What is Digg?60 Comments
- Sinscriven, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41This man is truly insightful. Because you never really know if a kick in the balls really actually hurts until it's already happened.
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Sinscriven's point is still valid. Do we have to be screwed before we can protect ourselves?
- dougbdl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I wouldn't mind net neutrality if I had a choice of high speed providers, but I , like 90% of America have 2 providers in my area (cable & DSL). Both of these companies play ball with one another, so I am getting tiered Internet weather I like it or not.
If I had a choice out of 20 different providers I could assume that one provider would be rogue enough to offer a different service to gain more subscribers, and then net neutrality would live or die based on its own merits, not on weather some old fool from Alaska wanted it or not. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13No demonstrated harm? What about those ISPs that are throttling (or even totally blocking) VoIP and Bittorrent transfers??
Thats pretty damn harmful if you ask me! - digitaldivider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10that's like saying "oh well let's give the telcos free reign of the internet. I mean we've already given them billions to improve there networks and since they've done such a fine job with that, we can trust them to play fair, and not block consumer traffic and throttle bandwidth they paid for can't we?"
* I would set the sarcasm flag, but if you don't realize this is sarcasm, you have reading up to do. * - Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+101) How do you know your getting tiered? How can you *prove* it?
2) Almost all broadband contracts include a clause for "fair use." They say your VoIP is unfairly taking too much bandwidth, and that's that.
Solution: OK fine. So we don't have a net-neutrality law. How about a truth in advertising law? ISPs are REQUIRED to release what is tiered and how, actual average bandwidth, and actual average latency.
Force them to tell you what your buying into rather than "5mbs - depending." - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Thats why encryption has become so huge. I suggest uTorrent
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think this is the real issue - market forces would balance out net neutrality if there wasn't a monopoly in effect (or atleast companies acting together to that effect). A market favourable to the consumer does not come from a group of companies sitting at a board and deciding what the most they can get away with charging various parties is.
It's like some Russian company having to pay the local mafia for 'protection'... - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7exactly. In fact, I'd argue that network companies be divided along the OSI model.
Those providing physical, data and network layers are not allowed to provide anything further up the model (application etc).
One group sells the "tubes" that move the "trucks" and the other sell's the applications and programs. Those who sell the tubes have to allow anyone to use their tubes for a fair price. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10What she means is that no net neutrality people have offered her or her family members a high-paying do-nothing job. So, you see, it's net neutrality that is actually causing harm!
Deborah Platt Majoras is quite the little telco industry whore. - yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When they say harm they mean to telecom companies and the government. They so no harm to telecom companies if they don't pass net neutrality.
- graystar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The fact is a private business should be able to charge whatever it wants for its own services.
The better questions to address why is there a monopoly? Is it regulation? Is it planning laws restricting cables being built? Is is irrelevant as wireless technologies will get better? - jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10So he wants to wait for it to harm the consumer? What an *****!
- Errenden, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Yes, because having my bandwidth throttled by the telecom companies because another company doesn't want to pay the telecom's protection fees won't harm consumers what so ever...
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Let's just split the Telcos down the wholesale/retail line.
Make it cut and dry:
If "Big Telecom Company A" owns the "tubes" then they can only wholesale sell those "tubes" to "Not quite so big Telecom Companies 1-999" so that those companies can do retail re-selling of those "tubes"...
That will kill any need for Net Neutrality.
The whole purpose of Net Neutrality is to stop "Big Telecom" from offering services over the "tubes" they already own. It's not about throttling and cutting access to websites. It's about the "Big Telecoms" having an "unfair advantage" over start-ups because they already own the infrastructure to deliver their next generation Internet products. - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Isn't traffic shaping fairly CPU intensive? We're probably going to have to pay for the ISPs to upgrade their servers so they can restrict our access...
- 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@dougbdl
I hope you're just trolling, in case you're not:
"I wouldn't mind net neutrality if I had a choice of high speed providers, but I , like 90% of America have 2 providers in my area (cable & DSL). Both of these companies play ball with one another, so I am getting tiered Internet weather I like it or not."
None of us are, or rather should be, yet. Cable and DSL aren't 'providers' they're types of service. Comcast, AOL, Charter... etc... are providers, though they may provide a type the same type of service.
Tiered internet doesn't mean that some connections will be faster than others. If you use Dial up to connect to a faster connection you'll still only move at your max speed (if you're lucky). Tiered internet means that if you paid Charter for a fast connection, and they paid AOL for a fast connection, but they didn't pay Charter, then when their bits hit Charter it stops moving fast, and slows down to whatever charter feels it should. This is done SOLELY for the purpose of getting more money.
The real scary thing is that the wire you're running down might be operated by a 3rd person, like ATT, that neither of you knew you were connecting through, but now they want to throttle down everyone who isn't ATT so guess what happens?
Ignoring the fact that they built their infrastructure when they were a monopoly, and have fought tooth and nail to keep anyone else from usingit, AND ignoring the fact that we gave them 2 billion in tax breaks, we'll just go with this:
I pay for my connection to the companies hub, and should be paying for a little of the common feed provided by that company. Others should be doing the same. Which means all the physical pieces and maintenance should be paid for by subscribers. I'm not looking for a free interent, I'm looking for one that isn't trying to make people pay for something someone else already paid for.
In short, Net Neutrality is to protect people who dont' have a large choice of high speed providers. And the time to enforce it is NOW before the precident is set. It's easier to say "No this is how it should be" then say "Could we go back to...."
"If I had a choice out of 20 different providers I could assume that one provider would be rogue enough to offer a different service to gain more subscribers, and then net neutrality would live or die based on its own merits, not on weather some old fool from Alaska wanted it or not."
Very true. But that would mean either publicizing cable and phone lines (or finding other methods of connecting to the homes), or building multiple cable and phone lines for each provider. I for one, am willing to do the former if it means any one can offer service over those lines. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"That's like saying: "We've always had war, disease, and famine, why mess with it?""
Ahh, no it isn't. But that the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a socialist. - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7No. The rich people go to rich people restaurants. The poor go to mcdonalds.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Net neutrality is fear mongering. Favorite parts of article:
"Majoras also took a swipe at Google and other Internet companies that support extensive FCC regulation, saying she was surprised "at how quickly so many of our nation's successful firms have jumped in to urge the government to regulate." Business executives, she said, tend to talk a lot about the "free market" but then "turn to government to seek protection" when they're afraid of a marketplace disadvantage."
"In the Brand X case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the FCC "remains free to impose special regulatory duties on facilities-based ISPs." FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in May that the FCC has the power to ensure "there's not discrimination against (sites) that are not affiliated with the network owners."
Also, as the FTC told Congress in June, it has the power to regulate "anticompetitive, deceptive, or unfair" practices by practically any kind of broadband provider. " - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The simple fact is that we will continue to get screwed on all fronts from the government until we get at least one person in the various roles that has even the smallest bit of a clue.
Unfortunately this is something that doesn't happen often in politics where actually knowing what is going on and helping to solve problems is contrary to political aspirations and positioning for future power. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think that all of the hosting companies should charge the telephone companies for allowing their "tubes" to touch their servers. Without the infotmation on those servers, AT&T's "tubes" would be worthless.
- disparue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think a point here is being missed. A lot of important bottlenecks in the internet are controlled by various companies, and they could charge for unrelated traffic that doesn't have anything to do with the consumers that are buying content with them. I'm talking about the controllers of the backbone of the internet effectively making the internet more expensive the further away it is physically located from me due to the need to cross more networks.
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Your assuming they offer you the choice to pay more for better service. What if they just lock you out--rich as you are.
- FilteringCraig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And this is why I am hoping that the technology continues to move so that I can have an option of getting internet through the electrical grid, or some new satellite service, or some kind of wave or technology that hasn't been thought of yet. I was thinking WiMax until I started reading Bob Cringely's thoughts on it. Anyway, I just hope that the organized cable and phone monopolies will be broken by some set of new options. It seems that there are enough legislators that don't get it, so that is all we can hope for.
- nomadg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Whats the bid deal, more money has always meant more access, Why should the Internet be different.
- lukehee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"because there has been no demonstrated harm to consumers"
In Canada this is no longer true (and has not been for some time). Shaw Cable (Calgary) charges for a 'quality of service' feature that 'enhances' 3rd party VOIP, and even apps like iChat. if you don't pay extra for 'quality of service' you are stuck with the normal POS service, that seriously degrades all third party packets that Shaw believes to be a competition (VOIP etc.). - Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) Yes Google and Yahoo are protecting their interests. So are the telcos. It just so happens that MY interests lie more with google and less with the telcos.
2) How do you show discrimination? Is it discrimination to charge more for usable service? I think so, they might not. Further: the bulk of the senate bill is to have national franchise for video. This way telcos don't have to negotiate with every municipality to offer video. However, with the same bill they want every content provider to have to negotiate with every ISP for service? Seems hypocritical.
3) It seems anti-competitive to only have competition between types of service (DSL vs Cable vs Wireless) and not within the types. It is also deceptive to offer a rate of service (5mbs for example) and then discover you NEVER reach that level of bandwidth. It is also deceptive that latency is NEVER noted. A metric that is critical for real time apps such as VoIP and gaming. These deceptive practices haven't been stopped yet. Why would they be in the future?
To summerize: the fear-mongering is from both sides. - author20, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Let me remind everybody -- we've already seen the effect of poorly engineered Internet backbones.
In 1997, SAVVIS Communications was the top rated provider because they multi-homed in each major Internet city, and drained traffic at destination cities. IBM, MCI, AT&T networks were performing miserably, often two or three times slower than SAVVIS throughput. SAVVIS did not even have their own backbone -- they leased from everybody else!
I worked for the upstart provider until they went public. I created a comparison chart when I worked for SAVVIS, and we took double-digit market share from the Big Boys and telcos. We sold completely out of bandwidth and our competitors started cleaning their networks up, but it took about 4 years.
When money is king, and when performance standards do not exist, the telcos and larger backbone providers DELIVER INFERIOR NETWORKS. Look at the cell phone industry. Black holes, overcharging, fraud and horrible service. Look at AT&T's land lines. No real caller-id,
We need to get rid of an administration that wants to give the Fox the keys to the chicken coop every time. We are in the midst of economic destruction triggered by madness and greed. And the phone companies are now their own worse enemy. Perhaps they need to be removed from the Internet, or perhaps we need a separate 'Net, or a series of thousands of wireless private networks that we link together in a make-shift Patriot Net. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I think I broke my clavicus majoras...
In all seriousness, this lady needs to get her tubes tied (okay, maybe not in seriousness). Then maybe she'll understand why Net Neutrality is so important. - Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the big danger is ISPs who slow services. It is easy to see a blocked service (i.e. you can't get skpe at all). But if they just _slow_ it so its unusable... how do you show it was them? Or intentional?
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@HMTKSteve
I don't want a T1 line. Just the simple old cable or DSL will do just fine. And with tiered internet, when I do something everyone who pays for basic service should be throttled so my content gets priority. That's true tiered internet, where those who pay more get priority over those who don't. I don't want my internet connection slowed by some kid doing his homework on the internet or playing games whose parents can't afford real internet. - cresquin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@triplehelix
They'll go the way of AOL - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Between the choice of two evils - I stand for network neutrality. What kills me is the new Telcom bill that is up for review (has been forever it seems) includes provisions to allow for tiering of the Internet under the premise of "Less Regulation". Proponents argue that the government should regulate the Internet.
Yet this same pile of crap Telcom bill ALSO has the addition of the broadcast flag, which would require everyone who currently owns a TV to purhcase a new one in order to view tv broadcasts. This is clearly a very draconian law that would negatively impact the consumer.
So which is it? No regulation for large corporations - allow them to ***** us over as much as they want. Or draconian regulations for large corporations allowing them to ***** us over as much as they want? It's a sordid and sick situation, and only those with enough money ever win. - mikeabundo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Oh, and he'll *wait* for harm? How very proactive.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, No, No!!!
It's not about AT&T/Verizon/Comcast wanting Google to pay them for access to their broadband customers. It's about AT&T/Verizon/Comcast wanting to be able to throw up a "higher quality" tier on the Internet so that they can provide "better" and more "reliable" services then you currently get from existing web companies.
For example:
If you watch a video on Google's video service you are at the whim of the Internet as to how well your packets make it from Google's servers to you. AT&T/Verizon/Comcast want to be able to offer a service where you get your video from the Internet but the packets are gauranteed to arrive in a timely fashion. The problem is that the existing video providors (Google in this example) want to get this "better" system at no additional cost OR ban this "better" system entirely.
To make another bad analogy: Your gas station currently sells multiple octane levels of gasoline. Many cars will run on the cheap stuff but high-performance cars need the super high-octane fuel. Net Neutrality is akin to telling the service station they can sell the super gas but they have to sell it at the same price as the economy blend. At the same time you would have an automaker sitting on the sidelines knowing that the high-grade fuel will make their car run better (though it is not needed) and yelling that the gas station HAS to provide the fuel for everyone at no additional charge or not offer it at all. Then you have the high performance car company saying, WTF??? If there is no high-grade fuel no one can use our cars!!! The big snag here is that the same company that owns the gas station also owns the high performance car company that needs the high-grade fuel...
This is why we need split the gas station from the high performance car company!
Ergo we should split the Telecom infrastructure side from the retail side. - Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More to the point, once the damage has been caused to the consumer (and it will be), it will be exponentially more difficult to get that damage reversed. AT&T, Comcast, et. al. will fight all that much harder once their rate tiers are in and the incresed revenue is flowing.
- bitbytebit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@4bit
None of us are, or rather should be, yet. Cable and DSL aren't 'providers' they're types of service. Comcast, AOL, Charter... etc... are providers, though they may provide a type the same type of service.
Pull your head out of your ass and get off your highhorse (wow picture that one)
I bet he knew that 'DSL and Cable' arn't providers, but thanks for enlightening those of us who didn't ..hmm no one? - cresquin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the fact that both of those provisions are in the same bill pretty much guarantees it will die.
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this is why we need more networks like this one. built by citizens, free to use, focused on Net Neutrality and free from corporate influence. if these networks catch on, and offer neutrality, the big ISP's will be forced to do the same, regardless of what congress does or doesn't do, or risk losing customers:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Wind_and_Solar_FREE_WIFI_independent_from_corporate_control - Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They don't have to offer you better service for more money. They might not want to (even if it is a LOT of money).
Maybe they are trying to get their own VoIP started. Maybe they are trying to build a monopoly on VoIP on their network. They might see that as more profitable in the long term with thousands of poor people than the relatively large sum you offer. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No, as already mentioned, she doesn't care about the issue at all. She is a whore for the telcos.
If you ever investigate people like this, I guarantee you that you'd find shady contributions their campaigns, or other favors.
Read about the Jack Abramoff scandal if you want to know how this works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"so I am getting tiered Internet weather I like it or not."
Sue them. If I could find out this was occurring by my provider I would do just that since I never signed a contract saying that I wanted my bandwidth constrained for certain types of content. Hell, I wouldn't have went with my provider if they had such ridiculous practices. - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14What you mean the woman chairman called Deborah Platt Majoras? Next time read the article.
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Majoras said extensive Net neutrality legislation currently pending in the U.S. Senate is unnecessary"
So what your saying is your incompetent and need to be fired. - merky1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think the real root of the problem is "corporate" America's penchant for charging consumers twice for the same service. For example, google probably has a decent monthly bandwidth bill that they pay to their provider. Now, since MCI and AT&T aren't their provider, they want a piece of the action by billing google for the same bandwidth again. The problem with the FTC chief is she is literally reading from her lobbyists talking points. And unfortunately, the same is true with pretty much everyone in Washington, so expect to see this pass by.
For an example of how easily telecoms will give up any chance to gain revenue, do a google new search on Verizon dsl surcharge. - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"What if they just lock you out--rich as you are."
Nothing a little money can't clear up. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Tiered Internet seems like a band-aid fix for the nation's real problem, the lack of actual bandwidth. The lack of bandwidth proves that the telcos have had no interest in the past to do anything about bandwidth problems, and the tiered Internet plan proves that the telcos have no interest in fixing the bandwidth problems in the future. One might suggest that the bandwidth problems are something that they engineered intentionally.
There are not many options for citizens who want the Internet to remain usable and affordable. Either we need net-neutrality laws to force the telcos to behave, or we need the Internet to become something that the telco's have no control over at all. One way or another, something has to be done, because if we sit back and let the telcos destroy what is there, what will we be left with? - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7If you pay them enough money you won't get throttled as much. Those who are rich can have better internet as compared to the poor bums. This whole internet being free is communist and defeats the purpose of spreading democracy. The rich need to be treated as superior, even on the internet.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3That's like saying: "We've always had war, disease, and famine, why mess with it?"
***** these monopolies, because they're out to ***** you! -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is