What is Digg?38 Comments
- chewbie, on 04/16/2008, -1/+23this is not the time for compromises! Bandwidth will only grow. Net neutrality should be supported 100%
- smacksaw, on 04/16/2008, -4/+25Sell us the connection
Guarantee us the speed
Get the ***** out of our way
Comcast can't support net neutrality as long as they use their internet to cram PPV and stupid channels we don't want up our asses. That means abandoning their technology. If net neutrality became a law their whole cable tv content delivery system would not only be illegal, but other cable companies could sell movies via Comcast's pipeline. That's the ***** we need to excise from the internet. - kimballj, on 04/16/2008, -1/+12This article is full of dumb ideas...
1.let's dynamically drop frames from bittorrent video transfers during low motion scenes (i.e. remove data). Let's say you can remove 10% of the information without making a "noticeable" difference: so seed 1 has 100% of the video, then leecher 1 gets 90%...now leecher 2 gets 1/2 from seeder 0 (45%) and half from leecher 1 (40.5%)...after a few more hops you end up with no data. So reducing bandwidth by removing "unimportant data" doesn't work in any type of distribution network. Also, you can bet your ass that the videos I'm downloading have already been compressed extremely well...so there is no unnecessary data to remove, that's the whole point of compression.
2. Let's change the way you download your video from bittorrent and put different priorities on different regions of the video (i.e. lowest priority are the credits)...so now it takes longer to download the video but that's supposed to be ok because the end part took the longest? Well do you even KNOW how bittorrent works? It optimizes for the best total horde throughput, assuming that the order in which you download is unimportant. Now you're going to make the order important, and you don't think it will degrade the performance of the horde? So you're degrading the efficiency of the distribution of data as a whole, AND you're putting lower priority for transferring the data for parts of the video (i.e. making the whole process take longer)?
Well, maybe #2 wouldn't be so bad. I've often thought that they should modify bittorrent so that video files download sections of the beginning earlier so that you get enough to start watching it, then let the rest finish in a horde-friendly way...I do tend to download 30 minute TV shows in under 5 minutes.
But, I still don't agree with any ISP regulating how my data flows. Like others have said, give me a monthly price for a fixed connection speed and leave it at that. - eavesdrop, on 04/16/2008, -1/+11Comcast's double-talk and lies are sickening.
- grexeo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+10I can't believe people are actually digging this. (Unless those people work for the network operators...)
While I understand the argument of the network providers, the "collaboration" would result in a single organization deciding what's best for the network operators, not the internet. It's just violation of Net Neutrality but worded in such a way that you feel sorry for the network operators. Make no mistake, any kind of centralized dictatorship on such a low level would ruin the internet as we know it. - StephenCIreland, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8sir, the beige light is blinking...
- laserblazer, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7Strong words, but blaming people who download software is a bit like blaming the neighbors' kids for jumping on your unsecured trampoline.
Freedom of information is the best way to fight the artificial scarcification of knowledge. - Raiku, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Too Neutral? Neutral is only one position. Even if you are more or less you are still equivalent to being "just" neutral.
- crackedlogic, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6This is a very simple problem, you can't make people pay full price for something and give them half of what they paid for. I don't know why this is even a conversation.
- vincentweber, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Buried for questioning the importance of the free flow of information of the web. Shame on everyone who dugg this article!
- esaun, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7I hate these filthy neutrals! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me.
- Zaggynl, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5THE INTERNET, IS NOT A BIG TRUCK
- ozydingo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Not all of us have that option.
- arcooke, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6I remember a few years back someone on a usenet board calling Comcast "Comcrap". I thought it was just another angry customer or whatever. I ended up going with Comcast as my next ISP because they had the best speed:price ratio. It was fine for about 6 months.. and for the rest of the 6 months I was chained down to their contract, I was indescribably disappointed with my service. Since then, the only ISP I've found to be worse than Comcast in all areas, is Time Warner/Roadrunner. Mind you, this is way before the whole bandwidth throttling shenanigans, probably around 2003.
Both of those companies need to wake the ***** up and realize their money is not first priority. It's their customers that give them that money, which makes US first priority. Without us, they are nothing. - eclectro, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5I think we should argue this after the telcos have upgraded the infrastructure that tax breaks have already paid for and everyone has fiber. Otherwise we are arguing whether one person gets to go down the dry dirt road while the lessers go down the muddy one.
- WTFppl, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Those who think Net-Neutrality has "outlived its usefulness", have out-lived their usefulness!
- drakethegreat, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Precisely because their whole argument is that we can't provide the service we sold to our customers because certain customers actually use that service as advertised so we want to cut them off so that others might not notice how much we've oversold...
- rz8472, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Comcast Inc. is to internet providers what 4Kids Entertainment is to Japanese kids' shows.
- str3ama, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Comcast, AT&T and Rogers are the worst offenders, raping Internet users at every turn.
- galleryfront, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3What does this mean? -- "But if the two can find a way to collaborate, the Internet will work better for everybody." How, on THE Flying Spaghetti Monster's green Earth would bowing to Comcast make the internet any better? All that the U.S. form of internet regulation has brought is a comparably slower backbone and crappier node connections. Entities like Comcast should provide a) that which we pay for and b) what they promised they would by taking our tax dollars that Gore's bill (and other bills that gave tax breaks and subsidies) provided. And to bl4h, IT ISN'T PIRATES who may be to blame, it's the same five corporations that own a bulk of the media, from internet, t.v., production studios, all the way down to the M.P.A.A. itself! You think they want companies like Netflix to provide movies over "THEIR" wire (even tho' they took money from the government that, in essence, made it "OUR" wire [in a way])? Absolutely not. EVERYONE who uses the internet should support a completely Neutral Net, along with change-congress.org to insure against a potential future of greed-provoked and shoddy legislation of (one of) our last remaining completely free voice(s).
- Navicerts, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1By digging this I don't consider it a vote in favor or against net neutrality. It is simply information that effects the industry.
- ozydingo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1"A little information about the data they're ferrying, Chiang argues, could help network operators manage congestion better. He points out, for example, that the BitTorrent transfers that tend to consume the most bandwidth are video files. But not all frames of video are created equal. Some contain information that will stay fairly constant throughout a scene. Other frames, however, describe minor modifications that occur over time, and these can occasionally be dropped without disrupting the viewing experience. Chiang and his colleagues have created some videos comparing the results of congestion management techniques that selectively drop some frames of video."
Is he talking about streaming video here? You can't just decide to drop frames of a video file that someone is downloading. And would processing all files as they get transfered really help to speed things up any? - ccanni1028, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Plus, no matter who your ISP is it's almost guaranteed that Comcast owns some of the pipeline somewhere that your content is traveling through. Therefore, it is getting filtered.
- Noods, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2If we give the government the authority to decide how traffic should be passed they will assume the authority to legislate anything about the internet. The truth is, we as consumers could force change within Comcast if we just told them to stick the service up their asses until they guarenteed neutrality. We could take the company down if we wanted to. That is a much better option then asking the government (which is excellent at planning) to force this change for us.
Power to the people, not the government. - camino262, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1That is nice and all but it will take another revision of the IP protocol in the OSI stack, unless IPV6 has room in their headers to allow for this "tagging" of packets. One thing that does bother me is that someone's movie could take priority over me loading a web page such as digg (or if comcast has their way vise versa).
- lenach, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Greed
- laserblazer, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Software and music, I should say; I generally invoke the spirit of the Attractive Nuisance laws on this subject.
- warchildbosnia, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Comcast sucks. I like the lack of logic they used. How can anyone be against net neutrality? It's beyond me!
Buried. - IceOfDiamonds, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0also, ***** regulation
- IceOfDiamonds, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0***** YOU! I should be able to do whatever the ***** i please on the internet. Keep your eyes, and your opinions OFF my ***** thoughts and my right to act upon them on the internet. ***** the FCC, ***** the RIAA, ***** any internet authoritarian.
Anyone who thinks differently can go ***** themselves. - bbliss17, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Stupid Comcast!
- Scheissen, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1***** Net Neutrality.
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -4/+3man you are ***** dumb. You guys have no idea what your talking about.
- smbrower, on 04/16/2008, -9/+5if the RIAA gets anymore over-abusing power something will die inside
- elitistmusician, on 04/16/2008, -9/+4***** THE RIAA!
WAIT! I MEAN, ***** THE FCC! - inactive, on 04/16/2008, -12/+3Simple solution don't use Comcast. I switched to Qwest.
Whats wrong with all u bitchers? - inactive, on 04/16/2008, -11/+1Thanks for this, pirates. Ill be thanking you when i pay $40 for a tighter contract and a handful of gigs, because of your complaints and theivery
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is