What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
36 Comments
- bobbybobington, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Net Neutrality needs all the help, and attention it can get! DIGG++
- phore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Net neutrality is what makes the internet so great. Getting rid of it can ruin the internet.
- TheIguana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Stupid politicians trying to regulate things they DO NOT understand!
Iggy :( - jrmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Not to be offensive but our real problem are people with your attitude. I am tired of this "we can't affect anything" bs. If all the apathetic people such as yourself would stand up and call/write to people in power they would start to get the idea. We can still affect things in the gov't, but if the public stays with the "there is nothing I can do" motto, it will eventually become true.
I have already written a letter and sent it in to my congressman. You should too, you never know it could help. And if it doesn't at least you know you did something. :)
Also some of these companies can and will benefit from this. If you are currently the only one that can pay the extortion fees, then you are the only one people will see. The others will then fail and you will have a monopoly. Sure some have talked tough but I am not convinced that is just PR work.
[/rant] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9the politicians understand perfectly. Who's going to put more money in their pockets, who's going to make this a voting issue?
Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Ebay, Amazon, and all of the other goliath content providers are slacking off like a bunch of potheads.
And the people? Well most people barely know the difference between DSL and Cable.. and you expect them to make this a decision worth voting over?
Look.. i'll fight and bitch right along side of all of you and do what i can, but unless the content providers get their ***** together, this is a hopeless battle. - greywren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Lobbying Congress is tough game to play, and the telcos have plenty of experience (and money) driving their agenda forward in Washington. Google, on the other hand, just opened a lobbying office about a month ago:
http://digg.com/technology/Google_builds_up_influence_in_Washington
I think it'll be a while before major content providers get a comparable amount of influence on lawmakers that telcos have. All the more important that ordinary citizens contact their elected representatives and give to the EFF (which also lobbies Congress). - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Write you're Congressional Rep, and Senators. the only way the telcos won't win is if enough people get pissed off enough to speak out.
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/letter.html
"The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality?" - DEFSMAC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i bet they will make a point to understand it if they pass this law and then they try to use google at home and it is as slow as hell 'cause google won't pay their telcos extortion fee.
- B4202, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Don't stereotype; there are many awake and unselfish individuals out here, on digg and elsewhere that are only interested in protecting everybody's basic freedoms and sharing these wherever and whenever allowable with or without the "consent" or cooperation of governments and corporate entities..."Freedom ain't worth nothin' but it's free" {this is supposed to be in response to hasanahmad}
- NetJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4End users in the united states really need to take note of this. It has the potential to kill companies like Vonage, cripple services like video conferencing, and peer to peer. It's hard to overestimate the impact of malicious Quality of Service settings.
You already see some rare cases where phone companies want to block Vonage. This has the potential to expand to on-line video, voice, file-sharing, for anyone who's traffic transits AT&T, SBC, or Verizon. That's more than half the Country. In the southern United States large areas have no other option for Internet service.
The flip side is they would lose a fortune in Internet service costs if the large businesses start biasing their traffic to avoid their backbones, and those companies DO have options.
I could go on, but this is already long enough and borders on a rant. The bottom line is Internet delivered services will become less diverse and more expensive inside the United States without Net Neutrality. - Sequence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Could you please remember me when the "people on digg" said something like that?
Thanks! - shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is just a guess, but I think they don't want to be seen as politically associated to anything.
- XxN3RDC0R3xX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just read the article, it gives a basic rundown of the two sides.
- gschoots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dugg to death, still I am amazed that companies even get the idea that carving away at net neutrality is a valid way to gain profit. Living in Europe might be not so bad at all, at least because all the local interests tend to drive a common sense of distrust in large corporations.... ( See European Parliament vs Microsoft )
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Was back when the UN started murmuring about wanting to take control of ICAM or whatever it was.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2'Save the Internet'....digg article,with excellent comments.
http://digg.com/users/WaterDragon/homepage - Randy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For anyone that is still confused...
Here's a video explaining net neutrality: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/307
And here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wise Weasel,
I personally loathe the idea of "TV network affiliates for the new century". TV is an old *centralized* communication medium, where a few studios in New York and LA control everything we see. The Internet is not created this way - and that is one of it's strenghts. Giving into established telco monopolies and letting them create these tollbooths will slowly reduce the end to end nature of the Internet and allow for the rich/elite to be the ones "speaking" on the Internet, while the remainder of us will be mired in the slow lanes. What incentive would AT&T have for keeping their non-premium lines up to par? If the next digg were to setup shop - they'd need to pay a premium to get on the fast lanes otherwise people would get time outs and be unable to reliably visit the site. So this barrier of entry would make it much much more difficult for new innovative companies to use the Internet. This is really all about control. Who controls the backbone, the traffic and the on-off ramps would control the Internet.
I could care LESS about IPTV. I left TV long ago because I was sick of the same dull crap they put out. The Internet on the other hand is much more than that - web, usenet, irc, blogging, etc - it's all about TWO-WAY communication. AT&T can take their IPTV and shove it.
What I'd like to see is our government (perhaps the groups that are managing Internet2) to create an federal network infrastructure - something like our Interstate system. That system would not segregate who could or could not use the network. It would be intelligently managed, and kept up to date. But I realize I am dreaming. Cities are trying to do this to a certain degree with municipal broadband - and we've seen the "stellar" reaction from the telco ***** on that.
Network Neutrality is VITAL. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"tbh, I dont understand it either... anyone wanna explain both sides of argument?
All aspects of the issue were thoroughly discussed in 'Save the Internet', on front page just about 24 hours ago - Beej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A lot of people on digg say a lot of things.
Nothing matters except what most of them say. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I realize that large ISPs are very interested in making a big power grab, and this would shift some more power into the hands of ISPs, as they would control access to content as well.
Actually, in some ways, it's not all that different from what we have now. Let's look at Comcast. They offer cable internet and digital cable, even bundling the two at a discount. In a way, that's exactly like how the tiered system would work. Content distributors (TV networks) buy hosting from Comcast (inclusion into their cable TV service) and guaranteed service to Comcast's customers. Then, Comcast also offers outside content, in their broadband cable internet service. All I'm proposing is to combine the two, and shift the TV side onto TCP/IP, and just provide net hosting at guaranteed speeds to all their internet service subscribers. The regular internet still has a lot of value, and Comcast would suffer if they weren't competitive with other ISPs in that regard. I still don't see a problem with ISPs being able to offer the service of guaranteed bandwidth to their subscribers though, as there's no other way, with the way the internet is constructed, to guarantee content delivery.
I'm just against even more government regulation over something politicians, and obviously even the more tech-minded people on this site, have no understanding of. I just don't want to see some good new technologies and services become impossible because of some idealistic short-sighted legislation. Let's just think about the implications before be get all gung-ho about "protecting freedom" or whatever you think you're doing... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you want my honest take on it. Lobbying should be illegal. Donation of coporate money to our governmnet should be a felony.
Real people matter more than legal persons.
And by the way... i write my senators and representatives weekly over the issue, My blog: http://rabbl3rous3r.blogspot.com/ asks others to as well. I vote in every local, state, congressional, and presidential election. Normally green, libertarian or independent. I also sit in on Green and Libertarian primaries.
I'm just being realistic. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2dumping net neutrality is another way of saying.... "we will tell you if you can put content on the internet."
- motorhappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some things I've been reading say that another reason congressmen have been reluctant to vote this in is that many are fear public fallout for voting any new internet bills into law. Since many don't understand the depth of this issue they are unsure which is the politically safest way to vote. That's why it's really important to shoot your respective representatives a quick email letting them know how you feel. I would avoid form letters from organizations with well known political stances.
- Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wise weasel,
You advocate such an idealistic outcome when time and time again, we have all come to realize that this is simply about money and power.
The fact is that they charge consumers what the market will bear, and aren't content with that.
The fact is that they charge businesses what the market will bear, and aren't content with that.
We pay them, businesses pay them, and they want more. They always want more. Some call it growth, and in many cases it is, but this is pure greed and a power grab.
The beauty of the internet is that it is like the sewer system in that everyone can get connected, except that the content is the complete opposite. It is a heaven for discussion and business and growth for intellectual globalization.
The internet is one of the heavens that allow freedom from exclusion, persecution, and irrelevance to almost all of the planets people that have the opportunity to access it, and these businesses want to ruin that. They want to control content. They want to wield access rights. To me that is tantamount to rampaging through a library forcing people to come to them to see how much it will cost them to read such and such.
Truly, some of them no longer care simply about the money. They no longer care about what the market will bear. They care about complete control of the markets and want to wield the internet as a commodity in their portfolios.
They want what every monopoly wants at birth: complete and indisputable control. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They usually get hired and paid huge amounts of money---by the same corporations they improperly 'enriched' while in office. The bastards!
And sometimes, it works in reverse. e.g.Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton, THEN he became vice 'resident', and now the bush-cheney misadministration is helping out Haliburton all over again. - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If Google thinks it's important, they should put a link on their homepage to get their users to write congress.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Also, realize that it could work both ways. If you can establish p2p connections to people on your tier, possibly with some auto-discovery, it could allow some very interesting possibilities for p2p apps. Since they would be first tier connections, it might be possible to access your computer hard drive remotely at close to full speed, or do some serious videoconferencing with local partners. Tiers would really adjust the internet's operation to reflect how it's actually put together, while still allowing outside connections as they do now... I bet ISPs would love to be able to shift all that p2p traffic onto their own network instead of having to pay for outside bandwidth...
- Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I seriously think that any congress person that votes to violate the net neutraility should seriously look for a new line of work.
- alexonix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3tbh, I dont understand it either... anyone wanna explain both sides of argument?
- fgiDangeresque, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jrmy
I agree with what you are saying, the problem is that the american political scene is so driven by money. So for those without that influence; it is indeed a big hill to climb. Its the system. IMO I think its a surprise the mentality has lasted as long as it has.
Do a bit of a read on 'earmarking'; I cant believe that the system is not moderated to stop that from happening. The problem is that they ALL have their fingers in the pie. The entry requirements to get into positions like that enforce the whole notion.
We can only hope that people get the message, and take up SOME course of action against them. If its worth fighting for, its worth fighting hard for it. - hasanahmad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4And yet...people on Digg say the internet should be owned only in the US and not shared by other countries.
- ricky1146, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Someone needs to start a petition on petitiononline.com Sign people up and presto.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I also posted this in a similar thread, but I'll repeat it here since it's on the front page.
Personally, I think a tiered internet would be necessary to really bring us to the next level of high-bandwidth services. If the ISP can host content on their servers, and offer very high-speed (maybe around 1Gbps peak, 0.5Gbps min) access to it for reasonable rates, that would offer a great alternative to current internet distribution options, even if it's limited to targetting the customers of specific ISPs. If a tiered internet means I can buy some hosting from Comcast, and get guaranteed high-bandwidth serving to all Comcast customers, it would really open the door to services that are just not possible with current net topology, serving to other ISPs that might not have access to the bandwidth required for the service.
An obvious example is on-demand delivery of high-definition video streams. Residential broadband connections are just not fast enough to enable those kinds of services. If I could buy hosting from the major ISPs, I would at least be able to target their customers without worrying about dropped packets and poor connections. It would require some minor changes to internet file access, only granting access to the stream if it's hosted on the requestor's ISP, but it's not really difficult to implement with current protocols.
This is really going to be like TV network affiliates for the new century. Major ISPs that cover large areas of the country could even offer to split up the access based on geography, allowing for services like geographically-targetted advertising and such. I don't really see a practical alternative to a tiered internet if we want to have the kinds of high-bandwidth services that need to happen.
While I realize that will create a market where bigger ISPs can offer more value than others, giving them a competitive advantage. This could be mitigated with some checks and balances, however. ISPs could be obliged to sublicense any hosted content to other ISPs for reasonable rates upon request, or maybe content providers could be forced to adopt a uniform licensing agreement and offer it to any ISP. Content affiliates could promote content and deal with mixing in advertising from local businesses to the customers they're targetting.
To just arbitrarily push for legislation that would make things like this illegal just seems like it's going against progress, and would do nothing but keep me from getting the proper high-bandwidth distribution options I want to see on the market. I can't think of any better way to encourage development of high-speed services, including high-speed MANs (Metropolitan Area Networks)...
The other tier would be the internet we know today, and that should continue to function in an unfiltered manner, as it does today. It's just that it makes sense, given the internet's infrastructure, to give ISPs the ability to serve content at guaranteed speeds, to meet a demand that couldn't be filled without limiting access on an ISP basis. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1How do you propose solving the problem of advertising for local businesses? High bandwidth hosting to large audiences? If something is going to replace TV, it has to be better. The solution I describe is something that could happen within the next couple years, and finally allow me to ditch my TV subscription.
While ISPs shouldn't be allowed to filter or cripple connections to outside content, they should be allowed to host content at higher speeds with direct connections to their subscribers.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is