What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
161 Comments
- ryanholiday, on 10/12/2007, -7/+93Send this to your congressman if you get a chance. Tell 'em we aren't ***** around this time.
- miket, on 10/12/2007, -13/+83@anicejew
actually, as far as i can tell, NONE of us live in the "fascist" United States...
(sorry for feeding the troll) - oskite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+59I blocked anicejew long, long ago after multiple chances. I suggest everyone do the same.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+53@anicejew
Have you ever gotten positive Diggs? Even +1? - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48@anicejew: You're not very nice.
- brokendaylite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30QUESTION: Imma sound like a nub right here but, i see net neutrality around all the time. What does that mean?
-=Digg me down=- - forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Basically big companies and government officials like AT&T think that they deserve to control what kind of content internet users are exposed too. That's a very simplistic definition. Net Neutrality would keep the internet out of the hands of the big corporations and it will remain in the hands of the users themselves. if net neutrality gets revoked, then all these internet startups will be a thing of the past.
- central183, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17@anicejew
Blocked. I'm tired of having to "dig down" lame comments. It's so much easier to block the source. Bye bye now. - DeathStarr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23zomg he used the word God in the title!?
- B3bomber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Net neutrality in NO way shape or form=moniter what's being transmitted. They only care that the data isn't degraded or slowed down when it's sent.
On a side not, ISPs will no longer be able to traffic shape things like bit torrent if that bill is passed as it will be illegal (GOOD). If they can afford the stuff to do traffic shaping (and it does cost money) then the greedy pricks can spend the money to UPGRADE THE INFASTRUCTURE TO HANDLE HIGHER TRAFFIC like they should have in the first place. - collective, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Net Neutrality Might Finally Be A Reality. Thank SCIENCE.
There, fixed that for ya. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yeah, God forbid the government stands up for my rights. It's not like that's in the Constitution or anything.
- Sethwm2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well. I have an issue. All the politicians in my state are against net neutrality :( I am not happy with this. LET THE INTERNET BE FREE!!!!!
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A government that is big enough to give you net neutrality is big enough to take away everything else.
- eecue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Oskite: but you have a wonderful bridge to look forward to!
- skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Let me see if I can get this straight...
Net neutrality is designed to treat bits as bits. It shouldn't matter what is contained in those bits.
The basic idea is to keep the free flowing of ideas and content without any type of ISP regulation. By keeping the net "neutral" ISPs cannot tack on charges that distinguish content. This means that you still must pay for your bandwidth and web space etc, just as always. But what it "regulates" is keeping ISPs from charging say...an extra fee because you are offering a video podcast or a audio stream or downloadable content or telephony. They can't charge you a premium based on your content. If you've paid for the bandwidth, then that's all that should concern them. What you choose to do with it, is none of their concern.
Did I get it right? If not please elaborate. Thanks! - autocrawler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Thank God?! Thank His Noodly Appendage instead, heretic!
- haooken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Science H. Logic!
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Zomg you used God in your acronym!?
Oops, it's a never ending cycle... - dojonz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm google-eyed with confusion over net neutrality.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"...but don't the companies have the right to run their business however they want, even if it is *****?"
Not when their actions are anti-competitive. - autobahn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sigh.
I love how anti-neutrality folk like to pull out the "vote with your $$$" idea about internet access. If these providers actually functioned in anything that resembled a "free market", maybe that would be valid.
-HOWEVER-
My broadband options are monopolized: either the monopoly cable company or the monopoly phone company.
I'd love to say, "hey Comcast, screw you for charging more to companies for priority access, I'm switching to another cable company" but OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, Comcast has a monopoly in my city.
Sorry, but when it comes to telcos and cable companies, they've shown time and time again that they're not responsible businesses, and it's been shown time and time again that what consumers think does not matter to them, and they'll screw anyone over to make a buck.
Sure, government regulation sucks, but here, it's the far lesser of two evils.
Net Neutrality FTW!! - NoSuchAgency, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Total freedom = you can own slaves, or kill other people, or steal.
Total capitalism = you can do anything you want to make money (including the above).
Neither has been considered a good idea in the civilized world, for a long time. - p0und, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4net neutrality has not been agreed upon. please read this article to see the glaring loophole the fcc has given at&t in regards to this.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061229/001833.shtml - stalefries, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What we really need is a regularly updated list of Digg trolls. I'd be glad to provide my own list as a resource.
Edit: I can't seem to find it. - jrandyw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's exactly why I'm worried about this. I hate that the ISPs are trying to "double dip", but I'm not sure the government will fix anything. Does anyone remember a few years ago when congress acted to reduce/control rising cable rates? How well did that work? Were there any unintended consequences?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, since there is no 'god', I'll thank whatever imaginary being you like.
Santa? Ok, Thank Santa for Net Neutrality!
Whew, dodged that quasi-superstitious bullet. - wto605, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, because he doesn't want to foul his other invention... pants
- AlanKc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE
- brokendaylite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Awe *****, that would suck balls. Who do they think they are? So like they would censor some images and videos put on the net?
- cyroxos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This may seem like a victory; however, no doubt another politician will find another way to exploit the system.
I suppose we should take it one step at a time though. - aschocobo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4have you any idea what's going on? any idea at all?
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ghengis: You are clueless. For the monthly fee, I get a certain speed and am allowed to transfer a certain amount of bits. I have yet to hit the cap on my connection. I am also aware that companies like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft also pay to connect to the internet. It's not like if you are large company that you get to connect to the internet for free. But being a network technician, you knew that, right.
- p0und, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3in a nutshell companies like at&t want to charge twice for one service. they first charge the consumers directly or indirectly through their isp for access to the internet. they then also want to charge other content or service providers an additional fee for delivering their content. basically these companies are greedy *****.
- nukem996, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@FTLJohnson
The reason I and many others support legislation on net neutrality is because I don't trust that people will switch, or they won't have the choice to switch.
People won't switch because their lazy or they don't care. Most people just want their e-mail and to goto a few popular web site, as long as those work they could care less. Its the same reason why people keep using AOL, they dont want anything to change.
They won't be able to switch because first of all if your in a contract and you cancel your subscription the company will fine you around $200, for many people they can't afford that. The other problem is who are they going to goto? In my area we have Cablevision(optonline) and Verizon, thats it. From what I've heard they both would like a two tier Internet.
This has to be solved by the congress otherwise it will be lost and the people will be screwed because of a combination of the majority don't care and that the few that do won't be able to do anything about it.
There is no cost that the ISP could charge sites that would be fair. The internet is about the free exchange of information, everyone is equal whether you like it or not. - hass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How about thanking the people that did the work to put this bill together, you UNGRATEFUL PIECE OF *****!
- forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm still dumbfounded that that guy believes it's a series of tubes and that all of these youtube watchers are clogging teh tubes so important military emails aren't going to get through.
Is this guy ***** kidding us? - Propapanda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5We got a libertarian on the loose!
Quick someone get me my hilariously over sized butterfly net and cue the wakity-sax! - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The internets are made up of a bunch of tubes, run by the telcos. Information is passed through these tubes on dumptrucks. Net Neutrality means all the dumptrucks go the same speed. Without it, the telcos can use faster dumptrucks and priority lanes in the tubes for their own content and "priority companies" while using slower dumptrucks for other content, like competing VoIP services.
- wto605, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or those urgent FEMA e-mails about Katrina... (now they have an excuse)!
- opencoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@dagnome1984:
The problem with your assessment, is that most often the companies own the lines running up to your house. So if I want to ditch Adelphia for Atlantic Broadband, I cant b/c Adelphia owns the lines running to my door. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@anicejew
There certainly are people pushing that and it is getting close to that all that's needed for the final steps is a catalyst another "new pearl harbor" . . but it sure isn't going to be that way because my Second Amendment has something to say about it and I have to point out whatever country you live in you aren't any ***** better off because you aren't even supposed to have Freedom to begin with like we are. - oskite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're not the one stuck with Stevens... god, I hate living in Alaska for so many reasons.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Be my guest, I stir up ***** for a living, I'll do no different on here. My goal is to get the most negative diggs ever, so please, help me get there.
- john8520, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2'Is it a dumptruck, tubes, or pipes. '
Its all three! The dumptuck dumps 'teh internetz' into a large pipe, which eventually feeds into a big series of tubes, which eventually gets to the computers. All those videos take up _alot_ of space in the truck, and since there are only 10 trucks, it takes a long time for the trucks to get around to all the people so they can get their internets. The government and large companies get 100 big fast trucks, and bigger tubes with more pump stations and water.. er, internet-towers for extra storage. - RCourtney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Genghis1
"We pay UPS extra money for priority mail and nobody complains. What's the difference?"
Your analogy is flawed. Paying UPS for priority mail is like paying AT&T for an upgrade to 3MB/sec from their basic package.
Two tiered system on the other hand would be like UPS charging you to send a package to someone and then charging the person you sent the package to as well, if they wanted to receive the package in a reasonable amount of time. - MacHarborGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Genghis1
I don't see how companies like Google are getting "free distribution of their product", since they have to PAY for all of the bandwidth used. Look at YouTube pre-Google, everyone was just counting the days until they would shut down due to running out of money to PAY for the bandwidth.
If anything, BitTorrent is free distribution of content, since it is based on the individual users who pay a flat rate for their net access and not the big companies that are charged per bit/byte/kb/mb/gb etc - aahpandasrun, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13It's amazing how widely "ZOMG" has spread. It used to just be a 4chan thing.
- djchester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess you have to be an American citizen to really care of this law thing right? good.. I'm not. :)
- MrDiggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Internet is already tiered and has been that way since day one. Net neutrality is *****. It is just away for the biggest bandwidth users to dump their cost on us little people.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is