What is Digg?54 Comments
- kysle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39It's nice to see a senator doing his/her job.
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28now if he can only get the others to stop sucking the various tiered internet pusher's dicks for a minute, maybe we'll get somewhere
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"Couldn't we just make the net neutral by allowing telcos to expand into each other's market?"
Seems like a common misunderstanding of the isse. The net netrality issue is not so much about all the service providers, but is about the very few, huge corporations, like At&T and Verizon, who control the physical infrastructure, the actual network of physical wires and cables...that they built with the assistance of a lot of government subsidies and tax incentives, paid for by the US taxpayers.
Now they want to act like it all belongs to them, and they want to charge a toll for prime access to OUR infrastructure. (kinda like designating the best lanes of public highways 'for rich people only')
It is as if the doorman hired by your building would start charging a toll to get in and out of the building....to make some extra money for himself. You'd fire his ass....right? - warpdragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Nope. Verizon would have no incentive to stay far above 2 kbs, only where it seemed they were significantly faster compared to competitors.
- kevogod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Freedom for many is better than freedom for a few.
- dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yes, but that would defeat the purpose of what Congress is slowly accomplishing; local monopolies with the ability to abuse their customer bases.
- 01001001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Those poor Telcos. What'll we do in a world where the CEOs have less than 3 chins and are forced to give the consumers a fair shake?
Life just aint fair. My heart aches for the Lee Raymonds of the world... - lysdexic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"A Democrat trying to interfere with the free market system?!!? No no, surely not. It can't be. Surely this must be a typo."
You may wish to one day pledge allegiance to the United States of Wal Mart, but I welcome government regulation of business. The idea that a free market works everything out in a fair and humanitarian way is a fallacy. I understand if you don't believe me, but ask Kenneth Lay, John Rigas, or Charles Keating what they think about a free market system. Even better, ask a Chinese worker in a Wal Mart factory who has to work 130 hours a week for 16.5 cents an hour. - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It's hard to take the unpopular stance here, but I beg people to please think about this before we jump into it head first.
I firmly believe that if the tel-cos try to create a "toll road" Internet, that the Internet industry will eventually offer alternatives that bypass them and make them irrelevant. I also believe that once the government gets it's foot in the door in terms of regulating them, that it will never stop.
So if we do nothing, the problem will probably take care of itself, but if the government does something, the industry will probably become more and more controlled by government in a way that is not in our best interest. That's all I'm saying. It's not that I like what the tel-cos are doing, it's just that sometimes I think it's important to understand that the government can't and shouldn't be the solution to problems that we can solve ourselves. - Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Right, skyshock, because oligopolies are loads better than monopolies. Don't give me the 'free market' ***** when it comes to utilities.
- rayishu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6its great people are trying to support net neutrality, i find it hard that people are not against the idea all together because anyone who uses the Internet often sould like the fact of net neutrality, and people who don't commonly use the Internet do not deserve to make decisions concerning it
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah. I agree wholeheartedly.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't see how you can vote against this. Honestly, what are the lawmakers thinking when they push the little "nay" button. I bet it goes something like "AT&T is going to buy me a new boat." It might also be "I bet Alltel will offer me a job as a lobbyist after this little vote."
- Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5am i free to take a twenty out of your wallet, because i'm bigger than you?
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4postaldave, I know that your libertarian mind only sees laws as black and white; freedom VS less freedom, but it isn't that simple. What the telcos want is the ability to charge content providers (digg, google) more for priority access to their backbone lines. This way they can make additional money on top of what they already charge content providers for their high-speed access (which they can already pay more or less for more or less speed). The way bandwidth works is that you can't prioritize one kind of traffic without de-prioritizing everything else. So if google did pay for that priority access, Yahoo would suffer. If *everyone* paid, it would defeat the purpose altogether and if only the big players paid, it would lock up the market and make it more difficult for competition to spring up (at least in the U.S.--it is likely that new content providers would spring up overseas taking jobs away from Americans).
So in a sense, right now the telcos have that extra freedom. They plan to use it to start a racketeering scheme. What about the freedom of the content providers? If they get on the Internet at a reduced speed, isn't that less freedom? There's only three teir-1 backbone service providers in the U.S. and it is impossible for competitors to spring up (since you need permission from the big three to join the game). It is an anti-free-market oligopoly.
The only way a competitor could spring into action would be for them to build an entirely different Internet... From scratch. This is impossible because it took many decades to get what we have today and it was subsidized by American tax dollars. Also, the physical limits of wireless connections means that the only way to compete is to lay fiber which would require gaining permission and paying thousands upon thousands of cities and towns across the U.S. The cost for that would equate to hundreds of trillions of dollars. How many companies or investment groups have that kind of money to throw around?
Without government intervention, the neutrality of the Internet could go away and that is a bad thing for freedom. Get it in your head: Net Neutrality = Net Freedom. Without it, Americans will have a degraded Internet experience and the free market will suffer. How much more would products cost at wal-mart if all roads were private toll roads? If there was no free federal highway to travel on? Is the Internet really that different? Are you really prepared to live in a world where Internet providers can charge you more, "just because"? How many ISPs can you choose from in your neighborhood and how many use the same backbone? We all connect to the same Internet right now--but without Net Neutrality, that may go away.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - sirplus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4don't just rave about it here, sign this petition:
http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/
and call, write, your senators and house rep's and tell them to support net neutrality.
it is essential, and though we may take it for granted now, it is not safe. you will notice it if it goes away. and it would really suck. we need to keep the internet as an even playing field.
if you're not sure what's at stake, or want to learn more about this, check out:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/08/1352255 - Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5discrimination is improvement? I'll be damned before i let your biases determine my access to content.
The only 'improvement' that broadband providers (with our public funds, don't forget) should offer is higher bandwidth, lower latency and lower prices. None of us benefit from hearing 'Yahoo is better than Google because Google won't pay us our protection money, so you can only get Google half as fast.' - kejistan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3otherland:
Net neutrality would be what we currently have, you pay for a dial up connection, or you pay more for a better ticket, and get Broadband.
What the Telco's want (using your metaphor): Travel companies should be able to charge the same amount for a ticket wherever. Planes fly to Los Angeles, unfortunately, if you want to get to San Fransisco you've got to take the boat. Same price for the traveler, but San Fransisco forgot to pay their protection fee last month. - fatlip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i'm not 100% sure but i think some of the landlines (possibly all) are owned privately by certain telco's... so they'd just charge eachother anyway
..dont quote me on that - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd like to add that Net Neutrality isn't just about speed or latency. It is also about the ability for ISPs to censor content. If we give the power to control the content that flows across their networks, we also give them the power to completely cut off whatever the hell they want. If the telcos get what they want, what's to stop them from censoring sites that are critical of them? What's to stop them from cutting off competitor sites?
If Verizon starts offering VoIP service like Vonage, what's to stop them from de-prioritizing Vonage packets into oblivion? What's to stop Comcast from cutting off your access to television programming online (to force you to continue to pay for cable TV service)? The answer is that nothing would stop them.
The only way to keep our freedom on the Internet is to legislate Network Neutrality. We need to codify into law that discrimination of packets is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. It is essential to the economy, our freedom of speech, and our ability as a country to compete with the rest of the world on products and services that are bought and sold on the Internet.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"And this is about making sure the companies that are building faster services can get their return investment on it."
Since when is it the government's duty to make sure that oligopolies can make a profit? If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be in business in the first place.
What this is really all about is precisely what you said, actually. The big telcos have lobbied congress and donated millions of dollars to political campaigns so they can legislate extra profit for themselves into the law. That would be fine except for the fact that the law and capability they want reduces the freedom of everyone else and places the power to regulate Internet traffic into the hands of the few.
You need to stop thinking about the Internet as a privately owned entertainment network and start thinking about it as a commons that our country depends upon. An increase in the cost to access the Internet (which is what the telcos would most certainly incite) effects the economy as a whole and reduces the United States ability to compete with other nations for global services. How much more would products cost if every road was a privately owned toll road? Imagine if only Ford vehicles could use the far left lane. Do you really want to give the telcos that power?
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They should rename it to something patriotic-sounding like Republicans do with all their legislation, like "The Protecting American Internet Freedom Act"
- PrimoTurbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No one should have the ability to charge you for something developed mainly by public funds, especially when there is such a huge monopoly over who owns the infrastructure.
- Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4argoff: concerns noted. do you have any specifics?
Are you expecting something like nationwide wireless broadband, or new companies stringing up fresh fiber-optic cable to your door?
Are you worried about the government proscribing restrictions on router shape and size, or maybe fines for internet downtime? - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Typical election-year posturing - trying to make an issue out of a non-issue by sticking their nose where it doesn't belong."
Can someone please shoot skyshock for me? This is not a non-issue. There have been 5 unique articles on Digg along with numerous articles on other sites about Net Neutrality in the past week alone. This is a big issue right now and we need all the help getting the regulations changed that we can get.
argoff - How would the problem take care of itself if the government didn't step in? I don't see that ever happening unless Google started laying all of the Dark Fiber they bought to create a whole second layer of the internet that can interface with what is currently available, but bypasses the normal ISPs. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Aren't you describing the exact opposite of net neutrality?
- jamiejamez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Please Don't Forget that if you support the Net Neutrality Law you also support the Broadcast Flag
http://ipaction.org/blog/2006/05/breaking-news-broadcast-flag-is-back.html - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ ghoti06
Years ago? Since 1995 the telecoms having been allowed to charge us extra fees on our phone bills... to the tune of $2,000 per household over several years. These fees were allowed so that they would be able to "invest" (i.e. use our money) to deliver a next generation "information superhighway". Yet large numbers of people still can't even get basic broadband, much less a fiber optic connection. - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Now they want to act like it all belongs to them, and they want to charge a toll for prime access to OUR infrastructure. (kinda like designating the best lanes of public highways 'for rich people only')"
I find that it is described better how it was on a few sites - not that only "rich people" could use the express lanes because no one large company would profit from that. A better analogy is that the express lanes would only be for people who were driving Ford vehicles. - myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Right, so support Rep. Markey's bill instead.
http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/35728/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Net neutrality would be like legislating all seats at a hockey game to be front row so everyone gets the best possible seat and is equal."
It's a lot closer to legislating all seats are equally bad. And usually works out exactly how it would in a rink. The distance at which all seats become equidistant is worse than the very worst that the market had to offer.
But it's fair, so cool and a half. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think google should reverse it on who ever trys to do this. If At&t wants to charge google for its own customers trying to access google, then as google, i would just block at&t subscribers all together, along with at&t ads, links, everything. It would hurt At&t more than it would google, and people would switch carriers. I think google has the upper hand, and needs to bitch slap them with it
- mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, I hope you will be kind enough to come where I live and start a new broadband ISP because Alltel is the only one available in this area. MANY people in the US live in areas with only one broadband ISP provider, if any at all.
- slackjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can someone please direct me to a source where it shows the government has shouldered AT&T's expensies from 1910-Divestiture?
- kevogod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What you say is only true when the giving of freedoms to the minority does not take away rights from the majority. Majority power is diluted, but equality increases.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your heart doesn't have to ache for him, you should thank him for putting together the investment people were willing to risk to create the service people use.
- chrisfel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The telcos first bribed Washington to get a monopoly on the broadband market. Now they want to use their monopolies to extract money from service providers. Question is how do they charge a smaller blog for the use of their traffic. I think that would be considered unfair. Also, this is like charging a telephone customer for a long distance call and then charging the person they called too. Double dipping!
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3""In fact, I view it as reaffirming what has been a very old principle...that network operators with an ability and incentive to discriminate be prevented from doing so."
That's a good arguement against net neutrality. Basically, he's saying take away any incentive to improve the internet from the people who actually implement it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"am i free to take a twenty out of your wallet, because i'm bigger than you?"
You're free to try, but to equate this to any free market exchange is moronic. There's not a telco in the universe that can take a penny from me if I don't volunteer to use their service. And to abdicate your responsibility to make your own decisions, you take away the freedom of others that might choose differently than you. - apology, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this will flop, same as the previous one did, for sure.there's way too many interests and cash at stake and not enough corporate muscle on the opposing side.
- maxhrk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3i dont know what your purpose based on your comment, i hate to say, i dont dig you, i undig you. LOLOMGWTF!
okay.. move along. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Couldn't we just make the net neutral by allowing telcos to expand into each other's market?
If Alltel lets me access Google at 2KB/s, but Vrizon has no restrictions... I should be able to switch to verizon.
Would this not solve the problem? - ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Primo, the pipeline laid years and years ago was paid for by public funds, yes. And then that pipeline was heavily regulated for a long time. Now Verizon and ATT and the others are laying down new pipe, and the govt hasn't paid for that. Should we still regulate that?
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm afraid the majority of people in this thread are misunderstanding the situation. I thought geeks had a libertarian streak, but I'm dismayed to see such pro-regulation sentiments. The tech industry boomed because government stayed out, and the telcos have been struggling out from under regulation for decades. And just now that we're starting to see some serious work done on faster pipelines... we want to throw a wrench into that? I think that would be a very big mistake.
And for people who get caught up on the idea of "bit discrimination," please take a breath and calm down. This isn't the civil rights movement. This is about boxes and wires and waves. And this is about making sure the companies that are building faster services can get their return investment on it. Not to mention, it's about making the bandwidth hogs pay their fare share, and stop free-riding off people who don't use the net as much.
Unfortunately, the "net neutrality" proponents have muddied the waters. Here's hoping this gets cleared up before too long. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"None of us benefit from hearing 'Yahoo is better than Google because Google won't pay us our protection money, so you can only get Google half as fast.'"
When I mail a package I have to choose between tiered levels of service with higher prices commanding greater speed. When I buy an airline ticket I choose between different classes of seats based on how much I'm willing to pay for greater service.
Net neutrality would be like legislating all seats at a hockey game to be front row so everyone gets the best possible seat and is equal. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"The only 'improvement' that broadband providers (with our public funds, don't forget) should offer is higher bandwidth, lower latency and lower prices."
Sorry, no can do. This bill restricts discrimination either way. You cannot offer a faster service in the same way that you cannot offer a slower service.
This comes from the mindset that to offer an improvement to some is to therefore offer a degradation to others, even if the others stay the same.
Wouldn't worry though, I'm sure Ron Wyden and friends will successfully chart out the next evolution of network transport and tell everyone when it's OK to use it. - slackjr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0They should not strictly codify net neutrality. There FCC needs to determine when and where net neutrality will work. Also, anyone know how they plan on enforcing neutrality?
- postaldave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1but is it truely freedom if it's only for many?
true freedom is blind to cries of the many.
true freedom can only be freedom if applies to everyone. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0No, and no one cares. Neutrality sounds good, and the juvenile nightmare scenarios cooked up to sell this tripe are pathetic. There will be a need for an entirely new group of bureaucrats to handle all of the reports of infractions, there will be scads of false claims that take time to explain why they're false, and there will be an additional cost to every person using the Internet in the US, because a few vocal users are too lazy to take responsibility for even something as simple as which service provider they use.
The first questions, really, should have been, "Can this and should this be enforced at all?" and "What are the likely consequences?" Unfortunately, we'll probably find out later, and the folks who were for compulsion will be nowhere to be found. - postaldave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1i find this topic very interesting. everyone wants freedom for one's self, but not for anyone else. make government control others so that i can be free. MAKE the telcom people do what I want so that I can be free.
ah freedom, a double edged sword that one loves to cut others with but not one's self. -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is