What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
100 Comments
- dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Direct link to NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/technology/02online.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin - coachace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Call your congressmen, people! Support the Wyden Bill by letting your congressmen know how you feel about it. Don't know who you congressman is? http://www.congress.org. Ironically, your point is better made by sending snail mail, but email these people if you have no other way to let them know your position.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You still have a choice, Mario, although a free market doesn't say that there always has to be a choice that is very desirable. One could still: a) Move somewhere else b) Not use any service c) Start their own service.
Honestly let's be reasonable here.
a) is it reasonable to move elswhere just for internet service? and if it doesnt pan out are you going to be moving over and over? If you own a house (like I do) thats not reasonable come on!
b) not use the service? internet is almost like a utility. You need it
c) really start your own service? for what? so the telcos can charge you for using their lines? Or chanrge you for bandwith?
The telcos/cable need to start treating their customers fairly.
~mario - ryogahibiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Excellent! Finally, a Senator with balls!
Everyone should contact their Congress members. Just enter your zip code to find out who your government representatives are:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Tell them:
I am a registered voter (in your district/state) and I request that you support Senator Ron Wyden's Wyden legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006. Please prevent the compromising of open interent access by the telephone carriers and cable operators.
C'mon people. Put the Digg effect into good use and make a difference that will help us all! - alchemista, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A senator that doesn't support the wishes of a lobbying business? Can this be a true, or is there another side of the story.
Google has hired someone to be their lobbyist in Washington, maybe they own this guy. - hopalong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is a direct link to his testimony at the Neutrality hearing.
http://wyden.senate.gov/media/speeches/2006/02072006_testimony_on_net_neutrality.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Contact your senators folks.. Please Please Please take 5 minutes out of your day to do this. - rodball, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good for him. He's a Democrat, but has his own flat tax plan (cool). And he's a big promoter of nanotech development in his state.
- cabr1to, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wyden bill = GOOD
...Ensign bill = BAD?
If the constituency does not inform their congresspeople well on this issue, then Sen. Wyden's legislation (the one showcased here) will likely face COMPETITION in the Senate from the bill introduced by Sen. Ensign (R-NV) this past summer. However, Ensign's bill is drafted with different ideas in mind.
My brief research indicates that the Ensign bill referred to in the NYT article is the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act (S. 1504) which also attempts to prevent further expansion of municipal broadband projects, instead catering to entrenched interests in the telecom industry. While the bill does address some VERY specific issues pertaining to video and VOIP service, and calls for vague "consumer protection" clauses, it leaves the definition of "consumer protection" to be determined by the FCC and thus removes the ability of a state to determine for itself what is best for its citizens.
http://www.baller.com/pdfs/Ensign_Summary.pdf
http://www.freepress.net/congress/billinfo.php?id=160
While I agree that it is important to contact your senators about this issue, it is also CRITICAL to explain why the Wyden bill has different (possibly better) implications for American businesses and consumers than the Ensign bill. Key differences include the role of QoS, pay-for-service, and the distribution of network resources to internal/partnered/external interests. Ensign's bill doesn't address any of these very well. - longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ya, let it ride out, I don't think government intervention is needed in this case. All google has to do is tell verizon to shove it, and if verizon blocks google, they are going to have a google of people calling them up and asking them why their internet doesn't work.
- noobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Support Those Senators!
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"hey, if AT&T is having to fork over additional money to maintain THEIR network because of increased traffic by google, they're under no obligation to continue providing that service free of charge - especially when the latter is profiting so much from it."
'Hey, if Google is having to fork out money to deliver content to AT&T Customers, they're under no obligation to provide that service to AT&T free of charge - especially when the latter is profiting from it'
the door swings both ways. - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dugg. The telcos were given huge tax money handouts by the government to support building the broadband infrastructure. I'm sick of these telcos pretending that they are being generous.
- Gonadin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Direct link to the bill mentioned in the story:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.288: - CHuQ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11) Sure, it's "their" bandwidth, but they also depend on others' bandwidth to have a product to sell. They don't provide the full connection from me to Google. If this process starts, why wouldn't Level 3 just cut them off. Or maybe charge them a fee to use "their" bandwidth? Result: Internet falls apart (at least here).
2) "The Internet" is a multi-part product. Connectivity is useless if you don't have anywhere to go and visa versa. What if Google said, "OK, AT&T, either you pay us protection money or we cut off all your customers. They'll just have to go without Google, Google Earth, etc." Result: Same as above.
3) My agreement with SBC is for full access, not access that's throttled based upon who'll pay them protection money. Right now, the decision between cable and DSL is pretty straightforward: Pick whatever you want. But if all of a sudden DSL (from AT&T) was "variably bandwidth throttled) vs. other services that weren't? Easy call. Result: AT&T takes a bath. We start to see high speed over power lines, etc. take off.
4) I live in a house. I have SBC (read: AT&T) DSL, and it's fine. I can also get high speed from Comcast. If AT&T started playing games and throttling the bandwidth of sites I use because the owners wouldn't pay protection money, I'd bail instantly. Result: I'm out of the bandwidth throttling game and AT&T can sit and spin.
I'm just sayin... - vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You guys are missing the point entirely here. AT&T's network belongs to AT&T, not to Google...just as Google's site and content belongs to them. If Google doesn't like what AT&T is doing, let them block access to all AT&T customers and see how they all feel AT&T.
"Except consumers pay their ISP to connect them to a particular network to get to a particular site. The site isn't contacting the ISP's subscribers (in general), the subscribers are requesting pages from the site. An ISP charging a site for a page its subscribers are asking for is asinine. The bandwidth is all paid for; the telcos are just double-dipping."
Then AT&T should be taken to task for not providing services they promised...that's it between them and their customers, not for a senator up for re-election to decide.
"The market has failed! Flatout. there's no real competition and because of this there's no incentive for these corporations to roll out the fiber to the curb they promised years ago (along with that promise came rate increases and government subsidies)."
The market hasn't failed...the market is messed up because of the very things you are advocating in this thread, which is crooked politicians who want to be re-elected..and you guys are silly enough to believe what they are promising you.
"Also there are no other venues to speak of. Between the government backed monopolies and the walls that have been put up by the bells to prevent municipal internet services, the number of companies that will provide you service and not ***** you over are next to none!"
Again...a generic argument that has little to do with AT&Ts plans to ask for more money from Google. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to be connected to the Internet...nor is access to the Internet a civil or constitutional right. This is a totally assinine argument to suggest that someone is screwing you over because YOU decided to become their customer!
"I disagree. Forget about letting the market sort it out. The telcos will just ask for more and more and more. It's not just ATT, all of the rest will follow and you will have no place to go."
Imagine that! In a free market, asking for more money...who would have thought. So what?? It doesn't mean you should be their customer if you don't like what they are doing.
"Yes. In my area, there is one broadband internet provider (the cable company), thanks to a government sanctioned monopoly.'
That's a bunch of BS and you know it...your local cable company has nothing to do with AT&T trying to extort money from Google...this is a strawman argument.
Every single time the government gets involved in the marketplace they screw something up and costs are going through the roof. Let Google retaliate and deal with AT&T in their own way, don't go whine to a politician about it...which is ironic because at the same time you guys whine about politicians having too much influence. Bah! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Why not let the free market and consumers decide which service (if any) is appropriate for them?"
Because sadly when one company does something evil all the other telcos jump on the bandwagon. Some areas are monopolized by a company and you don't have a choice to switch. It's not a "free Market" when you don't have a choice. Telcos and cable alike try to kill competition so they can do what they are doing now. Charge up the ying yang at will.
~mario - Thranduil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"wtf?? AT&T can't ask money for use of their own network? Asking money from Google may be immoral, but it certainly shouldn't be "illegal"" -vvaduda
Except consumers pay their ISP to connect them to a particular network to get to a particular site. The site isn't contacting the ISP's subscribers (in general), the subscribers are requesting pages from the site. An ISP charging a site for a page its subscribers are asking for is asinine. The bandwidth is all paid for; the telcos are just double-dipping.
"Are there still that many areas of the nation that don't have Phone and (possibly multiple) Cable companies that both offer internet access? I can choose Time Warner, SBC, Wide Open West, and a host of dial-up companies." -boohiss
Yes. In my area, there is one broadband internet provider (the cable company), thanks to a government sanctioned monopoly. As for dial-up, the phone lines aren't exactly reliable. When you can connect, you can't remain on for long before your dropped. - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mailed the senators in my state.
I'm in the hell of GA, far from the hope of fiber. Verizon has already rolled out some psuedofiber service to some parts, but BellSouth down here is looking like it's the worst. Fiber to the curb? Posh. They're talking about /hopefully/ getting it to 300m from the curb, and using copper the rest of the way.
So I may get 5mbit from them! They of course promised to offer it to the curb but ya know, the subsidies have dried up and their already used to charging me 45$ a month for a 1 mbit service, so why change now?
God I hate BellSouth. - killerless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@vvaduva
The market has failed! Flatout. there's no real competition and because of this there's no incentive for these corporations to roll out the fiber to the curb they promised years ago (along with that promise came rate increases and government subsidies). The only thing that is going to keep the internet from becoming as lame as a internet cafe is legislation that will shut up the bells. I want faster internet, pretty much everyone does, and when companies propose that i pay more just so my email gets through in 1 business day opposed to 2+ it pisses me off.
Also there are no other venues to speak of. Between the government backed monopolies and the walls that have been put up by the bells to prevent municipal internet services, the number of companies that will provide you service and not ***** you over are next to none!
Just b/c you took econ in highschool doesn't mean it applies everywhere! - thewhitefedora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's nice too see that the government is worth something.
- njfinn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is the BILL?
- R2-D2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0makes me even happier to live in oregon
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0forgot to add of it
- slamm6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's a better link with the extension to 2006 and details:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.288: - slamm6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My bad, sorry mcduckov.
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060302:MTFH08897_2006-03-02_22-55-27_N02376259:1
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-02-2006/0004312474&EDATE=
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=88357
http://www.mobuzz.com/shows/2773.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester - tdkme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can you say, "double dip" The content providors are already being charged for the amount of bandwith. if they charge the consumer, they are getting paid on both ends. We need gov control of the net like europe then we would have 30 megs and pay 15 bucks like s. korea and sweeden.
- meaniketd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0chears sanator....it was time somebody put up with these giants
- athenius22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bravo, Senator Wyden.
I'm glad this made the front page. Hopefully the audience of digg will write their congressional reps en masse.
Your letters actually do make a difference. - duke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@definite form
I'm from Texas, and so are my boots. If you'd like, you can bend over and I'll let you try one on! - vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"@vvaduva
Go back to Texas."
Nice, but I aint from Texas...I spent most of my life in a communist country...which is what this tread reeks of: the government telling someone how to run their company/lives. I take it you are also the same people cheering the government on when they force Walmart to provide healthcare for their employees. - hesdeadjim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This looks important:
“Senate Bill to Address Fears of Blocked Access to Net”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/technology/02online.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
As the Internet works right now, I applaud what the senator is doing. This bill would cut off many attempts to turn the internet into TV (expensive to publish/broadcast like TV is).
But there is complexity here:
QOS opens the door of charging for QOS on demand. But it is not (to my knowledge isolated) from the other things that QOS brings to the stability of the future 'net. Would love to see something in the law that allows some flexibility for the functionality that IPV6 and QOS brings. - slamm6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man, mcduckov, you aren't searching very well. Here's the link to the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:7:./temp/~c1099BWDDF::
If you want to find it yourself, just search wyden.
It's bill S.849 - definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@vvaduva
Go back to Texas. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ writher
As a Libertarian, I would usually agree with what you said. But, in this case, there are reasons not to. First, this particular case clearly effects interstate commerce. So, the feds would have jurisdiction. Second, there really isn't an effective way for the market to work in this case. Sure, AT&T customers could boycott that ISP. But, because of the way packets are routed, there is no way for anyone to ensure that their packets won't be routed across AT&T's network. So, sites like Google would have to either pay AT&T's premium or settle for 2ND rate service when their packets cross AT&T's network.
In this case, I think it would be reasonable for Congress to tell AT&T that they don't have to be a part of the public Internet. But, if they choose to do so, they must treat all traffic equally. - generalleoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Acting like mafia hoods is standard practice when a big company wakes up one day to realize their whole business model is obsolete. The major telcos business models are as obsolete as the RIAA and TV broadcast industry's and they know it. At least the TV industry is adopting to the changes instead of fighting them.
I think the very concept of big business itself is largely being rendered obsolete. Even giants like Microsoft are showing things are changing. - Moistfly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it's funny watching people cheer about this ... while most people might think what AT&T and others are trying to do is "evil" these same people while be whining when rates across all ISP's starts climbing higher and higher as a result.
- Gonadin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oops, that link goes to Wyden's 2001 bill; however, it is set to expire this year.
- thisrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0First off I would like to say I am totally for this kind of legislation.
This bill could also have some unintentional and great consequences.
Think about the packet shaping some ISPs are doing to block bit torrent traffic. This bill, depending on the wording, could possibly make that packet shaping illegal under the anti-discrimination part of the bill. Which would be great news for anyone who likes bit torrent!!!!!! - JingJang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RIGHT ON. It's good to hear a positive story about a senator these days!!
- JingJang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Congresswoman = written. Took 5 minutes.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ writher
Why not let the free market and consumers decide which service (if any) is appropriate for them?
Because we want to keep it one (1) Internet. Otherwise, I'd say, "Last Man Standing..." - astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Never trust a company who's logo looks like the Death Star and hires the James Earl Jones to be their spokes person.
Darth Vader: "General Gore... did you dispearse the tax forms for bandwith consumption?!"
General Gore: "Uh-hu Mr. Vader Sir..." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't find the bill that is mentioned on thomas.loc.gov. The link that another digger posted above goes to a bill about sales taxes (I don't think that is it).
Before you all go ape$h(% calling or writing your Senators can someone please find the actual bill we're going ape$h(% in support of? "Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006" turns up no hits on Thomas. - hesdeadjim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This issue is complex. As the Internet and how it works right now, I applaud what the senator is doing. However at some point things. Once you bring in IPV6 with QOS, things get a little bit moe complex. I believe that the law should specify fairness across the same level of service.
QOS opens the door of charging for QOS on demand. But it is not (to my knoloedge isolated) from the other things that QOS brings to the stability of the future 'net. Would love to see something in the law that allows some flexibility for the functinality that IPV6 and QOS brings. - FinishdLawSkool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's nice to hear that a politician is doing something to benefit the people rather than just doing what a company lobbies (bribes) him to do...
- ibjhb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0awesome!!
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> "Here's another reason to vote Democrat, if you have to choose between the 2 parties."
> Screw that! I don't vote for one party or the other. I vote for what I think is right.
Yes, on the small scale thats good, but I generally average out what I feel is right and wrong based on what I see. When I see a senator standing up for what I feel is right that gives me lots of points in his general area. When I see congress people taking kickbacks and payoffs from big businesses so they introduce legislation I feel hurts the consumer, that gives them negative points.
It's fairly obvious who has the most points, in these cases. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> "Wake up. What you are advocating is outright stupid: government intervention where
>> market forces can handle the problem easily. Customers will leave AT&T and find other
>> venues to resolve this problem."
AT&T's proposed behavior is essentially *extortion*. This bill just identifies that and makes it a known issue. This is a good thing for everyone. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Portuguese / Brazilian : http://www.htk.com.br/noticia.php?noticia=167
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is