What is Digg?26 Comments
- zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26They could have released a week ago and still few politicians would have understood it or even made an effort to understand it. I can see how the last bill went now... some politician sitting in his office.
politician: "I wonder if I should read this 'Net Neutrality bill and see what its about."
AT&T: "Don't read that... here take this blank check and just vote against it."
politician: "Whooo Hoo!" - korimickster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11***** Verion and AT&T.
Greed is going to be the end of the internet if we don't have someone on our side. - LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Sadly, that's the truth. We need to vote these people, people like Orrin Hatch, out of office. Check out www.ipaction.org to find out how your senators and representatives voted on these issues, and if you don't like it, sent them an E-Mail, or better yet, a real letter. Let your voice be heard!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So far, none of the NN proposals are worth a damn.
I, personally, don't want huge, greedy corporations being able to do whatever they want with the internet....but on the other hand, I don't what huge, greedy, sloppy, bureaucratic government stepping in and f(*&*(^g up the internet, either.
Kind of a rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5True.
But I'll take my chances with the evil big inefficient Government over evil greedy efficient corporations on this issue...
Think of it like this... The corporations has direct intent to maximize profits for shareholders and so are its workers who are all set about to this for money incentives (think lawyers bent on suing people, sales clerks lying to get more profits for their bonus etc) but government on the other hand just has politicians lying to get votes and then not doing anything of what they said and government employees just being lazy not really doing their jobs because they can't get fired.
So hopefully through government inefficiency we'll somehow as consumers win out with this issue... Of course that is a bit sad when you think about it.
Regardless... Something must be done to stop Verizon, Comcast, Bellsouth, and ATT from doing what they want to do... Control the bandwidth and the content!
They want to become big AOLs and that my friends will kill the internet. - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'd rather have government regulate the Internet than corporations. Government can be changed, whereas business is more tyrannical and difficult to manipulate.
- redbanktom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2geekee, you make a huge assumption that the isp's will open their extra bandwidth up to anyone with the cash. I don't see anything in their track record that would support that.
Make that additional bandwidth available for anyone with the cash, everyone pays the same price and then I have less of a problem with it. If you want to legislate anything ( I'm not in favor of NN legislation ) then legislate this.
I just don't think the ISPs will work that way. I think they'll cut exclusive deals with certain partners, just as they have done in the past. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> LycoLoco wrote: "Sadly, that's the truth. We need to vote these people, people like Orrin Hatch, out of office."
I live in Utah and I'd love to see Senator Hatch be replaced. There is no better friend of the Telcos, the RIAA, the MPAA and the anti-consumer DMCA legislation than Orrin Hatch. But to be honest, the press would have to catch Senator Hatch molesting Collies, burning the American flag, smoking dope and (God forbid) shopping on a Sunday before a challenger would have even a tiny chance of defeating him. Nonetheless, we can always hope. - toolpc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I just want this ***** to get over with for the love of god!
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"and if you don't like it, sent them an E-Mail, or better yet, a real letter. Let your voice be heard!"
Better yet, give their opponent your vote this coming November. Don't forget to vote!! (Old people never forget) - spinner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So you're saying that people would choose aol services over competitors because of a 10mbps bw difference?
Unless aol and their competing services take up about a thousand mb a hit, its not going have a noitceable difference. How big is a list of results on a search engine, 50kb, maybe 60kb? When your loading it at even 3mbps, its going take less than a second.
The difference between loading a page at 15mbps and 25mbps will be virtually unnoticable. Even heavy online gaming (large mmorpgs, halo, etc), doesnt take up alot of bandwidth.
So how would anyone choose one service over another because of a rather invisible speed difference? - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If they refuse to provide residents with an untouched internet pipe then let the cities and towns form their own municipal networks."
No one's planning on blockin internet packets. This is just FUD created by people who fear any change. - Chuck95, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here is how all our representatives voted on the bad COPE law:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll241.xml
My representative Chet Edwards voted for this, and I emailed him and told him how disappointed I was in his support for it. I encourage you to look up your representative here if you don't know who it is and email them:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
This gives you a link to their email/website where you can get an email address.
Better yet, call. I'm going to call Hutchinson. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*****The second proposal, authored by Seth Johnson, a member of New Yorkers for Fair Use, would also allow providers to offer tiered services, but they would not be able to classify them as "Internet" services if they discriminate against competing content. *****
What the heck does that mean? Does it mean an ISP can offer a VOD service but not call it "Internet VOD" and thereby get away with whatever they want? I just do not understand the above snippet... - satori3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"few politicians would have understood it or even made an effort to understand it." I couldn't agree more, this really is the issue at hand. If I am paying for an internet gateway access then I am leasing that backbone and should not get shafted while some telco decides to make even more money off the same network. I find it annoying that anyone that does not understand the issues seem have a knee jerk reaction to equate internet backbone network with a specific companies ownership of that physical line.
- redbanktom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I picked AOL but really we are talking about the internet of 3 years from now so who knows what services will be offering what. I'll expand upon my example.
Let's say that in your household your son is playing something on XBOX360 Live with a headset, your daughter is on myspace browsing music while using skype to talk to her friends and your significant other is viewing a YouTube video on how to spin yarn.
You want to watch a show on fly fishing, ESPN has a streaming show on their web site but when you watch it it is jerky due to the other bandwidth your household is using. So you check out IPTV on AOL and find a similar fly fishing show on their service, you try that one and it comes to you stutter free and in high def.
Now the ESPN show may be better but you will choose to watch the AOL show instead.
That's the scenario that would limit competition. Over time you will start to check out AOL first and spend less time bothering with the competitiors. Is that becuase AOL has a better product or just because the cut a deal with your ISP? - notfaded1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"In effect, under the present circumstances, the system of developing specifications, which involves the writing and review of formal documents known as RFCs, which has held since the beginning of the Internet, would be tossed out by a few large providers and equipment manufacturers and replaced by corporate fiat," the group said. "IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It is the Internet." Ah men to that! Every time the politicians get involved trying to "fix" things... they usually end up worse.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This sounds a lot like the Senate net user "bill of rights"
http://news.com.com/Senate+panel+proposes+Net+user+bill+of+rights/2100-1028_3-6085346.html
A good compromise, in my opinion. And now even the civil liberties groups are on board. So who is left opposing tiered internet? - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2spinner, try streaming your own TV or music. Yes, this might be on a thin legal line, but those ~256kbit upload speeds die out after one connection. We need all the bandwidth we can get. More the better, always.
For the rest of you that say we won't need 15mbit connections, I smack my head for you. The possibilities are endless... Downloading movies are coming soon (if a 1080p file then you'll be pulling back 10 gigs of video). You'll want 15mbit, I guarantee it. - redbanktom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think you are being a bit short sighted spinner. It's like when we first got 9600 baud modems and we said we would never need to upgrade to 56k, eventually something will come along and eat up that bandwidth.
- sunilagrawal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi,This is Added by Sunil Agrawal on Monday 16th October
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"This will have the effect of reducing competition and will become a barrier to entry for new players."
No. Here is one example of how tiered internet imporves competition. It allows telecom companies to compete directly with cable companies for video to your tv. It also allows any VoIP company to offer you a phone service with guaranteed no dropouts or lag. Tiered internet is good. It opens up markets to new companies wanting to provide custom services to internet users that require better QoS (bandwidth and/or latency) than the internet guarantees now (which is nothing, really). The latest proposals even guarantee ISP's can't block competing services. - redbanktom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2From the article: "The proposals differ in their approaches, but both would allow broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. to separate part of their broadband pipes for services they or their partners offer. But on the public Internet, broadband providers would be required to treat all content equally."
Whether we label it as a VPN or something else, I believe this is the way the ISPs planned on implementing Access Tiering all along
I think that if the ISPs cordon off portions of their pipe for use by them or their partners it will have the effect of chilling competition and growth on the internet.
Here’s the scenario, you pay your ISP (let’s say it’s a fiber provider) 39.95 a month for a 15mbps plan. They give you, at no extra charge, an additional 10mbps for exclusive use of a partner’s services, let’s say AOL. All non AOL traffic has to share the 15mbps portion of the pipe and AOL traffic has its own exclusive bandwidth.
Eventually you will find yourself using less and less of AOL’s competitors’ services and more of AOL’s because the AOL has that clean bandwidth.
This will have the effect of reducing competition and will become a barrier to entry for new players.
I don’t think you will ever see an ISP explicitly blocking or reducing access to certain sites (please don’t bring up port 25 or craigslist or that one ISP that blocked VOIP) but these private channels will have the same effect in the long term.
If the ISPs are going to set up these private channels then they should be available to everyone who has the cash, not just partners. The ISP’s track record tells us that they will not make these private portions of their pipes available to everyone. - spinner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You honestly think that would take up 15mbps?
I've ran halo before with a bandwidth monitor running on my router - took up about 8kbps max on a server with 16 players. I didn't have voice running, so that may be a few extra kb, but not much.
It only takes a few seconds to load a video on youtube, so after your wife loads the video, the bandwidth is yours.
Skype does not take up fifteen megs of bandwidth (idk how much really, never bothered to check), Not even close to that much. Mp3s are only about 4-5 megs each, so even downloading it all at once will not take all 15mbps.
It would supprise me if that whole thing took up 512kbps. If you have even a 768k dsl line, unless you run a public wifi network, chances are you will never see your modem reach its bandwidth cap. - zoombusa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Here is the solution to this issue. Let the telcos own their own networks and do whatever they want to do. But if they allow that then let cities and town set up their own networks. If they refuse to provide residents with an untouched internet pipe then let the cities and towns form their own municipal networks. I bet if they proposed that they would be singing a different tune.
- WattBoxx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0To the Honorable Duncan Hunter:
I am deeply disappointed in your recent vote in favor HR 5252.
A vote in favor of providing greater control over the Internet by the owners of the pipes is likely to create restrictive monopolistic business practices that are already beginning to manifesting themselves and ultimately result in a great deal of economic hardship with in the blossoming Internet community in San Diego.
That translates into loss of high paying jobs, fewer business start ups, less venture capital investment and reduced tax revenues for our community. I am in favor of preserving Internet neutrality and I support Representatives that do the same.
Sincerely,
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is