1.5Mb. This is comcast cable.
The difference is between sharing your internet connection with your neighborhood (cable) vs getting it all to your self (DSL) - myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Gotta disagree with your first point. The Repubs and Dems are equally to blame.
Edit: Damn I'm too slow! - lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is happening on the republicans watch which means they can not wipe the blame off themselves. Sucks being in charge.
- myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I stand enlightened.
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5at Positron... Beowulf was the good guy, Grendel, Grendels mom, and the Dragon were evil
/sorry for the threadjack - dymind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Personally, I would rather see this information posted a thousand times over a thousand days on the front page and have something done about it, than to have it in the back somewhere while these companies quietly take over the freedom that we have enjoyed. Freedom is not free and will NOT stand without a fight... vote with your dollar...stop bellyaching about it and do something... if you stop the service, they will listen.
- Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think your comparision would have merit IF:
Salon.com were a "neutral" third party,
Salon.com wanted to charge submitters of those stories more if they want their whole article to be shown PLUS charge you a premium to read the whole thing. - adkinsjm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Does anyone remember the Canadian ISP that blocked access to the union representing their employee's website during a strike? Or Shaw slowing down BitTorrent traffic.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Anyone who believes unencrypted Internet traffic is not being monitored by "someone" is only fooling themselves...
- prot0col, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8AT$T where is my friggen FIOS?
- diggdat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If I was a subscriber to this service, I would be pissed if they do it. No matter how you slice it they are talking about content restriction at least as far speed is concerned. They are not saying they are going to increased the home subscriber connection speed obviously, so they are effecting how fast someone can get content to you within your existing connection speed.
This in effect means choking your access to google etc. if they do not pony up. Saying they will not allow premium access to their customers is the same in this case as telling you that you will not get access within the full extent of your connection to certain sites, if those site do not pay them.
For that, SBC customers have every right to be concerned.
Google and other sites have a valid gripe as well. They have already paid for their own fast pipe to get their content to the Internet and their customer user experience is in no small part, based on effective speed. Now they have to pay extortion fees as well, if SBC has their way. - neoDingo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If you are referring to the ongoing debate over net neutrality... yes. However this is an important issue that needs to be brought up every time there is a new development. There is a weird obsession to only read "NEW" stuff around here that completely misses the point of debate.
- dougbdl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"We offered a phone service. And you don't build networks so that somebody else can necessarily use them for free."
Last time I checked, I pen a check for $54 a month on my cable. That ain't quite free.
Thes companies act as if they are not making any money in the ISP business. It is a $20 billion a year business. I am sick of lying corporate mouthpieces. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was wondering the same thing. The other responders seem to think you will be put in a "slow lane" but all AT&T is talking about is making a sepereate "fast lane" content providers could pay to have traffic go on. So your service would work just as it does today except when accessing sites stuipd enough to pay this fee.
As for it being practical to sneak in the fast lane... I kind of doubt it as it seems like it would be only for taffic detined for a specific IP, or set of IP's. It does seem like something fun to try though. Who knows, perhaps you could crash the whole fast lane by accident, and wouldn't that be a hoot. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The fine print on all broadband contracts (that I am aware) of restrict running a server from home. Running your own servers IS allowed when you purchase the "business" broadband plan.
If you want to run your own server then buy the business plan, don't try and squeak by on a home plan.
What's next, are you going to complain becomes some features in XP Pro are not available in XP Home??? - master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3AT&T wants to take over the internet? i was under the impression they felt they already did control it, being "their pipes" and all.
- myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Um, number one, you're thinking Verizon. Number two, if you read the article, you wouldn't be wanting FIOS in the first place.
- majordanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Gentlemen , start your Trenchers!
So here we go .. dueling trenchers tearing up both sides of the street for more fiber as the late great 'last mile' race is on.
If AT& T want to charge say 10 cents per 100Gbyte won't that inspire another company to dig their own trench and bring a 6.5 cent per 100Gbyte link to your town?
Don't get me wrong, I want everything for free too.
As sad and as cruel as it sounds, if it's their ball and their field then it's their game and they can make the rules.
Whining to your congressman because the company that laid the cable wants to charge for it
is not a glowing example of capitalism.
Besides what ever happened to the million miles of supposed 'dark fiber' laid down in the 90s ?
If you don't like it I suggest you form a corporation and sell shares in ALTERNATE BACKBONE INC.
'nuff said - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Net Neutrality = "I want a better Internet service but I do not want to pay for it"
- Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Agree 100%. I would add that the companies in question (Google, Yahoo, etc.) aren't connected to the internet for free either. They are paying for their connection too.
So now AT&T basically wan't to be paid on top of what they already make on both sides. Unless they start producing their own content they have no leg to stand on. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4We need to put a Democrat in office that will appoint Eliot Spitzer as Attorney General...
Then, I'd like to see AT&T try to pull this kind of crap. - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"the fact that theres so much competition out there"
What competition are you talking about? All the other telcos that AT&T has bought up or is in the process of buying up? What does that leave, 2 or 3 major cable companies? - hooges, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2you make a valid point. Doing this would probably only cause more agression against a movement like this. people won't know how stupid of an idea it is, unless they do it, then fail miserably, and cause thousands of people's surfing to be disrupted.
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Finally, this article actually makes a point of mentioning the lack of choice most broadband consumers have.
AT&T reassures us with the tricky line "if we did something to outrage consumers, they'd switch!"
Um, AT&T is the ONLY OPTION I HAVE FOR DSL IN MY COMMUNITY. If I became outraged, I'd have the choice of going back to 56K (which I essentially equate with having no service at all) or sticking with AT&T, staying outraged, and staying up late writing angry e-mails to them that no one will read. - scratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They want to own the internet, and bearing in mind that they have already capitulated to the Republicans and now help them monitor everything you guys in the US of A do I am sure they will go a long way towards achieving their aims without opposition from government.
AT&T are scum. Second only to AOL. - Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Watch kids, AT&T is going to shoot themself in the foot!
We all already pay for our internet access, our bandwidth. If AT&T is going to start charging the owners of the sites we want to see, then why in the hell will we still have to pay? I'm paying THEM to be able to access what I want FAST. When I go to choose which ISP I'm going to get, they all advertise their rate of transfer. Are they telling me that bandwidth isn't included in that?!?
Everyone knows that Google has been buying up "dark cable" and raising investment capital like nobody's business. No one knows why, but speculation is that they could startup their own ISP, run a "parallel internet," whatever... AT&T and other telcos might want to rethink their position before making unreasonable demands on Google for services their customers already pay for. Google might just figure that they no longer want to play the game and make their own rules... - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3AT&T slowing down Yahoo???
Are you insane? AT&T and Yahoo are business partners in the DSL market... Why do you think they call it AT&T/Yahoo DSL? - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Republicans must be stopped? What makes you think democrats aren't as 'bought-and-paid-for' as any other party?"
All politicians are guilty.
But the CURRENT crop of replublican leadership is MUCH more guilty. Things like the continual scandal list. People like Orin Hatch. The FCC. Energy company exec's writing US energy policies. VP's going to war and giving their own company the sole contract. Biggest corporate scandals being from CEOs that are 'buddies' with the president. Campaign contribution records. Etc. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1SBC and Bell South jointly own Cingular.
Cingular (via SBC/Bell South) purchased AT&T Wireless.
SBC merged/purchased AT&T and kept the AT&T name.
It's hard to make it any more clear then that as I have never fully understood mergers vs purchases. - LooterMcBeer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I dont know where your at but in most places cable has been upgraded to 14 down 1.5 up and it gets everybit of it and more with another upgrade coming supposedly to 17 down 2 up before the end of the year. I used to install DSL a few years back and ive never seen a DSL line come anywhere close to a cable line. This is comparing SBC and Cox
- lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I really REALLY like this idea. Spitzer is my hero.
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Ace25 You dont get dsl all to yourself either though, there are contention ratios with DSL same as there are with cable.
Over here, in the uk it varies between 1:50 and 1:20 , but usually the former.
ie, your one dsl line can be shared with up to 50 others. the overall bandwidth is obviously more then what you connect at but it is not enough to satisfy all the users simultaneously if they use it all at once - dirtboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22 things.
1) AT$T is in bed with yahoo for co-branded DSL services, so that's one place you might not actually see a slowdown.
but secondly, and much more importantly, is that AT$T has been playing ball with the NSA and the EFF is now involved: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ - your world. Delivered to the NSA. - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yeah - I saw that too. HoR needs better admins. :(
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 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