What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
37 Comments
- wayne247, on 08/26/2009, -0/+43Same problem in canada, but in our case, the CRTC is basically letting Bell do whatever they please.
Throttle? Yes sure.
Different prices for sub-resellers of DSL? Why not.
Also, 105 diggs and no comments? What the hell? No one has an opinion on this? If there's one important issue on the internet for your future, this is freaking it. Without neutrality, your ISP could decide to cripple your favorite application one day just because they decided to start selling their own version of it and sees your application as competition.
It's like giving you a phone busy signal for fun once in a while, because you're calling someone similar to a service they already offer "OurFriends(TM)" - proverbs17, on 08/26/2009, -1/+20Hmmmm..... This sounds great. Of course after the Tel comm & cable company lobbyist's starting winning and dinning him and other treats he'll change his tune. Soon Net Neutrality will be bad, and the above mentioned company's will need help or else they will go out of business (oh no Mr. Bill!)
- pentalive, on 08/26/2009, -2/+15A bill of rights.
Article 1
As an ISP you may carry packets or provide content/services not both.
To avoid the temptation to throttle your competitor's service
Article 2
You may not inspect the packets in any way. Not for content. Not for type. Not for Address.
All packets are equal, It does not matter where they go, or what they are for.
Article 3
You may charge according to bandwidth but you must provide the promised bandwidth for the price.
This allows for competition.
The best solution, I think, would be to charge for packets per minute. each minute the ISP would handle the number of packets promised for you then drop the rest. At the end of the minute your account is charged the current fee. If you pay a low fee and only get 1000 packets a minute (344 mb/sec divided between up and down).
In fact the ISP could have a preference setting that lets you change the number of packets/price as you desire. Need to download that Linux ISO? Kick up your "packets per minute" to a higher rate.
With this sort of plan there are no "ohoh used up my bandwidth for the month on the 15th" or "Oh oh look at the bill - I must have went over my bandwidth limit." moments to deal with.
Article 4
This will be the extent of any law regarding Net Neutrality.
No giving government that nose under the tent to start it's own censorship. Remember no inspecting of packets at all. Not for content. Not for address.
Perhaps we don't need article 1 if article 2 is rigorously enforced. - pandawa, on 08/26/2009, -0/+9I would love the ISPs function to just be the carrying/middlemen for informaiotn. A quick way to do that is to classify all information on the internet sent through ISPs to be intellectual property of the sender until it exits the ISPs servers. That way, if they snoop, you can make lots of money.
- inactive, on 08/26/2009, -3/+11I wonder what he thinks about the fairness doctrine.
- JoeParanoid, on 08/26/2009, -0/+8Talk, like hope, is cheap. I'm waiting to see what he actually does.
- wayne247, on 08/26/2009, -0/+8Well, comments and discussion tends to improve awareness, which may end up helping the issue one way or another.
- achansen121, on 08/26/2009, -1/+7"I have no strong feelings one way or the other."
"Live Free or Don't."
-Neutral Planet - Amadeus2490, on 08/26/2009, -1/+7Digg me down all you'd like, but I fear that all the childish stunts pulled by some people are really hurting the Net Neutrality/Anti-Censorship movement; Attacking websites, tricking kids into watching porn on Youtube, etc etc is going to make the people in charge feel that they need to step in to police the internet if they have the power to. Case in point: AT&T demonstrating that they have the power to block websites they don't like. Agree or disagree, but I just don't want someone screwing it up for all of us.
Janet Jackson her ugly boob for absolutely no reason whatsoever is another example of a childish stunt pissing off the wrong people, and getting them to go on a witch hunt. - w1cked1, on 08/26/2009, -0/+5Here you are, Wayne and Canadians.
http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ - w1cked1, on 08/26/2009, -0/+4I think the pricing thing is part of the ISP red herring with net neutrality. If they provided the ***** bandwidth promissed and already paid for it wouldn't be a problem, but they need an excuse for DPI and selective throttling and that is as good as any.
- thebriz, on 08/27/2009, -0/+3Mistype. 100KB/S.
- RatatRatR, on 08/26/2009, -0/+3Wait, we don't have to fall all over ourselves marveling over everything 4chan users do?
- hellbent187, on 08/27/2009, -0/+3Comcast was sending reset packets to stop bittorrent traffic claiming it was causing their network to become congested. The FCC stopped them from doing that, and guess what... Their network is as fast as ever with low ping times and everything is running smooth.
+1 for net neutrality - opticwind, on 08/27/2009, -0/+3In that case, everything you said is right. That's some BS.
- orangefly, on 08/26/2009, -0/+2mister, if i had a rubber hose....
- reaper527, on 08/26/2009, -2/+4at least markey is doing SOMETHING productive, unlike that ***** cap and trade bill he is pushing. (he is actually my rep)
- uncleosbert, on 08/27/2009, -0/+2do you work for a telecom?
if not, you sure sound like the kind of activist they want on their side. political nihilism is not a substitute for exercising your first amendment rights. even if what you say is likely, we guarantee that it's easier for the telecoms to pull off if we're not willing to voice our desires for legislation. it is that simple. - harrisbradley, on 08/26/2009, -0/+2There's nothing like tough neutrality
- thebriz, on 08/27/2009, -1/+3Comcast is throttling beyond P2P. If I download a legitimate ISO, or video game update, they limit my speed to 100 MB/S after the first 10 MB. 10 MB is nothing when downloading a 4 GB file.
- tsteenbu, on 08/27/2009, -0/+2Be sure to sign the petition, it's been a long time coming, we need an agency that will have the people's interests in mind...
http://www.dissolvethecrtc.ca/ - bbliss17, on 08/26/2009, -0/+2I really hope the internet freedom preservation act of 2009 passes!!
That would be amazing!! - w1cked1, on 08/26/2009, -0/+1I pay for "unlimited", clearly it isn't, but one of the reasons I do is because then I at least have full access to the bandwidth they can provide, without addtional "penalty".
"Unlimited" was never presented out of context by my ISP nor was it ever misunderstood by me, so I fail to see the complication unless they're truly inept.
If they're that inept though, as many are, a system as you propose would likely sting them into poverty. ISPs might then say "well, because people are so unaware en mass, we need DPI to only charge them based on the packets they did order, to ensure trojans aren't costing them extra, and we're at the top of a slippery slope again, where it's a hop skip and a jump to say "to ensure we're charging fairly, we need DPI to assess the contents of the packets".
BTW my ISP recently doubled bandwidth, I now sometimes reach what was originally promissed, which is half of what they now claim to be capable of. I get this "extra speed" for same price as before as I'm on unlimited, they didn't try to gouge or anything.
Smaller packages however, have new limitations/pricing.. "unlimited" can be a nice umbrella to be under.
PS: I might better support a method as you proposed if it had a limit to it, such that after XX, you simply pay the equivalent of an "unlimited" account and are subject to the same allocations. This way you can't be further gouged and it presents the opportunity to save a few dollars if you don't need "unlimited". I think you'd find though they'd rather not give you that chance. - opticwind, on 08/27/2009, -0/+1To be honest, although throttling is wrong...10mb/s isn't bad if you really get that. Getting 4GB in an hour seems alright to me.
- pentalive, on 08/26/2009, -0/+1That and they over-promised too (Including saying 'unlimited' downloads) The main tenant of article 3 is that they do provide the bandwidth available 24/7 that was agreed on. The rest of that is just my favorite idea of a good way to provide it to avoid some of the hurt.
I suppose they have already stopped saying "unlimited" so all they have to do now is get realistic about how much bandwidth they are willing to sell at what price. - logixca, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1Less FCC makes for a better world.
- uncleosbert, on 08/27/2009, -1/+2there aren't any guns here, we're talking about clarifying the law so that the consumer has a right to services they have paid for.
your position seems to essentially be, let's not do anything and hope we don't get ***** too hard. no thanks! - kaelyiesta, on 08/27/2009, -0/+1uncleosbert, you are incorrect on both points.
First and easiest to refute is my position on this, since I know my own views fairly well. As I made clear in my post, I do not think our current system works well or is moral. So, my position isn't 'let's not do anything'. I strongly advocate removing the mechanisms of initiation of violence and violation of private property. All of them. That includes dismantling the propped up monopoly and so on.
Now for the next point: State violence. I am hesitant to even try refuting this as it's so obvious and I am so weary of pointing out the elephant in the room. You say there are no guns. If that were true, then what does the FCC do? Encourage, recommend and ask companies to follow it's mandates? Furthermore, you don't pay for rights. By definition, you cannot. Don't misunderstand me, I entirely agree with voluntary contractual obligations to be respected between customer and business. That is not in fact what is being done. The law is not being clarified to protect consumers rights. It's forcing business to provide services in a way mandated by a central authority. This is wrong and has nothing to do with rights of consumers at all. You can morally tell people to abide by the contracts they've made voluntarily or face penalties but you cannot morally determine the nature of voluntary exchange between two parties themselves. That is the mistake you are making. Fraud should be punished, but that is not the same as forcing businesses to provide a certain service. One is retaliation against violation of private property, the other is violation of private property. - TFindlay, on 08/26/2009, -2/+3Guys, the only way we can preserve the internet is if some people post clever comments on digg.
- inactive, on 08/27/2009, -3/+3That has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with the lulz.
Also, Janet Jackson only illustrated the incredible stupidity of censorship. - rebrad, on 08/27/2009, -2/+1I read lots of flowery quotes using coined terms but the definition of those key words are obscure at best. Call me skeptical but I'm not feeling a lot of love.
- lamchiheng, on 08/26/2009, -2/+0I would love to see some true neutral news network out there....some specific networks should just drop the "Fairness" part and be real.
- BadSyntax, on 08/26/2009, -3/+1Government Employee vs Corporate America = 1 Man looking for a new job.....
- kaelyiesta, on 08/26/2009, -3/+1Ok, here's an opinion:
I despise both the oligopoly that is the US telecommunication industry and the government involvement that made it that way. I am weary of any attempts to protect our 'rights' by denying others of them. I acknowledge that certain industries have a natural inclination towards monopoly(infrastructure can be very prone for example) but I also recognize that monopolies aren't necessarily entirely unhindered by economic demands of consumers. I also take any comments made by the FCC(which is really just a formal veterans club for ex-telco execs) with a ton of salt. Furthermore, I have no problems with businesses providing tiered cost models for the service they provide, as long as they don't fraudulently hide it and it is a service I can refuse to pay for and I can look for a better service elsewhere.
Summarizing, I don't disagree with net neutrality advocates on their goal, I just think the manner in which they wish to go about achieving that goal is contradictory to their own aims. Having the government point more guns at people won't work, as those very guns can be turned towards us if the price is right. - 4AntiStupid, on 08/26/2009, -9/+2Probably because it's been beat to death a million times already.
- RonADiSH, on 08/26/2009, -12/+3***** the FCC
- robdiggity, on 08/26/2009, -12/+2I'm pretty neutral on the whole issue.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is