What is Digg?59 Comments
- jsilver123, on 12/15/2008, -0/+33Please sign this action letter!
- cerberus5, on 12/15/2008, -0/+24Net Neutrality would be gone by now if it weren't for smart folks like these guys.
- imakeholesinu, on 12/15/2008, -0/+24Dugg and sent.
- laudyms, on 12/15/2008, -0/+22Corporations are eroding our freedoms and selling censorship technologies to other countries. Don't let them gut the internet!
- ZinjaShike, on 12/15/2008, -0/+21Submitted. Don't let ISPs play the role of bouncer to the internet. Creating a tier service will harm users and site owners alike. Take a stand!
- GregoryLynnKrus, on 12/15/2008, -0/+20If the internet is co-opted by the corporations, our hope for a democratic future will be mortally wounded if not killed. This should be one of the most crucial first priorities of the new administration.
- thepoliticalcat, on 12/15/2008, -0/+16Dugg, signed, shared. Will blog and spread. Thanks for heads-up!
- inactive, on 12/15/2008, -0/+14Done! Leave my Internet alone!
- trickstertales, on 12/15/2008, -0/+14While the Internet allows people to seek only info that reinforces their own perspectives and spread hate, it also gives us the power to touch hearts, make connections, recognize humanity, and fight the narrowing of information happening in every other aspect of our lives. Signed and passed on.
- ScarletClaw, on 12/15/2008, -0/+14Dugg and signed, lets hope people don't give into apathy, this is vital!
- jwaf, on 12/15/2008, -0/+13Dugg, signed, and shared.
- luminousnerd, on 12/15/2008, -1/+11This is such a clear division between right and wrong, perhaps the clearest we've ever faced. On the one hand you have individuals wanting more freedom, and on the other hand you have big corporations wanting more money. Well, DUHHH! I hope to God the Internet is always free.
- bvllets, on 12/16/2008, -0/+10Keep it neutral!
- pgk2, on 12/16/2008, -0/+8Dugg and Sent. Make sure it is also extended to the Wireless spectrum. The 700Mhz spectrum auction required open applications. Verizon has not opened their network yet. I am waiting . . .
- shawn76o, on 12/15/2008, -0/+8Dugg, signed, commented, sent and passed along. Please everyone do the same.
- JenniferInMO, on 12/15/2008, -1/+8Done. Dugg, signed, shared (already on their e-mail list)
- G21036, on 12/16/2008, -0/+6Signed and Dugg.
- OneFly, on 12/16/2008, -0/+5This is important-spread it around
- arvan, on 12/16/2008, -0/+5dugg. sent. forwarded. dammit.
- uncleosbert, on 12/16/2008, -0/+5"Keep in mind that Net Neutrality is a form of government intervention on technology. While it guarantees equality of all packets on the internet, it also hinders technological progress by forcing us to continue to use the same protocol, rather than allow us to develop something better."
actually, i support net neutrality because it would enable technological progress that is currently being stifled. i can give you a great example...
it's arbitrary to decide that government interference is always bad. i attended the fcc hearing at stanford, and robb topolski gave a fabulous example of what comcast does when they think they won't get caught. here is his testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrmS19ej73E
notice that comcast illegally interfered with his legal use of the bandwidth he purchased over and over and over again. the potential abuse is happening right now. our choice is to ignore it or to do something. it does stifle progress because developers have no idea what kind of traffic comcast is interfering with... projects aren't funded because investors fear the uses are illegal when they aren't, simply because comcast has decided to interfere with them.
please look into this issue. it's not wise to take such a trusting stance when the marketed is dominated by large players who do not have to worry that their customers can go elsewhere. - subgeniusd, on 12/16/2008, -1/+5Yeah we all know that's water - *****.
- inactive, on 12/16/2008, -0/+4Once corporations are allowed to control the internet, free speech will cease to exist. That goes for special interest groups, and governments which would "Filter" content to their own benefit!
- wjappe, on 12/17/2008, -0/+4I'm afraid that GoaYoshi is probably right, remember all the letters, petitions we sent to Congress to impeach you know who, the bailouts. They might listen but those SOB's will try again and again if it fails the first time. I put the petition anyway but I don't have much hope anything will come of it. I put in my share of petitions and calls etc. And even when most people objected to the bailout and it failed the first time it when through when it was pushed by THEM. In the local school districts here if the budget doesn't pass they try again and twist your arm and say are you going to vote for it now?
- johnnr2, on 12/16/2008, -0/+3Signed, dugg, and emailed.
- maxtangent, on 12/17/2008, -0/+3It's the first step. Following publicly accepted procedure provides a trail of rational dissent so that when escalation becomes the only logical next step, the people cannot be ignored as crazed maniacs who resort to protests as a first choice.
- uncleosbert, on 12/16/2008, -0/+3you have a good point. i think that's why we should all sign the letter and let obama know this is a big deal.
http://www.benton.org/node/19071 - GovernmentSp00k, on 12/17/2008, -0/+3What do you suggest we do then, nothing?
- PWoT, on 12/16/2008, -0/+3If you believe that, it's because you've only been reading activist blogs instead of actual balanced stories about what they want to do. It's not about censorship, it's about the fact that different online applications need different quality of connections. They're trying to keep the internet functioning the way people want it to; this other stuff is basically an overblown conspiracy theory based.
Do some reading. You'll feel much better. - Parapadrifter, on 12/16/2008, -0/+2half of this is because of the monopoly these corporations have on the internet... if they wanna censor their ***** fine... but lets have alternatives to this dasdarly monopoly
- subgeniusd, on 12/16/2008, -0/+2I'm a registered, dues paying Libertarian but this is a 21st century issue that transcends established political/social ideology.
The benefits of Net Neutrality are clear and obvious and this is a fundamental fact that no argument can dilute.
If corporate internet players were lead by honest, broad-minded IT geeks this would not be an issue. But that is not the case.
Net Neutrality by any means necessary. - uncleosbert, on 12/16/2008, -0/+2@ goayoshi
"What is this actual abuse? I have full access to the entirety of the internet at a fair rate."
i thought you saw the video i posted?
if you didn't, i encourage you to watch it. i am not arguing for sticking it to the man, or anything so ignorant. as you said: "Please hear me out, as I am very interested in hearing responses of people who know details about Net Neutrality."
i went to the hearing and posted the testimony i found compelling. if you refuse to educate yourself, there is no point in discussing this with you. - GoaYoshi, on 12/17/2008, -0/+2Actually I agree with everything you've said. There is no question that we need regulation on companies such as Comcast, which is exactly what Net Neutrality can bring us. The only thing I take issue with is any kind of limitation on tools that can be used or new protocol that can be developed.
"What is the issue with having both a change in protocol, and a required freedom of internet content?"
"there is none. that is what i fight for under the name "net neutrality". i beg you to educate yourself about this issue. even your wikipedia article says there are many different ideas being discussed. i would like you to lend your insights to make better solutions. instead, you seem to believe we're just demonizing isps for no reason."
Well alright then, I think we've essentially arrived at the same conclusion, perhaps I've been dancing around it too much to really notice :P I do, in fact, believe that many people demonize isps for no reason. You clearly know what you're talking about, so I won't group you in this category, but I would guess that a large portion of readers on sites such as this one see this issue solely as a big companies vs. the people issue, when there's a bit more to it.
So let me sum all this mess up.. We all want oversight on these companies, that's obvious. I would assume that everyone aside from isps themselves believe it is important. We also want room for the internet to improve, if it turns out it is a worthwhile venture. If net neutrality does not hold back the advancement of technology, then I am all for it, but I feel that a number of the proposals do exactly that, and so that is what I take issue with. - uncleosbert, on 12/16/2008, -0/+2@ goayoshi
the question is, why don't you understand? - jmarkow, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1Dugg and Signed.
- subgeniusd, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1Free speech won't cease to exist (among the more or less democratic nations) but open access will gradually erode so yes eventually the same sad condition will result.
- PityDaFool, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1Save the Internet, save the world.
- inactive, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1Signed, dugg and here's my comment. Save the most time-wasting/entertaining site on the internet:
http://www.thechive.com - goatmale, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1hack the world
- hzane, on 12/28/2008, -0/+1This issue exceeds just bandwidth. It is a question of telco providers being allowed to block content they feel is negative to their own business. Telco providers do not get to be censors of the internet, although technically they are in a position to do just that. Innovation and standards comes from various consortiums, groups and independent people while the bell companies would lead you to believe that it is all their accomplishment alone.
Your suggestion that ipv6 is somehow contingent upon bell companies being allowed to reshape the internet via policy is totally without merit. Any arguments telco providers make could just as easily be made by router manufacturers. Yet we don't hear Cisco attempting to lay claims upon the internet. This is a financially motivated push for monopolistic power by the telcos. Nothing more. Innovation particularly in this field is rarely profit motivated. I am a living example as result of hundreds of hours spent building web applications, spreading information and pushing the envelope for my love of problem solving and being involved with this pure form of communication which developed too quickly to be absolutely controlled by any one organization.
As stated before though - telco is technically in a position to reshape and redefine the internet in their own interests, and the only entity capable of standing up to them is our government. Please stop spreading misinformation!
Thank you. - PWoT, on 12/16/2008, -1/+2Thank you. Nice to see somebody trying to be a voice of reason here.
- uncleosbert, on 12/17/2008, -0/+1whew! ok, we do agree. i appreciate your concerns about the government and the solution it might impose, but i think there are times when it's just not possible to address malfeasance with market pressure. thanks for the chat!
- GoaYoshi, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1I'm trying to understand the intelligent viewpoints of those who are in favour of net neutrality, and clearly that is what I am doing now by having this discussion. It seems you do not understand this, but I won't push that issue any further.
What is the issue with having both a change in protocol, and a required freedom of internet content? Why is it that once we are able to differentiate packets, it is suddenly impossible to stop a major company like Comcast from doing something like what you linked in that video?
These cases of abuse are obviously pointed out quickly and spread like a virus, so regulation would not be difficult. Just because a company has tools to do wrong doesn't mean they are able to get away with it.
"i will not accept your pleas for convenience at their expense. it's more convenient for me to dump my trash out the window of my car as i drive, but that doesn't mean anyone should let me."
This is precisely what I am trying to say. You have all the tools you need to throw trash out of your car - a car and trash. But you aren't. This is because we have rules and morals that say we should not be doing that. In fact, it would be far easier to police what comcast and other such companies are doing, due to the high exposure they receive when making these decisions. - GoaYoshi, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1I don't recall suggesting that we should roll over and accept large players. What is it that you are afraid will happen if we allow ourselves to make improvements to internet protocols?
"moreover, again, potential abuse is not what we are discussing. this is actual abuse you seem to be saying i should just ignore for the good of the network managers. no, thank you."
What is this actual abuse? I have full access to the entirety of the internet at a fair rate. I would argue that the rate we experience is unfair, as those of us who merely browse the internet and send email have to pay the same amount of money as those who play videogames or plow through bandwidth on torrents. In reality, all of our internet bills could be reduced under a new configuration, or at the very least, internet connectivity could be brought to more areas due to a reduced load on internet service providers.
"i will not accept your pleas for convenience at their expense. it's more convenient for me to dump my trash out the window of my car as i drive, but that doesn't mean anyone should let me."
You would prefer that technological advancement is restricted just so that you can feel good about sticking it to the man? The internet would be just as "free" as it is right now, whether net neutrality is passed or not, in terms of what we all have access to and how much it would cost. - uncleosbert, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1"If I understand this properly, of of the side effects of Net Neutrality is the fact that we will not be allowed to distinguish between types of packets, which would be tremendously convenient if we wish to improve its speed (or I suppose I should really say latency rather than speed)."
then you do not understand this properly. this is an opportunity to alter the law. we could do something really targeted if more sys admins and network managers would stop being too fearful of the government to participate in the process.
compromise does not mean, roll over and accept that you are at the mercy of large players. not to me. you can feel free of course, but i prefer to exercise my rights.
i will not accept your pleas for convenience at their expense. it's more convenient for me to dump my trash out the window of my car as i drive, but that doesn't mean anyone should let me.
moreover, again, potential abuse is not what we are discussing. this is actual abuse you seem to be saying i should just ignore for the good of the network managers. no, thank you. - GoaYoshi, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1The benefits are clear, but so are potential downfalls. The legislation isn't there yet for a good compromise, I'll fully admit that, but I think this issue ought to stay cooking for a bit before I can agree to any kind of legislation on it.
I guess I'm really just trying to show the public that there's more to it than Comcast or Insight deciding to make money on youtube and digg's success. If they understand that and still support Net Neutrality than power to them, at least they've made an informed choice. - BaldGuy, on 12/17/2008, -0/+1Please sign this and participate. If you hate corporate news then there is even more reason to get involved in net neutrality because it's the only thing keeping them even remotely honest for now.
- MsLaurel, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1I've been signing these for years.
I'm already PO'd that they want to extort more money in exchange for making my DSL faster. They should be making my DSL faster to keep me as a customer. - kvgirard, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1its a good thing i got my internet tube running into a big tank in my basement so i can save it all for later! you're our of luck suckers!!!
- uncleosbert, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1"What is the issue with having both a change in protocol, and a required freedom of internet content?"
there is none. that is what i fight for under the name "net neutrality". i beg you to educate yourself about this issue. even your wikipedia article says there are many different ideas being discussed. i would like you to lend your insights to make better solutions. instead, you seem to believe we're just demonizing isps for no reason.
"Why is it that once we are able to differentiate packets, it is suddenly impossible to stop a major company like Comcast from doing something like what you linked in that video?"
you keep bringing up the issue of packets. please notice that what comcast did was not prioritizing traffic: it blocked it, then treated the packet as if it had failed. the only way topolskii was able to prove this was by experimenting with his ability to send other packets that were not torrents. other witnesses testified to the same problem: one experiment showed users could download porn easily, but were prevented from uploading the bible nearly every single time.
this is not just differentiation anymore: it's control.
"These cases of abuse are obviously pointed out quickly and spread like a virus, so regulation would not be difficult. Just because a company has tools to do wrong doesn't mean they are able to get away with it."
actually, they have now gotten away with it for almost a year.
that is what concerns me.
"In fact, it would be far easier to police what comcast and other such companies are doing, due to the high exposure they receive when making these decisions."
one would think so, but one would be wrong:
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-uses-hacker-techni ...
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/64401.html?wlc= ...
"This is pretty unbelievable--- there was an FCC hearing about Net Neutrality in Harvard yesterday where we had a booth. Comcast was PAYING PEOPLE TO FILL UP SEATS AND CHEER FOR THEM. Tons of folks, including reporters, got turned away. For people that still have a hard time wrapping their heads around what net neutrality is, this about sums up what's happening. "
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/26/report-comcas ... - GoaYoshi, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1It's cases like these that made me say that I realize the potential for abuse, and that there does need to be a bit of oversight on the part of the government. If I understand this properly, of of the side effects of Net Neutrality is the fact that we will not be allowed to distinguish between types of packets, which would be tremendously convenient if we wish to improve its speed (or I suppose I should really say latency rather than speed).
So in short yes, you are exactly right, companies look to do whatever they can to exploit a good position, but I think a good compromise can be found here that still allows for this type of technological advancement. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is