What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
34 Comments
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11That's the most thorough explanation of the legality of net neutrality protections I've seen yet. And it's great to see more mention of how the "common carrier" regulations should apply to the internet. ISPs are probably dying to force contracts and data rate plans on consumers and extort content providers by arranging advertising and bandwidth deals in exchange for preferred routing, just like they're allowed to do now with cellular services.
- dieMSFTdie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11super important
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"If you let the FCC regulate the internet as a common carrier, then you let the FCC regulate the internet - period."
That's not necessarily true...not in the sense you imply. The FCC (I hope) would not regulate the CONTENT of the internet any more than they regulate the CONTENT of your phone calls.
Of course, knowing the FCC, they'll decide they want to play censor to the Internet like they do the airwaves.
Again: government CAUSES more problems that it has ever solved. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Actually, Net Neutrality wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't FOR the FCC, the SCOTUS and their bad decisions.
Way back when, the telecoms were held in check by Common Carrier laws. This means that if they carried information/data/voice/etc in two directions, they had to treat both ends (and all users) equally. When the cable companies got into the data business, they became Common Carriers. The problem is that when they did, the FCC decided not to treat them as Common Carriers, thus exempting them from CC laws. This could have been overturned when the Brand X case went before the Supreme Court, but the SCOTUS basically went with the FCC's ruling.
Now, since the cablecos aren't bound by CC law, they're dreaming of a tiered internet where double and triple charging certain users will take place...which brings us to Net Neutrality...which wants to keep that from happening. To keep that from happening, users are asking Congress and the FCC to step in...which is ironic considering the FCC CAUSED this problem in the first place.
Typical example of the government creating a problem that they are asked to solve...which will create another problem...which they have to solve...ad nauseum. One of these days, I hope people wake up and realize that the majority of our problems are CAUSED by government intervention...not solved by it.
Also, I'd STILL like to know where that $200billion in subsidies and tax abatements that the gov't gave the telcos and cablecos in 1996, in order to have Fiber to the Curb service nationwide by 2006, went. What the hell did they blow it on and where is our FIOS?!? - dmason, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8They need to hire someone to clean the tubes quarterly.
- JonGalt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8shut up moron. The UN sucks in so many ways its not funny. Let the individual web sites decide what they want and then allow YOU and ME to decide if its worthy of our attention. Both sides of this arguement are stupid. Just like "global warming" or "global cooling" this is being politicized to garner votes. Damn yuppy sheep.
- artfuldodga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the minute the internet becomes a regulated medium overall, to which it affects information true for false and the speed at which we get it or where it is available is the day the internet dies, and we all will have no use for the internet as we know it today and yesterday. so if people like google are looking to lose alot of money in the future, i'd step in now & stop all of this madness.
- graystar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why people want the government to get involved when all that is likely to happen is they will snoop on you is beyond me.
- FrodoLitwin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't know if there are any idiots taking the time to engage in this dialog. But I do know that there are some uninformed folks. For example, the reason there is only one cable company at anyone's house is because of existing laws that grant cable monopolies. Only one cable allowed at your home! And you would then ask those that restricted you so to guarantee net neutrality?
And then, when it all works out wrong, you'll be so surprised - but you should not be.
There are already clear signs of what government regulation does in this realm. As already stated, politicians outlaw the practice of even TWO cables coming to your house. Therefore, repeal of those restrictions would allow competition, as geomon suggested. And that's better than adding another layer of political control.
The US government is the greatest power structure ever known to mankind. Absolute power, and absolute corruption. At this point of $2 trillion dollar federal budgets, there are nearly endless ways to solve our problems by removing restrictions that have been laid upon us. That is, unless you believe that freedom is slavery.
More power to the bureaucracy will only breed more corruption, because power corrupts - and you can never change that flaw of human nature. - JESUSREAM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i would rather deal with a slow dsl connection that have an isp telling me what internet sites i can view. this is a huge deal to everyone.
- Almadiel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Net neutrality IS government regulation of the internet, pure and simple. Don't think for a second that it would end there.
- Lorddias, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
My two cents: I hope these bills gets passed already. I know that telecom companies did not yet 'censor' anything that has affected me yet, but I don't want to be told what websites I can view, and what services I am "allowed". That's just total bullcrap, and knowing large companies, they don't care, its just money they want. - deadi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"For example, the reason there is only one cable company at anyone's house is because of existing laws that grant cable monopolies."
Exactly, We should of lobbied congress for "Cable Neutrality" while we had the chance. A little off here but a close analogy...............
The difference between single cable line to the home and a free internet is free internet benefits the consumer, not a large corporation looking to earn money from it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Economic Geography of Internet Infrastructure in the United States
http://siepr.stanford.edu/programs/SST_Seminars/CSIO-WP-0046.pdf
@andrew
Read my last paragraph above. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you let the FCC regulate the internet as a common carrier, then you let the FCC regulate the internet - period. I don't know if you really realize how much that could slow the internet down just though bureaucratic lethargy. I think there will be market incentives for companies to step forward to offer better carrier service if Verizon or any other provider gets too heavy handed with their pipeline. Common carrier monopoly control within the US is already handled adequately without having to invoke any new control regime over the internet; the cabling that carries the internet carries telephony as well. Use what is already in place without extending it into new areas. If you give the government a new area to control it will be neigh impossible to get them out later down the road.
- nullenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm saying our government doesn't care either, I think we're in a bad situation in either case. One company owning Internet infrastructure essentially creates a monopoly, bad for the free market.
Telecommunications companies are probably the worst customer-oriented companies out there.
The FCC is probably the worst federal agency in regards to censorship. - TruckStuff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/17/net_neut_slow_death/
http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/10/whitacre_wins_big/ - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@tex: ad infinitum
- sharly2007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's the most thorough explanation of the legality of net neutrality protections I've seen yet. And it's great to see more mention of how the "common carrier" regulations should apply to the internet. ISPs are probably dying to force contracts and data rate plans on consumers and extort content providers by arranging advertising and bandwidth deals in exchange for preferred routing, just like they're allowed to do now with cellular services. http://www.gwafi.com/home.html http://www.gwafi.com/links.html
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1put it this way
you reallly want other countries (other anti U.S and more restrictive country's) controlling the internet
Im all for free speech and trade but giving power to less trustable countries is not a good idea - demizu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Quite doubtful. I've never thought it is for real.
- FrodoLitwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0geomon, I was not disagreeing with you, but with the person who said "your an idiot".
I guess I thought that would be clear by the intro:
"I don't know if there are any idiots taking the time to engage in this dialog. But I do know that there are some uninformed folks."
I guess my heurinstincts [sic] are a little too subtle. - sarahmaddelson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Impossible! I'd better go and sleep instead of reading THIS
- deadi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Net Neutrality prevents ISPs from regulating content. If you let providers alter content in favor of making a buck, you will lose the freedom you have on the internet. That is not fair for the consumer and it alters what the internet is. Net Neutrality keeps the internet "AS IS"
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@FrodoLitwin
"For example, the reason there is only one cable company at anyone's house is because of existing laws that grant cable monopolies. Only one cable allowed at your home!"
I don't have cable at my house.
"And you would then ask those that restricted you so to guarantee net neutrality?"
If you think my logic is flawed, consider yours. You trust the government (the FCC by keeping their hands off, or Congress by intervening with legistlation) to maintain the status quo, but then you write the following?:
"More power to the bureaucracy will only breed more corruption, because power corrupts - and you can never change that flaw of human nature."
Did I miss something in your heuristic? - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@texpundit:
Companies charging higher rates and the government granting tax cuts are not examples of government subsidization. This is apparently where that "$200 billion" figure comes from, according to http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2676. - deadi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I dont think the bill is to regulate the "industry" but to keep the internet as is. Net Neurtality keeps the internet free which is the whole idea behind it. All sorts of new technologies are being developed and used, information openly shared because of the freedom we as a society have with it. Who is the government representing if "BIG Money" is allowed to determine what we can and cant do with our freedom?? I think allowing the telcos to regulate our freedom will open a whole new jar of problems specific to each provider. The possiblities are endless in my view because the internet is basically untouched so far.
Look at what is happening with cellphones. You have to pay to send a picture, you pay by the bit(or byte) to use the internet? When cellphones have no minute plans, when they have no text mssg fees or picture fees, when they somewhat resemble the phone system I grew up with, I may change my tune, they all use the internet. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ender30043
"Your an idiot;"
Great debating skills. Let's evaluate the substance of your argument, shall we?
"in most locations there is one DSL provider and one cable internet provider."
Which shows you don't know the difference between carriers and the internet.
And by the way, that should be "you're an idiot". If you are going to claim superiority, you should at least master the fundamentals of grammar first. - ender30043, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Your an idiot; in most locations there is one DSL provider and one cable internet provider. There is no market competition in a Duopoly
- Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1They already have the SMB.
- nullenigma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I would immediately support net neutrality if it wasn't the FCC getting into it. The FCC has repeatedly shown a desire to censor content merely on a 'moral' basis.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"shut up moron. The UN sucks in so many ways its not funny. Let the individual web sites decide what they want and then allow YOU and ME to decide if its worthy of our attention. Both sides of this arguement are stupid. Just like "global warming" or "global cooling" this is being politicized to garner votes. Damn yuppy sheep."
***** you very much. I didn't say the UN should draw it up, as much as a body like the UN, presumably comprised of industry experts and influential website owners.
Problem is individual websites don't have the power to dictate whether the Telcos will or will not tax every ***** bit that goes in or out of their servers. That's been the problem since the beginning, and you've offered no solution except bury your head in the sand and pretend like it's not something that will affect everyone. *****. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"But, even more so, the heavily subsidized telcos shouldn't have any say either, as the money for the infrastructure that we use came mainly from the government."
This is untrue. Nobody has ever been able to show me what law the money was appropriated under, how much money was appropriated, and what percentage of building costs were funded by the government. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Well, no single country should have any say what goes on with the internet, I think. But, even more so, the heavily subsidized telcos shouldn't have any say either, as the money for the infrastructure that we use came mainly from the government. If anyone wants to start passing regulation or making decisions pertaining to the future of the internet, it needs to be on a world-wide basis. I'd like to see a Internet Bill of Rights drawn up by the U.N. or some other international body regarding the internet. Every human being on this planet should have free, unadulterated access to the internet, never to be taxed or regulated by any government, and never to have imposed, arbitrary fees of distribution by any organization, private or public. It should heavily weigh in on the side of the most access for the people, and the least (preferably nonexistent) amount of control by organizations or governments.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is