What is Digg?211 Comments
- rugby4ward, on 11/03/2007, -4/+168This is such an important issue, gotta dig this.
- sotopheavy, on 10/30/2007, -1/+86Stop blocking my packets! It is at the point where me and my roommate each pay for our own crappy internet connection.
- XtremeDBA, on 10/30/2007, -3/+71Let's hope this issue stays alive now until it is resolved
- renegadeafk, on 10/30/2007, -0/+45As a very happy (unhappy) comcast customer I definitely hopes this gets more attention!
And goddammit would the movies on demand work more than like once a ***** month!! - jeremyduffy, on 10/30/2007, -5/+46Comcast is peeing their pants... Yeah!
- AxeSwinger, on 10/30/2007, -3/+35I tried to explain net neutrality to my mom and dad, both in their sixties, and why it was important. The concept that worked best was a telephone. With neutrality: anyone who calls the phone rings when they call and you get the same level of clarity. Without neutrality when telemarketers call the phone rings immediately with a normal level of clarity because they pay the phone company extra; but if Uncle Pat calls your phone wont ring if the phone company's lines are busy and the level of clarity won't be guaranteed. That seemed to work for my two Luddite parents. If anyone has a better example please share because I find it's hard to explain the importance of the issue to most people.
- Gadren, on 10/30/2007, -6/+34Net neutrality already exists, so the FCC is already in "direct control." And calling preservation of net neutrality a government control is like calling the GPL a tool of control by the FSF. To oppose a regulation to keep things free just because it's a regulation is simply absurd -- I'd rather trust the FCC, which is at least in theory accountable to the public, than the telecoms, which only listen to the "invisible hand of the market." Let me know how that works for you as you go to your workplace and breathe asbestos.
- omeomi, on 10/30/2007, -0/+26Actually, Comcast seems to be the one who's not peeing their pants. They've been entirely unapologetic.
- smacksaw, on 11/04/2007, -10/+35Cue the "I just found out I was a libertarian and I don't understand the civil liberty part of it, just the economic part" Libertarians.
"GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS BAD. LIKE GUARANTEEING FREE SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. OH, WAIT."
Dumbasses. - cl0r0x70, on 10/30/2007, -0/+24Net Neutrality is the -- very good -- idea that ISP's remain "neutral" to content, and provide it as an open utility. What the ISP's want to do, is to shape bandwidth (your words) by slowing down, stopping or blocking access to services or content which they find objectionable.
There are those which claim that Net Neutrality means regulation of the internet. This is true, and confusing to people. After all, regulation is bad, right?!? However, regulation that keeps services and utilities open, honest, and uncensored is good regulation. Essentially, Net Neutrality means letting me use the internet any way I like, and let companies and open systems continue to provide content any way they want, without Corporate interference. True, it is governenet regulation -- shudder -- but to a good end. - dsignr, on 10/30/2007, -4/+24Anytime you have an infrastructure resource such as railroad, electricity, and the Internet, you need some sort of government regulation. Without it, large companies like AT&T, Comcast and all of the other companies mentioned in the article are free to do whatever they'd like. We can't use the invisible hand argument, because all we (the consumers are able to do is switch one evil for a lesser evil (one bad company to the next).
- Haapi, on 10/30/2007, -1/+20Until now, the carriers wanted "common carrier" status, so that they would *not* be held liable for anything that goes over their wires.
Now, they want to be able (or, admit ) to be aware of the content of their traffic, so as to be able to apply various tiering strategies. Traffic shaping at the protocol level, well, that's one kind of thing, but censorship, as in your examples above, is certainly *being aware* of the content, and, as we can see, the companies took action on it in some cases.
The wireless providers are already excellent examples of non-neutral networking. The backbone providers want to play that way to, *and* keep common carrier status. Pretty sweet for them, if they get to dink with our content and not be liable for any of it. - chukd, on 10/30/2007, -1/+19I love how these companies screw themself. The government gives them a little rope and they end up hanging themself. The real question is will the government man up and do what is right. Chances are the companies will send a bunch of money and it will be forgotten.
- gcauthon, on 10/30/2007, -1/+16He raises some good points. Government regulation has taken away our rights to steal from others and has ruined the once well-respected burglary profession. I'm not sure why you would think Ascus was being sarcastic.
- Cyber_Akuma, on 10/30/2007, -0/+15You can thank Comcast for it.
Comcast: Damn, people are talking about Net Neturality.
Comcast: Yay, the bill was denied! Lets start screwing with people's connections! Go to town boys!
Comcast: They found out? HOW could they have found out? I mean, its just millions of peopel who have a passion for this job vs our dozen or so ITs who are just doing this to get paid!
Comcast: Deny! Deny! Just pretend this isn't happening, I am sure they will get tired and bored after a while, I mean, its not like most can switch to another ISP, what is the worst that can happen?
Comcast: Oh *****, oh *****, the Net Neturality debate is back and stronger than ever because of this!
Comcast: Stocks down by over 50%? DENY! Just keep denying! I am sure this will all blow over, we are WAY too big for anything to happen to us!
Stay Tuned for more thrilling episodes of, Megacorporations digging their own graves! - Firehed, on 10/30/2007, -0/+15Probably, but technically speaking, that's not what they're doing. Though I'd say what they're doing is worse - on unencrypted traffic, it seems they're actually changing traffic so that it tells peers to stop sending data. I believe the packet shaping is occurring on any traffic that follows the behavior of bit-torrent traffic but can't be confirmed (ie, because it's encrypted).
- schroeder, on 10/30/2007, -2/+16There is just not enough competition to allow for choice in ISPs. Until then the only way to force ISPs to be fair is Net Neutrality. This wouldn't allow the FCC to control content in any way, just the equality of service. The internet is becoming a huge marketplace and ISPs have an enormous amount of power if they can filter, censor, redirect or delay service. It's obvious in recent months how this is becoming a problem (links in article). The internet needs to be free and open or there will be no room for the "little guy".
- dsignr, on 10/30/2007, -1/+15How can we get more ISPs in the loop if all connections are controlled by a limited number of telcos? Opening up the new spectrum will help a bit, but it seems as though the same telcos are trying to buy it out.
- Hamletlere, on 10/30/2007, -1/+14Net neutrality is a great thing. Not enforcing it on companies that have received government granted monopolies, free right-of-ways through property owners' land, and government subsidies is wrong. It would be impossible for competitors to enter the market and allow customers free choice without all of these same advantages.
- BitSlicer, on 10/30/2007, -2/+14Seems to me that the FCC bowed to the Telcos when they made the Internet access a data service. They should be viewed as a Common Carrier. The Internet service is for the common good, not to line the pockets of the Telcos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier - Scynet, on 10/30/2007, -0/+12No it won't, because every ISP would have to build their own country-wide network of cables. The current monopoly ISPs did it with tax payers' money, new ones would have no chance.
Internet's been fine for as long as it started, and nothing's wrong with it, so keep it as it is - net neutralistic and "regulated". - thebellmaster1x, on 10/30/2007, -0/+11You don't know how the Internet works, do you?
- thebellmaster1x, on 10/30/2007, -0/+11"Corporations should be able to do what ever they want"
Scariest thing I've seen today. - bubba9999, on 10/30/2007, -1/+11SpykerSpeed's statement is the same one that Ron Paul uses in defense of not supporting NN, which is sort-of pie in the sky thinking in my opinion.
In my part of the country, there is 1 high speed ISP. I don't see anyone lining up to give me a free-market choice, even though I would gladly pay more for better service.
So, if my cable company decides to slow down the Google, or put tariffs on the line to watch Youtube, there is no choice for me to protest other than to not subscribe to their service. - Kingster, on 10/30/2007, -3/+13I love how people say things like "Let's get more ISPs before any more governmental intervening." Here's my question to you folks that want to say something like that... How many telco operators (cable, phone, etc.) are there in your town that are capable of providing broadband? If you say more than two, I'll be amazed. Many places are only served by one, and the majority of the US landmass is served by a whopping none. If you can't get to the net at all at broadband speeds, then what good is that ISP? Are they going to lay the infrastructure? Doubt it. WiMax? Don't count on that either.
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -1/+11It will only stay alive if you all participate and do your part. write your senator about it and thank those in power who support it. This needs grass root involvement otherwise it will become another lost cause.
- yeahthatsme, on 10/30/2007, -3/+13thats pretty ridiculously incorrect. in the case of companies like comcast where the only other option in most of their coverage area's is dial up, they can do whatever they want and people that need the internet will put up with it because dial up is not a viable alternative any more. the only way to get the net companies to comply in area's where they are the only internet option is to have the government, namely the FCC, step in and force them to.
- s4g4n, on 10/30/2007, -4/+14If comcast was delaying Bittorrent traffic wouldn't that implement that they are breaking the privacy end agreement?
- bjornski, on 10/30/2007, -0/+10They do it to encrypted traffic also.
Sandvine sees all.
Though it's been semi-sporadic lately, and I can sometimes seed. I have to change ports about every other day to do it, but I can sometimes seed.
I think they're getting nervous and letting it through sometimes. - amillion3, on 10/30/2007, -1/+10Email and let them know you support them!
senator@dorgan.senate.gov
olympia@snowe.senate.gov - spectre_25gt, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9What evidence do we have that more ISPs will pop up and compete? All I see is mergers and big telcos taking over.
- XStatic, on 10/30/2007, -7/+16How is this Network Neutrality?
- AT&T censored political lyrics in a Pearl Jam webcast (then apologized).
This was a broadcast by AT&T, they didn't block somone else broadcast
- Verizon initially blocked a mass text message from NARAL Pro-Choice America (then apologized).
This was a request to do a SMS broadcast to Verizon subscribers, has nothing to do with Internet Net Neutrality
- Comcast was found to be delaying BitTorrent and Lotus Notes traffic (and remains unapologetic).
First this was a protocol issue, not a network issue. Unfortunately on and off the network users rights are being lost in an effort to protect intellectual property. We need to fight this in a larger arena than Network Neutrality, removing copy protection flags, allowing backups of media, etc.
- AT&T's new terms of service appeared to prohibit criticism of the company (the company apologized and changed the terms).
This was a non-news item, poor wording for sure, but AT&T was just trying to cover their assets. - Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9You could also add that the Chairman of the FCC is planning to bust up the exclusive cable deals at apartment buildings to open up alternate ISPs and providers.
- bjornski, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9The owner himself, as a citizen has civil liberties.
The company should not.
Corporate personhood must be removed. - DavidYeah, on 10/30/2007, -1/+10Thanks for the framing idea. This issue is always an problem to explain to non-technies. Maybe it'll even dent the skulls of some Republicans/Libertarians too.
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -1/+10they would rather restrict network traffic, than upgrade the network. Bandwidth is money, so they get to scam us out of it as much as they can. It seems so sad lately that all carriers are out to screw over the consumer, cell providers, isp's and lately, apple. Its a sad day
- solarsavior, on 10/30/2007, -3/+11Since when are the ACLU and the NRA government entities?
/libertarian - bjornski, on 10/30/2007, -0/+8No, it won't.
Not until it affects their wallet directly. - yodaj007, on 10/30/2007, -1/+9They're wearing Depends. They're peeing their pants, we just can't see it.
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8they are about to be unclogged.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/30/2007, -0/+7The idea that "the free market will fix it" only works if the situation is, in fact, a free market, which the ISP business certainly isn't. Most Americans have access to one or two ISP's at most, and are entirely at the mercy of the decisions of those big companies.
- stretch611, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8The problem with your scenario is that if one person pays to get upgraded service, everyone else's service is downgraded. When there is plenty of capacity it is hard to notice the difference. However, the telcos do not want to pay for more capacity. When demand increases and the supply is stagnant the difference between people who pay and people that do not pay will be more noticeable. As this happens, the telcos will not want to purchase more equipment to keep up with demand because poor response will get "freeloaders" to pay for prioritization.
The reason why telcos do not want Net Neutrality is because they want more money for doing nothing. AT&T called Google and other net firms freeloaders, but I know that every net firm is paying someone for access on their end just like I am paying on my end. They just want to extract an extra fee in the middle.
With Net neutrality, their own packets can not be prioritized. That means even their own customers go through the same speed internet as everyone else. In this case an ISP is forced to upgrade the lines as needed because if they do not keep up with traffic, they risk losing a paying customer to a competitor. (assuming there is a competitor, but that is a different story) - GuyeNoir, on 10/30/2007, -3/+10Something that a lot of people fail to comprehend is the vast amount of infrastructure that are required to live in a modern 1st world society; telephone cables, power cables, plumbing, highways, major construction, and plenty more I can't even think of. All that infrastructure needs large organizations do create and maintain it efficiently, "the people" certainly can't handle it on a large scale. That means either governments or corporations have to be in control. Those are our two options. Frankly, neither sounds pretty good, but given the choice, I'd rather go with governments. Like Gadren said, the government is, at least in theory, supposed to work for the people. Corps, on the other hand, are loyal only to the almighty dollar and don't even try to hide it. If given free reign to do as they please, you can rest assured they would setup monopolies as fast as possible to prevent true competition and maxamise profits, no matter how many lives they have to ruin.
- rickpelletier, on 10/30/2007, -0/+7Holy crap, seriously? I've been stuck with ***** Atlantic Broadband in Miami for a year... You got a link to a news story or something?
- luchid, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6Nah, they're still too thick. The war is directly affecting their wallets and yet they still think it's ok...
- bjornski, on 10/30/2007, -1/+7It's not affecting THEIR wallet. Just their kids.
And their kids.
And THEIR kids.
I'd rather have "tax and spend" liberals deciding things than "credit card conservatives" - bubba9999, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6Network Neutrality definitely allows the scenerio you paint. I, for one will not willingly subscribe to any service that treats some packets better than others. The issue is having a choice to do so.
You can scream free market all you want to, but most places do not have more than 2 choices for providers. I only have 1, and all of the DSL choices near me (which I can't get anyways) still use AT&T's backbone. If AT&T prioritizes traffic, it gets prioritized for any provider that uses them. Automatically. - vandergl, on 10/30/2007, -3/+9I've had Comcast for like two years and I'm one of those speed freaks who uses CNET's speed checker constantly. I've noticed my speed go from consistently above 1500kbs to hovering between 700 and 900kbps. What gives (interrobang)?! Is anyone else have this speed decrease? I'm near Philly btw...oh...and we need cable deregulation too.....
- NikoKun, on 10/30/2007, -7/+12How does imposing a restriction on what the ISPs do, open any door to government regulation and restriction and taxation of the internet?
- MtheoryX, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5I've thought about that option; however, I believe the feasibility of internet-only entertainment (vial youtube, google video, and bittorrent) will come cheaper than the Comcast DVR solution.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 201 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is