What is Digg?109 Comments
- dsmx, on 06/21/2008, -1/+72Because they can't supply the service they advertised.
- Surferess, on 06/21/2008, -4/+64Whatever they do will get hacked inside of a week.
- DavidGX, on 06/21/2008, -1/+61Upgrade your ***** capacity already or stop advertising service you can't provide.
Also, net neutrality *****, can we have it please? - ohemsted, on 06/21/2008, -0/+58Why can't they just let us do what we want, we pay for there services why should they start restricting it?
- inactive, on 06/21/2008, -1/+47All that money they are wasting on travels to Las Vegas conventions, they could actually spend it on expending their bandwidth to handle the P2P traffic.
- fr3ddie, on 06/21/2008, -5/+39HAHAHAHAHAH. yea ***** right... ive been pirating ***** for 15 years... they will NEVER be able to control it.
- Darkaged, on 06/21/2008, -1/+30Virgin Media have started doing this in the UK, to provide a "fair service" for everyone.
So we pay for a certain service and not get what we pay for? - BenBenMan, on 06/21/2008, -0/+20... then you turn on speech recognition? Then you'll be able to easily download the latest episode of "Dear Aunt, Let's set so double the killer delete select all"
- JQP123, on 06/21/2008, -0/+17The primary issue here is truth in advertising.
Don't call it "unlimited" when it is in fact "limited". And don't limit any one selected type of traffic.
For a payment of X per month you get a bandwidth of Y and a maximum data transfer limit of Z.
There ... problem solved. - TypeEE, on 06/21/2008, -1/+17It works until Apple TV, Netflix or other companies started to distribute their digital content via p2p. Then they will force the ISP to turn it off.
- MarianaPeyton, on 06/21/2008, -1/+16This is a complete absurd. It is already working on my ISP here in Brazil. I pay 4Mbits and only get 100KB/s from torrenting. It is exactly 100KBs. Class suit everyone?
- notSLICK, on 06/21/2008, -0/+14 The real issue is, of course, is infrastructure expansion. The internet providers are cheap and for the most part are running on an infrastructure that is at least a quarter century old. Cable companys have been making money hand-over-fist for decades now, and it is high time they invested more in beefing up and future-proofing thier networks. Because it isnt going to get any better, its only going to get worse. I mean, they are selling those pone/TV/internet packages HARD. It seems like every 5th comercial i see is for friggin comcast. This whole business of bandwidth capping too... its like buying a whopper from burger king and getting told that you can only take a few bites before you gotta give it back because other people gotta eat too.
- scabbers, on 06/21/2008, -1/+13Snail-mail trading DVD-Rs ^_______^
- kamisama, on 06/21/2008, -0/+11Since when should an ISP be in the control business? They should provide a service for which people pay, end of story. They have no right to cripple it in any way. Even if an isp blocks one single port you should leave it, if you can. You pay the post service to bring your mail or packages to another destination, not to have them slow it down for a few days, or open them up to see what's in it.
- sjons, on 06/21/2008, -1/+10I hope, I just got an email from my isp roadrunner over a telesync'd ironman!
- sabroskie, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8There is almost always another way around.
- alexforcefive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8Or do deals with ISPs. No-one cares about the internet except us.
The thing these companies don't realise is that the freedom to innovate is what helped their companies in the first place. Youtube wouldn't have been successful with metered broadband, how can anyone expect the NEXT youtube to be? - trofeo, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7You should be able to get up to around 500KBs from a 4Mbs connection :/ yeah your being screwed there that's gotta suck
- sporg, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7Instead of imagining ever more complicated and convoluted measures to limit how much bandwidth people can use why not concentrate on technology that increases the available bandwidth.
Oh no I'm sorry that would be called progress and we all know how little of that this country sees anymore. - chrisinsocalif, on 06/21/2008, -2/+9I with technology companies would work with technology instead of against technology. With such behaviors, it seems they will cannibalize business as opposed to increasing business.
- str8lazy, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7These money hoarding bastards, you would think that they would have the funds for major network upgrades, seeing as how most people pay AT LEAST $20 for high-speed internet. I pay $56.... Oh yeah, ***** the RIAA
- inactive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7CEO: This must be stopped!
Employee: Can't we just upgrade the network, so we won't have to throttle , control p2p
CEO: Are you ***** out of your mind! No! - digitalpencil, on 06/21/2008, -1/+8You want to know how to deal with the 'P2P traffic crunches'?? take all the billions of dollars AT&T and associated RBOCs have stolen off of the US people over the past decade and use it to overhaul the ***** network! and not ***** like FiOS and u-Verse but the full FTTC, synchronous lines that were promised. I'm so tired of ISPs back-pedaling on deals they've laid out because all of a sudden the average user is actually using what was advertised to them!
We're sold broadband deals under the guise of them delivering 'unlimited' broadband at a specific level of service.. it seems that now the average user are actually using their lines for more than just google and email, ISPs are attempting to reel back the terms they advertised their services with and implement controls, caps and throttles to preserve network bandwidth. Whilst I understand the current necessity to do this, I can't abide the bait & switch tactics employed.. Moreover, how short-sighted is it to even consider this for a moment as being an even remotely long-term solution?!?
The infrastructure needs to be overhauled and those of you who consider these measures to be an apt protection of the average users' broadband need to consider the future and where the line will be drawn.. TV scheduling as we know it is on the way out, on-Demand is approaching ever faster and ISPs are already fighting service providers over network consumption. Over here in the UK, Virgin Media are demanding protection money from the BBC and Channel 4's services respectively, or suffer blocks and throttles.
They argue that these are 'their pipes', that 'they built these pipes' and therefore they get to say how traffic is structured within them. They want to become gatekeepers, squeezing every media packet for every penny they can garner as it enters and leaves their network which, will ultimately result in a tiered pricing system meaning that only the wealthy and those with connections can make their voice heard. Don't believe the b$! These pipes aren't theirs, they're ours. We paid for them, umpteen times over and it is not content providers' responsibility to pay off every network for the right to exist. We pay for our connection to view their content, they pay (staggering fees) for their content to be available and all of this is subsidized by advertising.
The major problem with all of this though, is that they're getting away with it.. They've setup astroturf campaigns whose sole purpose is to obfuscate users' understanding of issues like net neutrality, arguing that government regulation will inhibit the internet's ability to continue innovating.. and what's more! despite having been proven to have funneled millions of dollars into these supposedly grassroutes campaigns, they've got half of the user-base convinced!!!!
The only way this stops is to stand up and be counted. Let them know you're no buying into it, pressure congress for NN promises to be made or wait and watch while the greatest learning resource man has ever conceived is reduced to an online vending machine of porn and advertising.
www.savetheinternet.com
"Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it."
Tim Burners Lee - Inventor of the World Wide Web - alexforcefive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6Yeah, virgin seem to be the best of a very bad lot at the moment. Maybe we can stop this before it starts though - sign this petition if you're a UK citizen!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/unfairdata/ - greevar, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6That may be true in the case of cable networks. The bandwidth is literally shared among it's users. But DSL service isn't shared. It's a specific slice of bandwidth. You pay for 3, 7, or 20 Mb of bandwidth, that's what you get. What their trying to do is supply an increasing demand without increasing the supply. That's like buying a car with the fourth wheel missing because they didn't make enough wheels.
- Stavrosian, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6The use of the term "unlimited" in ISP's advertising campaigns is genuinely hilarious. My favourite is on Vodafone's mobile broadband packages. If I am remembering this correctly, you could have their standard package with a usage limit of 3GB a month, or you could get their super awesome UNLIMITED HELL YES package for a bit more cash.
Unlimited apparently means 5GB usage a month. For a service advertising an 8 Meg speed that's theoretically about 2 hours of downloads for an entire month. You have to laugh, really. - inactive, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6All they really have to do is terminate your contract and you've just been F'ed in the A.
- scabbers, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure any of the ISPs in the UK have a regular plan where you're not limited to 'fair use' now. It all depends on what their limits are and what they do to you when you go over it that matters. The ones where they limit you to less than what you could leech using a damn dialup modem are the worst offenders. How is that broadband?
- borez, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5I use Bethere. I pay £22/month for it, but I do what I want, when I want.
And that's fine by me. - turpialito, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5I completely agree. Much like governments laying down clean water pipes of a given capacity and then assume population will never grow or making narrow roads just because they're cheaper. Telcos are assuming they can milk their infrastructure at will without ever needing to expand its capacity.
What pisses me off is supposedly you're paying for an always-on, fixed bandwith internet service. Period. Why, then, should a telco tell me how to use the aforementioned service? It's their responsibility to keep up the service I'm paying for. - Andocromn, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5I'm So Sick of ISPs bitching about their CUSTOMERS using the service that is supposed to be PROVIDED. If Your Customers are PAYING for a Service it should be provided. Internet Users want to use p2p protocols and if an ISPs network can't handle the needs of their CUSTOMERS they should upgrade their network or stop claiming to be Internet Service Provider. Like it or not p2p is a part of that Internet that is supposed to be provided, and blocking p2p protocols is a disservice to your customers.
- NikoKun, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5I know right...
Is giving us more speed, like they have in other countries... Really THAT out of the question? -_- - Harbinger1080, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5that sounds like a net neutrality issue to me... if Apple does a deal with the ISP but say, Amazon doesn't, they're going to be influencing which providers get to do business.
and consider the smaller content providers who produce quite a bit of streaming or HD content... they get totally screwed in something like this.
it's like... ISPs have been pushing faster speeds for years, and now that people are starting to sign up, they're changing the rules. i hate to throw this term around, because it's oh-so-abused, but that sounds like bait and switch. - Butters757, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4*sniff* That was... beautiful.
- CoZzMiX, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4The Problem is that the ISP's advertise speeds that they can't deliver to all there customers at once, The answer is to weight for the infrastructure to catch up before Introducing higher speed packages and offer those packages to people who want them at a workable price. They should all be prosecuted for misrepresentation when they cap or traffic manage connections.
- mattearle, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5This time I think its different. ISPs actually control the valve attached to the pipe that connects you to the Internet. Unlike all the other idiots that want to control what you watch/download (RIAA, MPAA etc) your ISP is actually in a good position to directly control the flow of information.
This is why you need to be extra vigilant and fight the privacy intrusions that come along with this. Another good thing is that if they get in the business of "controlling what you download" that means they have lots of unwanted responsibility with no financial benefit.
Fight this one hard, it's important. - dOOBiEx213, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Virgin needs to change their name... they ***** everyone in the ass.
- inactive, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5I hope they don't go on inventing another blunder.
- megamod, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4lol..."Thus, when a popular new movie hits the Web for legal download,"
I don't think this method of optimizing p2p applies to 99% of bitTorrenting that goes on - greevar, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5I would say it's more like getting a slice of pie. Then after a few bites, they want you to put it back in the pie so others can have some pie. If there isn't enough pie to go around, MAKE MOAR PIE!
- scabbers, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Ah yeah, London is much better.
- acceleriter, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Nice spam, almost subtle. Also, the VPN service would be useless for torrenting. From the TOS:
Miscellaneous
User agrees to remain signed into the network only when actually making use of same, and to disconnect when idle for significant periods of time (more than 10 minutes). User also agrees to not remain connected to Zercurity LLC's system for periods exceeding (5) five hours, in any single continuous session. User authorizes Zercurity LLC to enforce these restrictions by appropriate software and network measures, automated and manual.
Also a nice snippet from the "privacy" policy:
No Confidentiality
Information transmitted through Zercurity LLC and through the Internet in general is not confidential. While it is in the best interest of Zercurity LLC, we can not and shall not guarantee privacy or protection of any User. - smotpoker1, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4You are dumber than a box of rocks . I hope when you get home your mother runs out from under the porch and bites you.
- borez, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3FTR: Bethere is a nationwide company
- smotpoker1, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3***** you comcast
- justice7, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Premium Newsgroup provider + SSL ... there is no comparison.
- supermanred, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3...or charge us a FAIR price for additional bandwidth?
FAIR...lol what am I thinking these are huge corporations, fair price has nothing to do with them. - Shuk, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Damnit this industry needs competition!
- Cirieno, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Which is, for EVERY petition on that site that I have signed:
"No. We know best, and there's no point moaning now about decisions we made a year ago. Now f**k off."
I am paraphrasing, of course. Mostly. - greevar, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Dammit they're, not their. Damn the internetz! You've ruined my grammar!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 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