What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
85 Comments
- bsoric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31One of my favourite things about Digg. Enough people crosspost articles from Slashdot that I don't need to read both.
- flush2000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24I still read it out of habit, but I find that most of the articles on slashdot are on digg several days prior.
- cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@Chozabu: Since everyone on Digg can "moderate" a comment up or down with no restrictions, I don't think placing restrictions on users due to being buried would work. Have you looked at some of the "popular" topics? If it's about Apple, and someone says "eh, I don't really like the iPod" it gets a -50. If you post "I don't really think I like the Nintendo's wand controller" you get a -60. In other words, if you don't agree with the popular opinion, you'd always be locked out.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Better conversation on Slashdot, though. Burp. Scratch. Scratch.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/015202 - gamer82987, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17blah blah blah... just an excuse for the isp to jack up the prices and get more money for their "tiered interent" plans
- Chozabu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17yeah, comments/conversation on slashdot seriously are better
three or four things could really fix digg up though
proper threaded comments, like slashdot! (cmon... its really not too hard!)
if a comment gets below, say -40 diggs, it should be completly removed from my sight (configurable though!)
an easy way to stop the page from being so white, too harsh on the eyes!
also, some kinda penality for total trolls, though this could be a bit hard to make fair, something like each member having a seperate rating, raises when a story or comment is dug, lowers if comment is undugg, perhaps slowly springs towards 0
if its below -200? then they cant post comments, until it rises above -150
better too weak than too harsh though! - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Perhaps the big ISP's will have to light up some of that dark fiber and provide more speed per dollar? It's not like "The Internet" can't handle as much traffic as we could throw at it; it's that the cost is so high. It's not the cost of providing the service, it's just the big Telcos want huge profits. There's *so much* fiber optic cable in the ground that isn't being used that we haven't even come close to the potential of the existing networks.
The UK is even more so; there's a map I saw of all the dark fiber and it's pretty insane. (I don't remember what site I saw it on, sorry.) A lot of it was laid during the big dot.com boom, and never lit up.
The smaller ISPs can have big problems with high bandwidth services for the single reason of not being able to buy the bandwidth from the big backbone ISP's without charging the end users more. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11You're thinking that cable TV uses more "bandwidth" when it's viewed.
But TV (& radio, etc) are one-way broadcasts. There's no interaction required to send the information. One person, or one million people viewing the information has no impact on throughput. - Snyder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You heard it here first. The future of the internet is too much for the ISP's too handle. Oh well, we had a good run. Time to pack it in.
- cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yea, let's go back to a "pay per MB" model... that'll really keep people online. "Yo, I'm not going to that site, the advertisements use too many megabytes."
No thanks. I'd rather use an unlimited dial-up account then pay per MB on a cable modem. - strcmp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The only reason that I still read Slashdot is for the comments. Not only is the system implemented better, the quality of the comments themselves are better. For instance, funny comments actually get modded up; on Digg the humor goes over everyone's heads and they get modded down. I also like that Slashdot's moderation system has a floor of -1 and a ceiling of 5. Combined with limited moderation, Slashdot's comment system encourages actually commenting, as opposed to Digg which encourages people modding down everything below 0 already and everything above 1. On digg, the first two or three moderations determine the fate of a comment, because once a comment reaches +/- 7 or so, its pretty much irrevocably positive/negative.
Sorry for the poor grammar P.S. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The people on Slashdot aren't saying anything revolutionary or groundbreaking.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Dont make me turn off the internet!
- richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Your TV doesn't come over IP, it may have the same cable but it certainly doesn't.
- Tweaky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The article is referring to USA ISPs, not overseas ones. Can't remember where (Sweden I think), but over in the Netherlands they've got something like 300 Mbps connections at home... for what we in the USA pay for 5-10 Mbps connections.
- subliminaluk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If they release the high-definition videos as legal torrents! then we'll have ...erm a legal and smart alternative to Prison.Break.S01E21.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi etc..
hey, include advertisments so there would be a revenue stream for networks. If they make a commercial worth watching then i'll still skip it.
I blame the ISP's throttling our upstream! up is always a joke, since they assume that we only use up to request a web page. I suppose that upstream is more valuable to guarantee uptime and bandwidth to servers..
damn it, more up means my torrents go quicker. suppose i should be happy for 400k/s download magic'ed from the air anyhoo.
sub
btw, didn't rtfa, didn't care. - Unscene, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This could be our only hope to get our bandwidth high like the rest of the world. Don't feel bad cause the isp are the ones trying to screw us, keeping our speeds at a fraction of the bandwidth everyone else is getting.
- DASK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, I can confirm that I live in sweden and pay roughly $14 US for a 100 mbit connection that comes with basic cable, no data capping. And the next big speed upgrade is only 1-2 years away. Gotta keep up with Korea/Japan. :)
- thetron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't believe it. ISP ain't that stupid to clog the intarweb up as they'll relay HDTV at Multiple Localized Peering points
- Pizon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7There are some good points in this article. All ISPs, large and small, oversell their bandwidth. I think 2GB per month is a bit high for most users actually. When I ran an ISP most of my broadband customers averaged around 500MB and many were businesses. I know there are users who use 100GB and more per month but right now they're the exception, not the rule. When people begin streaming TV and movies over the Internet more it will have a noticeable impact. What will probably end up happening is costs will go up across the board. The ultra cheap entry level packages will go up $5 or $10 per month (or perhaps more) with "power user" plans increasing proportionally and I'm sure the big telcos will try to use this as the basis for their argument against 'net neutrality. Then again, maybe the telcos will see the revenue potential for higher capacity connections and expedite fiber roll-outs.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Isn't it the backbone of the internet that could get choked? I mean, when a bit goes from point A to point B it goes through somethign like 10 other points. If those get choked from 50 million people watching HDTV, wouldn't the internet slow to a crawl?
- superal1394, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6this article is crap, its just ISP's who dont wanna give us more bandwidth cause they're too cheap. Im gonna download my HD E3 demos, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Its basicly the "tiered internet" with this "Oh No! You're going to destroy the internet if we don't do this! Those evil consumers!" - jayarbee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is nothing but propaganda from the telcos, regurgitated by an ambitious AP reporter. If the internet isn't kept neutral, any site which doesn't pay a fee (bribe) to the telcos will simply be cut off. You may log on someday and find it impossible to reach Digg, as their proposal includes the right to control content. If Slashdot, for example, has an exclusive contract with your provider, you'll be cut off from its competitors. It's not about bandwidth; they want control. They want nothing less than ownership of the internet.
- etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think it's necessarily that comments which go against the popular opinion get modded down. If you've got good reasoning, and you illustrate WHY you think the iPod is stupid, or the Nintendo wand controller is dumb, then people will listen. They may not mod you UP, but they're very unlikely to mod you DOWN.
It's the people who say nothing but "The iPod is stupid" that get modded down... and rightly so. - carebearwarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Perhaps they should remove those arbitrary bitrate caps and not worry about it.
- jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There are many checks and balances in place to ensure that it doesn't spiral out of control. First off, many of the larger content providers bypass "middleman" networks entirely and hook directly to broadband networks, sometimes even at the last mile (via CDN technology). Secondly, ISPs already charge content providers usage based fees, although often offer their bandwidth for free to content providers, even at insane volumes, if it will drive up their main revenue via new user traffic. Third, certain RBOCs have made statements lately about placing caps on bandwidth (reference the network neutrality debate) and the reaction from the user community has been "Go ahead, try it, there will always be a choice for me without restrictions."
I have to agree with many of the commenters here, it sounds like RBOCs, fearful of their cost model and their lack of control over the power of content providers in peering economic negotiations, are spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). - NicP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Many ISPs do this already.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Hmm, same cable? At least over here, analogue cable TV and our fiber connections most certainly don't run on the same cables. :-)
- Eloom123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7(cant figure out how to remove my comment so I'll leave this here instead) :p
- tarouszars, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The real problem is that the ISP's are overselling their bandwidth. So in a sense what they are saying is true. The Internet service they are providing is certainly NOT built to handle a lot of streaming video. If everyone on their network tries to use their connection at the same time they will all lag because the ISP is not really giving them the bandwidth they say they are. They basically lied about their service, and now they are trying to blame their problems on the internet's architecture so they don't look like crooks.
It's not working. - Rioracer916, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Looks like the ISP companies need more US government subsidies to "maintain and expand infrastructure". I mean it's not like they are making a profit that could be used to invest back into their business or anything...oh wait...
- poet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is *****. The corporations behind the internet all cap us off anyways so they can profit off demand. We should all have gigabit internet but we're forced to have low baudrates because it makes them more money. HD video is less of a strain than 4gig DVDs. Just wait until we start pirating Blu-Ray rips.
- hourigan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Mulicast? I work in this area and this is only an issue with on-demand video which needs the bandwidth allocated for each viewer. When watching live TV, you can use multicast which only needs to allocate bandwidth at the last hope before the end user, i.e. the switch you connect to. The problem is multicast isn't that easy to setup and getting ISPs to setup multicast peering can be a pain. I know a company that intend switching from 4mb MPEG2 SD channels to 4mb MPEG4 HD channels next year. So, going to HD for them makes not difference to the bandwidth needed.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is just FUD and propaganda from the big telcos who are looking to extort $$$ from various content providers.
Let me see...we can send thousands of DVDs per second over fiber but the net is gonna choke on some HD streams? Riiiiight. - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I do think some definition of the term "HDTV" is in order here.. If you think about it, until recently you couldn't even stream a "watchable" video over the Internet, nevermind HDTV. I think most of the buzz is about little video boxes on web pages, which really shouldn't be an issue. So, FUD perhaps.
Real HDTV (720p, 1080i, or something close) requires at least 8 to 10Mbits using the latest high compression codecs such as MPEG4. - chandler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6What's funny is the looping flash video advert in the middle of the article.
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As I tell my colleagues on a regular basis: don't treat non-technical news providers as being technically sound.
This article is interesting because it's what the general public will start to believe; that ISPs are poor and the consumer/provider should foot an extra bill for content. It's good that looking at the comments above show people with any technical ability can see through this pretty easily. - flashmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least be creative and change the Slashdot headline
- agimat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The internet will do just fine.
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cable companies don't even use the same frequency (channel) range for data that they use for television, because the strength of the signal on lower channels would blow out data equipment. This is part of why it makes so much sense for cable companies to offer data services - they can use channels they can't send video over for another purpose.
However, that has absolutely no bearing on the actual subject of the article, which is the toll on the available *Internet* bandwidth. Just because your cable company can send 300MB worth of data over a single channel doesn't mean they have that kind of upstream pipe to the internet where the data you want to download is coming from. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They just want more money! What kills me is that they tell you "1.5MB speed" but in small print they say "we dont guarantee speeds" thats *****!!! It's like selling you a car that goes 150 MPH but they then tell you it "might" not go that fast. Yet they want more money if you buy the top tier internet! *****!!! Whats next a meter outside your house measuring your internet usage like the electric company??? OOH New Term "Neutrality" These ISP's just CANT stand other people making money so they have to get their cut! Corporate America SUCKS ASS!!! You know what I find funny? That they want to charge google and other contenet providers.....you think ISP's are going to start charging each other? After all my .cox.net e mail has to go through Comcast and Verizon to reach Adelphia......OMG!!! ***** I SAY!!! *****!!!
~mario - hoowahman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just this weekend I downloaded 80 gigs of HD content off newsgroups. I hope my ISP views this as normal use.
- jayf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought there was a whole bunch of dark fiber just begging to be used.
Why not light it up? - Fell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And a new development will come along to aid in fatter pipes. It's the naturaly evolution of technology. Already, I've perused three articles this year on new technologies to increase the rate of bandwidth across North America by up to ×1,000.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll believe this article when cable boxes start asploding from delivering HD cable channels.
:-|
The author has obviously never heard of bit torrent. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your money to your local ISP doesn't fund the backbone in any direct way
- Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ISP's are going to want to get into the IP TV game themselves, rather than encouraging people to download it from somebody else where they don't get a cut. Other than the obvious net neutrality issues where the local IP will want to bill you to use someone else's service, this should fairly easily be handled by people's monthly transfer caps. Yes there will be an issue if everyone tries to watch at the same time - however once people can download programs over the net nothing says they're going to start watching at exactly the same time - they'll start when it's convenient for them.
- dr_benway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh where oh where has all our dark fiber gone, oh where oh where could it be?
we paid and paid to get it laid, years and billions in subsidies (and de-regs already).
now they whine and bitch and moan, it costs them too much to deliver stone...
unless they get privilege to pillage, to turnpike our bits and virtual *****;
to tax the rain, to surcharge the wind, to levy fines for breathing.
and own and rent and sublet and lease every square bit of our information. - yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1digg could choke Internet.
- JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's *****. There was an article on Digg awhile back that said the average person on high-speed internet uses 2GB of bandwidth per month, costing the ISP $2 to provide. I don't know about you guys, but around here it costs about $50 a month for high-speed internet. The ISP's have more than enough bandwidth to go around. Hell, maybe when people realize that 5Mb down takes forever to get an HD quality TV episode the lazy bastards (ISPs) will finally make things like FiOS avaliable everywhere.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is