What is Digg?39 Comments
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Why is Congress representing companies and not the people?
- expertninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10When is Congress going to stop being the telecom companies bitch? Honestly folks, sign up for this, vote, do something to keep this from happening.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"do something"
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.ipaction.org/ - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Because that is the standard way, under the bush mis-administration, ever since he and his famly stole the elections, twice.
The corporations give him and his friends a lot of bribe money and other perks.....the 'people' don't do that, since it is illegal, and any individual could never come up with enough bribe money the way a corporation can. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Finally! We are beginning to see the masses move (first EFF's petition and now this).
Evil flourishes whilst good people do nothing... - randomvictim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Because its America.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v446/shtsteel/savetheinternetv1.png -ftw. - flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10god I hate republicans and their *****. Keep the net neutral.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The Republicans won, remember?
What did you think you were voting for? - GhostFreeman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6remember this is an election year...
- letmereplynow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Poco,
The basic problem with that idea is that in most places and cities there is only one large Telco, and they usually run the smallers once they start getting big out of town. So therefore there is only 1 or 2 sets of ISP's to choose from. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know if these groups would come up with a slogan like "Were protecting your right for a cheap and FREE internet!" people would take notice a lot more. If you wanna get the public involved make it look like their wallet is gonna take a huge hit if (insert plan/bill here) gets passed...
- kylefurlong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think you understand. This isn't a free market issue where one or another telephone company is implementing practices you don't agree with. It is many telephone companies lobbying government for special laws that would impact their profits, while at the same time compromising basic rights. These laws would be universal in the US, across all telephone companies. The fight is against this breach, which would have no free market recourse. (no large group of people is going to completely boycott the internet)
- Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Someone needs to take Ma Bell down a peg or two. Seems they're getting a little more than arrogant.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Let the market sort it out" doesn't apply to monopoly conditions.
Once a government backed monopoly takes hold, rational rules of the free market are effectively suspended until the monopoly becomes unbearably bad. Don't forget that your tax dollars went to lay all that cable, buy the right of ways, change regulations to put that wire at your door. It was given to a monopoly to serve the national interest. Make sure it stays that way. - anarchocap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Because politicians are not there for your benefit, no matter what you may hope. It seems like we are heading backwards in thinking that politicians are somehow more benevolent than everyone else around. Corporations have you interest in mind, governments don't; which one doesn't get payed if they piss you off?
Governments can't legislate a free or open internet.
Or are you guys talking some Marx LTOV business, if sorry I apologize from taking you away from your government mandated sickle.
Edit: Water- this has absolutely nothing to do with the current administration, listen to what they say, yes stop and listen, they are the exact same. That may not be the way it was but it is the way it is. - Kebert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Everyone make sure to click on "Act Now" and send this to your congressmen/congresswomen.
It's just another form to fill out on the internet, it's not like it's a big deal. - tregnaward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3An article posted on digg just over a week ago:
http://www.digg.com/technology/AT_T_and_Verizon:_We_Own_Your_Congress
in the article is a link to this page:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/top.aspx?act=topcompanies
Verizon is number 7 with $81,870,000
AT&T is number 17 with $53,349,499
also, some people might find number 2 interesting: Altria Group - $101,220,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria_Group - vettelovr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you seem to be forgetting(or ignorant of) the fact that the large telcos control most of the internet backbone in this country, AT&T comes to mind as one of the largest. they sell bandwidth to the smaller ISP's who in turn sell it to their subscribers. Just because you switch ISP's doesnt automatically guarantee you will be using a different backbone provider. And even if your particular ISP doesn't use, for example, AT&T, then most likely the site you are trying to access does, so your traffic still crosses AT&T's network at some point. Not to mention the fact that not everywhere has access to multiple ISP's. In my area, we have the local cable company and dialup access. Gee, there's an easy choice to make, but better than the areas that have dialup as their only access option. Believe it or not, there are many areas in this country that are still limited to dialup access. If the ISP's cant compete on the same level as other services, then they should take a hit in profits, but should not be able to degrade bandwidth used by competing services, ie Vonage. That is known as a MONOPOLY, which, last time I checked, is still illegal in this country, although for how long is anyone's guess
- chetchez, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12Erm - I didn't know the internets was in trouble. Oh noes! I'll have to post this all over my MySpace page and cry about it in my LiveJoural!!!!1111oneoneone Plz forward this to all your friends or Bill Gates will unhook your cable modem and leave the toilet seat up!
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would write but my representative, duke cunningham, is in jail.
how sad. - BobbyOnions, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"the nation"?
Please, remember this site is accessible from anywhere on the planet. - MadEnvoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Save the..." - to late...
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Pff, I hope this new group has a few hundred thousand to donate to these senators' "campaign funds", otherwise they won't get the time of day.
- Daniel591992, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How you save the internet? Kill Myspace!!!
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nonsense, the ISPs would have to build up the networks to support the new tiered services...
- superal1394, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this website was on digg a few days ago; cnet is a bit slow to the game :-P
- Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Net neutrality keeps everyone on equal levels. There are no tiers. That's why it is bad. All companies charge more for upgraded services without affecting the basic service. Why can't the telcos do the same. Microsoft charges more for a professional version of Windows. Yahoo, Google, Redhat, UPS, and McDonalds (supersize) all do the same.
- MrBarcode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks american goverment for stripping me of my first amendment. :D
- ryzellon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you're interested in this topic, take a look at the other digg stories:
http://digg.com/search?search=neutrality
There are several pages of results, almost all of them are about network neutrality, so this is hardly new news. There are even a few stories about net neutrality with upwards of 1k diggs. However the more people are aware of the debate (both sides), the better. - Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is very ironic. Net Neutrality would kill the Internet and this is why: All upgrades in Internet infrastructure would stop. Google and Microsoft wouldn't build a network because they get a free ride on someone else's. The Telcos and cable companies would stop investing because they get zero return on investment. The USA would be left in the dust while other countries surpass us with new technology.
- yuletide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reminds me of a lecture I heard by David Harvey at Dartmouth last week. He really explained a lot about the current subservience of EVERYTHING to business interests, through the lens of Marxist economic geography (using NYC as a case study basically of how neoliberal economics affects change in the urban landscape). Here is a great interview with him which goes into greater depth, and talks about his latest book, "A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism": http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9655
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harvey_(geographer)
Incidentally, he's also the most famous Academic Geographer of all time (or so they say) - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, it always annoys me when people say "don't worry, you can always switch!"
You can't when AT&T is your only choice in town because they either bought out or undercut and forced out of business the small-time competition. - Maxington, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Another way to make more money on a service.
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Remember to have a voice on June 5th: http://it-day-off.blogspot.com/ re: http://digg.com/music/Piracy_worse_than_child_pornography#c1556154 (Piracy Worse than Child Pornography)
- velox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I fully support net neutrality but I don't believe additional legislation is the path we need to use to preserve it. I suggest, like others have already said on this matter, that if our service provider opts to eliminate net neutrality, we switch to a different service. Besides, you know what kind of people view digg. I'm sure we'd all eventually come up with a solution to avoid traffic shaping and port blocking of any service. Hell, look how easy (sarcasm) it is to stop people from using Bit Torrent on a network at the moment.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I've mentioned this before in similar threads, but I'll repeat it here to provide a little counter-argument against this love-fest...
Personally, while crippling connections to outside content is clearly unacceptable, I think a tiered internet would be necessary to really bring us to the next level of high-bandwidth services. If the ISP can host content on their servers, and offer very high-speed (maybe around 1Gbps peak, 0.1Gbps min) access to it for reasonable rates, that would offer a great alternative to current internet distribution options, even if it's limited to targetting the customers of specific ISPs. If a tiered internet means I can buy some hosting from Comcast, and get guaranteed high-bandwidth serving to all Comcast customers, it would really open the door to services that are just not possible with current net topology, serving to other ISPs that might not have access to the bandwidth required for the service.
An obvious example is on-demand delivery of high-definition video streams. Residential broadband connections are just not fast enough to enable those kinds of services. If I could buy hosting from the major ISPs, I would at least be able to target their customers without worrying about dropped packets and poor connections. It would require some minor changes to internet file access, only granting access to the stream if it's hosted on the requestor's ISP, but it's not really difficult to implement with current protocols.
This is really going to be like TV network affiliates for the new century. Major ISPs that cover large areas of the country could even offer to split up the access based on geography, allowing for services like geographically-targetted advertising and such. I don't really see a practical alternative to a tiered internet if we want to have the kinds of high-bandwidth services that need to happen.
While I realize that will create a market where bigger ISPs can offer more value than others, giving them a competitive advantage. This could be mitigated with some checks and balances; ISPs could be obliged to sublicense any hosted content to other ISPs for reasonable rates upon request, or maybe content providers could be forced to adopt a uniform licensing agreement and offer it to any ISP. Content affiliates could promote content and deal with mixing in advertising from local businesses to the customers they're targetting.
To just arbitrarily push for legislation that would make things like this illegal just seems like it's going against progress, and would do nothing but keep me from getting the proper high-bandwidth distribution options I want to see on the market. I can't think of any better way to encourage development of high-speed services, including high-speed MANs (Metropolitan Area Networks)...
The other tier would be the internet we know today, and that should continue to function in an unfiltered manner, as it does today. It's just that it makes sense, given the internet's infrastructure, to give ISPs the ability to serve content at guaranteed speeds, to meet a demand that couldn't be filled without limiting access on an ISP basis.
Also, realize that it could work both ways. If you can establish p2p connections to people on your tier, possibly with some auto-discovery, it could allow some very interesting possibilities for p2p apps. Since they would be first tier connections, it might be possible to access your computer hard drive remotely at close to full speed, or do some serious videoconferencing with local partners. Tiers would really adjust the internet's operation to reflect how it's actually put together, while still allowing outside connections as they do now... I bet ISPs would love to be able to shift all that p2p traffic onto their own network instead of having to pay for outside bandwidth... - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3How far do you go controlling how ISP operate their businesses?
How long before petitions show up demanding that Congress set a maximum price for high speed internet access so everyone has equal access. Oh heck, why not just make it free for everyone? The Telcos make enough money on other services, they can give us internet access right?
The internet is not a right. The freedom of the internet is defined by the people that contribute to it (like here), not by how it is delivered to your house.
If your ISP does something stupid then you will switch. If enough people do that then they will stop. The customers control the ISPs and Telcos, not the government.
Imagine what the internet would look like if there had been more government legislation. Not pretty. Relying on the government to "fix" things is just asking for trouble. First they legislate freedom and net neutrality, next they legislate restricted access to "bad" sites (who could argue with that), then they filter out sites from China because they don't agree with the content. It's a slippery slope. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2nothing is going to happen-lame
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Your right, it isn't a big deal. Why should the government control how the Telcos run their business? It is America, the land of the free market, if you don't like what your ISP does then switch to a different ISP.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 