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.
87 Comments
- ArchonMagnus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45@kremvax
How can I post a story 3 hours before you posted yours and it be considered a dupe? You sir, are a homepage whore. - mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23@kremvax
>> What's more, you are just sadly mistaken. I posted a link to a completely different article.
Then why'd you call this one a dupe?
To quoth the raven:
>> Duplicate Story.: http://digg.com/technology/Inventor_of_the_Internet_Warns_of_Dark_Tiering_Plans - earthmansurfer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Excellent article with some great points. The biggest issue here IMO is the government (Telco representation it seems) wanting to control information. Although it might have allot to do with the capitalistic nature of the Telcos just wanting to make money (the hardware suppliers are on their side). Since we in the early stages of the information age it is imperative that it remains accessible to all people, not just those who can "afford" it. I think of this net neutrality law as, perhaps, one of the most important decisions that will ever come down. This is quite serious if you give it any thought. The news stations (ie. CNN, ABC, etc.) are starting to see the early stages of lack of control of information as people now have many sources. (Paper sales are down and looking for news 'elsewhere' is up). Even the news agencies have blogs of sorts. (for more immediate news). If we lose any, and I mean any, freedoms regarding access to information you can count on that being the beginning of the end of the internet, and Bush will just run with it.
- DudeMacfarlane, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27@kremvax
Dude, your story was posted later than this one. Sorry but I gotta call yours the dupe. - alai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Thats a valid point, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Tim Berners-Lee is a god among mere mortals, agreed. But in this instance, he and Vint Cerf both obviously fall into the content producing side, a la Yahoo. They have a profit motive here, but it's largely unacknowledged.
- Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13>>>> What's more, you are just sadly mistaken. I posted a link to a completely different article.
>>Then why'd you call this one a dupe?
Owned.... someone had to say it - MrDan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11r2d7: The first two links you posted are from several weeks ago, relating to TBLs previous comments, not that statements he made at TODAYS confrence (you did read the article didn't you?).
The third link is infact this very digg, and the fouth one was infact posted AFTER this one.
So in short, no, this is not a dupe.
Please have some sense in future. - mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If we had an antitrust department with a backbone, we could just use theirs to get on the 'Net.
Ba dum-BUM! - Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@ghoti06
Dude, you didn't ready any of it. Just started spouting crap. READ teh freakin article, AND the comment you responded to. Sheesh!
(Can I block someone so that I never see their comments again?) - giloron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9None of those made it to the front page, and judging by their age, never would have. This one did. As far as the majority of us are concerned, this is the first.
just my two cents. - Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html
Debunks that Gore invented the Internet, BUT validates his claim that he helped it advance, at least in the US. Basically he was boasting and chose his words poorly, for which he was lampooned, primarily by political opponents. So, he didn't create it, but he supported the efforts which created it.
Besides, this Sir Tim Berners-Lee fellow is being attributed as the Father of the Web.
You'd think that diggers would know the difference between the Internet and the Web, and at least be able to google the truth about the whole Gore and the Internet thing. - gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This should be obvious. The cost will be passed down to the users, and most likely the ISPs will hide a little bit of extra profit margin in the markup. This will also bring up a whole new kind of competition between ISPs - who can promise the best and speediest delivery of content at the lowest price... In any event, it's time for us all to start letting our congressman know about the negative effects of ending net neutrality.
- MrDan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Did you read the article? Do you know what Net Neutrality is about?
Your comments would suggest 'no' - it has nothing to do with "illegal materials". - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If in the US, we had more competition between ISP's, and had an antitrust department with a backbone, we wouldn't need hard-and-fast laws (laws can sometimes hamper innovation, right?). If we had those, an ISP would never *think* about sending out a press release suggesting they might want to charge Google twice for their bandwidth.
Instead of trying to promote competition, we find ourselves trying to force companies to do what a healthy market would otherwise encourge them to do anyway. - DudeMacfarlane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@cyclotron
sounds like your sarcasm detector has low batts, mein freund. - striker1211, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4lol, the "Myspace Victim Child Compensation Fee" whenever you access it.
- wayjer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@Xal
yes you can, see the little circle with the line crossing it to the right of the users name?
There you go! Happy comment blocking to you! - mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ diggers everywhere
kremvax is right, we shouldn't be wasting our time shooting him down, although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of that right now with the comment digg up/down buttons. So this will be my last comment to him. He will probably be absolutely unable to not be the last word on this, so he will comment back a stinging rebuke, probably heavily using some new word he looked up on thesaurus.com. Hell, I might even be tempted to reply, but he's not worth my time anymore.
As for my opinion, since it's been called for:
dclowd9901, that was a very good point about him not being a socio-economic whiz. While I respect the man as much as I can respect anyone I haven't met, or really heard much of in my life (where IS Mr. T, anyways?), he doesn't strike me as much of an expert.
FTA: "There is an effort by some companies in the US to change this. There's an attempt to get to a situation where if I want to watch a TV station across the Internet, that TV station must have paid to transmit to me."
But if I want to watch a TV station over the airwaves, that TV station has to pay FCC licensing fees to transmit to me. Legally, anyways. So his argument doesn't really hold much water to me. What makes the Internet any different a medium than radio/TV airwaves?
I think it is unconscionable that ISPs are trying to make an extra buck off of other people's content. If the FCC started charging higher fees to ABC because "Lost" is a heavily watched program, it would cause an incredible public outcry.
On the other hand, radio/TV airwaves required no major infrastructure setup. Radio towers and repeaters, yes, I suppose, but other than that, it's pretty simple: Broadcast signal in all directions until it's picked up. The Internet, on the other hand, required years of research, development and setup to get where it is today. Putting routers all around the world, Mae West and Mae East, backbones, and now fiber-optics... this all costs a LOT of money with skilled labor and not so much return on the principal. We really don't seem to remember that a lot of the time.
I will always remember what my old computer networks professor once said: "The one thing they [original Internet developers] would have changed about the Internet, if they knew it was going to take off as it was, is charge for it." - MrDan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good article, net neutrality is *crucial* to us as consumers. Without it we would have to pay extra money to view more popular sites.
- brandonr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hate the idea of calling "dupe!!!", so I won't. ;-) But, I submitted a link to the blog he maintains at MIT talking about this issue about 20 days ago. Here's the link, and it's much more in depth than the ZDnet article.
http://digg.com/technology/Creator_of_the_Web_Speaks_Out_on_Net_Neutrality
Some of you guys really have problems being homepage whores, whenever I see someone screaming dupe, they usually always have some kind of crappy blog linked in their profile. If you get a story on the front page it won't make you famous. The idea of digg is not to get famous but to submit stories that interest you. Rant over. - PepeGSay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm fine with paying more and being charged across the board for a certain service level, with my personal pipe to the internet being tiered (like it is now) from a pure bandwidth perspective. I am not ok with the internet backbone or any provider along the way being able to tier traffic selectively. The fact is the telcos *can* increase rates and broker new deals for peering, etc. They don't want to do that because then they have to face the customers and downstream users who are the actual people using the content. Instead they want to have a bargaining chip with the businesses, and hold the users who actually generate the demand for service as hostages in that bargaining. It is clear what their motive is, though they paint it in a prettier picture and say "we would never do that". Too bad for them history informs us otherwise.
- Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5well this one seems to be the one grabbing attention. give up already.
- ilitirit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i believe in net neutrality, but i also believe that people should understand the other side's arguments.
http://www.netcompetition.org/docs/eforum/?q=node/11 - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wait a minute! Don't you think half the dugg down posts ALREADY MADE THAT JOKE?
- richardtallent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The market can only correct where competition exists.
With broadband, there is NO competition, just two government-sanctioned monopolies (cable and DSL) who have all of the access to our right-of-ways to install cable, plus a handful of misguided attempts at wireless (which, itself, will never be able to truly compete in the last mile as wired speeds increase).
This is a NATURAL monopoly, the free market has no solution. Even if right-of-ways were open to all comers, the build-out would be too expensive for any competitors to enter the market and compete with the incumbent providers. It would be like saying we should privatize all city streets. Even if there were room for 3 or more streets to compete with one another between any two points, the reduced traffic on each would create inefficient pricing for each user.
(Note: I lean libertarian, but I know a good place for universal services when I see it... sometimes the market is more efficient than government, sometimes it is not.) - violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The idea of digg is not to get famous but to submit stories that interest you."
Agreed, in theory this is great. In reality the sole purpose of a link is to drive traffic, and it can absolutely make you famous. I'll take "god amongst geeks" over "cubicle jockey" any day. - lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have the fastest cable internet available in my area (8Mb/s). I, for one, will be cancelling my service and signing up for 1.5Mb/s DSL if a tiered internet goes into effect.
The content providers that the big ISPs and backbone providers hold in such contempt are the only reason I am paying for premium service. If they're gonna make it so most the content I want is only accessable at about 1.5Mb/s, then why should I be paying for the extra 6.5Mb/s? Ooo, I get blazing fast speeds to comcast.net! Some one pinch me, I must be dreaming! - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Father knows best!
- Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mikemac
While you do make a good point, you did not mention the fact that the infrastructure that you mention was mostly paid for by us, the tax payer, through subsidies and tax breaks given to the telcos. - foneguy2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The other side of the story...
Some Internet content providers have hijacked the concept of net neutrality - away from consumers - and made it a rallying cry to protect their business interests. Here's the basic premise: The telcos invest billions in their broadband network, which gives content providers - popular Web sites, VoIP providers and so forth - access into the homes of customers. That works fine, to a point. These content providers more and more are offering online services - especially video - that require more bandwidth. They want to ensure that these services get to consumers without any delay or latency, which happens sometimes with a typical Internet connection. They want premium bandwidth - not only more bandwidth, but some level of service guarantee - to deliver their services to Internet customers.
Just as people are willing to pay more for next-day mail delivery instead of regular delivery, content providers should help pay for this premium delivery if that's what they want or expect.
Put another way, DSL customers should not be expected to pay more for DSL because a content provider demands premium bandwidth treatment. Companies seeking increased bandwidth should bear the cost.
A truly healthy Internet is one where all parties who use it share in the cost of ensuring the health of the networks. The telcos invest billions to build and maintain networks. Content providers count on that investment to reach
their customers. Prioritization of data over private networks is an essential part of managing traffic.
The telcos want to allow content providers the option of choosing different service levels when moving bits over their network.
Blocking or degrading? Absolutely not. Any broadband provider who blocked access to the Internet would be inviting its customers to find another provider. The telcos have made clear that they will not block or degrade anyone's content.
Double-load tractor trailers pay extra fees to travel our highways because they require more room and they cause more wear and tear on the roads. Companies that push bandwidth-consuming applications such as video are the equivalent of big rigs on the highway. If Internet content providers had their way with the highway system, two things would happen: Everyone would have sub-par roads and everyone would pay significantly higher gas taxes.
There is a better way, which would continue to provide consumers what they have today as well as offer them more options.
By denying companies a choice of selecting different levels of speed and security, net neutrality proponents are really advocating a "one-size-fits-all" Internet. That would add costs for all Internet users, regardless of usage. Higher-bandwidth applications, like gaming and video, require billions in investment for fatter pipes. Absent the
ability to manage traffic and offer differentiated pricing, low-volume users would pay more for basic activities such as e-mailing and Web surfing just to subsidize gamers and others. Some Internet companies want all consumers to pay for the high-bandwidth services, regardless of whether or not they use them.
The cost of providing high-bandwidth, high-quality services should be paid for by those who actually use them. High-volume, bandwidth-intensive content providers should be asked to contribute proportionally toward the huge costs they create-rather than demand premium network services with the costs being passed on to DSL customers who may never use or need their applications. - jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5So, how do we think the ISP's will feel about net neutrality when the companies that operate the Internet backbone start asking them to pay up so their customers can get service at a reasonable speed?
- nwatkins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I tend to agree with tehgooch. I feel that the free enterprise system is the best way to handle this. It is somewhat ironic that the term Net Neutrality would refer to government imposed laws about how this should be handled. If the government must get involved, and our government usually thinks that it must, then perhaps a law stating that a company can voluntarily pay for more bandwidth, but cannot be forced to pay would be more appropriate.
- nwatkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please indicate anywhere in my post where I made reference to anti-discrimination laws? I did not. Also, please tell me what is wrong with providing a base level of service (bandwidth) and allowing a company, if it desires, to purchase a higher level of service (bandwidth)? This is not discrimination. It is called free enterprise.
- definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He makes a great post and you guys are bitching about....duplicate stories for 5-6 comments? Sad.
- Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Kremvax, you have been BALETED.....
I suggest everyone do the same. :)
The proceeding was a friendly message on behalf of the "Sane Diggers' Union... thingamabob" - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Internet is here because of government regulation. (Thank you, Al Gore, and thank you, for that matter, Newt Gingrich, the two politicians most responsible for taking ARPAnet public.) You have to regulate, in fact, to even get government out of the way. If net neutrality doesn't get passed, we'll have things like this: AT&T has a deal with Yahoo. So that's my "home" page, which I just change to Google. Without net neutrality, I'll notice that if I change to Google, it'll be very slow, while Yahoo will be fast. Uh-uh. I'll notice that small web sites, political blogs and so on, that don't have the protection money to spend, will be slow. But the streaming movies on the Disney channel -- they'll be really fast!!!
Deal or no deal? No deal! - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm getting tired of folks claiming the telcos want to charge end-users extra access fees or block websites.
Any extra fees will be paid by the content providors, not the consumer. (yeah, most providors will pass the cost on to you, but every business does that... ahem... Amazon.com offering different shipping options....ahem...)
Secondly, any ISP who willingly blocked a website from it's own customers would quickly see it's customers vanish... - uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did you read what I had written? I wasn't arguing for or against Net Neutrality. My argument was for/against this type of action. Not net neutrality in particular.
- diggdat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh where to begin...
>"They want to ensure that these services get to consumers without any delay or latency, which happens sometimes with a typical Internet connection."
If so, then they would be asking for a tiered service not trying to defend against it.
>"Just as people are willing to pay more for next-day mail delivery instead of regular delivery, content providers should help pay for this premium delivery if that's what they want or expect."
Once again, I do not see Google or Yahoo demanding that say, Joe ISP in Florida guarantee anything at all. They may wish a guarantee or be willing to pay for one, to the ISP *they* use to put their content on the web. That guarantee would not come with any other expectation than that their content makes it to the backbone based on the agreement they already have.
>"Just as people are willing to pay more for next-day mail delivery instead of regular delivery, content providers should help pay for this premium delivery if that's what they want or expect."
...and they do. They pay for whatever level of bandwidth they determine they need to get there content to the backbone. The Internet is not an end to end delivery system that guarantees if you put up a site and I pay to have a crappy modem that I will get broadband speeds or that the host of site should expect it - and they don't. I have never heard any bandwidth dependent industry claim to think otherwise. This makes no sense to me.
>"Put another way, DSL customers should not be expected to pay more for DSL because a content provider demands premium bandwidth treatment. Companies seeking increased bandwidth should bear the cost."
No, we would bear the cost to obtain monster sized files and we already do. For that matter there is already the on going argument that about subsidies to telcos for fiber and broadband that I would weep to type it again. Other have made these comments here and the point is made. Once again though, Companies already pay to get their product to the backbone...we pay to get it.
>"The telcos want to allow content providers the option of choosing different service levels when moving bits over their network."
Well that is swell, now you want to put up a site like Digg and you say hey, I need to pay this much to get my stuff to backbone, at this rate and my advertising revenue is this much so I have a business model. Oh, nope not quite, now I have to *try* to account for every provider that has a connection to a user and guess who will have their hat out for a piece. How do you scale this?
As a user of broadband, this pisses me off to know end as well because I did pay for a cable modem and now my ISP is going to effect the experience I may receive from a site because that site did not pay them as well? This will stifle content growth. You site become popular and now you don't just get a faster connection, you guess and who comes at you for more.
>"Any broadband provider who blocked access to the Internet would be inviting its customers to find another provider."
By this you mean blocked Google or Yahoo ...sigh we finally agree! I think blocking any such popular site would be a death sentence. I do not think they would do this, because users would flock.
>"Double-load tractor trailers pay extra fees to travel our highways because they require more room and they cause more wear and tear on the roads. Companies that push bandwidth-consuming applications such as video are the equivalent of big rigs on the highway."
They do, and so do sites like Google, a ton of dough for their Internet connection to get their content to the backbone a fast speeds. I pay little for my cable modem by comparison.
"By denying companies a choice of selecting different levels of speed and security, net neutrality proponents are really advocating a "one-size-fits-all" Internet."
No one is denied anything. I can put my content up based on what I pay and if customers care for my stuff and want to get it fast, they will pay for faster access to suite their needs.
>"The cost of providing high-bandwidth, high-quality services should be paid for by those who actually use them."
And they are now...If anyone actually reads all this, that point at least should be clear.
It seems to me, like it is being said that the content providers are begging for this. They are being asked to be left alone... - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1net neutrality is not about bandwidth, it is about latency...
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So by your logic anti-discrimination laws should be scrubbed off the books because the free market will solve the problem? History has taught us that doesn't work.
- mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@kremvax
I don't like to dupe comments, let alone story submissions. So I content myself to mod up those comments I agree with (or at least respect) and mod down those I don't. Meaning yours. Have a happy and pleasant day in -43-ville. Although I suspect you'll keep slipping as the day goes by. :-) - n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Despite how "advanced" we may think computers are, in all reality they are horrible. The hardware is barely efficient, the Operating Systems are mediocre at best, compatibility is a complete disaster, advertising is completely out of control, and there are so many viruses that my head is about ready to spin right off. We have a long way to go, and a lot of hard work to do."
Euhm. Do you actually own a computer? Or use one? - TheDeuce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5009250.stm
- brandonr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry everyone, here's a direct link to the story: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132 my edit time just expired.
- atelophobee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0but it does mean that he has as vested an interest in the web being neutral as the companies against it do in their cause. $$
- unclewormwood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1For the record, Berners-Lee did create the World Wide Web (in 1991). He did not invent the Internet which has been around since 1969, we can thank the US gov. for that.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Need we remind you who hi-jacked the thread with a completely erroneous comment?
"by kremvax 1 hour ago Block/Report this User
[below viewing threshold, show commenthide comment] - 41 diggs bury this digg this
Duplicate Story.: http://digg.com/technology/Inventor_of_the_Internet_Warns_of_Dark_Tiering_Plans"
You're being kind of a bitch, Krem. My suggestion? Lay low.
In regards to Berners-Lee: Part of me wants to say "Who better to say what should be done with the internet than the man who invented it," but the more rational part of me is saying, "Why should this guy have any more sway than your average geek?" Yeah, he built the thing, but that doesn't necessarily make him socio-economic whiz. I'll keep fighting for net neutrality, but what this guy says has no bearing on my current slate of opinions. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13I thought Al Gore was the Father of the Web? ;-)
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is