What is Digg?53 Comments
- BlackJackJester, on 02/15/2008, -0/+14I surefire way to make a bill gets rejected by by the senate is by making them hear from the public
- GhostyBoy, on 02/15/2008, -1/+12Pay very close attention to this bill. I would be very surprised if the same people who passed retroactive immunity to the telecoms are suddenly working for the good of the people and freedom of speech. Those who own and control television, radio and print media will no doubt very interested in regulating the internet.
- pintomp3, on 02/15/2008, -1/+9before anyone claims net neutrality is about "regulating the internet", it's about keep it open and neutral; the way it is now. the telecoms want to break that and create different tiers so they can create more profits, stifle competition, and silence voices they don't want heard. net neutrality is no more about regulating the internet than the 1st amendment is about regulating speech.
- ssj2119, on 02/15/2008, -3/+9bruv, what the hell - no, just no. If you want to go to a watered down internet you can choose an ISP that gives you that then, while everyone switches to some that promise the "open internet". Don't like it? Use your watered down internet.
- schneid4323, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5So the government hates Google?
Google hates you too. - Spoomeister, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5Since Obama supports net neutrality, he will obviously vote correctly on this when/if it ever comes to a vote.
...right? - 93TILL503, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4Comcastic!
- jftitan, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5Wait.... by your standards... I as a rabid down loader who uses my $60 a month broadband connection should sacrifice MY connection to the internet, because YOU who only browses the web, and reads email and periodically downloads 'stuff' can have a better access through your broadband connection.
I can't fathom your logic. Here, let me correct your last sentence. "Don't Like it? Then I'll goto 56k kid." Because you use less 'internet' than I do, but expect the ISPs to limit my connection because I use MY 'internet'. No. I wont sacrifice my paid for connection by limitations so you who is paying the same amount that I am, can have a worthwhile connection so you can access your email, or websites. For you, why don't you pay for less internet than I do, and still have the same access.
Oh and by my use of the word 'you' I mean for anyone who has your mentality. - BlackJackJester, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3wow. Remind me to not write comments 5 minutes after waking up.
- rexblade, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2And only the government can take it away.
- nonnald, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3when YOUR what is using less - or did you mean you are as in YOU'RE using less?
- CoolWind, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3the bill will "ensure that the historic, open architecture nature of the Internet will be preserved and fostered for the consumers, content providers and high tech innovators of the future." digg it!
- laserman92027, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2The FCC has a terrible record of listening to public comment even when it is backed by solid scientific fact. Good luck with this.
- bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2the point is to find a balance. you cant have total freedom(which is called anarchy), but you definitely can have too much freedom taken away.
- jftitan, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2You know, even after proof reading my comment, I now see my mistake. What I don't mean is "I don't expect others to lose out on their broadband connection because I'm hogging the tubes." What I do mean "I expect the ISPs to uphold their promise to give me a stable and projected 8Mbps down and 512Kbps connection that I pay for, if for your reason your paying the same amount that I am paying, but only using it to access the web and check your email, it is not my fault your an idiot for paying more when YOUR using less."
- FriedTurkey, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3What's with all the hate for this bill? It sounds like it could be good. I guess all the stupid Ayn Rand libertarianism has permeated everyones brain. Yeah lets just wait for the "free market" to fix things. It is possible for the government to do good.
- schroeder, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2Not really. Startup ISPs get muscled out all the time. And many municipalities have long contracts with single providers shutting the doors for competition. See how much trouble cities are having getting municipal wifi? These companies are too powerful to let anyone get in the way of their profits.
- pintomp3, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2senator stevens?
- GamerSDG, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Hillary also supports net neutrality
- poptartrevival, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3You know, you can download content from bittorrent that's NOT illegal music or films. OH MY GOD! IMAGINE THAT! Many people are upping their own content (check mininova's featured content ups) for distribution, iso images that take up too much space to deal out traditionally on a centralized server, etc. Just because you pay for your service, I do too by the way, doesn't mean you control it. Grow up and quit being an anhedonic troll.
- OG1502, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2Yes a good bill BUT, they will also hear from the general public. Most people are ignorant when it comes to technology issues. Honestly, I don't fully believe that the average senator and congressman is fully aware of the potential of today's, much less tomorrow's technology. Hopefully it passes though.
- MarkKezner, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2It's a great idea for a bill, don't get me wrong. The problem is that the government is already in bed with the telecom companies. One hand washes the other. Just look at the recently passed bill that grants immunity for tattle-tale communications firms.
I appreciate the effort but I'm bracing for defeat. - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -4/+5Bush will say that controlling the internet and throttling your bandwidth prevents terrorism ...
- banmaster, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Yep, the same public whos wishes the senate and all congresscritters were put there to represent.
- b0rg, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1For anyone interested in what QoS and traffic shaping are, and why heavily used networks turn into steaming piles of crap without them, here http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk545/techno ... is a quick intro to the subject.
- jftitan, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1sad, but I can imagine him saying that.
- KingMoses, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1If you don't want their service, don't buy it. If you do want it, buy it. If you think you can do it better, start your own company. This is a free market and it's not the government's place to meddle in it.
- Spoomeister, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Same question about her, then...
- dagnome1984, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1"Yeah lets just wait for the "free market" to fix things"
I didn't know that local oligopolies enforced by city and county governments is considered free market. - Langford, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I'm sure they hear from the public constantly. Why would they suddenly start to care now?
- CoolWind, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Now there's an idea. Why don't we let Bin Laden run the country for a while. Then when he sees how impossible it is to change things he'll grab some whiskey and go back to his caves.
- schroeder, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2If they start throttling bandwith for torrents soon it will be for things like high bandwidth video like netflix. Cable companies are justifying it by saying they are trying to preserve bandwidth for everyone but I pay for both internet and netflix and I use netflix like television. And it's all legal use by law and ToS. They tell me I have unlimited bandwidth but they don't want me to use it. How about they use all this lobbying money to upgrade their systems? And once they are allowed to restrict what they want, how long will it be until they show preferential treatment to companies who pay for it. It's not like I have choices here. It's either cable or slow ass DSL and they are all doing the same thing.
- rexblade, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Well that fcc bill had a few public opinion forums and that jerk just ignored them.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1If it was wholly capitalist and allowed free competition. But it is not, so must be regulated.
- b0rg, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Keep in mind that the people who will be defining your acceptable browsing habits are the same ones who gave you the DMCA. At least when it's just a company screwing you, they have to be open about it and not hide behind the "it's a government mandate" excuse.
- dagnome1984, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Who gave them those local monopolies? Oh right the city governments. People in America focus way to much on national politics, yet don't voice out at local city hearings when there is some new proposal that will end up screwing them.
- jftitan, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1nah... I dugg you back up... Thank you for that correction. I honestly did not remember which usage of your and you're. I didn't think about it when I proof read my second comment. I have this same delima on the usage of the word There, their and they're. However, there/their/they're are easier to discern. I do admit, its the usafe of your and you're, I always seem to forget to use the correct one.
- bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1right, because corporations who have monopolies over certain areas are much better at regulating the internet.
- MrCobaltBlue, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I agree, the internet isn't like a truck, you can't just dump stuff on it.
- badjokes, on 02/15/2008, -3/+3yes, because the internets is a series of tubes, and downloading music and movies is stealing!!
get some brains morans! - CoolWind, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2Dugg up for "stupid Ayn Rand libertarianism". And I agree, only the government can preserve our freedom, and they need to take action to do it.
- SuperMoses, on 02/15/2008, -3/+3Wow, you totally don't understand the issue. Maybe you should use the internets and it's series of tubes now to access sites that explain the full issue before your ISP decides what content you should see.
- jabrthel, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Yeah... but then doesn't that just beg the question of why municipalities are contracting with providers in the first place when that very action seems to inhibit further competition? Of course, the offices that operate the municipality will need internet access and hence they will still need to contract with an ISP. But... why are they granting monopolies to companies who operate in their jursidiction? That was one of the complaints that Verizon had when it first began rolling out FIOS. The fact that Verizon, despite this, overcame that problem and is still rolling out new services that are in direct competition with cable companies' service proves wrong the idea that ISPs are natural monopolies. I have to wonder how many more options we would have if it weren't for these artificial restrictions. It just seems to me that net neutrality is a mere band-aid which distracts from the deeper problem. Either that or it could be that I just don't entirely understand the problem. Feel free to explain if I'm wrong (don't demagogue) because if I can be convinced that I'm wrong on anything, I don't want to continue saying it.
- poptartrevival, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2The pentagon is saying that the internet is terrorism. Better turn off your computer, turn on some Bing Crosby, drink your gin and cry tears of joy.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1So does the easter bunny.
- jabrthel, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1If there were more profits to be made, then wouldn't that mean there would be more companies/individuals who would take the risk of investing loads of money into a business that has a large, natural startup cost? If so, then doesn't that mean it would create more competition and give us more choices?
- verusdies, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1Bush almost threw a hissy fit when he didn't get his way....then left for a trip to Africa. I hope an elephant sits on him
- KingMoses, on 02/15/2008, -3/+2Awesome, let's welcome fascism with open arms to solve a problem that doesn't exist!
- Chromium24, on 02/15/2008, -1/+0Hey, I once did a video on this... got it showed to the Senate.
It's serious business. If sites don't pay the telecoms, they'll get ***** access and eventually get dropped. It's not unconstitutional for telecoms to do that, but god damn, it sure isn't ethical. - ssj2119, on 02/15/2008, -6/+3This is great news
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is