What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
113 Comments
- LordSpam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+85I read that as no Trolls on the Internet which sounds just as good as no tolls.
- ghinch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38i read that too, and i was about to call digg a liar
- l33tspam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33because this is a new technology, wouldnt you prefer not to pay $30 to view google images?
And on top of that, Were not talking about how soon we get the information, were talking about getting it at all, I already pay for my internet connection once a month, I dont want to have to pay premiums every time i visit a web site. - dargon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Shipping charges are a poor analogy. The cost of your internet service, based on your upload/download speeds relates to fedex overnight, 3day, etc. This relates to you paying for overnight, but the person shipping to you has only paid for postal so you get it only as fast as they've paid for, even though you specifically paid for overnight service.
- sonick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23I'll have some of what he's smoking, please.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14DARPA?
Though it's quite obvious now that it's completely international and shouldn't be owned by anyone, but...that's not exactly a concept the legal system in the US likes. - SkyFire360, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Edit: Idhertert and dargon beat me to it...
Imagine this scenario:
1. The FedEx delivers every package they receive to its destination within 6 hours at no cost, year after year.
2. FedEx decides one day to require a $10 fee for overnight delivery.
3. Free delivery is changed to 6-12 days
4. Free delivery is abolished
Does this make you a happy panda? Yes / No - dave_colorado, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17funny. your username is "radiantbeing" yet your post seems to be in stark contrast to that.
- cooler64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This is different because FEDEX (i.e. the telcos) would be charging both the sender AND the receiver to send the package at the same speed as before.
- brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Me too...I was kind of excited. Oh well =(
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"I don't see what the problem is. Why shouldn't content providers pay for expedited access if they want it?"
Radiant, there is no expedited access available. There is just a slowed access. Sites will be paying for their content not to be artificially slowed.
That's like UPS saying, "50$ extra or your package will stay in our factory for five days before we even begin to ship it" or a toll booth on the freeway saying "10$ to go through now, or $1 if you would like to wait in a parking spot for half and hour before we let you through"
It's not fair because they are throttling traffic. They are literally SLOWING down sites just for the sake of slowing them down. They are ABUSING their role as an internet provider, and this is a classic example of government needing to step in to govern the tyranical behavior of big business. - cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What would digg be without trolls?
- tradjik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Become involved!
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=dmwtn&hotissue=3
Those sites provide an easy way to notify your congressperson and senator(s)
Or copy/paste and send this along!
--
Dear :
As your constituent, I am very concerned about the efforts of the telephone and cable companies to fundamentally alter the way the Internet works, and urge you to do all you can to protect the Internet as we know it and to stand up for the principle of "net neutrality."
The Internet as we know it has fueled tremendous gains in American productivity and launched thousands of businesses that have re-shaped our economy. It has changed the way millions of Americans communicate, conduct business, and seek entertainment and information.
Unfortunately, a recent FCC decision has removed longstanding protections under which the Internet has flourished. As a result, telco/cable network operators--who control 94% of broadband Internet access and face no meaningful competition--have announced plans to use their control over the consumer Internet access market to control the Internet content and services market.
If Congress does not act, the Internet in America will be fundamentally altered, while the rest of the world will continue to reap the economic benefits of Internet innovation and leadership.
I urge you to do all you can to ensure that:
- Consumers have unfettered access to lawful Internet content, applications and services.
- Network operators do not interfere with or impair access to lawful content and services.
- Consumers are allowed to use the bandwidth they pay for however they choose.
- Consumers are not subject to limitations, redirections, or degradations of service by the network operators who want to favor their own content and services against consumer and marketplace expectations.
This discussion is critically important to me. I use the Internet for business and personal use, and I suspect that a majority of your constituents do, as well. I urge you to protect the principles of network neutrality so that the Internet can continue to bring creativity, innovations, and jobs to all Americans.
Sincerely, - WorldBuilder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11If my ISP starts charging my PayPal account $.0000000002 every time I launch a site in FF someone's going to D.I.E.
- benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I always thought I already paid a monthly toll to my ISP
- ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Ok I'll bite. This is different in a very significant way. For it to be a valid comparison, let's say that we pay Company X $30 a month in order to have the possibility to ship packages. Company X is the only company in your area that has any sort of shipping service (this is a little limited, see below). Say with your $30 a month, you can choose to ship via fedex, ups, whatever. Well now this company decides that they are going to start charging different amounts for different shipping services. Sounds fair, right? Well what if they decide to charge $5 for fedex and $500 for ups. Remember, you can't go straight to either company here, you HAVE to go through Company X. Well, UPS just went out of business, folks.
That's why this is different. I know there's more than one ISP per geographic area, but they will all be doing this if it becomes legal, and it's a limited number of choices. - Javamancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Just a bit curious here, who gave the US government the right to hand out ownership of the internet?
- cooler64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Think of it as the mob charging you $1000 dollars for their "protection services".
- KevinJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8What happened to by the people for the people?
This is supposed to be a democracy?
Is their anyone beside the CEOs of the communications companies who want this?
thats like 20/250,000,000
Umm MAJORITY RULES MY @$$
Why can't congressmen/women start representing the people who voted for them?
Also, we have learned that these communication companies are evil...they form monopolizes with cities and charge way to much. - cooler64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Why pay for it when you get it for free already?
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is a real pity.
I was working on a screenplay based on a dystopian future rooted in a two tier internet. It was titled "For Whom the Bells Toll".
Millions down the drain I tells ya. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When is the vote?
- Dihuko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6so when IS congress going to make the vote? i want to get it over with so I can either
a) worship congress for saving the internet
-or-
b)go on a killing spree at AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and the congress members who voted for the internet to be "enslaved." - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Frankly, if you're against network neutrality you fall into one of two camps. You either don't understand the issue, or you're an astroturfing sockpuppet working for the telcos. If you're the former, get informed.. if you're the latter, get bent.
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is why I think congress should be like jury duty. Ordinary people selected completely at random. I figure we have a much better shot at getting representation that actually represents us this way. And I figure regular people probably aren't any dumber or more corrupt than politicians. Then, perhaps the Senate could be like... 600 people instead of 100. And terms should be 6 months, so we rotate 1/6 out every month, making senators a hard target for lobbyists.
Just a weird idea I had... - databasecowboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes Free Markets work, especially in the face of facist monopolists.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None, obviously market forces will take care of it. - gnuman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I say give the UN power and save the internet from these money mongering pos telcos that think they built the web and stop making things go backwards.The web is needed and the in-fighting that will happen if there are two webs will be disasterous just as bad as when Code Red attacked the main servers.
The net has to be free. If a website wants to charge fine, but to tamper with speeds and what not for specific websites is ridiculous. Bad enough RIAA and the MPAA cartel can run rampant over telcos asking for ips to sue people now the web has to deal with the telco mob? Maybe a govt that is not run by companies would better serve the world as a whole and lobbyists should crawl back into the hole they came from. - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I love how the telco astroturfer scum immediately get buried.
- goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ekso - No it has never been a democracy in the sense that Digg is. It is, and always has been, a democratic republic.
In a Democratic Republic we elect our oppressors. Which is much better than the alternatives, but still doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. - tony23, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I would be willing to consider paying tolls if it would get rid of trolls...
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So instead of politicians who *may* try to screw you, you'd prefer telco executives who will *definitely* screw you?
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Actually, free markets work quite well. Ever look at a list of countries ranked by per capita income and marketfreedom? There's an incredible correlation. I also don't think you understand the definition of "monopoly" or "fascism"."
Free markets and the Invisible Hand don't always solve problems like this, not in a market (like this one) which has incredibly high barriers to entry. Big Backbone is right up there with public utilities in being a natural monopoly. This is a monopoly type that is actually encouraged by market forces, and they're all around you.. you just don't feel the pain because government regulation protects you from it.
Let me ask you a question; if your water utility decided to start charging 10 cents/gallon for water, to which competitor would you turn? - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"http://handsoff.org"
Drop dead, telco schill. Nobody's interested in your telco-funded astroturf websites. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"It's about what they can and cannot charge fees for and what kind of service they can add."
Change "they can add" into "they can remove or degrade." and you've got it right. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What do you plan to do when the telcos that own the backbones all ISPs must use decide to do this?
- shadgenki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, this is an extraordinarily bad idea. I will leave/boycott any ISP that decides to take on this business model of holding internet content hostage unless we pay extra for it. I already pay for internet access, and I expect not to have to pay extra to ensure that service isn't interrupted by some phantom toll booth logic.
- MortVent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Couple useful facts:
1 - the internet is made up of many smaller networks... it's not 1 big network
2 - For a company to be in the "fast lane" they will have to pay all of them for the fast lane service...
3 - If company x decides to degrade all traffic from site Y on it's network anyone that accesses through their network will see the slowdown (even if site Y has paid both your isp and theirs for fast lane service)
4 - guarantees quality of service over the internet is a myth... you can guarantee server uptime but not QoS (at least till all subnets and the consumer has direct fiber)
5 - The current customer pays for their bandwith and sites pay for their bandwith works, to alter that is just greed
The "tolls" will affect everyone since most if not all companies are not going to be able to pay the small army of subnet owners for fast lane service... and many will not even consider it. - GWoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If we put a price on information that is fundementaly free.. isn't that communist?
- tradjik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem is that even if you changed ISPs, odds are your traffic will flow over one of the major telco's networks.
- Annon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It has nothing to do with data getting to you faster, companies have to pay to keep from having their sites slowed down. If the site pays, you'll see it at the same speed you do now.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"My fear is that like other forms of politically controlled regulation done with the best interests of the people in mind, it will begin to degenerate into something less useful and potentially more restrictive"
I'll take network neutrality today and worry about hypothetical problems if they ever materialize. You can't cower in fear of hypothetical unintended consequences when you're facing the end of an uncensored Internet. You fix it as well as you can right now. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you want to duck and weave around my very obvious point, that's your business; I'm not in the mood to fence with the deliberately obtuse.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Actually, free markets work quite well. Ever look at a list of countries ranked by per capita income and market freedom? There's an incredible correlation."
That's an excellent point. And one of the reasons why you should support network neutrality. The internet is global infrastructure. Without equal access to all comers you don't have a free market for services on the net. You have a market regulated by the ISPs. I don't care for the idea of AT&T regulating one of the biggest markets in the world. I don't think a corporation should have that power. - mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the danger of oligopologies is apparent, and this issue has brought it to the forefront.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Edit: didn't see tradjik post this first.... I guess its worth posting twice. - jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6When do we get to vote? When will digg make a digg for laws and bills and legislation and voting?
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Cyclotron: this argument falls apart when you realize that taxpayers built the pipes these telcos "own", and the government has already paid them passive tax breaks to build the new infrastructure they want to charge more for.
- AndrewMayne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I don't care for the idea of AT&T regulating one of the biggest markets in the world. I don't think a corporation should have that power."
Neither do I. My fear is that like other forms of politically controlled regulation done with the best interests of the people in mind, it will begin to degenerate into something less useful and potentially more restrictive. It's not too difficult to imagine the telco's getting lawyers to turn this into something that would restrict the deployment of free WiFi or use it to restrict new disruptive technologies like the cable companies did with satellite for over a decade. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Edit: This got posted to the wrong thread, but since it's here and debunks a common telco argument I'll leave it here.
"My fear is that like other forms of politically controlled regulation done with the best interests of the people in mind, it will begin to degenerate into something less useful and potentially more restrictive"
I'll take network neutrality today and worry about hypothetical problems if they ever materialize. You can't cower in fear of hypothetical unintended consequences when you're facing the end of an uncensored Internet. You fix it as well as you can right now. - Elrod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4XStatic, would it kill you to actually read about this issue?
There IS no toll-based "bypass" that will run faster. The old "information superhighway" model doesn't fit here. If this passes, you will be paying more money for what you already enjoy for free now. If you don't pay, the data you receive will be artificially delayed between the server and your client.
This isn't about paying for faster service. This is about paying more for the service you already have now. For no good reason. -
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is