What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.72 Comments
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+68The confusion here is hilarious.
- ChimRichalds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+58I thought it was David Wells, major league pitcher? Or maybe Wells Fargo?
- npinski, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51it wasn't orson welles...it was george orwell.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52you tried too hard with that one
- HHarrelson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37It was George Orwell who wrote 1984.
- bradym80, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35This doesn't matter anymore. There is such widespread corruption going on at the higher levels and nobody left to clean it up. The government and corporations can do whatever they want without any retribution.
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25"Someone at ABC had inadvertently made a mistake while encoding the "Nightline" segment, cutting it off at the beginning of the Comcast-related part instead of at the commercial break that would come a minute or so later."
Either a really bad or really good job of timing for a mistake... - Andy.D, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Inaccurate... maybe. Comcast denies it.
http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6095431.html - calebb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Good find :)
"Someone at ABC had inadvertently made a mistake while encoding the "Nightline" segment, cutting it off at the beginning of the Comcast-related part instead of at the commercial break that would come a minute or so later."
"...ABC has agreed to re-encode the segment and that the corrected version--complete with snoozing technician--will be posted to Comcast's TV-over-Internet site as soon as it is received."
suuuuure it was an honest mistake... - incongruity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13of course comcast would deny that it had a hand in it, regardless of the truth (note, I'm not claiming they did or that they didn't, I'm just saying they sure as hell wouldn't fess up if they got caught at it)
- VMark, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It's HERBIE Hancock..duh!
- aitzim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9apparently the nightline episode also had the comcast dude caught asleep at the job. Consumerist first broke the story, with a post about their (and Vincent Ferrari's) appearance on Nightline.
http://consumerist.com/consumer/youtube/comcast-censors-critical-nightline-story-187928.php?bigbrotheriswatching - pexor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Tubes, trucks, or fiber, man, no one should own the internet. Please don't tell me you bought into their grassroots campaign.
And yes, the content of this article directly reflects the type of things that we are going to have to deal with if net neutrality gets bunked.
Also, you said
"In fact net neutrality makes it difficult for telecom operators from competing with cable companies in delivering ABC to your door. More competition gives you the ability to choose content providers that don't censor."
Making market entry MORE difficult for companies does not create more competition. It limits competition. That's how monopolies work. - kneal, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16no digg
"Think there's no reason for Congress to pass net neutrality laws? Consider this: Comcast recently censored ABC's Nightline on its Comcast Broadband TV service", net neutrality has nothing to do with what content people decide to put on net, and it's their content to edit as they see fit. If you don't agree with them (and personally I don't) then we don't have to watch it. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Com-cast CAN censor whatever they want you ignorant twit. "
Jane you ignorant slut! You're absolutely wrong. It is illegal for Comcast to edit and rebroadcast an ABC program without the permission of ABC due to copyright law. Your comment makes me sorry I already gave out my "Idiot of the Day Award (tm)". - bluflame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+86 Year non-comcast customer and lovin' it.
- StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5But doesn't ABC own the copyright to Nightline? And therefore, couldn't they sue Comcast for copyright infringement under the same provisions that made the "sanitization" of movies copyright violation?
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Now, why on EARTH would they do that? I don't see a conflict of interest here?
- aitzim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5oh yeah original post:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/youtube/consumerist-on-nightline-187797.php
(bring back 300 sec timers) - phynixx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well in a way it does relate to Net Neutrality. Just not directly. The poster (prestongralla) may be trying to show the link between the content providers (ABC), the media (as in transmission media) owners/controllers (Comcast), and just what might happen to the web if the owners/controllers are given free reign to traffic shape what they see fit to limit/remove.
Imagine could be done to, for example, a personal blog outlining why you shouldn't buy phone service from AT&T b/c of their crappy service when you try to view it through lines controlled by them? It wouldn't take much innovation on their part to create 'access problems' to the site, or simply remove the content, etc. - lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12http://digg.com/tech_news/Comcast_DOES_NOT_Censor_ABC_s_Nightline
- yutt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Vlatro, that was a lot of text to simply say; corporations shouldn't adhere to any ethical standards.
- Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5From Consumerist:
"UPDATE: ABC said they confim it was an editing error on their part. If so, the gaffe should be seen at any of their ABC News Now vendors, which include which include AOL, Bellsouth, SBC/Yahoo and Verizon. We're still working on scanning and uploading the AOL manual, so if any readers want to go and try and corroborate with snagged video clips and send them to us, that would be awesome."
Nothing to see here, move along. - zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The worse thing they could have done is censor a broadcast they don't own.
People will notice and people will call you on it.
The sleeping comcast guy story will die on it's own.
Trying to censor a story will just bring the story back on the top of the stack.
and once again you boobs back in the spot light.
As as Janet Jackson knows the US just loves a good boob story. - rockintom99, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I was wondering if anyone noticed that this had *nothing* to do with net neutrality. It was probably put in the title as it is a big buzzword right now, or out of sheer stupidity.
- chrisutley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5IF ABC has any balls, they would cut Comcast off for a month or two. See how many Comcast customers leave when they can't watch that Housewives show or whatever.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Comcast has a service where they allow its users to download videos of ABC shows to watch on their computers. It wasn't packet sniffing or performing a man in the middle attack, but rather they had the files on their server to begin with.
- dragonopolis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's sad to see how many Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that its O.K. to take away the freedom of others because they privately own something. Here is a much more darker example that says the same thing.
Let us say that a couple takes their kids to a daycare that outright owns their building and property and because they own it they do some unthinkable things to the kids and violate their rights. Its O.K though, the owners privately own it and they can abuse the rights of anybody they choose. This is what I am hearing from people. Now, of course, the above example is wrong and the people should be punish but why is it when its not Life of Death many Americans tend to get hypocrytical about freedom. It's not ok when it hurts someone but when it doesn't hurt anyone it is ok to violate people's rights. In the case of Net Nuetrality, the Internet is communication and is protected by freedom of speech and the freedom of commerce.
Comcast made the decision to get into the communication business and they also need to take the risks that go with it as well. The problem these days is that I think Americans forgot what Capitalism was suppose to be. It is suppose to be a system of Reward and Risk. You innovate, you sell it and hope that you can keep up with the competition. If you can't your business dies. Plain and simple. If we all lived by the ideology of business today back in the early days Ford would have been allowed to censor and block all companies that might have hurt its business, same with the airlines, vacuums, tvs, etc... So, what if AT&T decides it wants to get into the video download rental business. It's allowed to throttle down or downright block Netflix because Netflix is in the same line of business and could hurt their profits - Wrong! Some of you think that's o.k. since they own the lines but its no different if I where to use my phone an Call Netflix and AT&T monitors my voice call and decides to feed me static or downright cuts me off because I'm an AT&T customer I have to use their video rental service. Bunch of bull that's what it is.
There is nothing wrong with a Bill of Rights that specific addresses an issue that we feel is infringing on our right to communicate and do business with anybody we choose. Our American ancestors did it and that's why our Constitution was drafted to give us the power to put it writing. It shouldn't have been an issue at all about drafting a net nuetrality bill. It also shows that we do not live in a Democratic Society because I really feel the majority of American People wanted this Bill but Big Business and Party Politics are the ones who really rule.
America really isn't Land of the Free anymore. There are many countries that give their citizens much more freedom than U.S. citizens. Its funny, that it's the morale/religious groups that often like the restrictive laws but forget that its of their own doing when a Law is passed that affects or restricts their own moral/religious views. I think we are seeing the beginnings of the negative aspects of allowing goverment to regulate and restrict what people can say or do. It was working for the morale/religious community for awhile and we basically handed over our Country on a silver plater. Now, its the Big Bosses and Corrupts turn to use the very power we gave our Government against us. Net Nuetrality is just a very small but still very important step the direction we want our country to go. If we allow it to be defeated then we will only see more and more attempts at pushing the boundries on how free we are allowed to be. - Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My Ass relates to Net Nutrality, just not directly. Try to grasp this concept people. Huge difference between self censorship and Government enforced mandatory censorship.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The content creators can edit the material to their hearts content. Comcast did not show the material how ABC originally created it. If Comcast did edit it, without ABC's approval, they're in violation of copyright laws. That'd be akin if you took your neighbors video, and edited it back in to where you said he did drink urine and put that online.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Quit spreading FUD. In fact net neutrality makes it difficult for telecom operators from competing with cable companies in delivering ABC to your door. More competition gives you the ability to choose content providers that don't censor.
- audiocollective, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The future of iptv is going to be fun!
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, there also have been instances in the past where ISP's have flat out blocked access to content.
- hansamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Meh, I don't mind my Comcast, 8 meg internet and HD DVR for under a 100/month is not that bad. Not like I watch Nightline anyway.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Time to wake up commies, these companies supposed "greed" is exactly the reason why they WON'T censor the Internet. Who'd want to buy access to a crippled Internet anyway, it's commercial suicide."
Except there are already numerous documented accounts of providers blocking access to services such as VOIP they feel compete with their own services. Telecommunications providers receive special treatment, subsidies, and outright government sanctioned monopolies at times--the price they pay for those privileges is increased government regulation for public benefit. - caldroun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(if this is true)
Don't they read the Freaking Internets? This story has been out there, and video of the guy. Editing it up on the TV is really gonna keep this quiet. - NJShadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thinks that sucks, mainly because Comcast usually plays dirty and at the same time they are trying to become basically a monopoly. If it weren't for Verizon, we would be paying WAY too much for Internet and Cable access.
- RobMackenzie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Encoding Error"... a bit of a convenient edit isn't it? hard to say if its true.
And while not directly "Net neutrality" related, it does touch on the subject. If ISPs are going to restrict bandwidth of IPTV news sites, and boost their own, making it the only plausible choice, then editing the content is essentially history.
"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -- George Orwell - author20, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't believe Comcast, they used to hang up the phone on me when I wanted to order new services. I gave up and canceled. I think their employees work for the prison system, who would hang up on customers trying to give them business and money?
Time for Comcast to be classified with the other rogue companies -- like Verizon and AOL. - mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Un-be-lievable.
Comcast can deny it left and right, but I hope and I pray somebody was recording. - tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The content creators can edit the material to their hearts content. Comcast did not show the material how ABC originally created it. If Comcast did edit it, without ABC's approval, they're in violation of copyright laws. That'd be akin if you took your neighbors video, and edited it back in to where you said he did drink urine and put that online."
All I have to say to that is that I am not too hot for copyright laws.
""Burying me only makes my penis harder."
I had to digg that."
I try. - Fritzed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Didn't you hear? Verizon and Comcast are merging with Aol Time-Warner. . .
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't forget Google; they want people to think they're a good company so they support net neutrality. I'm going to laugh when the US starts censoring things and monitoring traffic even more.
- fatejudger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Net neutrality is nothing but a scare tactic by the liberals to garner votes. Time to wake up commies, these companies supposed "greed" is exactly the reason why they WON'T censor the internet. Who'd want to buy access to a crippled internet anyway, it's commercial suicide.
- shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Buried for inaccuracy because this was a mistake by ABC, not some conspiracy by comcast, and because the story has nothing to do with net nuetrality.
- ExtraCheez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No digg. Why would Comcast bother? I mean, I see how this makes them look bad, but really 1 rogue technician compared to a cable provider censoring one of the major networks?
It's like.. shooting the meter maid that was writing you a parking ticket. Sure you get out of the ticket but you created a world of sh*t for yourself. - Schug, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The uneditted version has Alex Albrecht on it.
- dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Please sir can you censor another one?
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Burying me only makes my penis harder.
- princo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1F*ck Comcast!!!!!
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is