What is Digg?112 Comments
- scoreboard27, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Democrats or Republicans...the more things change, the more things stay the same on the series of tubes they call the Internets.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Yeah, Freedom won out before, and the Internet was left ALONE. Those pesky politicians just CAN'T have that. It's time to wage the WAR ON INTERNETS.
AKA Tax the Tubes (right after they make sure that the FCC can censor the internet and levy $500,000 fines per incident) - jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20If we have learned anything in the last ten years, its that the Internet is the ultimate form of capitalism.
If certain portions of the Internet become more expensive from providers like AT&T etc, someone will find away to offer it for cheaper. And they will prosper.
I'm as worried as the next guy about legislation, but the "interweb", thankfully, is much larger than American politics, policy and corporatism. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15[quote]Why can't they just let it be.[/quote]
Why? Billions and billions of $$$. Why? Because they don't give a ***** what you think.
Meanwhile, the feds want it because they are paranoid control freaks and AT&T will play ball with them. All governments are terrified of anything they cannot control. Not to mention that they'll get a cut of the profits through the usual channels.
Notice how AT&T worked it out here. AT&T plays nice for two years, they get to make an illegal acquisition that will restore their monopoly again. Then, after two years you will be *****.
Btw, it seems Time-Warner is intent on buying Cablevision. That will make Time-Warner the AT&T of cable. They'll control 100% of the cable access in many cities. So where is the FCC and the DoJ to stop this? Today, the FCC is owned by these very same scumbags. They make the laws to please themselves, and once again, you are *****.
This is not capitalism, it's some kind of corporate fascism. - bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22Net "Neutrality"
It is stupifying to watch the supposedly tech-savvy people argue for unprecedented government regulation of the internet through this "net neutrality" legislation. Aren't these the same people who praise the internet for its absolute freedom and unregulation? Suddenly, they are duped into submission now that the proposed regulation is dressed up as egalitarianism. New game, same play. Works every time.
People don't seem to realize that if the internet becomes regulated, sanitized, and government-corporate-controlled like the modern media is, it will be through legislation like this. This is how it's worked for centuries.
They sell you on equality, you end up with slavery. They sell you on protection you from big corporations, you end up at the mercy of the government's diktats. That's the story of the 20th century. Let's please not repeat it in the 21st. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Ok. So what if AT&T, Verizon and Time-Warner are your only options and they ALL back ending net neutrality? Where are you going to go then? You can protest all you want in the street after that and it won't make any difference.
Then you'll be arrested for protesting because you "disrupted" traffic.
You think that's far-fetched? Anti-war protesters in NYC were arrested for that very reason, disrupting traffic. Only in America is it required that a protest be non-disruptive and contained within a designated area--like monkeys in a cage. - bocaJWho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14OK, did everyone at digg suddenly start drinking the kool-aid from handsoff.org?
I am very suspicious that telco's are having their marketing minions flood digg or something, because the opinions that are being expressed here and voted up are nothing like the opinions that were HUGELY popular last year regarding the same issue. Take a look for yourself:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Telcos_Secretly_Funding_Fake_Grassroots_Anti-Net_Neutrality_Websites
And to add my two cents, I believe you need to choose the lesser of two evils. I would prefer to have the government regulate and say that you can't traffic shape, then to have an oligopoly suddenly decide that it would like to put skype out of business so each company could sell it's own home voice plan. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Jesus, speaking of having your references handy... "Dirth" is not a word, and if you're looking for "dearth", it means the opposite of what you seem to think it means.
- pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's a State. Just below North Dakota.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12AT&T hates America.
- nevesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Also, to the people who argue that capitalism will save us:
We're talking about a monopoly here. AT&T acts first, and everyone else follows. If your local cable provider acts, and your local telco acts... who will you go to for Internet access?
So - no, the "AT&T will never deprioritize iTunes because it would anger all of their customers!" argument doesn't hold ground.
Have you ever dealt with AT&T customer support? Do you REALLY think they give a flying fark if they piss off their customers? - nevesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Net Neutrality is NOT a requirement that AT&T does not prioritize TV over IP traffic over FTP traffic. AT&T would be and is allowed to do that. It IS a requirement that AT&T doesn't prioritize AT&Tv-over-IP over JohnsTV-over-IP.
Net neutrality is NOT "new regulation".
Our ISPs currently adhere to net neutrality. The problem is that without precedent, there is question whether it is legal to prioritize (or deprioritize) traffic depending on its source. So no one is making any bold moves.
Now if this law passes - we stay the same. Status quo. If it fails, or if a law passes that does not demand neutrality, the telcos will jump on this opportunity quick enough to make your head spin.
Proof they'll do this, you ask? Well look at the telcos' wireless business. Do they make every effort to require you to download your ringtones from their expensive websites or apps? Even though it costs Nokia more to develop a phone with all of these "security" features (which simply require a checksum on any mp3 before allowing it as a ringtone, for example)... thus costing you more?
Yeah.
We're talking about possibly the most corrupt monopoly in our country's history.
So, no, I don't trust them. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You can start by logging off the internet right now, the copper / cable going to your house is a result of government handouts. To all the whining libertarians, please put your money where your mouth is and do the same. You whine on the internet while using your government-financed internet connection. It doesn't get more ironic than that.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9wow.. i'm quite surprised at how some of these fellows are so adamant about keeping regulation away from the telecommunication companies. from some of the statements i've read above, it seems like at least a few of them haven't even read the IFPA. it's a shame.
but hey, let's trust a company with the country's primary communication backbone. i'm sure they would rather be nice to consumers and web companies alike in order to preserve that trust. after all, it worked when we trusted enron with a deregulated energy marketplace.....
what's even shadier is that AT&T says that they won't extort internet users (consumers and businesses) for two years.. ok, so what's in store for us in 730 days? - DJCult, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Wh...what?
- TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"How can they controll the internet if no one owns it? America is not the only country hooked up to the internet."
That's the thing they cant, but just like everything in our lives they want to try to control it, regulate it, then tax the ***** out of it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Woohoo! Here come the libertarians, hair aflame and hands a-wavin'.
Dear libertarians,
Read the draft of the legislation. Nowhere does it mention taxation, FCC censorship, or any of the other evils you so vocally predict. It's actually pretty well written, from a technical standpoint, and allows broadband providers to tier their services based on quantity of data passed through the customer's pipe. You know, like the way they make all their money *now*, and have always done even as bandwidth requirements grew.
The proposed legislation *does* abridge a broadband provider's freedom to double-dip and generally screw over its customers, if you want to look at it that way (and I know you do). I know, it's terrible, but if you will douse your hair and restrain your hands, I will take upon myself the burden of lamentation. I personally promise to shed a single tear, and write in my livejournal about how much I want to start cutting again just so I can feel something other than the pain of that lost freedom.
Your friend,
caketank - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6FTLJohnson AT&T is just merged with Cingular so it is a huge almost-monopoly.
- nullynull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Net neutrality simply means ISP/backbone providers cannot throttle/shape/restrict/block traffic based on where/who it transmitting/sending. However, it's acceptable for them to throttle/shape/restrict/block traffic as long as they do so to all traffic. So AT&T modifies Vonage traffic = NO, however AT&T modifies ALL VOIP traffic = YES
I have a simple solution:
No neutrality = Rent a backhoe, to remove unwanted lines from YOUR property.
Can't have it both ways, you want to flap about "FREE MARKET" and capitalism, then remove their "right of way".
If AT&T wants to force everyone (both ways) on their "TUBES" to negotiate rates. then they should also be forced to negotiate with every property owner to put down their lines. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5John Dvorak spoke often of net neutrality back in his days at Georgia Tec. He and Larry Ellison used to pore over huge VAX machines into the wee hours of the night. Net neutrality was a hot button issue even back then as the internet was newly forming. John affectionately referred to it as the 'Net Problem' or, netprob for short. Ellison used to give him a good ribbing over it all. Ah, those were the days. And here now in 2007 we see the netprob rear it's head once again.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is not to surprising i knew four years ago when we started paying ten cents per e-mail
- DJCult, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I remember that too, thank you, Prodigy. Bastards.
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are fewer Internet providers than ever thanks to a decade of mergers. The consumer has less and less voice. AT&T (SBC) was going to use the Republican Congress to make a power grab for more profits – not only did they oppose Net Neutrality, they wanted legislation that would explicitly prohibit Net Neutrality provisions. Things are a little different now.
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What nonsense. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with "taxing the tubes" or "unprecedented regulation." It's about maintaining the status quo. How hard is that for people to understand?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@Cleanlyness & FitchMicah
AT&T merged with Cingular a LONG time ago... the merger with SBC was far larger than with Cingular; and monopolies CANNOT exist in a FREE society without the aid of Government force and regulation to prevent competition. In a free society a business CANNOT use force to control a market - either by creating regulations and licensing fees that make it cost prohibitive to enter the market, or by forcing a competetor to sell in order to steal all it's customers and clients. It is only a CORPORATION that can do these things with the consent and protection of a government.
AT&T may be BIG now... but they are not a monopoly... and there is nothing stopping competition from forming. Even if AT&T's lines were unavailable to competition... competition would still be completely allowed to develop NEWS ways and methods of reaching their clientele. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is how I can tell you haven't actually read the legislation. The enforcing commission *is* the FCC. Ooooooh, scary.
I'm honestly amazed at how simpleminded you guys can be. Here we have ISPs more or less threatening to double-charge content providers *and* content consumers, just when the web is finally beginning to seriously blur that distinction into practical nonexistence, in order to (a) reverse that blurring trend and cement the consumer-provider divide and (b) push their own content at the expense of everyone else's. In other words, the large ISPs (and there really only are large ISPs-- the smaller guys are just resellers) are looking to lock down a communications medium (harming everyone's freedom to communicate in the process) in order to line their own pockets. But since the only apparent remedy involves government, the crazier laissez-faire libertarians like yourself have taken the ISPs' side simply because you're automatons running the formula that the enemy of your enemy is your friend and by God government regulation is always your enemy. Brilliant. Astounding. - thelostemperor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Amazing the people who once saw a supply and demand curve and suddenly realized they were Economics geniuses. Belief in the Invisible Hand is simple-minded idealism about a process that is constantly thwarted in the real world. Why on earth do you think we have anti-trust laws? Large corporations have a multitude of ways to thwart competition, and the government is generally about 15 years behind trying to keep up with them; by the time legislation is passed to correct a particular anti-competitive practice most of these powerful companies have already long ago moved on to their next scheme. Competition only works if it works.
- dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thanks, I didn't see this THE FIRST TIME YOU ALREADY WROTE IT IN THE FIRST 5 COMMENTS
- Dvoid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Correct me if I'm wrong, this is the picture as I see it.
1) At the moment, AT&T offers fine internet service.
2) AT&T wants to DAMAGE the content (as in delete anything it doesn't like) that is being sent to people, and then charge for the content to remain clean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3) People say ***** You AT&T and pull out the ol' torches and pitchforks. Charge!!! - moudig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They are not libertarians. They are astroturfers. Telecoms spent 150 million dollars to lobby against net neutrality.
Legislation pro-net-neutrality would be the most libertarian legislation ever. After the constitution. - johngluck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are a great many miles of unlit fiber out there. If AT&T wants to charge for traffic and have some players pay more then others, then someone else will step in to compete at lower prices.
It doesn't appear to be a major worry. Still, why should one service provider have to pay more than another. Bits are bits no matter who sends them. - crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Only for 2 years.... It needed to be a lot longer then that. I think not one day less then forever!
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Exactly... I agree with you on that.. however, why should we force regulations on a private and (IMHO) evil corporation? Sure they are evil and Ed Whitacre probably deserves a kick in the nuts. However, that is counter to freedom. Basically... AT&T makes the decision to try and charge for certain content, or slow it down... The two options... are
1. Allow the government to control the internet for all americans, by FORCING AT&T (and all american ISPs) to treat all content the same (thus causing them to possibly raise prices)
or
2. Let AT&T attempt to charge content providers, and then laugh at them as people BAIL from AT&T faster than you can say "I'm that ISP that PirateBay blocked" If AT&T tried to charge content providers, they would only be screwing themselves, becuase their customers would bail in the face of slow service and corporate censorship. It would probably even create a market for totally new technologies to get around companies like this... (Interconnected WiFi anyone? Who knows.) - ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@FTL -- Agreed. And one thing that's cool is as cable and broadband merge in coming years, there's actually more room for competition than under current or past sytems. Nobody really has to rely on any one for any one type of service.
The thing that bothers me about this debate are the misguided "casual libertarians" who mix up "keeping the Internet free" with creating a new bureaucracy to make sure it's being done exactly. as it was. in 2006. Here's hoping that's changing - fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@FTLJohnson, your Laissez-faire capitalism just ISN'T going to work here I'm sorry. this is turning into an oligopoly, and people in america have no other choice but AT&T in many ways. plus, if AT&T started abusing the internet then other companies would as well.
we would expect natural monopolies for things like the internet (the internet is truly a utility at this point), and natural monopolies need government regulation and in my opinion subsidization as well. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Americans: BE CLEAR. Your internet ALREADY SUCKS. They have been OVERCHARGING for CRAPPY internet since 1994.
Now they're using those dollars to further get their dicks so far up your ass that you can't even remember what an empty ass felt like.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060913-7731.html
"US residents lag in speed as well, but pay more for their slower connections. In Japan, symmetrical 100Mbps connections are available for less than $35 per month, while residents of South Korea can get similarly speedy fiber optic connections for around $32. Those speeds are unheard of for consumer broadband in the US, and prices for much slower hookups are significantly higher—Comcast charges $69 for 10Mbps/768Kbps service where I live, by way of example." - Nafla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Having an ISP oligopoly sucks more than you can imagine. Here in Belgium, two ISPs basically run 98% of the show. In effect, they're so comfortable with their market position that they blatantly refuse to up the insanely obsolete 10 GB/month traffic limit. If you exceed the limit, and nowadays 10 GB is laughably low, they put you on smallband (because you're more than likely pirating, they say).
Summary: lack of competition is not good for the interweb - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Companies are threatening to charge customers if they don't get money from the likes of Google et al., but the fact is they shouldn't be charging any more than they already are. They're just greedy. Google already pays for its bandwidth, which is exponentially higher than the average consumer connection. The companies are already plenty profitable under the current setup. They're just holding the Internet hostage to try to get even *more* money. We shouldn't let them do it.
- DJCult, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@pillfred: ¿Q...Que?
- tommybeeasy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't understand, what is the flaw in the status quo that these dochebags are trying to remedy? I'm sure everyone is familiar with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" axiom. If I understand correctly, the duopolists main argument is that they spent billions of dollars(in subsidies and tax breaks) building the internet's backbone and they should be able to prioritize(read cut content competitors collective achilles' heels) in order to compete with each other? Wait, that's not even the best part. Now, they have their lobbying goons flooding all facets of media with the talking point that this is somehow a choice between Government regulation and the free market. The fact is, if anti trust laws weren't so out of date, they would not be able to even mention this type of power move. Of course AT&T is willing to volounteer to play fair for 2 years in order to reestablish their chokehold. With every passing year, we become more and more dependent on the Net, and if the government agreed to the deal, it would set a precedent that the Telco and Cableco's unholy army of lawyers would make damn sure it stood.
If we stand by and let this slide, we will have to explain to our children how we let these bastards bamboozle us into paying for content that companies like Google, Yahoo, and even Digg were willing to provide for free.
If these multi-billion dollar companies cannot shoulder the criminally lucrative burden of internet hardware, I say they sell their infrastructure back to the government, who could then in turn hold a public auction for the rights. I'm sure they would have no trouble finding a buyer, or better yet, buyers. This is just a case of corporate greed and ineffectually corrupt government. - exgiexpcv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not the politicians -- it's the corporations and their lobbyists, and their dollars in campaign funds. Those buy the politicians, who change the laws. Either party, they both take the money. I've called every communication company I do business with and told them if they choose to attack net neutrality, they will lose my business and I'll do my damnedest to take other clients with me.
We need politicians who stick up for the *people* of this country, and the world at large, this planet, not their war chests. - dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@geronimo
Your argument is crap. Libertarians pay their taxes along with everyone else, so we're just as entitled to use it as everyone else. What we're saying is that we'd like to have the option to NOT be forced to subsidize the poor, struggling phone/cable companies with our tax dollars.
If we could opt out, then we'd be fine leaving the happy tax slaves like yourself to pay for your government-subsidized internet. We'll go for the free market competitor that beats the living crap out of the government managed service, because every time a company offers an alternative to the government-run option, it's better. Private schools are better than public schools, private health care is better than Medicare, and your 401k earns much better returns than Social Security.
Government is the antithesis of a free market, and that is why it will NEVER provide for our needs as well as the market, since govt tries to control rather than respond to our needs. - blah128, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bury this guy that doesn't speak english
- nextedge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine
- andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"They are not libertarians. They are astroturfers. Telecoms spent 150 million dollars to lobby against net neutrality."
Logical fallacy.
"Legislation pro-net-neutrality would be the most libertarian legislation ever."
*****.
Government regulation, by definition, cannot be considered libertarian. - pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol i totally missed that right you are. Man i suck and i even voted for that guy.
- moudig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Guydevice: burried because you comment although you don't know what's net neutrality. Please look it up (for example in wikipedia) first and then add coments here.
- thelostemperor, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1A little over one year after I posted my comment, and now I can say I told you so.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5If AT&T wins against the Government, the battle WILL be won.
Then AT&T may attempt to charge content providers... and will feel the intense wrath of the unstoppable MARKET. People like you and me who say... If you block my voip service... I will make sure to NEVER use an AT&T product ever again, and make sure all my friends never do either... OH... and I'm telling everyone I know to sell your worthless stock. THAT is where the real power is. - saladtossser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If anyone is a cable startup, i'll be first in line, when i get a job.
on another note, i do want vacuum tubes in my house, think about it, how else can u send a pile of ***** in a container to someone you hate instantly? -
Show 51 - 100 of 109 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