What is Digg?54 Comments
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -7/+48http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary_pass for those of us who don't follow American Football
- Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -11/+49Wait, you mean you can actually touch the ball with your -hands-??
- ho0ber, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia for those of us who have never heard of this wikipedia thing and have no idea how to search for stuff ourselves and need smart-asses to link every mildly abstract concept for us.
- L0phtpDK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23This whole thread needs to be labeled with a giant "/SARCASM" tag.
I think I'm bleeding from my eyes... - sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19i think you mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
- crawfishsoul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Centered text...FTW?
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -26/+40"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google for those of us who don't follow American companies."
Right. Because you post on, and read digg, but have never heard of google.
No, really, I believe that. - geodescent, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity/ for those of us who don't follow Human Beings...
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"The Web infrastructure, and even Google's (infrastructure) doesn't scale. It's not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect,"
That's absolutely true. Until multicast is practical, IPTV isn't. Television is a broadcast technology. The current internet is a unicast technology.
There's a lot of work to be done before you'll be able to have a large-scale IPTV experience that allows instant channel switching and no buffering. - javip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Thanks for the link, I felt a lot of joy burying it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Of all the times this lame coment has been posted, this is the article where it LEAST applies.
- spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Google want's what's good for Google. That's it, essentially.
- sonofagunn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I don't understand what the article is trying to say. Google wants to be immune from net neutrality laws but still be able to prioritize video on their networks?
I guess I'm stupid today - someone explain this more clearly to me... - Ujjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Stop spamming that article. Once is more than enough.
- illustrissim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7so they're saying that the tubes will get clogged?
- Ujjay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"tailored advertising with the cable networks' high-quality delivery of shows"
High quality? HA! - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah cuz the internet isn't something you can dump a TV on
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I have to add.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union For those of who don´t follow stupid American sissy man football. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg for those of us who don't follow Digg.
Wait a second... maybe that one was just a little TOO stupid. - clickmyface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3TV over the Internet is not going to happen in mass scale for a very long time.
The 1996 Telecom Act gave (free) the airwaves to all the big media outlets to help with their transition the digital TV spectrum. This is something that was heavily lobbied by the big corps to the FCC. It was a multi-billion dollar deal placed without any benefit to the public. Media corporations are the biggest lobbyists to this very day in Washington.
These companies own vital pieces of the broadcast spectrum, and they also own the TV content that the Internet apparently wants. Advertising for the Superbowl alone generates $2.9m for 30 seconds of time on the airwaves. Television through the broadcast spectrum is the biggest monopoly out there and has generated these companies billions upon billions of dollars and thus they have absolutely no reason to move their content online.
Google is of course right, there is not room for all of this content at this time anyway, but the biggest reason why this won't happen is because the TV industry has the sweetest deal ever handed down by the U.S. Government and they have no interest in changing their leverage on the market. - Moose408, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The internet is not at full capacity if you are carrying standard internet traffic (i.e. email, web pages, etc) but when you go to full broadcast quality TV or HDTV quaility then it doesn't have near enough capacity. Even fiber can't support everyone watching a different IPTV program at the same time. There are huge bandwidth requirements for IPTV which the current infrastructure doesn't support.
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i sure as hell don't want a government enforced hegemony (AT&T) to have absolute control over the internet = absolute power corrupts absolutely...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Basically, Google wants to be a telco in practice but not a telco in law, which means they can discriminate and filter traffic all they want: iow, throw net neutrality out the window.
- luken7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Learn American football, either you are with us or you're against us. We will win the war on terror, and that includes your football.
/*sarcasm*/ - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Definitely sarcasm. Google has more dark fiber in waiting than some telephone companies.
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But the implication should be obvious. Google only supported net neutrality so far as they thought it was to their financial benefit. The same is true of Microsoft, and Microsoft already dropped out of their coalition, It's Our Net.
And where is http://itsournet.org today? Funny, it's been dead for a month now.
Google is going to find out that "neutrality" isn't in their interest either. Just watch. - rgsunico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wish he had gone directly to the Reuters article rather than Digging the blog...
- gummialien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The bottleneck is not in the backbone but rather it is at the ISP level.
One question that comes up is "why don't ISP's just upgrade" well the reason for this is there is almost no competition for broadband service. Since there is no competition there isn't any reason for ISP's to provide better service to their customers.
This problem is exacerbated by the cable companies business model. Currently, broadband companies make just as much money is they serve 100 megs or 100 gigs to you since broadband is a fixed amount for "unlimited" service. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Three steps:
1.) Bury comment
2.) Bury spam story
3.) Click "Block/Report this User" - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Multicast is very practical - it's called P2P and it's working today (yes I know about IP multicast).
The Pirate Bay is scaling rather well, as an example. The sooner companies realize this the sooner we'll all get HD video to our houses. - dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OMFG, strike that "Net neutrality is bad" part. What a moron. Net neutrality is good. It's the non neutral networks the telcos seek to create which are bad. Sorry, it's late. The bottom line is that it's improtant to create "ignorant" networks that don't compromise privacy or breadth of service. That's what telcos and cablecos seek to do so that at the same time their products aren't antiquated without first forming a revenue model around other people's innovations and success.
I guess I inadvertently made another point too. There is a lot of confusion about the terminology. So much so, the people who know a neutral network is good, somehow end up tangled on the same two words inverted into net neutrality. - clempka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, but Google stores your searches on their servers whether you turn on search history or not. So, having them turn on personalized search automatically doesn't really make them any worse off than they were before.
- shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm confused, how is the capacity NOT there? Both AT&T and Verizon are in the process of rolling out fiber networks. If the backbone is the problem, then upgrade the damn backbone. Basically, what I'm hearing is that the internet is almost at full capacity, which sounds like a line of ***** to me given the nature of fiber.
- dreamlayers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is multicast not being considered? TV over the net seems like a natural application.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Has anybody ever tried to stream video over the web that is equivalent to television size/fps/quality? It isn't at all viable right now -- broadband internet pipes aren't big enough that's why they have to reduce fps/size and then compress to stream.
- MrDarkSim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Mumbo Jumbo
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Diddo - the blogger is talking out of his ass. There is NOT enough current bandwith to scale to the video needs of what consumers want and what companies would like to deliver. That's a fact and it has nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.
- spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a few days ago I posted the following story which was labeled by many on Digg as "anti-net neutrality FUD."
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/The_Coming_Internet_Traffic_Jam
I personally agree with some of its conclusions and thus, even what Google is saying here about the limitations of delivering multi-cast video to a broad scale of users - under CURRENT network conditions, using the CURRENT delivery mechanisms.
HOWEVER, with back-end network optimization AND innovation such as new content delivery mechanisms like JOOST, (which claims to deliver multicast TV over the internet- current Bandwidth limitations notwithstanding) the cynic in me questions Google's timing in 'befriending' the Cable Industry with this admission that they "just can't do it on their own"
And yet, how much are they spending lobbying against "Anti-Net Neutrality" and the operators who actually have some control over the backbone?
My post isn't intended to be a literal "value judgment" on Google. (I really digg them for the most part), but in fairness they invite it when their stated goal is index all the worlds information, and "not be evil." My observations are intended to provoke thought and discussion. I see a double standard in their position against some network operators and not others. That might be good for business- but it might not be good for users.
I recall how back in the day, AOL was one the most vociferous opponents of the Cable Co's (claiming their protected, closed networks would ruin the internet) right up until the bought the nation's 2nd largest one in Time Warner... - mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Show me the numbers. I have heard many times this discussion: scale not scale, choke not choke. Show me the numbers, both sides.
- audiocollective, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It looks like some people need to learn the magnitude of this problem. It will become a very big problem soon! read about it here http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
- sedo1800, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Verizon has been spaming their FiOs all over the TV and radio here in buffalo. Google wont be trying to bluff them... they have LOTS of fiber thats just staring to light up.(when they ran it down my road in 2002 i thought they were nuts)
- dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Start writing your congresspeople now. I know for a fact that next week the FTC is meeting to get a clearer view of what net neutrality is, so a big surge should make that meeting resonate more with your respective representatives. There will be plenty of people fighting the good fight, but in the end, they are trying to explain complex technology to non technological people. You might as well consider this the follow-up clash to Ted Stevens' initial "tubes" and "big truck" strikeout.
Net neutrality is bad. It goes beyond paying more to watch videos on YouTube. With deep packet inspections, black hats can get a job at a provider who is participating in tiering and potentially violate your privacy in ways you never thought possible. Remember, not every login is secure and once you have one password, you might very well have them all. Never mind the fact that the supposed non-black hats that work for AT&T let the government compromise your privacy once before fairly recently. - LordofShadows, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you read the article he cites, you see that net neutrality isnt mentioned or implied. This is just some physco blogger making connections where non exist.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Google want's what's good for Google. That's it, essentially."
That's pretty much the business model for every company that's ever been formed. That doesn't mean that the author's assumption is valid. Just because Google has "more fiber rights than some telcos" doesn't mean that they should be looking to move into the type of distribution model of actual ISP's. One thing has nothing to do with another. The cost of unicast streaming data to end users is extremely cost inefficient. I can't possibly imagine how much the bandwidth costs of youtube alone are. And that's nothing compared to what iptv is going to require. Google is smart to look to work with the cable companies. And the ISP's, if they are smart, will look to work with companies like Google who are willing to provide the services and content that people want, instead of trying to muscle in on future profits for themselves. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3More than that, they have a scrolling marquee in their main lobby that BROADCASTS all these keyword searches to anyone who should happen to walk by.
- dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As if I haven't committed commenting sins enough this evening, here is the URL for the workshop the FTC is holding.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/01/broadbandwrkshp.htm
Tell your representatives to attend. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That's why I don't like Gmail. Google even says that they keep all your incoming and outgoing mail on their servers indefinitely and can do whatever they want with it.
- mugdecoffee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Does it make you feel cool to use big words that you don't understand? Hegemony is a system where there is a dominant group. A hegemon is the dominant group.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2This BIG story about you and Google went under the radar of a busy news week:
http://www.webcontentprofessionals.org/2007/02/google-is-watching-you.html - mrdrunkNstoned, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Armour for those of us who don't follow american football companies
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is