What is Digg?56 Comments
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -8/+49When the Christian Coaltion and moveon.org folks have teamed up, it's fairly obvious that everyone agrees on essentially the right thing and it's so painfully obvious that anyone against net neutrality can be nothing but a shill.
Sure the details of IPv6, VOIP, and IPTV need certain protocols for routing and good legislation to make sure they don't screw up the traffic, but telcoms wanting packet sniffing and the leeway to discriminate based on the location or origination of the traffic is obviously corporate double dipping (extortion) and nothing more. Anyone who claims the "market" will fix that conveniently ignores the history of the phone, cable, and cellular industries. - laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Lobbyists will eventually destroy Net Neutrality. When lobbyists and politicians get together, they gang-bang the interests of the citizenry - time and time again.
Money talks. It sucks. ***** the so-called 'free market' - it's code for 'the interests of the rich, and the rich alone'. It's corporate fascism. - Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I can't believe we're on the same side as the Christian Coalition *shudders*
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Telecom uses infra-structure that is paid for by the people like it was their private property, paying ludicrously small taxes for the privilege. Then they sell their service to us, plus more hefty taxes.
It's like that across many sectors. - jsleno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It's like watching the end of Terminator 2 all over again...
The original AT&T monopoly was shattered into pieces long ago. Now the pieces have melted and re-assembled again, and all it seems we did was piss it off and make it more greedy.
I'm all for a multi-tiered system, as long as each level is very clearly defined and regulated. When I hear a telecom CEO already laying claim to "his pipes", and getting ready to charge for passage through them, I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I thought they were getting paid for "their pipes" anyway by the end users and ISPs that pay for access. - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You mean like when the Government tried to break up AT&T:
http://www.mypartypost.com/watchflashbig/4461/Stephen_Colbert-_Explains_the_New_Cell_Phone_Monopoly
;) - bobcatred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5LOL
Clearly the C&TA's propaganda didn't do it's job, if even the Christian Coalition thinks it's crap.
This still cracks me up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPIYxtjLFeI - j4200, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Umm, you guys realize that net neutrality actually means that packets on the net are all treated equally. In this aspect the net has a neutral opinion on content being distributed across it. I would've read you opinions had they started out correct.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7bryanedds = "fake grass roots support"
Remember this for when you see him comment on this in future. - MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The term "corporate fascism" is facile and meaningless. No corporation controls what you do or say like a government can."
The corporations that control the internet can control what I do or say on the internet much better than the government can. At least the government is bound by the Constitution. - msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Same side but for different reasons.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ghoti
"Allies"? I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I'm aware in real life, pretty much all shades of technical opinion, from the windows lover for life to the strong advocate of Freedom and interoperability are *for* net neutrality in the same way as they're *for* not having their computer thrown from a 3rd storey window.
I see a really narrow commercial benefit for some parties in the short term. I see that just like anybody else does, but technologically, it's obviously a huge step backwards.
"Allies", "enemies" and indifferent, there's no technologically positive argument presented against net neutrality by any of them, as it's pretty much technologically desirable for all people using the resources that we maintain net neutrality, sort of like it's more technologically desirable to have computers that can be powered up.
All I see on the "other side" are posts full of weird spin trying to associate "Net neutrality" with "fascism" - full of opinions that are just nowhere to be seen in the real world. - msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hahaha. Bound by the constitution my ass.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It isn't a free market because government has ***** around with it so much. They should fix that problem, not try and paint over it with this political buzzword. The LAST thing the internet needs is government intervention, it was intervention that ***** up the telecoms before by monopolising it! Why do you think they are magicians? They ***** everything up and the internet will be the next thing.
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4When am I going to get a 10mbps line?
His pipes, his pipes? The American people FUNDED those pipes to the tune of 200 billion dollars with the promise of 10mbps to customers houses. I am still waiting. - kurtwinter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How much would bandwidth be worth if it weren't for Youtube and bittorrent? The original Napster was a huge motivator for many to move to broadband. There has to be a demand on broadband service to make it valuable to consumers and in turn to content providers. These infrastructure providers already make money reselling their network to their partners who are the ISP's for you and me. They can go and ***** themselves if they think they can ask me for more money to access services or if they think they can extort money out of Google.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here is the Acid Test:
Never mind "net neutrality" for a moment:
If you are for STRUCTURAL SEPARATION you are a GOOD GUY.
If you are against STRUCTURAL SEPARATION you are a telecom carrier shill.
What is structural separation? It means taking the wires away from the service providers and making an equal-access wholesale market in bandwidth, which can then be retailed to the user on whatever terms are agreeable.
This is the hardcore form of Net Neutrality: change the whole game so there is no incentive to ***** with captive customers.
Oh, and Whitacre should hang for his crime of selling Americans out to NSA monitoring. Biggest. Douchbag. Ever. - ender30043, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Just like how the Telecom companies felt they owned the phone lines when the telephone first came out. It lasted until the government realized it was in the public interest to publicly regulate the phone lines.
- deabyss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Anyone who thinks the free market will always force the big corps to implement a neutral network anything needs to look at the cell phone industry as an example. The cell phone industry's networks are walled gardens with some networks making you pay for their ring tones and all double dip on your money (in Europe and South America, only the caller pays for the calls on cell phones).
The cable and telecom companies want a walled garden for the Internet as well. And Net Neutrality would prevent them from creating wall gardens. People who look at the extortion fees that the ISPs will charge is only looking at phase one. What you will have is a scenario where ATT makes a deal with iFilm to stream their videos at the highest tier while making that bandwidth tier unavailable to Youtube. How is the free market going to help you when ATT is your only provider of Internet? Or do a role reversal. With Google's money, they could stomp out the competition by creating contracts with the ISPs that give them access to a tier no one else can buy, stomping out competition.
Net Neutrality just makes sense. - campo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2North Dakota leading the future of the internet, bet none of you saw that coming, w00t!
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"If both extremes are for it, it must be right" is a convenient and common fallacy. What about everyone else in the middle? Yes, both extremes can be wrong -- I might go so far as to say they usually are. Just because group A and group Z are for something, doesn't mean groups B-Y should stand down.
In any case, what's REALLY obvious from listening to both sides is that they don't have any idea what Dorgan-Snowe would actually do. The Christian Coalition seems to think if net neutrality laws aren't passed, someone will tell them what they can and cannot send out across the Internet. Maybe that's because they lost their tax-free status for doing political work under religious auspices some years ago, they think this is the same thing? Because I guarantee you they don't know the first thing about traffic shaping or packet-switching.
If you want to count clueless allies as your best argument, knock yourself out. - lovedoct99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4All i know is that we as a country are in a sad state indeed. I currently fight for my county overseas and with the end of my enlistment coming up, i am torn as to whether i should re-enlist or move to Sweden. All the political garbage that this country has had to endure, and all the fat cats in Washington looking out for themselves over the American people....it just makes me sick. When companies like Halliburtin and our own officers can screw over us troops and still make bank(A four star general averages about $15k a month) and we work for piss poor wages with a neat little $50 Hostile Fire bonus.
To tell you the truth, i don't see how having the government have more control over the Internet would be a good thing. From my many years in service, i have grown to understand how corrupt and manipulative our government is. We take every chance we can to get ahead of everyone else, and when busted blame it on some smuck who carried a false document from one office to the next for us.
I truly believe that the Internet should be free to anything and everything(Except for those damn email spammers) and education is the real freedom. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bryanedds (#6389579)
I won't pretend to match your eloquence in political ideology. All I can tell you is I'm speaking from a realistic point of view about the state of our economy and the importance of the free internet. I do see the current scope of our bureaucracy and the wealth of private business--and the possibilities for corruption by both sides. I also see the necessity and good of both sides. Therefore, I formed my opinion on this current situation--individual freedom, yet the structure of organized government. And I see what I believe is a common public good in a complex world, a common carrier, and wish it to protected as such. In my opinion, in the common sense of the word, America is long way off from fascism. Regardless, America isn't going to radically change anytime soon, so I don't care how you define it or me. I'm only interested in what can realistically be done right now and I comment here and other places in a small way to help influence what's being done.
bryanedds, you'd make a great professor, politician or debater, I'm sure, but all I'm concerned about debating is the realistic future of net legislation and/or the impact of a privately controlled internet on our current society. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v19/19HarvJLTech001.pdf
A real study of net neutrality. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1QoS has always proved to be more expensive to implement than adding more bandwidth.
Or look at it this way: QoS only works if there is some slack in the bandwidth. Therefore, even with QoS, you have to add bandwidth or QoS fails. Which is why customers are rightly skeptical of paying for QoS. - bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4There is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly. Only government can create monopolies. That is what it has done here.
- AmidTheSnow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4745
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4731 - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OK, I'll bite on ghoti's nonsensical twists of truth begging for corrections. If the main argument against net neutrality is as ghoti says, "retard investment in new broadband and form an unacceptable limitation of private sector business," then the anti-crowd doesn't have a leg to stand on. Consider this: AT&T and Verizon are massively expanding currently, making huge profits, and all with the current digital rights and market conditions: http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2007/04/23/daily18.html and http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199201063 Investment and growth is stronger than ever (nearly saturated, which is what really worries the big business crowd) so protecting net neutrality with laws against digital discrimination will only stop telcoms from routing based on source or author, not interfere with investment at all. From a neutral net perspective, VOIP is VOIP, email is email, IPTV is IPTV. It doesn't matter where it comes from or who's asking for it. And it won't matter next year or 10 years from now. And it won't matter to the telcoms who own the infrastructure or the ISPs who route the packets. They still charge their fees, upgrade and innovate; profit and compete in the market.
Secondly, the kowtowing to libertarians with the "unacceptable limitations of private sector business" is an admirable, yet wholly academic and unrealistic point. In what facet of modern economy--in any country on Earth--are there not limitations on business? The answer is it doesn't exist. Zero. Na-da. Every organized free market has rules to protect the buyer and incentives to help the seller. The role of governments has been to decide where those rules should fall in order to continue the success and spirit of the market and to benefit the most people. "No big government!" is a hardline rallying cry that makes a lot of fundamental sense and should be a consistent ideal in America, but where we're at now, with respect to the scope of our modern bureaucracy, the realistic view is that we have to pick and choose the smart laws. Protecting net neutrality would be a smart law because it benefits the people.
Finally, as I said in my original comment, everyone with the one liners against net neutrality are still ignoring the histories of the cable, phone, and cellular industries. They are monopolies, with prejudiced pricing schemes (cell phones that push their own ringtone companies, limited access to channels based on partnerships, individual fees for everyday services), and each of these industries developed without protection. As time goes by, laws break them up, stop certain fees, force dissemination of consumer information, and try to control them after the fact. So the access to all those services is strictly controlled by each company providing the service. That's not the internet. The great thing about the intent and current protocols of the internet is that it's end-to-end unrestrictive and it's quality of service doesn't change based on the origination of the bytes. It's not about economy, it's about the packets being treated equally. - pebcake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The government shoud not interfere in FREE markets. When you have monopoly, the government exists to break it up, or regulate it. If it is a natural monopoly, the monopoly must be regulated, or the government must become the monopoly.
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Whitacre should hang for his crime"
Not only I can't believe you wrote this, I can't believe you were dugg up for it. Goes to show how immature and hateful the pro-"neutrality" side can be. - NoNameHere, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Don't spam posts. Ever.
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's so sad that so many people don't even know that what is being advocated is fascism. They have been taught in government schools that fascism is somehow the result of a free-market. But this is so horribly incorrect and intellectually corrupt as to make it difficult for me to even write on the subject.
Fascism is not just a term you use for people who you disagree with. It is a specific economic term, and it does have a useful and spcific definition. It describes a society where business are regulated by the state for the what is called the "common good". Fascism originated as a "third-way" between classical liberalism (a completely lassaiz-faire free market) and communism. Fascism is where people still own private property in title, but have only a compromised amount of control of that property. This applies most significantly to small businesses and industry. Fascism originally gained popularity because it was supposed to be the best of both worlds - one world being the productivity of a free economy, the other being the "socially-responsibility" of a government-managed economy.
Ironically somehow, this is exactly the type of system, in EVERY WAY, that we have in America today. This is the most POPULAR ideology among Americans today as well. America IS a fascist country, applying the word as it is rightfully and originally defined. The problem is that noone is willing to admit it. Republicans, AND especially Democrats, are very big fascists. It's a simple definitional truth. Perhaps that's why the definition of fascism has been conveniently forgotten over the latter half of the 20th century.
I just ask that the people who are fascists admit as much. If you're a fascist, then just be a fascist. Be you! If you believe in the third-way between a free market and a government-managed market, then you should have no trouble calling yourself a fascist. Yes, it has negative connotations, and noone likes negative connotations, but you would sooner call a propponent of lassaiz faire a fascist before you even realize the sheer intellecutal bankruptcy of your statement. Perhaps it simple ignorance of history, perhaps it's denial, perhaps it's something else entirely. But fascism is fascism, and no amount of projecting that onto your opponents will change that.
Consider that fascism has negative connotations for a reason. The results of this "third-way" idology have been horribly destructive. Fascism and communism seemed to be competing for how many millions of people could be destroyed in the 20th century. But the collective memory of these results have been largely erased by somehow creating a disconnect between the definition of fascism and the word itself.
If you have an ideology, then you should stand by that ideology, and accept being connect to the past consequences of that ideology. It is impermissible for an intellectual to hide behind the blanket of collective ignorance to push his ideology. At least libertarians have no qualms about their connections with the ideology of libertarianism and the past perceived consequences thereof. Fascists need to stop calling themselves progressives, liberals, and the left. These terms were originally belonged to the lassaiz-faire people you know as libertarians today. Don't ever call a libertarian a fascist. And don't ever call yourself anything but. - pebcake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1While ISPs need not be monopolies, laying and maintaining cable and communications networks do lend themselves naturally towards monopoly. Your Mises LOL position is correct in the sense that it's the government's regulation of who can dig up land that creates this situation, but you know that's not going to change anytime soon.
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1misterpony, you are quite incorrect on the purpose of government in my opinion.
The real purpose of government is to take one problem that exists in nature and turn it into two problems. Then take those two problems and turn them into four. Then take those four and turn them into eight. And so on until there is no sector of society that is not completely regulated and regimented by the state. This is the end result of the fascist thinking.
The alternative to this is to realize, through a study of economics ( http://www.mises.org ) that government cannot actually solve a problem without creating two in its stead. Through a study of economics you come to know how a free, unregulated, non-fascist society is self-organizing, self-sustaining, and prosperous. You learn that freedom is the mother of order, not the other way around.
Only then will you have the intellectual capability to say "no, the people can run their own lives, and don't need to be managed by governemnt here, there, or anywhere." And if enough of us do it, then we just make have our freedom again someday. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Net neutrality can get *****.
What we really need is competition in the Internet connectivity market place! - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Learn about the telecom bust in 2001-2002. Where were the consumers then?
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What can I say about being dugg down?
The majority of the people who live in a fascist society do not know what causes their society to be as such. If they did know why, they wouldn't be living in one...
You people think you can reign in the tyranny of the big-government / big-corporation complex by giving yet MORE power to government? Have you ever of the term "useful idiots"? - ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@BlackadderIII
Look elsewhere in this thread. Some of your allies are crying "fascism" too. I don't agree with Edds on the Fascism thing, but he's got a point. This is the government stepping in and telling private citizens how they may and may not use their own infrastructure.
And for anyone who says "but the taxpayers paid for it!" yes, taxpayers paid for some of it, but the telcos have also invested billions in new fiber, especially in the last mile, which is where the real action is these days. By analogy: Let's say you accepted welfare years ago. Should the government be able to tell you what you do with your property in the future? Surely not. Telecom was once heavily regulated, is now deregulated. It's not the same industry. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Let me be the first to say that by arguing against net neutrality this early on in the thread and in this way, you've revealed yourself to basically be a shill.
"NET NEUTRALITY IS FASCISM!!!"
Haha that's priceless - comeone really picked the wrong cretin for this little "campaign" in you.
What's next? Net neutrality is racism? Net neutrality is paedophilia? Oh no wait - net neutrality is terrorism, I expect. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Joost is screwed if net neutrality zealots get their way
http://www.joost.com/
Their biggest problem is no guaranteed QoS - ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Just say no to MORE government. :)
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Here's another amusing YouTube video on net neutrality, from the side of the skeptics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFurcOLYAjk
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Well written bryanedds. It is a pity most people cannot follow more than one sentence of logic. It is for the same reason that most politicians get elected. They say they will do something (which is about a sentence or two,) but they do not think of the real consequences.
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Fascist digg down liberty. They know no other way. They don't even know they're fascists...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2YEa thats what we need: another huge elitist bureaucracy claiming to 'regulate for fairness'.
WARNING:.
YOUR WORDS ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THE INTERNET ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES CODE (BLAHBLAHBLAH) BASED ON US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE Blah, blah-BLAH-BLAH, ***** BLAH. IN USING THE INTERNET YOU SIGNED FORM (*****) WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR INTERNET SERVICE AND ARTICLE 5.(3)(G) STATES THAT INAPPROPRIATE AND UNAMERICAN SPEECH AND DISSENT IS NOT ALLOWED ON FEDERALLY CONTROLLED MEDIA. YOU MAY START YOUR OWN LAN HOOKING TWO COMPUTERS TOGETHER IN YOUR OFFICE IF YOU WISH TO SHARE THIS UNACCEPTABLE POLITICAL DISSENT: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. HOWEVER, IF YOU ATTACH A ROUTER OR MODEM OF ANY KIND TO THE FEDERAL ARPA/INTERNET SYSTEM WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SEND
CREW CUT HAVING, PEDOPHILE MUSTACH THIRD RATE LOW INTELLIGENCE GOVERNMENT SOCIOPATHS AND THUGS, BACK FROM MURDERING PEOPLE IN FOREIGN WARS, TO YOUR HOUSE TO EXECUTE YOU ON T.V. IN FRONT OF YOUR FAMILY.
THIS FOOTAGE SHALL BE FREE TO BE PLACED ON THE INTERNET TO SHOW OTHERS HOW FREE SPEECH IS MAINTAINED AND SO THEY CAN KNOW THAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS BEING ZEALOUSLY PROTECTED BY THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
GOTTA GET CONTROL OVER THAT PESKY INTERNET FREE SPEECH AND BUSINESS. THAT'S UNAMERICAN and will DESTROY THE VERY FOUNDATION OF PROPER SPEECH AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON. - lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Well said!
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1but..but... the market will sort it out and make it fair and cheap for everyone.....
/dontunderstandlife - ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1The market used to be unfree -- it used to be heavily regulated. The telecom industry has spent years trying to crawl out from under that, and we're finally getting there.
The term "corporate fascism" is facile and meaningless. No corporation controls what you do or say like a government can. Governments can be fascist, but corporations can just be *****. So organize a boycott or put up competition. In the case of telecom, keep pursuing those community wifi projects. See if Google will provide wireless for your city.
It's a free country. Anyone who says it's not is exaggerating the things they don't like for political gain. Period. - Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -16/+12I am fully in support of Net Neuterality. That's where we castrate everyone who actively uses MySpace, right?
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5What's a fascist?
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=536&sortorder=articledate -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
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