What is Digg?138 Comments
- AntithesisVI, on 10/22/2009, -11/+46The problem is that the physical lines (tubez) that make up the internet are owned by megacorporations that can control them in any way they choose. So who do we trust, these selfish companies or a gov't in place to serve the common good of the people? Well it would be the gov't, and the internet should be like a public utility/public library-type thing.
That's a perfect world though. We can't trust the gov't either, so we're basically screwed. This is the best solution for now. Until the revolution that will never happen. - zacharytelschow, on 10/22/2009, -14/+45Do I support net neutrality? Yes. But I don't want to give a government bureaucracy the power to enforce it.
- vproman, on 10/22/2009, -1/+21I would also like to add, look at who is opposing the FCC's regulation of a more open internet, specifically:
"Opponents include the pro-free market group Freedom Works and the conservative Family Research Council."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55815
Take a closer look at Family Research Council and...
"Campaigns for tighter regulation of pornography, especially internet pornography and pornography on broadcast-TV. Actively opposed the introduction of a .xxx domain name, and lobbied for an increase in indecency fines from the Federal Communications Commission. Believes hotel pornography should be prosecuted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Counc ...
So yeah, imposing rules for a more open internet threatens the very people who want to censor it. My guess is they think it will be much easier to influence private corporations to censor content. Private corporations, after all, do not have to adhere to the first amendment, only the government (including the FCC) does. - Langford, on 10/22/2009, -8/+25But who should have that power? At the moment it's either the FCC or known evil AT&T.
- Crimeodial, on 10/22/2009, -1/+15Decoy, I believe that Langford was referring to the fact that AT&T is a backbone ISP. Almost everything goes through their pipes at some point. So, no, it's not as simple as canceling your DSL line from them.
- Langford, on 10/22/2009, -2/+15It's not a matter of AT&T having poor rates as an ISP, it's that they want to charge all other ISP's for having access to content on the internet. They plan a "tiered" system. Under AT&T's plans, if your ISP doesn't pay for access to youtube, your internet will not have youtube. That goes for Google, Hulu, everything. They want to dismantle the current internet and make it subscription based like channels on cable TV. If there is a new web protocol that can't be profited from by AT&T, it will simply not be available, or will only be available as an expensive specialized corporate option. They have possession and control of the actual wires that the internet is made of, even though those wires were payed for with taxpayer money.
- xexx, on 10/22/2009, -2/+15Slippery slope argument where the internet implodes into a black hole of government goo.
- transitive, on 10/22/2009, -4/+13so...if there's nobody to enforce a law, then what kind of law is it? a non-existent one.
if nobody enforces net neutrality then the net won't be neutral. the ISP industry won't enforce neutrality on itself just because you ask them nicely. it requires the powers of state to enforce laws.
following your logic you end up with absurd situations like "i don't want my daughter to be raped but i don't want to give the government bureaucracy the power to prosecute rapists." - Phoenix919, on 10/22/2009, -2/+9Not likely. Read at the end of the article: "A federal court is considering this important question as part of Comcast's challenge to the FCC's order last year regarding interference with BitTorrent traffic". Call me skeptical, but the whole things kind of smells to me as promoting the Telecoms that are causing the problem in the first place.
- TheOneKen, on 10/22/2009, -5/+12This same logic applies to nearly every government issue. If you give the government power to do something that you like, then that power will inevitably be used in the future to do something that you do not like. Always remember that.
- Crimeodial, on 10/22/2009, -2/+8I like how the people who have NO IDEA how the internet is structured are trying to bury the reasonable comments.
- UselessTrivia, on 10/22/2009, -0/+6Except without your government to enforce antitrust laws you may be forced to accept a monopoly and HAVE no other place to take your business.
Look, I'm not a mindless government automaton. Government isn't best for all things, but we NEED a healthy and functioning government. The free market isn't free unless someone forces it to be. - UselessTrivia, on 10/22/2009, -3/+9I'll take a 5% chance of removing a corrupt politician from office over a 0% chance of removing a corrupt corporation any day.
Also you're mixing facts. a 95% re-election rate (to the extent that is even accurate, it varies from body to body and year to year) is describing all politicians. The re-election rate for politicians that have been PROVEN to be corrupt is FAR lower than that. - vproman, on 10/22/2009, -5/+11Here is the answer:
"Or Congress could limit the FCC's power by authorizing to regulate only to ensure network neutrality."
Network neutrality isn't the problem, it's that the FCC might not stop there. If Congress boxes the FCC's regulation of the internet to only promoting network neutrality, they're going to have a much harder time enforcing any regulation that steps out of that boundary.
If you think the idea of continuing the freedom of the internet is good, like me, then I say request some limitations be put in place so that the FCC can not over-regulate, but don't stonewall the FCC's desire to enforce network neutrality so much that it ends up under-regulating. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. - UselessTrivia, on 10/22/2009, -5/+10Better a government bureaucracy than a corporation. At least the bureaucrats are elected/appointed or report to people who are.
- emmeron, on 10/22/2009, -1/+6I think that would work... if only the lack of competition was their creation in the first place via zoned monopolies on cable lines and phone lines.
More competition would mean localities buying the physical lines, use taxes to pay for them (I'm cool with that, believe it or not), then being able to choose who provides you with services from ANY of the companies out there.
The government does not ever create competition, it only limits it. Even the act of creating something to compete, by virtue of being a government creation, is not competing by the same sets of rules of economics or otherwise. - funkedup, on 10/22/2009, -6/+11You an idiot. What part of the private sector is not heavily regulated by government? The financial sector? How about education? Medicare, Medicaid, the Post Office, and Amtrak are all broke. Social Security is broke, and is a bigger Ponzi-Scheme than anything Madoff could dream of. Our infrastructure (roads and bridges) are publicly owned and are in deplorable condition. Government involvement in health care has driven up costs and prices just like they have with college. You must live in Bizarro World.
- sm8385a, on 10/22/2009, -1/+6I don't think people realize that supporting government regulation of the internet is akin to opening pandora's box. Once you do it, there is no going back. Everybody likes the idea of "net neutrality" in theory, but many fail to realize how that idea will actually play out in real life. The internet is the most dynamic and important technology of this generation. It needs the freedom to respond to changes that happen instantaneously. Governments aren't dynamic, the bureaucracy doesn't allow it to be so. Keeping the internet free should be the top priority.
- MAGZine, on 10/22/2009, -3/+8If the FCC is a 'trojan horse', than the megacorporations would be a massive dude with a jackhammer that would come and smash your harddrive to pieces every times you connected to BitTorrent.
- ivanmarsh, on 10/22/2009, -6/+10Yeah... I'm sure private enterprise will regulate itself as well as it has in every other area.
The sad truth is though the FCC does have unlimited authority to regulate the Internet as it is used as a public entity they have almost no ability to enforce any regulations they put in place. Considering the telcomms actions in unison with the NSA it's pretty clear that the days of the free internet are over.
Once again: it's time to encrypt everything. - Ishiguro, on 10/22/2009, -3/+7Which area of private enterprise are you referring? Just about everything is regulated, so your argument is really against how the government does it.
- HonoredMule, on 10/22/2009, -0/+4The limitations (sort of) already exist. The FCC has authority only to regulate the entities that carry content. In the case of radio and television, those entities purchase and broadcast the content themselves, which gave the FCC wiggle room to regulate the content by that direct connection. But like the FCC has no authority over what I say on the telephone, it similarly has no authority whatsoever over what video YouTube shows me, for example. In the context of internet broadcasting, Google isn't obligated to listen to the FCC at all.
That isn't to say there won't be a problem. The FCC's "ancillary jurisdiction" is gloriously vague and needs to be clarified. But the clarification needed isn't so much what can be regulated as /who/ can be regulated. The ideal I presented above needs to be codified, that the FCC's regulatory authority extends to *service* providers (transport agents) but not *content* providers. Then existing mediums won't face a highly disruptive and potentially destructive game change--because radio and television content can continue to be controlled directly through the carrier--and if they want to regulate the content service providers offer, that's still possible.
I support this particular case of content regulation because service providers have no business providing content or brokering affiliations with content providers in the first place, and any rules applied to them regarding that can only limit those actions and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The FCC could even end up saying service providers may not also provide content. Or they may just say it can't be bundled, or just regulate it TV style, or do nothing. The point is that as long as proper content providers are untouchable, the FCC can do no harm while still having maximum freedom to keep internet service providers on task--providing real, true internet service. - jpete71chevmal, on 10/22/2009, -5/+9I hope to Christ you forgot the /s tag.
If not, maybe you should change your name to "GALACTICALLY STUPID"! - DeathRay2K, on 10/22/2009, -5/+9Not necessarily, not if they have a monopoly in the area.
Then it's almost as difficult to change companies as it is to change governments. - decoy26517, on 10/22/2009, -4/+8I hate to bring this up but, we are not a democracy but a republic. There are huge differences between the two.
We have a constitution that limits the power of the government. The FCC or any government bureaucracy trying to grab power is doing so against the law. Just because our representatives were elected does not automatically mean that they have "moral validity" to do whatever they like. They still have to obey the law. - awhiteflame, on 10/22/2009, -2/+6I'm not saying that you don't let them do their job, but as a citizen, you should never submit to trust in the government. You should be holding them accountable at every moment.
So I completely disagree -- just because they were elected at one point does not mean their decisions later have moral validity. That's why elections are periodic. - catalysis, on 10/22/2009, -1/+5What a load of conservative boilerplate *****. Look at any developed country that takes charge of their infrastructure. Tthey all have faster, cheaper internet access than the US
- TheOneKen, on 10/22/2009, -0/+4All of which are heavily regulated and thus suck. We should not accept government oversight over all aspects of our lives. Aren't we supposed to be free?
- voodoochild461, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3I disagree, Julius is very clear about the intentions of these principles. They would keep the internet the way it is and at the same time it forces ISPs to respect the lack of competition.
Read: http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html - vproman, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4Then why, pray tell, is the moral majority against network neutrality?
- awhiteflame, on 10/22/2009, -3/+6Except that's not what democracy is supposed to be built on. It's not, "I trust the community [and government] to do the right thing", it's "It is my duty to ensure that my elected officials represent the values that I want protected". In fact, you could say it has the least to do with trust as possible in terms of governmental systems..
- vproman, on 10/22/2009, -0/+3We need the government to create laws to encourage fair competition so that you can "take your business elsewhere." The free market does not guarantee that anti-competitive monopolies cannot be created. We also need the government to back off when there is enough or too much competition.
The reason there is a need for network neutrality, and the reason so much of "Big Business" is against it is because if ISPs are able to discriminate against network traffic, they could easily put up financial walls in the internet and essentially kill small internet business. How would a start-up like google or twitter survive if they had to fork over huge sums of money just to have customers behind the ISP's wall access their product? Also, if they're charging these companies so that I can access their data, then what the hell am I paying $50 a month to my ISP for?
You want an indicator as to whether this current regulation we are discussing is bad or not? Pay attention to who is against it: Big Business Telcos (AT&T, Comcast, etc) and groups promoting censorship in the name of morality (Family Research Council). The latter is also the group aggressively petitioning the FCC to further censor television, radio, etc. They also bully private companies into censoring their content. If not for groups like that, you'd probably be able to watch whatever private companies would be willing to show you on your TV. - jasonjcrawford, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4Genachowski's principles are absolutely great but as the article notes, having the authority to implement them could come at a cost of opening the FCC up to powers they shouldn't have or could later abuse with different admins. I do not consider this at all to be a power grab like the Glenn Becks out there conspire it to be, but the article does raise an important question of "how" to get the net neutrality rules Genachowski has called to be effectively adopted.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4They won because friendly politicians helped them do it, which means there are more people or people of power willing to collude. It's about greasing palms and maintaining control over offices.
Your plan has been tried: Creating more government to regulate government and corporations, and on and on.
Force doesn't promote competition. It does create the incentive to use force against force. - HonoredMule, on 10/22/2009, -0/+3@toxixshok: except the telephone.
The whole argument deteriorates rapidly when you start comparing the internet to these other mediums. They were all centralized broadcasting systems--closely tied to the content they carried--and the FCC regulated the content indistinguishably from the container that supplied it. The internet is fundamentally different in that the ISP provides transport only and has no affiliation with or control over most of the producers of content. What the FCC is now talking about regulating is only the container, basically saying that the container must carry all content indiscriminately, which is exactly what we want. What we're worried about is that they'll exercise the same power to regulate the content as well, but the FCC has no legal connection to content producers whatsoever. WE are the content producers in one form or another, and we pay the container to ship our content. They could no less easily regulate what you or I are allowed to say on the telephone.
Radio and television aren't like that at all. They pay the content producer for the content they broadcast. The only medium that is like the internet /is/ the telephone. Comparable regulation already exists for the telecoms, saying that they MUST rout calls for any number regardless of source, destination, or path of travel. Additional regulations require support for any technologically-compatible (landline) telephone and disallow any form of usage discrimination.
Now say what you want about the current telecom situation, but we can all use our telephones to talk to whomever we want, whenever we want, say whatever we want (excepting slander/libel/threats/etc. as regulated by non-FCC law), and speak as loudly as we want. Furthermore, we can use any (landline) device we want, use the line for any non-vocal purpose we want (fax, modem), and use any device features we want (answering machine, call recording, multiple line support, etc.). So the one medium that actually is analogous isn't suffering from censorship, closed access, or any loss of freedom whatsoever from the regulation that was necessary to preserve those qualities in the first place. It's behaving exactly as it was supposed to. - inactive, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4@Crimeodial
You must be new around here. He's spouting standard Dig Liberal doctrine. - AgeofMastery, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4@Gm7Cadd9
How many broadband providers do you have to chose from? Most people have one cable company and a DSL provider. When the company has a monopoly they don't have to worry about you taking your business elsewhere. - badlogik, on 10/22/2009, -0/+3You people are idiots. You cannot at all, ever not have AT&T run your Internet backbone. > ALL < ISPs run on AT&T lines and the other backbone ISPs.
You cannot just opt to not switch between them. The AT&T and Comcast and Verizon options you have at home have nothing to do with what AT&T does on a backbone level. They can ruin your Internet no matter what ISP you think you are getting your service from. - MAGZine, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4Complain.
And where will you take your business if everyone starts doing it because it's 'cost effective'. - dsmx, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4Surely the government could pass a bill that all ISP's must provide "network neutrality". The FCC would then be cahrged with investigating any complaints about tiered pricing.
Of course option 2 would be to break up monopoly's and get some actual competition in the broadband market forcing companies to actually offer a better service then their competitors or they will lose customers. - HonestAbe, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2"THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET" *forehead vein bursts*
- TheOneKen, on 10/22/2009, -1/+3How about we wait until we actually have a problem before we jump into expansive government regulation? Is that too much to ask? Right now very few things are actually tiered/blocked by ISPs, and tech-savvy consumers have responded strongly. Lets see if we can solve this problem without a potentially dangerous expansion of government power.
- diggydougie, on 10/22/2009, -3/+5Thin edge of the wedge. First establish a precedent for control and later some issue will come up which will give the FCC an excuse to broaden it's powers. And then another, and another...
- TheOneKen, on 10/22/2009, -2/+4Exactly, decoy26517 has the win.
- vproman, on 10/22/2009, -1/+3@ivanmarsh It'd be more accurate for you to say "That would be like having DHL own a section of an interstate highway that doesn't allow UPS or FEDEX to drive down it." Further, there would be only 2 highways that lead to your house, and the other is owned by UPS and does not let DHL or FEDEX drive on it. So what does FEDEX do? They die, there is less competition in the market and prices go up accordingly (one fewer competitor there to be tempted to lower prices for increased market share, see current book pricing war).
- Branchex, on 10/22/2009, -1/+3Instead of having the government regulating the internet they should be trying to create more competition in the ISP space. Unless they colluded there is no way an ISPs could not have net neutrality and stay competitive.
- zwischenzug, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG4yBvl806k
- FredFredrickson, on 10/28/2009, -1/+3The problem, Ken, is that with almost all the lines in this country owned by a handful of major communications companies, it's easy for them to get together and ***** over consumers if there is no net neutrality in place. Why should people have to pay extra money every month because they watch a few YouTube videos now and then? Why should you have to pay extra if you're playing games online?
The companies involved in this are not committed to preserving the way the internet works for everyone, and making access cheap and easy - they're just interested in making as much money from it as possible.
That's not to say that the FCC is the most responsible party in the world, but they make a better case than corporate America at this point. - vproman, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2@ivanmarsh I agree with you, I'm just trying to make the example more accurate. You are right. If there were only one highway connecting the east coast to the west coast, and UPS owned it and did not allow DHL or FEDEX to use it, you're well on your way to a monopoly that is clearly anti-competitive. Such a company would do everything possible to squash any competitor's attempts to circumvent UPS' highways. Competition may prevail, but there is no guarantee the anti-competitive behaviors of the monopoly won't succeed.
An even better example is Standard Oil and their anti-competitive railroad/shipping business. It's very similar, just instead of railroads it's the internet and instead of oil they're selling services like voice, television, etc. - avidlinuxuser, on 10/24/2009, -0/+2Net Neutrality's about a guarantee that you will be able to see the sites you will go to period. Without net neutrality, this is what will happen.
Yahoo has their own data lines that have to connect to some isp. ISP, likely att, will now charge yahoo for using their backbone whenever someone gets data from Yahoo. Not only this, let's say someone is using comcast and has to travel across att and potentially verizon networks to get to Yahoo. Well, comcast has to pay att and verizon. Who will be charged, you will. When Yahoo responds, yahoo has to pay the said isps. And don't tell me switch isps cause switching isps won't change the fact that the data has to travel across several networks hence the term internet. So, if you want your bill to be,
Access Charge AT&T - 15.00
Access Charge Verizon - 20.00
Access Charge Comcast - 10.00
Online Media Charge - 25.00
Base Time Warner Monthly Bill - 40.00
Overage Charges For Exceeding Bandwidth Cap at $5/GB - 15,00
Subtotal excluding government fees and taxes - 125.00
Well be my guess and don't support net neutrality -
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is