What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
205 Comments
- streetstealth, on 02/04/2008, -19/+66Net neutrality: I pay you to get access to the pipes you own. You don't change what you're charging me based on the shape and color of what I send through. Simple, right?
Tell me how this stance is "anti-property" again? - williamtl, on 02/04/2008, -0/+25To me it is an issue of false advertisement. Paying a company for unlimited access to the Internet then having my bittorrent sessions reset or having Comcast downgrade the priority of my Vonage voip packets to the point that my Vonage service is unusable is like buying a candy bar wrapped in a Snickers wrapper and finding out that it is a seaweed veggie wrap with non fat chocolate sprinkles when I open it on the way home. That is just wrong, and imho it is just plain stealing. I'm against government regulation. Maybe if the government had not regulated the number of cable providers allowed in any given municipality here in Tennessee (which is just one btw) then I'd have more providers to do business with when I feel screwed by my current provider. I can see both sides. In some ways the problem has been caused by regulation and more regulation isn't going to be a perfect solution. On the other hand, all things being equal, without Net Neutrality regulation everyone will just continue to be subject to this legally sanctioned highway robbery.
- ScaredOfTheMan, on 02/04/2008, -3/+28True, but if my government, granted you a monopoly AND Tax credits to build 'your' network, then no you should not be free to make that price increase arbitrarily. You don't want someone using all 20 Megs of you FIOS connection, then don't sell a 20 meg pipe. You can't have it both ways.
- MrWhite7, on 02/04/2008, -19/+43So we want to keep the internet from being controlled... by regulating it...
- nextedge, on 02/04/2008, -17/+39Historically, more government legislation never helps the little guy. it might start out that way, but eventually its twisted to only advance the big guy. Learn form history.
- 16x9, on 02/04/2008, -8/+21With respect, have you been paying attention? AT&T is clearly bumping (and even killing) torrent traffic. And, although the jury is still out on the cause for this one, many people in Texas are complaining that they are suddenly having a lot of trouble accessing iTunes (and their ISP has admitted that they are testing some new filtering and packet priority software).
This IS a problem and unless something is done it's only going to get worse.
Look at it this way... What if your phone company started blocking your calls to Papa Johns Pizza because they had worked out a special deal with Little Caesar Pizza. Wouldn't this seriously piss you off? And it is this kind of nonsense that's already beginning. - jdepp, on 02/04/2008, -2/+15Suppose the post-office levied a surcharge on the doorstep to deliver you a package from company A (not an affiliate of the post-office) while they provided with you free delivery for the identical package from company B (their preferred package supplier).
Suppose the bank elected to revalue dollars from company A at $.90, so that every time company A made a transaction, they had to either take a loss or increase their prices to compensate, while company B was allowed the usual rate of $1 = $1.
That's what net neutrality is about. There's no problem in charging based on the number of packages / packets you send over the internet, but varying the price based on who's using the system and what they're sending is a problem, because it's an artificial, arbitrary charge that the network operators can use to force people out of business. It's short sighted to build a system that is deliberately capricious, because the system is less useful and will be used less. - fantasticFlan, on 02/04/2008, -2/+13Different prices for different amounts of bandwidth (or is it throughput?) is not what net neutrality is about.
- Luminoth, on 02/04/2008, -6/+17For a lot of people, the option you speak of is an illusion.
- alvinrod, on 02/04/2008, -0/+11If I own the pipes, what business do you have telling me what kind of traffic I allow on them or what I charge for that traffic?
The only reason I agree with any part of Net Neutrality is that the government helped to subsidize a lot of the early internet, making it easy and affordable for companies to get started. I think that for this reason, the companies should agree to place no restrictions on any traffic through that network. If some company, say Google for example, builds their own coast to coast network using entirely their own money without any support from the Government, they should be free to regulate them however they want.
The other alternative is for state governments to build their own infrastructure and let any company that wants to provide service through it. This would allow companies to set their own policies, but as there is no barrier to competition, companies that filter traffic will be put out of business by companies that don't assuming that consumers care about this issue enough.
What I don't like is companies building their own networks and then the government telling them how to run their business. - doctechnical, on 02/04/2008, -3/+14That's a two-edged sword, we can also talk about people who died waiting for a drug to make it way through a red-tape nightmare.
- 16x9, on 02/04/2008, -9/+19People (like myself) who want Net Neutrality and Open Access aren't interested in increasing government control nor do we want to see the investment the telecoms have put into infrastructure be a money loser. What we do want, however, is for these organizations to stop giving preference to one byte over another byte.
In a nutshell, that's it. I guess that makes me a "retard." - TheBogie, on 02/04/2008, -6/+16If you like net neutrality you better get out and vote AGAINST HILLIARY!
Hilliary is against net neutrality and open access, because her corporate masters who paid for her campaign stand to make more money that way. - inactive, on 02/04/2008, -5/+15Net Neutrality is NOT government filtering. This is a strawman argument that anti-net-neutrality/Telco's use to confuse people. It is simply legislation saying that the telco's CANNOT TIER THE INTERNET, like they have done with cable. There is ZERO filtering by the government what so ever.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/04/2008, -7/+17Check out the railroad industry to be specific. Do-gooding regulations ended up making railroad companies so powerful (in part because established companies used regulation as tool to kill competition) that they were able to stunt the development of both airplane and truck transportation. It was also through those railroads that Standard Oil was able to become a monopoly.
- pintomp3, on 02/04/2008, -14/+23considering it was created with public funds, it should stay public property. not everything needs to be privatized, especially something as vital as the internet.
- williamtl, on 02/04/2008, -0/+9Yes you should, but you should change the way you position your sell. When you advertise unlimited access at 8Mb/s then change the deal after the fact, (or bury it deep in the finest microprint for that matter) you are in the same club as the worst sort of used car salesman. These guys want the draw that selling "unlimited highspeed access" brings, but don't want to pay the bills (or maybe can't pay the bills) after they make the sell.
- pin0chet, on 02/04/2008, -0/+9Precisely. Net neutrality isn't the root of the problem. the utter LACK of competition is the real issue at hand.
I propose that the FCC forces all municipal boards to reform their horribly outdated franchising regimes. Let any ISP who will pay a reasonable fee lay wire in public rights of way. Hell, create "conduits" that can fit lots of fiber pairs under city streets. Don't take a chunk of profits, and don't impose any price caps or other burdens.
Then, we just might see more choices. That way, people who love gaming, Bittorrent, and Skype can have a nice fast ISP, and average users can stick with dirt cheap AT&T Yahoo DSL. - thefirstenemy, on 02/04/2008, -6/+14You don't have Comcast, do you?
- PhantomRogue, on 02/04/2008, -1/+9And the 0.5%, the second company leases access to the Backbone from one of the giant Telecoms anyway.
- kaelyiesta, on 02/04/2008, -2/+10I agree, but I doubt we will. Time and time again, people are tricked into giving up power to one entity thinking it will help keep them from losing power to another. Learning from history requires a ton of effort to research and most people don't even care to, let alone succeed. I'm still learning things on this topic. I don't pretend to know what the solution is myself, but we have to be VERY cautious about how any legislation is formed to address this problem. From what I've studied, the biggest issue is the people in power have no real reason to look after our interests.
The same people who are trying to give telcos retro active immunity, collaborated to invade our privacy by listening in on our traffic, the same people who have a stranglehold on our rules around decency and censorship, gave their buddies a monopoly on the infrastructure in the 80s at taxpayer expense and many other criminal acts are the same ones who will be writing and enacting the legislature should our push for 'neutrality' get enough momentum. Its good to see that some people are realizing these facts and are more wary about even the smallest amount of power handed over to government. The changes advocates of Net Neutrality request seem small and innocuous but I know better. They may mean well, but the people who actually write the laws certainly do not. Like I said, its all about incentive and the only incentive I see is the chance to get more control, and continued protectionism between government and industry. I want a free and uncontrolled internet, but I am skeptical of government. If we must go that route, I hope that we do not go blindly. - Corrosionx, on 02/04/2008, -0/+8@Luminoth: Then the problem is not enough competition (probably your local government has a sweet-heart deal with your ISP). Why don't you focus on that?
- doctechnical, on 02/04/2008, -5/+13"I'm with the government, and I'm here to help"
Your papers, please. - TTURabble, on 02/04/2008, -1/+8I don't understand legislation that basically states "You must remain a dumb pipe, you cannot decide who does what on your network" can be anything but good for the end user.
Heres an analogy for you guys: What if Ford made a deal with Shell Oil so that you could only get your gas from Shell Stations? (think of a reason for lock in, proprietary gas nozzle, different fuel mixture, etc) You would probably go out and buy from a different manufacturer, right? Ok, what if your city made a deal with Ford so that you could only drive Ford cars, now you don't have a choice anymore. You have to use Shell Gas because its the only gas that works with Ford cars, and Ford cars are the only cars you are able to drive in the city. Wouldn't it suck if Shell jacked up its prices?
Guess What, Municipalities already get to decide who provides the last mile internet service to you, (here in houston its Comcast) INTERNET IS ALREADY REGULATED! its the same exact situation as above, without the proper checks in place, comcast (or your last mile provider) can arbitrarily decide what you can and cannot do with your internet connection, and with extremely limited consumer choice you can't "just switch providers."
IMO, either remove ALL regulation to allow for your "perfect competition," or take the current regulation that next necessary step to ensure that the government granted monopoly is not misused. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/04/2008, -3/+10"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one" - Tomas Paine
- inactive, on 02/04/2008, -11/+18Search antitrust
- jdepp, on 02/04/2008, -0/+7Violating net neutrality would balkanize something that works well at the moment.
It's the same reason that protectionism and import/export duties are bad for trade, and that many countries stick with a flat postage rate to send anywhere in the land. The volume of trade/letters/internet traffic you get to carry is higher if you have a simple, fair scheme of charging for it. - swizzcheez, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6Grrrr... those that don't know the difference between "mute" and "moot" should be rendered both.
- BikeMessenger, on 02/04/2008, -24/+30If I own the pipes I should be free to charge you more for using up 50% of the bandwith than for using 0.5%
- 15charmaxwtf, on 02/04/2008, -1/+7The government created the mess with the monopolies, licensing and subsidies, why in the world would you want them to fix it? It's like asking the fox, after killing the hens he was guarding, to raise some more hens.
- StarlessKnight, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6How many High-Speed ISPs typically reside in a given community? One? Two? Maybe three if you're really lucky?
If an ISP isn't willing to back up their claim of "unlimited 8 Mb/s," then they shouldn't offer it. Why do I need "unlimited 8 Mb/s" to browse the web, check email, or download the occasional iTunes song? There's a point where your web pages don't need to shave off the extra millisecond, your email doesn't need the extra nanosecond, and your iTunes song could probably suffer the extra second, or minute, and still not disrupt your computing experience. Large amounts of data need more bandwidth than the piddly stuff most residential users need it for. - inactive, on 02/04/2008, -1/+7a terrible movie.
- swizzcheez, on 02/04/2008, -1/+7The ISPs do own the portion of bandwidth used to transfer to the end user and sell it to the customer. They don't own the content, however, which is part of their value proposition. So, like the town with the tollbooth, they can charge you for using the road, but they still don't own what is travelling on the road.
- MrWhite7, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5No sir, a corporation doesn't have the power to arrest me, incarcerate me, fine me, and take my life. A corporation is not directed by the whim of the masses. A corporation is driven by market forces, which are heartless and cold, but PREDICTABLE.
- pin0chet, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5Good point. These government-granted monopolies have to go. When there is just one company providing a good, quality and price will be subpar. The more competition, the better. That is basic economics but regulators don't seem to get the picture.
- Otto, on 02/04/2008, -5/+10Yes, but your internet is currently neutral. The whole idea is to keep it that way.
- BikeMessenger, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5Good argument. I think it is easier for lawmakers to just make more laws trying to regulate the market instead of removing regulations to promote competition, so that's what we keep getting.
- kerzhaw, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Tim Berners-Lee said: "Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it." I would argue that it is this philosophy which has made the internet so popular.
- sgtpppr, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6As long as their isn't a monopoly, then the free market can naturally solve any problems. The mere thought of the gov't (those who brought you incredible successes like the Iraq War, Katrina clean up, and a 9/11 monument at ground zero) regulating something they barely understand horrifies me. Remember that the majority of people in congress could be many of you diggers grandparents. Do you want your grandparents making policy about the Internet? If the big telcos start clamping down on the Internet or trying to shape traffic and charge higher fees, new ISPs will show up to beat them. The gov't simply forces unnatural change on an evolving marketplace. Even if I was pro-regulation...I can't see how anyone would trust the current gov't (or any American gov't) with regulating the Internet. They are simply incompetent in so many ways. Bureaucracy is not the solution.
- 4degrees, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6the government has helped who? how? would it exist without government?
- inactive, on 02/04/2008, -4/+9Here is where you go wrong: "I trust the government".
Quite a foolish mentality. - Luminoth, on 02/04/2008, -7/+12A necessary evil is still evil.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5I don't think it's mean to be a straw-man on purpose, but it definitely is one. As I understand it, property is gained/created by working one's labour into something untouched (homesteading.) This used to happen with the spectrum too, until government effectively grabbed it all too license it out to generate revenue for itself. The author here is arguing about government licenses, not property. There is a perfectly reasonable argument for using property rights to allocate spectrum and this article just confuses everything by lumping some corporatists with private property advocates.
- pin0chet, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5I agree that if you sell a service as unlimited, then no bandwidth caps.
Keep in Mind that Comcast hasn't advertised unlimited service since 1999. And now when they say "always on" they specify that means always accessible, not all-you-can-eat downloads. - Athelwulf, on 02/04/2008, -2/+7The government has helped me and my mother by giving her about $1000 each year I was a dependent minor. We still struggle, but we'd really, really be struggling without that tax credit. It has also helped us during long periods of unemployment (we live in an area with a very high unemployment rate and can't move out without money -- catch 22!) with food stamps and unemployment checks. It has also helped by collecting child support from my father. It's also helping me right now by paying for my tuition at the community college so I can gradually work towards becoming a teacher.
So to answer your question: The government has helped me and my mother in the manners I described above. Theoretically, there might have been charities around instead to help us and others in the community if the government weren't there, but there are only so many altruists in the world. - JettaMan, on 02/04/2008, -10/+14I completely agree with this comment. Net-Neutrality is a nothing issue. We don't have Net-Neutrality regulations today and the Internet works fine BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROBLEM. Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.
- Tinkered, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4If the condom required to prove that you are not committing a crime before you where allowed to put it on and function correctly, I would prefer to buy the other brand that doesn't ask me to prove the legality of my sex life. The issue here is there would be no other brand, thus the FCC needs to step in.
- donte, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5... and the people who died because they couldn't afford the medicine they needed because the company needed to recoop the millions upon millions spent getting past all the red tape. All that and drugs and food with dangerous side effects still make it through (you can find a list of FDA-approved recalls on their own site). You seem to forget that it's in the company's best interest nowadays to ensure that their products don't harm their customers. The FDA is one of those things that was created with the best intentions and has just turned into another painful bureaucracy incurring lots of cost (to the consumer ultimately) with little value added.
Don't forget that The Jungle took place during a time when litigation over product hazards was not nearly as prevalent as it is today -- a fine deterrent without the FDA's help. - Smoove, on 02/04/2008, -6/+10Predictably, you're getting dugg down. Everyone's a libertarian--until he stands to gain from coercion. Notice the douchebag author's argument:
"Second, Net Neutrality advocates are not ipso facto 'antiproperty,' because if they were, they wouldn't care whether or not their own devices (aka, property) were locked into proprietary networks and/or designed to only work with specific technologies. Net neutrality proponents simply want their property to work like it should."
My router doesn't give me the power to force phone companies to give me free Internet access "so my router will work." Neither does it give me the power to force them to charge me $X instead of $Y "so my router will work." It certainly doesn't give me the power to force all ISPs to charge the same amount for bandwidth "so my router will fully work." The argument is retarded.
In other words, I own this here condom. So if I'm not allowed to put it on and ream you up the ass, my condom doesn't work like it should. "I'm not a rapist! I'm "pro-fully-functional-condoms!" - GhostyBoy, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Understand at all times that information control is the most lucrative business in existence. When the majority gets their information and entertainment from privately owned radio, print and television networks, those private companies have much to gain.
Aside from the obvious benefits of advertising, it also enables them to drum up propaganda for all kinds of causes and it makes them star-makers, as well as giving them a huge advantage in selecting politicians. To deny the vast influence of the power of media, and especially dangerous media monopolies, is naive.
The internet allows anyone online sudden access to instant media of every kind, alternative news, merchants and entertainment all at a moments notice. It is almost assured that the net will replace television just as television replaced radio.
Understand that many decades and billions of dollars have been put into information control, and those who benefit will not stand idle while they lose it all suddenly to an open international forum of free speech and expression.
Attacks on net neutrality will be extremely well-funded and persistent and will only be staved off by our continued commitment to the first and greatest world wide medium that has ever truly belonged to the people. -
Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is