What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
39 Comments
- Animental, on 04/18/2008, -0/+21FTA: "Comcast was invited to participate again but the company declined, saying it made all its points in the last hearing at Harvard."
Yeah. By paying people to cheer for them. - Zemnexx, on 04/18/2008, -0/+13How about not blocking any traffic or throttling anything, basically giving the consumer what they pay for, it might just be crazy enough to work.
- FUR10N, on 04/18/2008, -2/+13gun makers don't regulate gun control, so Internet Providers shouldn't regulate internet traffic
- lollypopz, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10Would you rather be monitored, or regulated?
Well too ***** bad, you're getting both. - spacecheese, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8Net Brutality
- inactive, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9***** THE RIAA
- adml_shake, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7They should yes, but I'm sure someones checking account is about to get a lot bigger. So they won't.
- sselbor, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I hate the word sanction. It basically means two opposite things.
- Ceeman, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4This is a FTC issue if you want to get the Fed involved. A real free market would solve this issue much faster.
- worldsbestgamer, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4The FCC should have ***** all to do with a paid service. XM radio, curse all day, FM radio, keep your mouth shut. See the trend.
- smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5I think he's talking more about what I just finished saying in a post. Give them a limited speed connection. Don't oversell. If you give someone a 10mbit connection and it's unlimited, they could potentially pass 10x more traffic than if you gave them a 1mbit connection that's unlimited.
That's all. The devil is in the details. I agree with him - I just want unlimited access with no restrictions and I want it at a decent speed. I don't need to have some fake competitive comparison chart where my Shaw or Comcast is 10x faster than DSL or ***** like that. If they sell us only the minimum connection they are prepared to support they do not have to manage anything except the top speed they bootstrap our modem for.
It's so elegantly simple. We can have these fantastic debates about this all day, but all they need to do is let us decide how to use our internet and then sell us as much or as little as they can without breaking their network.
I keep Azureus running most of the time. I cap it at 22k per second. I could unleash a lot more than that. I keep the downloads at 100k per second. I can have up to 600k at this house. But I don't. I don't overuse my connection. They could SELL me exactly what I am doing and everything is fine. We all win. - Noods, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4http://www.mises.org/story/2815
"So while the multibillion-dollar price tag is seemingly stratospheric, telcos have and will continue to support an FCC-like system. It is a small price for them to pay as it prevents true competitive forces and enables them to hold on to their market share without threat of displacement.[10] " - PeppermintPig, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4Getting a business to stand accountable to the services they promise should be simple and straightforward, yet it's not. With the difficulties of laying competing infrastructure and hassles of using the courts to seek justice, an anti-competitive environment has formed. However, these problems can't be solved by more regulation. Anti-competitive practice is endemic to and encouraged by the government, be it municipal or federal. Getting into the business of providing competing service is severely prohibitive, financially and legally because of existing regulation that many people believe is there to keep the large corporations ethical and fair. It's really just concealing the corporate influence in lobbying for laws that benefit them.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/18/2008, -4/+6The FCC does not and cannot represent consumers.
This is where people who support net neutrality are blind: Angry over the actions of corporations like Comcast, they allow the Government to show up and regulate. Say goodbye to free and open internet. This is the sort of thing that the government can use to justify taxation, amongst other things.
Stop encouraging the FCC, damn it! - HonoredMule, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2As with most other markets, the internet will become a closed tool controlled by the elite in the advent of either extreme--too much codified regulation being abused by the powerful, or none at all giving free reign for the powerful to oppress the weak.
I absolutely hate the way two entirely different schools of thought get lumped together as "Net Neutrality" because one of them (never EVER allow ISP's to discriminate based on content or charge /providers/ for preferential treatment of any kind [as in the content providers for whom you are NOT their ISP]) is fully necessary in practise if not coded law. Yet the others--offering (blanket) elevated service to customers who pay more, non-discriminatory traffic shaping, and freedom for ISP's to chose to whom they will provide service--are unwarranted and will only lead down the path toward a government-owned (therefore corporate-owned) internet.
Freedom of speech and information (non-discriminatory access for content providers) must be protected, but free market and therefore unregulated interaction with clients must also be protected. Oligopolies subverting the free market is still better than having no free market at all. - vinnyvenus, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3If they did that then the price of your internet access will skyrocket. Believe me, I have bought the wholesale bandwidth, it's very very expensive.
- avaugha4, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Why not just get rid of all those pesky consumers, then those nice corporations can do what they want!
- LockesRabb, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Meant to say ISP. Typo. By the time I saw the typo (it was a hour later), it was too late to correct. :(
If people are going to dig down my comment, least they could do is say why. :( - ZachSka87, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1 .
- PeppermintPig, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Yes. Let's not forget that everything the FCC touches represents a 'Nationalized' system of wholesale regulation, which establishes a licensing racket that inherently excludes people who cannot afford or will not follow in step with the FCC's abstract enforcement of morality.
- ZachSka87, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1What's the USP industry?
- Ryosen, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1FCC = ***** Comcast Customers
- diggrim, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1pessimist should vote more often
- Scheissen, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1The FCC is a monopoly enabler.
- LoveWidescreen, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Allow me to introduce you to my "blocked" list, *****.
- smotpoker1, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3***** comcast I wouldn't use them at all.Every time my p2p hooks up to a comcast portal I shut it off my p2p.Comcast is a douche bag that should be fined for false advertising. They say you are paying for unlimited bandwidth yet they block you out for trying to use it.Yes that is false advertising and if I was on a jury I would penalize them and bankrupt them for continuing to practice fraud on the public.
- opennetworks, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0time out guys
The picture is much bigger than what you see. Think about the future whoever has control of the largest amount of bandwidth will have control of what you can see and do. Comcast is now just showing the power they have now by the limits they want to put into action now. This is just a start. They are fighting community all over the US that want to start community owned FTTH networks. They are fighting because they want a monopoly on the fiber. Please remember that community owned networks will be owned by the community not the Government. Two different things. Community owned networks that are fiber to the home based will be owned by you the taxpayer at a local level - not federal - and not restrict what you can see or do on the net. In fact in Vermont they offer any ISP to offer services on their network. COMCAST does not !
The FCC supports open networks - Community owned FTTH networks will be the only way to supply the bandwidth needed to support open networks - PeppermintPig, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Your solution is a contradiction because you suggest DC will get it wrong no matter what, but that service providers must guarantee 'neutral' traffic. 'Make them sell only what they can guarantee' suggests force is always implied to make contracts work, which is what the government uses to justify taxation, which in turn raises costs and lowers the potential to improve the technology.
I suggest that we eliminate the incentive for lobbyists to influence the law in favor of who they represent by cutting back the power of politicians to establish industry law that has no bearing on the most basic role government MIGHT have, which is preserving liberty.
So you're advocating the egalitarian solution? If you don't permit a person running a business to exercise their first amendment rights, then how can you expect anybody else to have their rights observed? You have free speech, but you do not have entitlement to the means of expression such as paper to print your thoughts, or the internet to transmit your ideas. - Pixelante, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0In this case, it should be in the Eiger meaning.
- u235sentinel, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1They either block your traffic OR they terminate your account as they did in my family's case.
The company cannot be trusted. Now a year later they want our business back because they care. How sweet.
We have an answer for them on youtube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hmOjoYUZFm0
My family insisted :-)
They really hate concast. Guess future customers aren't something the company is thinking about today :D - PeppermintPig, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Groups like the FCC would love nothing more than to maintain and grow their sphere of influence. If they could get away with it, they'd regulate cable tv and the internet. Certain puritannical a-holes in the FCC who think they can dictate morality.
- gkiltz, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1The FCC is one of the weakest agencies in the federal government!
- Alan78987, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0"...Federal Communications Commission will make "an" usual appearance in Silicon Valley..." I vote for the writer being required to take "an" grammar examination.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2I agree. Poor choice of words on my part, but the spirit of the argument remains: Representing a diverse spectrum of viewpoints as held by individuals is impossible. The FCC was founded not for the protection of individuals. It was created by creating fake alarm over 'chaos' of airwave use.
Consumer should be used in a better context, such as consumer vs producer mentality. - avaugha4, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1Internet service is nothing like radio. Your argument makes no sense.
- smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -6/+4This is such a frustrating issue because the people who regulate this stuff don't get it. The free-speech civil rights people on the left/Democrats don't understand the business side of it and the free-trade Republicans/libertarians on the right don't understand the free speech side of it. Pretty much every politician falls into these categories somehow. Then you mix in special interests, a lack of technical understanding and political ideology that has nothing to do with managing the internet and you have a problem.
A message to the right: There's just one internet. It's not a free-trade zone. It's different companies selling access to the same backbone. There is no true libertarian free trade/freedom of choice issue. You can't have 12 different power companies piping electricity into your house. It's necessary that in a model that can't be a true free market that your regulate, but properly. Libertarian philosophy is dangerous in a game where libertarian rules DO NOT APPLY.
A message to the left: You tend to go overboard with laws, ideas and controls. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the more laws you write the more lawyers will find a way to exploit them. ISPs will find a way around the law by offering extremely expensive or punitive solutions, or even worse they will sidestep the law to push their own favoured content since you are not understanding the business aspect of it, only the "people should have no interference" aspect.
Anyone who reads this...please help me. While these politicians are well-meaning, their lack of technical understanding coupled with their political ideology and inherent DC corruption means that any solution they come up with is going to be wrong. The solution is simple. Guarantee people neutral traffic and sell them realistic access plans and speeds. If we don't have the capacity to offer a true 10mbit connection, just a potential 10mbit, then that's no good. Make them sell only what they can guarantee. And require that ONLY internet be measured. If the company sells cable or video on demand or ANYTHING else it cannot be calculated with bandwidth for the internet. And like Bell Canada, you cannot shape traffic you resell or give preference.
Basically, everyone needs their top speed cut back so everyone can use it. It's simple, it works, and best of all it's future-proof. Because as we become like South Korea and Japan we will have connections so fast it won't matter. But if we have those connections with a bunch of laws that don't make sense we're going to have loopholes that people can exploit. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Sell only a connection that is for the internet and only guarantee a minimum speed. That's it. No one can advertise huge advantages unless they really have them. - LockesRabb, on 04/18/2008, -5/+3I'm all for ISPs being regulated by the FCC since Internet is now considered an utility. The telephone is an utility, and as such, typically regulated. Many countries that regulate the ISPs have significantly higher Internet speeds and quality. The USP industry, left to theirselves, has obviously proven incapable of innovation times and times over. Because of this, USA as a nation, has fallen behind. Way behind.
For those who are wondering; I'm in full support of net neutrality, and completely support the FCC regulating the ISPs. - cubicledrone, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1The word "consumer" needs to be dropped from the national dialogue forever.
- inactive, on 04/18/2008, -7/+2you're ecouraging gay men to stick their meat in your mouth, Stop it!!!!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is