What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
36 Comments
- latrosicarius, on 01/15/2008, -2/+18One of the only issues I disagree with Ron Paul about is the Net Neutrality issue. He says it should be deregulated (it's currently government regulated ["neutral", so to speak]).
The US govt has subsidized the large telecoms so they could build their fiber infrastructure. The telecoms are lobying the govt to "give" them full control of the infrastructure they did not create. (When I say "lobbying", read "donating" large amounts of money to certain govt senators & reps so they vote in the interest of these companies.)
If this happens, the telecoms will NOT have to share their networks with competing telecoms as they currently do. That means, that Telecom A will allow Telecom B to use their portion of the network, but at a price$$$.
Do you know what that means? Every user who uses Telecom B as a ISP will have to pay EXTRA in order to communicate with a person or website that is on Telecom A's side of the country.
The FATCAT telecoms will make a boat load of money off of this--charging each other for the use of an infrastructure they didn't even build. The result will simply be that EVERYONE's internet bills will go up$$$
The Telecoms lie to you and say that they are providing extra "quality" service to people in their "zone", meaning Telecom A will give transmissions of it's own subscribers priority when sending their files over Telecom B's zone *IF* they pay the "premium" rate.
But think about this, people... This is the internet. Our packets of information don't have to wait in line. (Well, technically, they do, but there is no delay like Ted Stevens would have you believe). This "Quality service premium package" stuff is all B.S...
Government regulation only means that the government will not hand over sole discretion to the telecoms. It also means that they will force each telecoms to continue allowing OTHER telecoms to use their networks without charging a fee or tax. And rightfully so. It was built with OUR TAX MONEY, not the telecoms' private funds. It's OURS, not the telecoms'.
Anyone who wants the government to "give" away this infrastructure to the private companies who did not build it is a total moron, and needs to read about what net neutrality actually is. - cloudcity, on 01/15/2008, -0/+8I'm so close to agreeing with you, then I realize the tax dollars that have gone into building and maintaining our nations communication infrastructure and I realize, the research and a large amount of the lines that support the internet was bought and paid for by tax dollars. I support the idea of voting with your dollar, but the Internet SUCH a crucial part of so many peoples lives that allowing a tiered system would have really serious repercussions.
Again, I agree with you in principle, and I understand Ron Paul's position on the issue, but at the end of the day I think it's too important AND we paid for it! - latrosicarius, on 01/15/2008, -0/+8I agree that the government should NOT have its hands in everything, but in this case, the internet infrastructure was already paid for by American tax payers. It would be worse to "give" it away to corporations so they can control it for their own purposes. Let it remain an equal resource.
Something like the FCC controlling the airwaves, however, is BS. The government did not build or pay for the "airwaves". There is no "airwave" infrastructure. So who gave them the authority to control it?
See the difference?
I disagree wholeheartedly that the government should "control" the internet. I just think it should not give over control of it to 3rd parties. - nottanner, on 01/15/2008, -3/+9Net Neutrality debates and the possible repercussions are even scarier to me than the RIAA and the MPAA combined.
I really hope this ends well. - Tenoq, on 01/15/2008, -1/+7I have two words for you: Monopoly, and Infrastructure.
- Chompy, on 01/15/2008, -3/+9Yes.. consider that Ron Paul is on the wrong side of this issue.
- MacEnvy, on 01/15/2008, -0/+5To answer your question, I don't trust either of them. That's why I support network neutrality legislation, so that the power of our global communications network cannot be constrained by anyone.
Where did you guys get the crazy idea that neutrality=regulation? The only regulation proposed is that there must be fair and equal access. That strikes to the heart of what democracy should be. - WorldGroove, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
This is Google, saying Net Neutrality is a good thing - as in how the internet operates today - which is because the government works with(read, pays big money to) AT&T to just keep running their business and allow others to access their lines. Without that, AT&T would start charging smaller ISPs and that causes everyone's prices to go up. Not only that, but AT&T is now set to charge-per-domain:
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff292/fearofign ... - That image is what'll most likely end up happening, and that is not right. The internet is no longer just a "toy" or simply a form of entertainment like a CableTV. The internet is serious business and people are putting food on the table, clothing on their childrens' backs and roofs over their families heads with the internet. It is now as essential to the modern world as roads & highways. Everyone should have fair access. If I buy a honda-civic or a Lexus... I should be able to use all roads & highways to get to any store I want. Losing net-neutrality would be like... say, I cannot go to SanFrancisco because I bought a Honda-Civic. Only Lexuses are allowed in SF. When a person buys internet-access, they should be able to access the *whole* thing. Different speeds like Dial-up, DSL, etc...is fine. Just like Buying a Honda-Civic versus a porche. Both cars can get to all the same places, but the porche is faster. The Civic isn't completely sealed off... just a bit slower. The internet is now a critical part of life in the modern world and allows education to those who might not be able to get it any other way; and it is one of the last places the up&coming young-generation has to express themselves and exchange ideas freely. Net-Neutrality needs to stay in place; AT&T needs to be helped by the government so that smaller ISPs can access the vast network AT&T has already laid down as the backbone of America's computer-communications. In my humble opinion, AT&T might as well be a government agency now; removing the profit-margins as a primary concern. Just supply the nation with backbone-internet and let the little ISPs do what they've been doing. - CatsAreGods, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3What are you smoking?
- thebellmaster1x, on 01/15/2008, -2/+5"regulate the internet"
That is a myth. Net neutrality means regulating telecommunications companies, not the Internet. Simple as that. If anybody says it's a regulation on the Internet, they are either misinformed or trying to deceive you. - zanzzz, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2There is government regulation of ISP's but "net neutrality" is not the law now. The FCC will intervene against certain anti competitive practices but not against traffic shaping behavior in most instances.
- thebellmaster1x, on 01/15/2008, -3/+5Consider Ron Paul so I would have to pay more for censored Internet? No thanks.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3That's what he said.
- Scheissen, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2I agree in a free market but these telecoms have used taxpayer money to get their monopolies.
- kevinmotel, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3Here is the summit's website:
http://www.netneutrality2008.org - Tenoq, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2Good one. Apparently no other Diggers are getting it though. :p
- latrosicarius, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1By the way... source for what I said about "big 5" media (thank you XXXXXXXXXXX for pointing out that I am full of BS without a source):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VQcpmfT0f4&feature ...
Time index 22:39 - tdat, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1USF has a lot of spirit and I'm glad they are hosting the event.
- SlvrEagle23, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2Oh hey...I'd go, but after all this "wild and wacky fun" I'm having at Macworld I'll probably be content never going near San Francisco again for the rest of my damn life.
Seriously, what do people see in this place? - BigBrother87, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Will anyone be covering it? I can't make it, but I would like to know the outcome.
- Error601, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1It's appropriate having a debate over handing control of the Internet to the government in a far left leaning place like San Francisco.
- latrosicarius, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Are you stupid? I made an claim that Ron Paul said something. Then somebody said I was full of ***** because there was no source to prove that he actually said it. Then I provided a VIDEO of him saying it.
Youtube is not the source. The video is the source. Just as you would never cite "google" as a source, but you could definitely cite a book or article FOUND THROUGH google. - Chompy, on 01/15/2008, -2/+2That would work if it weren't for.. you know, the current monopoly Big Telecom enjoys on the taxpayer-built backbone that all ISPs rely on. Either you support neutrality legislation, or you don't understand the issue.
- thebellmaster1x, on 01/15/2008, -3/+3"If your ISP does something you don't like, vote with your dollars and don't buy it."
If you had any idea how capitalism worked, you'd realize how wrong you are. That idea only works when you have actual competition.
My choices are currently Comcast and Comcast—what do you suggest, O Wise One? - gcnaddict, on 01/15/2008, -2/+2I wonder if those eights hurt your ass on their way out...
- Noods, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1Net Neutrality is bad for a lot of reasons. If you let the government step in now and regulate it, they are going to feel they have the authority to step in and pass this ***** law that allows them to read our email or censor what people can see online. If you give the government a inch they are going to take a mile.
- FatLoser, on 01/15/2008, -3/+3I don't know where you get off insinuating that everybody in San Francisco is gay and that, by the transitive nature of their disease, this summit will also turn out gay. You've got some balls there KingMoses... some balls indeed. Insensitive prick.
- oxymorgan, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1youtube is totally NOT a good source.
- jasqwerty, on 01/15/2008, -5/+4Somewhat in before 300 Rawn Pawl supporters spouting off campaign talking points awash in various logical fallacies and outright lies
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 01/15/2008, -5/+4I HAVE FAITH IN THE INVISIBLE HAND OF ECONOMICS.
ALL HAIL THE INVISIBLE HAND! - oxymorgan, on 01/15/2008, -2/+1neither is ron paul for that matter.
- jksturm, on 01/15/2008, -10/+3This is a major issue that needs to be addressed. 88% of people agrees the media is bias. We need more information so we can find out the truth. Talk to your congressman and consider Ron Paul.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 01/15/2008, -8/+1A load of ***** from you and no source. Anyways, it's REALLY hard to believe that you worship Ron Paul's concept of laissez-faire but do not apply it to the internet service provider market (and to a really tinfoil hat extreme degree)
- ha1f, on 01/15/2008, -10/+3Sorry, I'm just commenting in here to see if my session expires everywhere...
- GregZor, on 01/15/2008, -9/+2It seems to me the question comes down to: "Who do you distrust more? Your government, or the ISPs?"
The idea of Net Neutrality is great and all but theres still a part of me thats wary of the feds being allowed to regulate the internet. I think alot of fascist legislation could come farther down the road with the attractive disguise of being for our own protection. - KingMoses, on 01/15/2008, -16/+5You can put whatever happy face on it you want, you can smear telcom companies all you want; the fact is that "net neutrality" is a foot in the door for fascism, plain and simple. Don't be scared into giving the government any control over the internet. It can't end well.
If your ISP does something you don't like, vote with your dollars and don't buy it. And don't give me that "but X is my only choice for broadband out here!" *****. There's no law that says you have to have broadband, that's a choice you make for yourself. Either the service they provide is worth it to you or it's not.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 