What is Digg?68 Comments
- rocketrye12, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32viva la inter-web!
- wallclimber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23We have to keep the pressure on, because politicians tend to have short memories. If they think we aren't paying attention anymore, they'll backslide.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22This is good news indeed. The last hope for mass distribution of free thought will be the Internet. May it remain a non pay-to-play system. Dugg.
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"All 14 of the senators who've made a stance against Net Neutrality are Republican. Of the 26 senators in favor, 24 are Democrat."
Hmm .... Interesting. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.
But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk."
(From: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq)
Of course, this is from the perspective of a net-neutrality supporter. If you want the telcos ' distorted version of the truth, you'll have search for it on Google.
And it's a US law, so it only affects the US. But potentially, a non-neutral internet could negatively affect the commercial viability of smaller sites in the US, so anyone anywhere who used those sites could be indirectly affected. - JoGiles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16You want net neutrality, cos if you don't, the telcos will be able to charge twice.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Thank God those people understands that my series of tubes needs some unclogging!
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Wow, someone must be teaching the senators what all these tubes do :D
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18well, it already is a pay-to-play system... you have to pay to connect... NN is just an attempt to stop telcos from double-charging.. you know, pay to connect, then pay to view things using that paid connection..
- mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Your series of tubes!!! You better not be downloading any Internet on those!!! You need to pay for them!!
- brainwipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The Senators are classified as For, Against, Undecided and Waffling. I love the fact there might be an alternative when the vote comes. You can vote Yes, No, Abstain, Waffle.
- stephenwq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I dont really understand which side to take for this whole topic.
Which side will keep it how it is now, and wont make any stupid changes? - beplacid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's nice to see democracy is actually working in the US! Petitions still have power!
I hope that this continues to bring support for net neutrality, and that the powers that be have to fold under their own medicine.
Would the bill that is being passed effect all international browsers or is it strictly the US? - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Can someone please explain, does this only affect people in the USA?
- meepus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is how you know that the republicans currently in power don't represent the traditional conservative views of the republican party. Anyone trying to be 'conservative' would be trying to keep the internet the way it's been since its inception.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What I meant was a "pay to play" system for all website administrators like myself. I don't want to have to hand out toll fees just so people can read my blog or forums. My hosting company already pays for the teer agreements, the telcos shouldn't be double dipping. Thanks for the clarification invader, my bad for not pointing it out to begin with.
- RayQ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The telcos already own the wires. If they are not forbidden to charge more, they will, and there's little you can do to stop them. Supply and demand doesn't apply too much, since the barriers for entry to the market are huge (you'd have to lay your own cables).
- amgkmpsr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7To stephenwq: Supporting net neutrality will keep it the way it is now. Net neutrality is the iniative to stave off the telcos move to charge content providers for bandwith. Sure small companies would still receive traffic but it would come at a lower priority to that of the companies that paid for it. So say yes to NN!
- RayQ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Without net neutrality, telcos can decide they want to charge a provider AGAIN, even though the bandwith is paid for.
From my understanding, it would affect the companies that the telcos chose to charge more to, so if they decide to charge Paypal more and Paypal happens to pass on the costs to you, it affects you anywhere. - fumey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's not only charging you again, they can receive payments from major websites to "weight" their sites higher thus increasing load-times and the difficulty involved in getting to less popular websites. I know it doesn't seem like much but it essentially would be the start of the filtration of the Internet by telco's. I'm delighted that the US seems to be changing it's stance, gives me a bit of hope that your government isn't as corrupt as it appears from abroad!
Kudos - amgkmpsr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5More info on Net Neutrality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality - benwah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't know if anyone else has seen these commercial spots, but there are several "PSA's" running on the East Coast stating that Net Neutrality is bad. The ad's also claim that the big "SIlicon Valley" tech companies want Net Neutrality to succeed so they can make more cash from consumers. It's good to know that there will always be a marketing campaign put out on the air to confuse the average joe.
- ishmal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Net neutrality is totally fair because it only applies to the Internet. Let the telcos charge whatever they want to on their own pipes. It is only their treatment of the big public Internet cloud that needs to be neutral and ignorant of content, source, and destination. Network != Internet. They merely need to provide their "special" services on another address space and/or network stack.
- IAmAI, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The Internet: It it ain't broke, don't fix it! The Internet is completely fine as it is. ISPs only want to get rid of it because they can make more profit otherwise.
- (.)(.), on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Net neutrality is the worst idea ever. Don't let Washington cripple the progression of the Internet by enacting stupid laws. We have a "Market Economy" lets let the "Market" decide what will happen here.
- NicP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In most areas people have very limited choice of ISP's for decent Internet connections. Where there are limited choices (think monopolies) and large barriers to entry (its expensive to lay cables) market forces aren't efficient, the market requires intervention. This is basic economics, anyone who has taken an economics subject ever should agree.
Additionally, I believe the telcos get money from the government to help build infrastructure, hence that infrastructure is somewhat public funded and should be neutral, not prioritized to the highest bidders. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4thanks for the link and answer.
I know the US controls most of what we know as the Internet so I wasn't sure if this would affect those of us outside the US but I can also see how there could be a ripple effect if this does pass.
cheers :) - EricAnderton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@DrunkMonkey
You mean they used the "Chewbacca Defense"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
(I'm waiting for them to jump straight to Ad Hominem next.)
Sadly, it makes sense seeing as how their position is virtually indistingiushable from "raw profit incentive". After all, cutting too close to the truth would be like saying "why do you not want us (Cable) to make more money?" Might as well keep the facts nice and obsucre. (Look at the silly monkey!)
I've seen a few of those ads. My favorite is the one that comes right out and says "Net Neutrality will decrease competition, reduce consumer options and raise rates." The sheer gall of these guys is unbelievable. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm not sure what you're saying. It's the telephone and cable companies that are lobbying to "break" the internet by changing the Telecommunications Act. Net-neutrality laws are to ensure that they don't, and can't.
- Gm7Cadd9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3telcos are regulated by the government, when you lose your power the phone companies have backup upon backup upon backup to make sure your phones still work... the same cannot be said of the cable companies.
If your cable goes out you might have to wait a week or more before anything happens. All of these companies are getting a free ride. Fiber is the next gen of the internet, but installing fiber costs a ton of money. Many stock holders in Verizon are wary of installing fiber... Verizon installs fiber, google video becomes able to stream HD content and everyone wins right? Nope, Google would be getting a free ride, they would like you to think the BIG BAD EVIL TELECOM corporations are greedy, but a lot of people forget that Google is a very profitable company. If everyone doesn't jump on the bandwagon and pony up more money the consumer will pay in the end.
Net Neutrality opens the door for government regulation, which only ever complicates matters. Everyone is so concerned about services like youtube remaining free, they forget that the telecom companies will more than likely stick you with the bill by raising the price of your service... you pay either way, the services have just as much if not MORE money than telecom companies.
The net neutrality arguments on the website only cite 4 bad examples, and like others have said most of what people are lobbying for is ALREADY in effect!!! Half the people don't know what they are arguing for! The best argument I have seen here is: The internet is NOT broken, hence don't fix it. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So basically, you want the State to dictate acceptable business models to ISPs with legislation that can potentially be interpreted as outlawing QoS and traffic shaping.
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7[Disclosure: plug]
Anyone can help support Net Neutrality here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#help - HandsOff43, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With all these scare tactics circulating around, you would think the world was coming to an end. The internet is an animal that expands quickly everyday. Any new government regulations will only slow innovation.
Sonia Arrison writes in TechNewsWorld, "Internet service providers have voluntarily upheld content-neutral practices without the need for government intervention, and consumers would never stand for blocked Web sites. As the Chairman of the FTC recently said, Internet users 'are powerful and tough customers.' Working within the current legal framework and adopting private sector solutions such as new business agreements and flexible service options bear greater potential for sustaining the long-term growth of the Internet."
Let's not let Congress mess up a good thing. I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition. For more information, our website is at http://handsoff.org. - mariod505, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Looking at www.savetheinternet.com website you'll notice that the senator tracker indicates that, almost without exception, every 'against' is a republican senator, and every 'for' is a democratic senator. Given this trend net-neutrality will fail.
It's important to note two things:
Firstly, net neutrality doesn't exist now. ISPs can do whatever they like. Have you seen ISP 'directing' your traffic? No. I think the threat is actually very limited. There are many reasons to dislike ISPs, but this isn't one of the big ones.
Secondly, the idea of net neutrality violates the idea of free market economy (that's why Republicans oppose it). It says all websites pay the exact same price for connectivity, regardless of bandwidth usage!! That's ridiculous! It's like telling gas stations that all people filling up on gas must be charged a flat fee regardless of how much they fill up their tank! It's a recipe for disaster. ISPs would have no incentive to improve the infrastructure, and websites would have no incentive to reduce wasteful bandwidth usage.
Internet bandwidth might be invisible, but it's not limitless. Net neutrality - everything to everyone for free... it's a impractical socialist idea. I think the Soviets tried that.
What we really need is to build an Internet backbone that does not depend on the big ISPs, to increase the competitive pressure on them and keep them in line.
Capitalism is your friend (you, the little guy)... *if* you understand how it works. - TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526
There is one of the videos. They call net neutrality- I am not kidding- "Mumbo Jumbo". - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I've seen a few of those ads. My favorite is the one that comes right out and says "Net Neutrality will decrease competition, reduce consumer options and raise rates." The sheer gall of these guys is unbelievable.
I'll break it down:
1) decrease competition: Any time the government comes in and sets up price controls competition goes down. Why compete if prices are set? Why enter a new market if prices are set?
2) Reduce consumer options: If price controls are in effect then the companies under such price controls will have no reason to offer new services if they can not charge extra for those services.
3) Raise Rates: If they can't charge you more for something as an extra fee they will simply tack it on to everyone and everyone will pay for it as part of the base fee.
TNSTAAFL - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, basically the New Republicans (I guess what you're referring to as NeoRep's) aren't like old Republicans (a la Reagan, maybe before he became president and started the WoD). Now, the old republicans are essentially libertarians. They believe in small government, free markets, and not "protecting people from themselves". Check out www.cato.org a libertarien think tank in Washington. Those are pretty much my views and the views of what used to be Republicanism.
- mariod505, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2IT engineers think Net Neutrality is dumb!!! Nobody is expressing our point of view. Bandwidth should be conserved and paid for to increase competition and innovation. Please leave government regulator out of our field... We built the internet, stop trying to ruin it!
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ cuposmuck
I must agree. I don't want anyone legislating the net (I'm for very small governement), but these telco's are a monopoly trying to double charge the content providers and the consumers. The government giveth (monopoly power to the telcos) and the governenment taketh away! That's why I support net neutrality. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What is stopping an ISP from supposedly double charging now? If the very existence of ISPs is threatened by companies such as Google and Microsoft, then why are they not charging more at this very moment? savetheinternet.org lists four lame examples of ISPs behaving badly. Most of those examples could easily be handled via contract law. Net neutrality will not solve the real problem: the lack of competition.
Seeing as the telcos have operated in a regulated environment for decades, they will work any net neutrality legislation to their favour. If NN legislation is ever passed, I can guarantee you that each and every internet account will be subject to a 'Universal Net Neutrality Fee'. Remember the telcos know how to work the system. - psiit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2just remember when they say that some sites will be faster, they really mean that all the other one's will be slower :P (clever marketing)
- nybble41, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@goodoldharris - "So the question is: do you want to let legislators change the law in accordance with only the telcos interest? Or do you think they should hear the perspective of the consumer?"
Can we have a third option, please? Perhaps "leave the laws the way they are"? Why should we introduce opposing (Net Neutrality) legislation which would upset the current balance just as much while regulating away some of the most effective ways of allocating bandwidth in recognition of varying means and requirements? Just ignore the lobbying and leave the Telecommunications Act the way it is, don't overreact in the opposite direction. There is no *imperative* to create new legislation. - HOTI1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Have to say, this news isn't nearly as wonderful as some are making it out to be. Has anyone seen Senator Stevens' embarassing speech on how he thinks the internet works? And we're supposed to be excited that more of them are interested in trying to put more control over the internet in government hands?
graystar has it right. If we put too much of this in the government's control, it will screw us in the long run. - gd007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this is all good for us!
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1mariod505's description of Net Neutrality is ridiculous, and false.
Bill HR5252 has already been passed by Congress and is in the Senate. So those arguing against Net Neutrality by saying "Just leave it the way it is" or "Let the free market decide", are talking about a fantasy. The bill's chief sponsor is the internet wizard Ted Stevens himself. The Telcos have paid more than a $100M in lobbying lawmakers to ensure their interests are reflected in the legislation. (Is that the free market at work?). As anyone with a website knows, content providers are already paying for bandwith. Yet Whitacre, SBC's CEO, says that content providers are getting a "free ride". The position of the Telcos is very clear - they want to charge consumers at one end to access content, and then charge content providers to access the consumer. If they get away with this, it won't be thanks to the free market. It'll be thanks to their government-sponsored monopoly over the connection in between.
Google, a proponent of Net Neutrality describes it as:
"The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online." Google has joined with Yahoo and other tech companies to lobby for Net Neutrality. Google's pro-net neutrality statement is here: (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html)
Whitacre's original comments are here:
http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm
Blog response to Whitacre: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=918
A summary of the 200+ page HR5252 Bill is here: http://www.benton.org/?q=node/3292#nn - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1nybble41:
-----------------------------------------
Can we have a third option, please? Perhaps "leave the laws the way they are"?
-----------------------------------------
There's a 200+ page Bill that's already been written, passed by Congress, and is now in the Senate. The Telcos are lobbying for it, and it will go through in one form or other. So your third option is not going to happen. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"It says all websites pay the exact same price for connectivity, regardless of bandwidth usage!!"
That's not what Net Neutrality proposes. It says that telcos should price bandwidth without reference to what content is being delivered. In other words, they charge for bandwith, and it shouldn't matter whether it's voice, video, or whatever. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Going by the "it's always worked this way" argument.
Where I live there is a privately owned lake. It was built by a power company to provide back-up hydro-electric power. This lake was built in the early 1920's and the power company purchased several towns worth of land and then built dikes before flooding the area to make the lake.
Now people live on the lake and consider it their "right" to have the lake. Even though the lake itself is privately owned (yes, all the land underwater is privately owned.)
Now, the power company comes along and says, "We've decided to drain the lake as a source of power and the level will drop about 25 feet this year."
What rights do the property owners adjacent to the lake have?
Well, they are trying to assert rights they never had. Trying to limit how low the lake's water can go before the hydro plant has to stop using water from the lake!
The same thing is happening here. People are assuming a right where they only had a privilege. - ojk007, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Remember alot of the time the world follows america, not always but i'm sure they'd follow this. After all its worth double what they are getting at the moment.
- bonked, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice try - but you, like most, overlook the billions of dollars in public money we gave the telcos to become who they are today with the promise that things would remain "neutral." So now you see why the barrier of entry is so high that no telco would ever have to worry about competition, until wireless/satelite becomes more reliable (unlikely in the near future.)
Once public money got involved, the public (government - "by and for the people" you know) has a right to have some say in the market.
Net Neutrality does not create less incentive to innovate, and it doesn't match you're gas argument. Without NN expanding telcos who are seeking to become content providers are given a massive amount of control over who gets to see your content, and their "corporate partners" content becomes more popular. If I could go down to the corner and choose a different telco company, I would, but you see I can't because the laws in place and the barriers of entry are so high, they have no competition - for free market forces to work in the case of telcos there has to be competition, something that doesn't exisit in 90% of the market.
With all that said, we lost this war a long f'ning time ago when people accepted the idea of throttled bandwidth and broke the tradition of "everything is a server" in order to get faster downloads. If we had demanded that when paying for 1.5Mb down, we get more than 64kb up network and p2p tools might have come around that made the backbones less important, but by letting the telcos treat you as only a consumer and never a provider, we gave them all the power they needed to keep us in the position we are today. -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is