What is Digg?77 Comments
- FSUCHEEF, on 02/20/2008, -0/+83Heaven forbid you might have to upgrade a network that the government gave you money to setup in the first place.
- n0c0ntr0l, on 02/20/2008, -0/+65These guys are trash. They take our tax money that the government gave them to install fibre, give it to themselves, and don't even use it to upgrade the network. Verizon are the only people who have even tried to do something.
- masterwalls69, on 02/20/2008, -0/+39They need to UPGRADE the network...not CONTROL IT.
- dupswapdrop, on 02/20/2008, -1/+36Maybe I should bandwidth manage my dollar resources and signup with a small local isp!
- DarkerMaster, on 02/20/2008, -0/+29Its not about what P2P apps are "hogging" bandwidth...Its about getting what you pay for. If i pay for 6 Mb of comcrap than i should be able to use all of it if i damn please, I don't want to be hindered to only 2-3 Mb of speed when i AM PAYING for the 6...these ISP's need to realize that sooner or later they WILL have to upgrade their networks and that the only way that they will gain any edge is by offering it first, Just look at FIOS. With FIOS i can use all 20Mb of speed to do whatever i want, and it is no wonder that FIOS continues to pick up momentum.
All in all i just think that ISP's need to get their heads out of their asses, STOP FIGHTING CHANGE...ADAPT. - positron, on 02/20/2008, -0/+28Wow... what a surprise.
- ryanadc, on 02/20/2008, -0/+26yeah, AT&T in parcicular iss whining, "We don't want to upgrade, whine, whine, whine". Heaven forbid the ISPs provide us with the services they claim to be selling us...
- carpespasm, on 02/20/2008, -0/+14you mean the ones that have to pay the bigger ISPs for access to backbone lines? I'm totally for it, but as those get bigger they'll either be brought into the fold of collusion or be competitively stifled since the likes of ATT won't sell bandwidth to the company that's trying to carve away their home ISP market at a rate that will allow them to do that.
- DontGiveADamn, on 02/20/2008, -2/+16This reminds me of health care, we Americans pay more and get less thanks to the free enterprise system. Once companies become too big they control the market and tell our government what laws to pass to continue their monopolies. Now they control the media so they even tell us how to think. So much for democracy, it was a great idea. Welcome to the new world order.
- carpespasm, on 02/20/2008, -0/+14and even that is only in light of the 700MHz spectrum being about to open up and make them *gasp* actually compete for customers.
- pkarnig, on 02/20/2008, -0/+13How Surprising. LOL
The FCC needs to look out for the interests of the people, not the companies it was established to regulate. The American people are giving away their hard won rights as a result of the manipulation of the media by BIG BIZ. Same as many of our elected officials.
People, we need to take this assault on our personal freedom.
And...
Not a shot fired. - parax, on 02/20/2008, -0/+13My biggest mental conflict is trying to understand how there can even be any disagreement on what the right thing to do is. Some things are just black and white, there shouldn't even be any discussion about it.
- MrTito, on 02/20/2008, -0/+12So...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism - Khast, on 02/20/2008, -1/+13Comcast's idea of a "reasonable" useage of their high speed bandwidth is Text based Browsers. The FCC should deny Comcast any safehaven...irregardless of "Anti-Piracy" attempts. They say it is saving bandwidth....but it seems they block mostly large transfers. Not everything Comcast is blocking is illegal, and some things they are blocking are used for businesses.
If they sell you 1Gbps bandwidth...you should get it...if you use it for "illegal" purposes, let the appropriate corporations/law enforcement deal with it....it isn't Comcast's business what goes in and out of your network. - DestroyFascism, on 02/20/2008, -1/+11The RIAA = Increased Bandwidth costs reduces file shareing
Big Cable and the telcos = substantially greater profits exceeding 40% more than now.
Sony, Vonage, and others = An example of people with a vested interest in bandwidth and low access costs to generate business. Without free and equal access their income could be reduced considerably which makes me wonder why Business groups have not slammed the government for even considering this as it adds increased costs / lower profits for them as well. I guess the American government is too bloody fascist to even consider the consequences of its actions. From where I stand, its who ever puts money in the back pocket of the politicians that gets what they want regardless of right or wrong, moral or amoral, practical or short sighted stupidity. Way to go America, your politicians are pack of rattle snakes. - fety, on 02/20/2008, -0/+10wwaaaaahhh.. get a bigger pipe telcos!! We have the technology to be having a 1gb connection in each home. And they're whinning about users maxing out their 1.5mbit connection? Gimmie a ***** break.
- rambocommando, on 02/20/2008, -0/+9"The filing concludes that "sensible network management practices" are needed so that ISPs can combat "the adverse effects of staggeringly high bandwidth consumption by P2P networks and to help reduce the vast amount of pirated content that flows through these networks."
They want to throttle people for using what they pay for, whether its legal or not. If you can't provide the service that people are paying you for, you shouldn't be charging them. Or maybe you should charge them, and throttle their connection. That makes sense right? - TheMachine1, on 02/20/2008, -0/+9Time-Warner Cable's comment all but condemns P2P applications as "designed to consume all available bandwidth and, if left unchecked, will prevent consumers from continuing to access the wealth of content available over the Internet."
P2P aka Bitorrents are very efficient ways to move data. I see this leading to new Internet providers who can provide customers bandwidth without bitching...Google? - neo2007, on 02/20/2008, -0/+9I know cable is faster, but screw comcast!
- iamnot, on 02/20/2008, -0/+8If you're paying for a 6Mbps connection you can't pull more than 16,307,453,952,000 bits during a 30 day month. It's basic math, not rocket science. Surely the ISPs have calculators and did the math. Oh, right, they did. They determined average usage and oversold capacity during the 90s. Now people have actually begun using more bandwidth! What bastards we are!
Change or die. It's older than you and has no concern for your failure. - MrTito, on 02/20/2008, -0/+8Are there any left?
- qwertydvorak, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6"In light of such threats, which capacity upgrades alone cannot combat, broadband providers must retain the flexibility to employ traffic management practices to protect their networks as well as their subscribers from degraded performance and increased costs," the filing concludes.
they are already managing the network. most services have LARGE download and SMALL upload capacities. asymmetric is the word of the day. - Amric, on 02/20/2008, -1/+7Sorry, but that is kind of wrong.
As long as there is no competition the ISP: son't need to do ***** to upgrade their networks. Why? Because if that is the way you have the choice of crappy service or no service. Not very good options if you ask me. If/when competition comes to town however the ISPs need to upgrade their services in order to keep their subscribers.
So basically. Why should they not fight change? If they had their way you would pay for your connection and then never ever use it. They don't want competition either, to them competition is very very bad.
Competition means lower prices and higher bandwidth to the customers. That is bad for profit. Why do you think they buy... sorry, contribute to, politicians to secure their monopolies? It is not because they have your interrest at the top of their list. - Amric, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6I bet you Comcast if fighting FIOS with fangs and claws. FIOS is bad business to them
- banmaster, on 02/20/2008, -3/+9Hang on. Sony wants a level/fair playing field?
Somethtngs not right here! - DamnMan, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5Money makes everything a shade of gray.
- drvelocity, on 02/20/2008, -2/+7Sony wants a level playing field? i.e. they have no ability to control this segment of the market, so yes let's keep it "fair"!
- HueytheFreeman, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5From the article: "AT&T's filing declared. 'At best, the network-management restrictions [...] would inflict wasteful costs on broadband providers in the form of expensive and needless capacity upgrades' [...]"
Oh I'm sorry telecom companies. I thought when you meant that I had "unlimited" internet access that meant that I could download and upload as much as I want. Silly me! I guess "unlimited" means "yes well it has a theoretical limit but you can't reach it if you're a 'normal' user!" - jaxcs, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5Ah... the early years....
- TheMachine1, on 02/20/2008, -1/+6Their ability to abuse us is in their control of the last mile to our houses. A wireless mess network using 802.11n and Google providing a central router to their internet2.0 backbone will crush the Telco/Cablco *****.
- MJDub, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5***** THE RIAA
- dagnome1984, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5Thank you Al Gore for your "initiative for creating the internet". It's time to take a hard look at the Japan model and work from there.
- Amric, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4Hey!
Don't give rattle snakes a bad name! They are not bad creatures really, at least they try warn you before they bite.
Other than that I agree with you fully when it comes to the american politicians. - DamnMan, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4Don't worry to much yet guys, there are plenty of heavy hitters on the side of net neutrality. Sony is just one of them (All their digital distribution ventures). Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Novel, Sun, Video game makers (an 18 billion dollar business last year). Even non tech related companies who just happen to have an infrastructure thats reliant on the internet technologies, or web sales. against a few telecommunications companies, some record labels and movie studios?
Do you think it would have been in debate this long if only "The People" cared? If you did you have far more faith in our government than I do. - TrojanGuy, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4I keep hoping FIOS is coming to my area soon so I can dump Comcast and tell them what I think about ***** lawsuits like this.
- johnny23, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3At this point I'm wondering why there hasn't been a lawsuit brought against comcast for breach of the subscriber contract. They tell you what bandwidth your are buying. I'm assuming that there isn't anywhere in there that specifies what kind of traffic they allow. If its already been proven that they throttle bandwidth of certain applications....
- cnot3, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Blood alone moves the wheels of history!
- Tiemmothi, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Qwest and me are having an issue as of late. I like to download stuff.. they don't want me to download stuff. I have 500GB in usage a month. They say its excessive, i say its not. Its the only real high speed option in town, so I have no choice, but to bow to what the consider normal. There usage agreement is vague and non specific so as to not let anyone know what there excessive cap is. I almost spit milk outa my nose when I read there normal user only uses 1-3gb a month. It was that funny.
- DavidYeah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3The notion that P2P is an effective way to move data is an excellent reframing of the issue that puts telcos on the defensive. It makes the issue sound like they're blocking technological progress if they limit bandwidth to p2p.
- BRODEL, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2My Fios install date is March 10th and I CAN'T WAIT to get the hell away from Comcast because of this kind of *****.
- ethana2, on 02/20/2008, -2/+4All you people sign up with copowi.com and put an end to this madness. Even if that means 768Kbps instead of 12Mbps, because in the end, you /own/ that bandwidth, and if you don't when you could, you're really not doing anything tangible to make stuff like comcast pulls go away.
Go to www.copowi.com right now. If they are available in your area, sign up. If not, request them. Spread the word. - JettaMan, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Do not let Net Neutrality get passed! Once they have the regulation apparatus in place they will begin escalating. Then they will tell all providers they must block content such as file sharing traffic.
- Todamont, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2industry shill?
- smacksaw, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Well, while each side makes valid points, in the end I don't trust gov't will weigh this on the merit of the debate. They will fold. They will do what the more powerful lobby wants them to do. Net Neutrality will die.
- ZachSka87, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3AT&T's network is crap. As a WoW player, there are 3 times in the past few months I've not been able to play because a major hub went down. If they can't keep up a major hub (CHICAGO for Christ's sake!).....well.....dammit I dunno what I or anyone else can do but it just pisses me off.
- arcticblue, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2I thought it was interesting that Sony wants a fair playing field even though the RIAA is on board with the non-fair people. Of course the RIAA is going to want packet shaping to discourage some 14 year old download a new Britney Spears song ("like, it's going like, too slow. I'm just gonna like, go to the mall"). Since Sony has a music division (and is a member of the RIAA), I would think they would want this as well. I have to give Kudos to Sony for being on the fair side.
- DoubleTap84, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1From Copowi.com's FAQ:
In what circumstances will you limit bandwidth?
Our formal position is not to limit, but this is the ideal. The reality is that we buy wholesale from the network providers and some of the network providers have indicated that they may require some sort of capping or shaping in order to cope with bandwidth intensive services and applications.
If this happens, we hope to deal with it not as a top-down decision, but to refer the problem back to our community of subscribers and then discuss, debate and, if necessary, vote on the best solution. This will be the general approach to all situations which impact on quality of service, availability and fairness.
It may well be the community decides to share the increased cost equally, impose limits in some circumstances, or develop new products for specific purposes.
Of course, the bigger our community the more negotiating power we will have with the network providers to ensure the best and fairest outcome for all.
Hmm sounds like they are ready to start shaping as soon as they feel like it will be advantageous to them. - Gndoab, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1do you know what fascist means?
- KMartSheriff, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I agree. Hopefully something good will come from them.
- positron, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Traffic shaping and vandalizing torrent packets IS degrading performance for customers.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is