What is Digg?Sponsored by Nokia
Check out the Nokia N900 in Diggnation view!
nokiausa.com - The Nokia N900 made an appearance in the LIVE Diggnation episode in NYC last month!
53 Comments
- snowelite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33In other news, Your still going to get boned in the ass at the end of every month.
- bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Net neutrality isn't something that should only be given because ATT wants some deal that can make it lots of money. Net neutrality should be a given, a right, something that is absolutely the way the internet would ideally work. The 2 year BS proposed by ATT is just stupid and short sighted. They are basically conceding something that should rightly be the way the internet works in order to make a crap load of money.
- cfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14can some one please help me understand what this Net Neutrality is about and what the pro/cons are?
- Mach5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14WRONG: http://techdirt.com/articles/20061229/001833.shtml
- redDC143C, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Please don't digg him down, a lot of people don't know what this is about. For those who are actually wanting to learn the topic, here are a few links that will get you going:
Has a nice little video explaintion:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Obligatory wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
And what Google has to say about the issue:
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
Happy learning :) - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13***** you telcos
- doubleblack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Where does letting the NSA spy in on all phone and internet communications fit in with net neutrality?
- rocketryguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Then she has no idea of which she speaks, which doesn't surprise me, since she's in a non-technical position. The Internet infrastructure isn't just some magic cloud that they own. They own parts of it, other folks own other parts of it, it's a network of networks, by definition and in the real world as well. They are using other folks networks without being charged in most cases, and they're already being paid for the use of their network via ISP charges. So it's all corporate BS to try and get a tiered (read: Maximum screwing) network going, so they can consolidate media control and make scads of money via re-re-charging for what they're already being paid for. There are some secondary issues with power/media control/politics that are involved, none of which is good for democracy or your typical citizen Joe.
Also, during research for "Internet 2" (which is sort of a misnomer, but never mind) it was clearly shown that tiering doesn't work anywhere near as cheaply or as reliably as simply increasing the bandwidth. They like to howl about how much they have to spend, but frankly that's a load of BS too. They already got 300 BILLION in tax breaks to provide us all with a minimum of 45Mbps, and that never happened. Never gave the money back either. And yet they complain that they have too much "dark fiber" unused. Well, use it stupid, it really doesn't cost that much to heat up pairs of fiber. Yes, I do this for a living....
So I call triple shenanigans, and could go on and on, but I'm going to go to bed instead.
Net Neutrality ensures that the Internet will work well and reliably, and that you can reach anybody without paying through the ass for the privilege. And continue to be a force for democracy and the free flow of information. Without it we're pretty *****. It won't "break" the Internet, it'll just change it into something more like cable TV. Okay, it will break what I consider the Internet.... - z23rdhsuan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11oh so that's how concessions work?
well in that case i pledge to maintain a "neutral network" if all of you give me a dollar. - cynicist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Where is my ***** fiber?
- lobsang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Bizarre...
The same AT&T which was broken down years ago now comes back and "promises" something to the government if they let they become a giant conglomerate again. ?!? - redDC143C, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Is my info out of date? Last I heard the deal was to keep neutrality for a minimum of 33 months, at which time, AT&T could decide to go either way.
I'm hoping it's a permanent deal, but the merger is a no-win situation all around for the consumer (except *possibly* the folks who have had to deal with Bell South all these years). - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"for all of the big content providers to get to have us use their infrastructure"
"Why are the content providers using our pipes for free?" etc
Anyone who dares make such a ***** ridiculously stupid argument is ***** IGNORING that _WE_ ***** PAY THEM EVERY GOD DAMN MONTH FOR INTERNET SERVICE AND "CONTENT PROVIDERS" SUCH AS GOOGLE AND THE LIKE ARE PAYING ***** FOR THOSE FAST ASS CONNECTIONS.
This is one of those situations that merit a broken caps-lock key. >_> - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If this is how consumers define victory these days, we are not doing so well. It's only going to get worse as the telcos become more consolidated and can wield more power in Washington.
- KorDmp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ok, does anyone on here work for a large ISP, because I don't know of many people that have millions of customers that they support that fully support full net neutrality.
1. Not blocking traffic to public sites unless, the customer wants traffic blocked to anywhere. I don't know of anyone that doesn't want this to be true. This is definitely a keeper.
2. No QOS or allow QOS for all like traffic the same. This gets ugly here. To some degree yes, to some degree no. Yes to a degree that it is a nice concept to treat all traffic the same if possible, but this just isn't a reality. There just isn't enough bandwidth built in the backbones. Most backbones are multiple OC-192s moving to OC-768 because the OC-192s are saturated and the OC-768 will saturate shortly after they are put in.
You can't just allow all voice or video traffic from anywhere to be in the same QOS. One, there just isn't enough memory on routers and two there is no way to guarantee the traffic is that type of traffic unless you are looking at the content, which is not cost efficient and do you really want ISPs looking at the content of everything you send? If you base it off ports then everyone starts to use those ports and QOS is nulled. If you put everything as best effort it might be ok in the backbone but sucks at the edge, so everything is just crap. Some people say oh just add more bandwidth, but it costs a crap load to do that. Broadband is cheap because it is an oversubscribed network, which means that it isn't a dedicated bandwidth to each subscriber but a shared bandwidth. If you want dedicated bandwidth then you are going to have to pay for the fiber from the router all the way to your house, which I doubt you want to do. Dedicated circuits costs a crap load. Some European companies do this but in metro areas or in a limited fashion, not to 8-10 million customers dispersed over the area of the size of the US. Homes aren't clumped together like in a lot of European countries, in some parts of the US your nearest neighbor might be 20 miles away. Also keep in mind that without QOS then there are no business Internet connections that are any better than Consumer connections and no SLAs.
3. On the issue of google pays a lot and subscribers pay a lot...
Well google pays a lot to their ISP X, while the subscriber pays a lot to their ISP Y. Sorry to tell you but most Telcos have to pay for peering, it isn't free any longer like the old days of Tier1 free peering. So ISP Y has to also pay ISP X for that bandwidth. So ISP X makes out like a bandit, but the Telco who has to maintain last mile infrastructure has to keep prices cheap $10-$80/mth and still hope that bulk will pay for everything. Last mile infrastructure cost a crap load to support. It isn't like a pure ISP who just supports backhaul and interconnect circuits. A Telco has to pay for and sustain the fiber and equipment all the way up to the side of your house for every house. Scale is everything. The only financial solution here is either free peering for Tier1 and Telco's or for Google to buy bandwidth connectivity on ISP Y's network.
4. Telco's currently supply most ISP connectivity at a loss, yes at a loss. There is no money in last mile if you can't be compensated for it in some way like the ability to provide video or phone or QOS resale to corporations. Ever wonder why they like to make you lockin for at least 2 years, its because that is the point at which they will at least cover the costs of just installation, sustaining, and monitoring and start to make a profit. Most Telco's are living off their Cellular companies cash at this point. Most broadband is a future investment operating at a loss or break even at best and when you add up the backbone portion of all of it, it is definitely a loss.
In summary, Net neutrality has good points, I think they are things to strive for, but they have a cost. If you want it all today then expect to get crappy internet connections with packet loss and congestion or to have your prices skyrocket. There is no incentive for a Telco to build a network that is not going to make money for them. Net Neutrality has to keep this in mind, if it doesn't then we will all suffer, especially in the US and other largely dispersed populated countries. - z23rdhsuan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i concede that the pigs will fly
how many years do you lot suspect it will be before we have a phone monopoly again? - joshuakuhn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Japan?
- Sabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Please don't abuse the English language like that ever again.
- Dested, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They've really got our balls in a salad shooter....
- mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What is funny is that I heard about this from a friend who works at Verizon in Labor Relations. She is against net neutrality because she feels that it's "wrong" for all of the big content providers to get to have us use their infrastructure(It's ridiculous and I don't understand) But she said that AT&T are prostitutes and are doing this before the new house so that they can make a merger with Bell South and that the new house would shoot it down. I'm not sure but the fact remains she said that they were PROSTITUES for supporting net-neutrality.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Smart move on their part. acquire bellsouth to make the monopoly larger while playing it cool with the Net Neutrality advocates, then BAM no neutrality and no competition to stop them.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Industries can *always* be trusted to regulate themselves. Especially natural monopolies.
Why there's nothing safer than a Mr. Fox Brand (r)(tm) Henhouse! - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I pledge to give you a dollar when pigs fly
- daviddavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ATT neutrality a scam in disquise?
(google phrase below for source)
quote:
"Dave Burstein, who knows more about DSL than probably just about anyone, lets us know that the fine print in the deal actually may negate the network neutrality premise. The wording is a little tricky, but while they agree not to remove network neutrality from their standard network, hidden in the middle of a later paragraph is this sentence: "This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth's Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service." At first that might seem innocuous, but Burstein has pointed out that AT&T's always planned on using the IPTV network as that high-speed toll lane it wants Google, Vonage and others to pay extra for. Burstein notes that AT&T isn't even set up to put quality of service on their existing network -- so the agreement not to violate network neutrality on that network is effectively meaningless. It is, he claims, a sleight of hand that successfully fooled a bunch of people into supporting the deal, and will probably help it get approval. AT&T promises not to violate network neutrality on a network they never intended to use that way, and carves out permission to use it on their new network, where they had planned all along to set up additional tollbooths. - Yashu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have the choice of either ATT or roadrunner... so basically the big telco or big media... I consider cable worse because they are far closer to the **AA groups.
I don't want to see ATT try to shape VOIP traffic, but I don't want us all to dump our money on a big media company either. I have to say, when I recently had to sign a new contract with ATT... I was pretty impressed with how easy it is to get phone and DSL service switched on these days. I had been using an alternate ISP, but the pipes (tubes) all belong to ATT anyway, so I cut out the middle man and saved some money.
I am not advocating ATT, but I am saying that right now they are the lesser of two evils. I hope that wi-max and similar tech allow us mere mortals to have our own decent backbones... but right now, I would rather not basically send a check right in to the riaa/mpaa like you do with cable. - zorvi4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Rocket,
Well put. I also like the other comment. "humans try to get the max amount of money out of individuals." It is monopololies that control our flow of information but its also important to remember that it is humans controling it. After all they are only humans. - MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hah. This is nothing we should be happy about at all. AT&T and BellSouth Corp should never have been allowed to merge in the first place. It was totally shocking for me that they even were allowed to. The whole US got like only ONE company now in this area... Nice one. AT&T says that they will only maintain a "neutral network" if they are allowed to merge. They should not and I mean NOT allowed to merge with BellSouth Corp and if necessary forced to maintain net neutrality.
- tiga31328, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wasn't there a reason they deregulated AT&T and the 'Bells' to start with?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Clarification...
Did AT&T actually pledge to keep their network neutral, or....
Did they pledge to maintain "_a_ neutral network"? - FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is not a victory, read it again.
"AT&T on Thursday offered the Net neutrality concession -- saying it will not prioritize or degrade network traffic based on "source, ownership or destination" FOR TWO YEARS after the merger..."
According to this, net neutrality will end in two years. - hukedonfonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well why don't you be so kind as to explain it to us then?
- LuisaMorales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mark Cooper is right; it is a win for the public but in all seriousness for how long? This "net neutrality" will only last two years and then what. It all goes to the can and no one will hear of it again? AT&T and Bellsouth joining forces, not the best idea. AT&T will only get bigger; as if it weren't big enough. They already own numerous small companies the only reason they seem to have died off after there apparent crash is because they don't go by "AT&T" they use their partners name to cover up and gain public wealth. If this follows through I'm sure two years from now they'll all be sitting in loads of cash and we, the consumers will be pissed off out of our minds. FANTASTIC ain't it?
- omababy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AT&T Net Neutrality pledge, please, They couldn't implement it in the current political climate.
Anyway I thought AT&T didn't even understand what net neutrality is in the first place... - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Has anyone verified that this is true in the manner we are celebrating?
- jdandrea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From Network World, 3 January 2007: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/010307-att-bellsouth.html
AT&T "essentially agreed not to charge content providers such as eBay, Amazon or Google a premium to carry their content" and to "not treat packets traveling to or from certain Web sites differently than other packets on its network." Meanwhile, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin does not see a connection, calling net neutrality an “ill-defined problem." - FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@JonForTheWin
Agreed. Any company will take into account the expenditures required in order to provide a good or service. Then they add a profit margin both as a reward for their investment and an incentive for them to continue providing the good or service. In other words, they need to eat too. No company in it's right mind knowingly produces a good or service at a loss. If a company is stupid enough to do so, it deserves to go out of business.
Applying well-known business models to this situation, if Google or some other content provider was not making a profit, they would merely raise the price OF THE GOOD OR SERVICE they provide. For example, google would raise the cost of their advertising. The businesses which advertise on google would now have higher expenses, and we could expect a slight increase in the cost of their products. Another way would be for ISP to have increased costs, and to pass that cost on to the consumer. The price of your monthly internet access would rise.
The problem is that some corporations are trying to convince people that somehow standard business models magically don't apply to the internet, and they need to tell you what sites you can visit at what speed, which would effectively limit free speech, since many people would get tired of waiting for "boring" news content to load. I am assuming of course, that our government is slowly turning into a fascist dictatorship or at the very least a corporate ogliarchy. If you're living under a rock and don't see that as a concern, then of course you won't have a problem with net neutrality at all.
Obviously I understand simple business models much better than any other aspect of this controversy, but I believe the average amercican has similar understanding. The geek techs on digg are of course an exception, and understand the componets of the technology better.
Here's another thought. It may be that I am confused about what it is that AT&T intends. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for a minute, and see where logic takes us. They say their only purpose is to restrict high bandwidth and therefore high expense media like videos or movies to a particular network, and to charge accordingly for access to that network; WHILE AT THE SAME TIME to allow the unrestricted access to all other content on the internet to anyone with a connection at basically the same price structure already in place. If this last part is their intention, and we are willing to admit it seems reasonable, then why oh why, with their fancy PR departments and million dollar ad campaigns, can't they come out and say this clearly and simply?
The fact that they do not seem to be able to clearly and simply say this indicates to me, a cynical and experienced veteran of ***** propaganda, that their intentions are not so innocent.
~oh super geeks of digg, tell me where I have this wrong~
- FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with a "trusted" company is that it can be bought out by an untrustworthy company. I'd rather have a law in place that no company can violate regardless of who owns the company.
- FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, and ComputerWorld just lost all crediblity with me for writing such a misleading headline. There have been studies that show there is a segment of any population that just looks at the headlines, and I'm sure ComputerWorld is aware of this. Having the article contradict the headline in order to avoid public outcry is a very underhanded technique. It's been happening quite frequently under the Bush administration.
- KorDmp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Confused...Last mile has always been only one choice. You could always choose a different local LATA telco, but even then the last mile and the person who did the troubleshooting was still BellSouth or AT&T, just a different billing company who benefited from the below cost tariffs. This hasn't changed.
- jbelkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yea, only a bureaucrat would cheer this decision - it will take AT&T a good 10 months to digest this takeover anyway so saying 2 years, you might as well be saying I agree not to eat a pineapple for 2 hours after I finish at the buffet place. Plus as others point out, it only applies to 768 DSL so big whoppee do.
The reason we want net neutrality is NOT because we're getting a free lunch from AT&T when we use Google but a) WE PAID for the street anyway when AT&T was a monopoly and we still continue to pay for it (see $10 billion dollar boonagle for last go around of net neutrality) so it's UP to us to decide how and when we want to use it. Whether I watch YouTube videos, download movies or just send emails, we paid for the street/tube/internet already and we use them as an ISP/provider, then we are paying more to decide how we want to use it. It's be like buying gas and being told, if you drive on that road, you owe us another $.50 a mile but this road has no extra charge - don't mind the speed bumps, we want you to slow down and look at our billboards.
The good thing is that the telcos are morons and bunglers. If they ever try to implement it, they will get sued and legistlated ... and failing that, Google will just activate the dark fiber they'd been buying up and we will get our cities to switch to wifi max and shoot up our own birds ... at that point, there is no way a politician will side for them because any money they take against us is a voting death sentence at the next elections ... you think those 4th ammendment gun people are a tough fight ... wait until they try and turn off DIGG ... :-) - bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2We are ***** in two years.
- Zbug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would be nice if Google made themselves an ISP, I feel I can trust that company.
- hukedonfonix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2lib24: do yo even know what you're babling about? At first i thought you were just a telco shill, but reading further down your post it seems like you have no concept of what really is going on. I'm not going to waste my breath and try and educate you, because the person above you already did. If you don't want to take his word then just google it.
Jesus Christ, the only propaganda being spewed here is by you. - lock720, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0KorDmp I would like to comment on your third point:
"Well google pays a lot to their ISP X, while the subscriber pays a lot to their ISP Y. Sorry to tell you but most Telcos have to pay for peering, it isn't free any longer like the old days of Tier1 free peering. So ISP Y has to also pay ISP X for that bandwidth. So ISP X makes out like a bandit,"
You are almost 100% correct on this. There is a peering agreement in place for nearly every peering ISP. What you are mistaken about is the relative burden on which ISP. These peering agreements work on a "push" system, an ISP has to pay when it "pushes" data onto a peer's network. In your example, that means that ISP X has to pay Y for each byte it sends to the subscriber through ISP Y's network.
Now think about your average interaction with google. You send google a minuscule HTTP request message of a few dozen bytes, and google sends back to you entire HTML pages full of search results. ISP X will end up owing ISP Y (much) more than Y owes X. The situation gets even worse when you take into account services like google video, where the difference moves into the mega or gigabyte range per visitor. Google pays its ISP(s) a lot of money for the services they provide, and a portion of that money already reaches your own ISP. - KorDmp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lock720:
For old style ISPs that is how it works, that is not how it works for AT&T or Verizon. As they by a peering connection but since Neither is a transit network it is considered an end user connection which means that both pay for circuits just as Google does. I know this for a fact, the ISPs pay nothing back to the Telco's for the yearly circuit costs connected to their subscriber networks. There are still legal issues blocking Telco's from doing such things.
JonForTheWin:
I agree with not intentionally restricting bandwidth or traffic to anywhere if the subscriber does not sign up for such a service.
True the cost could be pushed to the subscriber, but the subscriber doesn't want increased prices they want lower prices. The point is they can't have both. For instance on a typical BPON there is 622M (not counting overhead) to all the subscribers on that PON, but upstream on the edge router there may only be 2x1G or 2x622M for all PONS on the edge router. An increase in bandwidth is not a simple thing because every time you do it it means overhauling your entire network. For a Telco this means changing out equipment at minimum in the backbone (which is a small amount, and much easier to do) and at the edge which means in every CO. There are a lot of COs and no a distributed model doesn't work because of all of the LATA restrictions that Telcos are under. At worst it means swapping out DSLAMs, OLTs, headends, and/or ONTs on the side of your house. Telco last mile providers are also different than Cable because cable providers can legal design a regional design, whereas the Telcos are not legal capable of this design. For instance my cable service edge is about 70 miles from where I live, which is also why cable sucks so much, but with Telco's your edge is usually down the street or at worst somewhere in your LATA.
Regarding your other thoughts. Again, I see no reason to restrict Internet traffic, but that is not the same as giving priority to traffic that the subscriber has paid a premium. What you have to remember is that the traffic is only impacted when there is congestion not as business as usual. If there is congestion, a provider of course wants to alleviate it as soon as possible just because it is good business and honestly it is too costly to have customer calling in all the time complaining :) If all traffic was best effort than there can be no premium services like video or phones. Most people want there phones and TVs to work and don't want to hear sorry there is a new video of someone naked so the porn traffic has made it so that your phone and TV don't work. And no, you can't just give QOS to all traffic. There is a cost to doing QOS. It has to be planned and configured based on the amount of traffic you expect to receive in that queue.
Could a provider allow another provider to mark traffic in a trusted way with a priority? Yes, but you better bet they are going to recoup the equipment, management, and circuit costs for doing it for that third party, they aren't going to do it because the "Internet should be a free place". It isn't. It hasn't been since the late 70's. It may have seemed that way but it has always been a business since their were providers. As stated above the Internet is a bunch of networks, but each one is in it to make money. - kailashbadu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0well, was that an act of altruism or merely a way to blackmail?
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That's just politician strong arming for some weenies in Congress that want to keep as much government control over people's lives as possible. Sorry...no choice in video service for you unless we in Congress can run it. That lets them have influence over content among other things.
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Except the only monopoly in this case is the the Congress. Only a few hundred people in control of the Internet...does that really sound like a good plan to you?
- Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1All you people who don't work in the telecommunications industry and think you know what you are talking about are being laughed at by us on the inside. You are really making yourselves look like buffoons.
- Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2There is no monopoly. You people are living in the last century. And, you are very clueless about this issue.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
