digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at arstechnica.com

Senator to ISPs: "Think twice" about Net neutrality, or else

arstechnica.com — Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) stepped in front of a group of tech executives in Washington this morning to deliver a caffeinated and surprisingly sharp defense of network neutrality. Pledging to use "every ounce of my energy to protect network neutrality," Wyden had a message for ISPs who might be pondering new charges for various forms of access: "think t

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • retrorambler, on 05/07/2008, -3/+257Good ole Oregon! Way to go Ron! Give em hell.
    • mrwesticles, on 05/07/2008, -1/+16Go Oregon for our caffeinated representatives! It's super-effective!
    • pintomp3, on 05/07/2008, -7/+13this ron is on the right side of the issue.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -8/+4Because it is somehow necessary to subsidize and regulate the market when it doesn't do what you want? No, the problem is increasing monopolization of infrastructure... but sure, rally behind the politician who claims to defend the people's right to choose. lol
        • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4"No, the problem is increasing monopolization of infrastructure..."

          Gee, and I wonder how you prevent monopolies. Could it be regulations!? Why yes, yes it could.
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1Municipalities, with their centralized control of public property are tempted by the allure of telecom money, so they create privileged monopolies of infrastructure, which in turn increases the prices you pay and removes the incentive of these companies to provide service above a certain threshold.

          I'd love to hear how regulation actually solves this problem, but so far you've continued to dodge the issue. If you were to be any more abstract, you could say the 'good will of the people will solve this', or 'Angels and my faith in God will see us through'.

          You speak as if government involvement with telecoms had nothing to do with their current status. Please consider making an actual argument, bearing in mind the concept that unaccountability with power leads to corruption, whether it's a business providing a service, or government.
          • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2"Municipalities, with their centralized control of public property are tempted by the allure of telecom money, so they create privileged monopolies of infrastructure, which in turn increases the prices you pay and removes the incentive of these companies to provide service above a certain threshold."

            And you're accusing ME of being abstract?

            This is painfully simple. Telecoms gained power because they got into the game while everyone else thought the Internet was a passing fad. By the time it became apparent that it was here to stay, a handful of companies handled 99.9% of all Internet service, making an industry of oligarchy. Eventually, they realized that people were *so* dependent upon the Internet that they could increase profits enormously by prioritizing traffic - but only if they cooperated, since if only one of them did it a lot of their customers would shift to their competition. This is the third time I've said this, but it's the bloody Nash equilibrium; sometimes the most beneficial solution for the individual is the solution which is the most beneficial for the group. It has absolutely nothing to do with the municipality allowing a monopoly - the free market did that.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1"And you're accusing ME of being abstract?"

            Not entirely. Making selective judgments, sure.

            If this is so ***** simple to you, then people like yourself would have already came up with and implemented the solution and we wouldn't be here debating your utopian fantasy about how you think you can defy reality itself by creating greater good through more government.

            Blaming the free market is ludicrous. It was most definitely municipal control which contributed to the situation. Ever heard of zoning? Who controls that? Certainly not we the people, since that would imply we actually had the right to use our property as we pleased, so long as we didn't impose force on others. Now you ARE being abstract.

          • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2"...would have already came up with and implemented the solution..."

            We have come up with the solution. It's called net neutrality. Since this is the second time I've had to point this out to you, you might want to write that down somewhere. It hasn't been implemented because of resistance from Congress, the telecoms, and people like you who are naive enough to think all regulation is bad. That 'utopian fantasy' where the country is improved through more government? Yep, already taken care of that as well - it's called Scandinavia, and I've missed it ever since I left.

            Blaming the free market is logical. I'm a scientist. I draw conclusions based on observation, not emotions I have invested in philosophically appealing but functionally broken ideologies. The free market caused monopolization and collusion in Chile, in New Zealand, and in Hong Kong. It doesn't work. More government control has caused competition and healthy economies and populaces in Denmark, Sweden and Finland. It does work.
    • JettaMan, on 05/07/2008, -16/+7 It is absolutely foolhardy to allow the government a toe hold in regulating the internet.
      • stretch611, on 05/08/2008, -4/+10Oh yeah, it is much better to let Comcast and AT&T decide the fate of the net. /sarcasm
        Wake up and realize that net neutrality is needed to keep the internet evolving.
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -6/+4If neutrality is so popular, then it doesn't require defending. But there are problems with prices and value, which suggests that the problem really is municipal control of the internet backbone and related infrastructure. These are hurdles that none of the Net Neutrality advocates are willing to address. Until you do, you can expect high costs, and service which leaves something to be desired.
          • JayD16, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4"If neutrality is so popular, then it doesn't require defending."

            So nothing worth defending should be defended?
          • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Oh what crap. The backbone of the Internet is owned by American corporations - not the municipality. Compare the broadband prices in the States to those in Tokyo, where Internet service is far more closely monitored by the government than it is in America. When I lived in Tokyo I had a connection twice as fast as the one I had in Pasadena at less than half the price.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Are we discussing support, or defense?? If a service is good, it will be supported. If your choices are curtailed, you'll probably choose the lesser evil. If you must defend your right to support alternative choices, such as a business that supports net neutrality, then you do not have a free market situation.

            You're confusing the idea that people should be using the government to create more regulation. No, we should be demanding that our rights to support a system that respects net neutrality are recognized.

            "Oh what crap. The backbone of the Internet is owned by American corporations - not the municipality."

            I never said it wasn't. I'm saying you have bureaucrats at the local level who enable the telecoms to get away with anti-competitive practices, which are at the heart of the issue. You want better service, you need the liberty to provide such competing service.

            "Compare the broadband prices in the States to those in Tokyo, where Internet service is far more closely monitored by the government than it is in America. When I lived in Tokyo I had a connection twice as fast as the one I had in Pasadena at less than half the price."

            Correlation does not imply causation: Tokyo is a smaller area geographically, and their economy came to power as a manufacturing giant. These two factors contribute greatly to their situation, ensuring faster internet for their users.

            Explain what it is that Japan's government does which makes the internet run faster?
          • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2"I'm saying you have bureaucrats at the local level who enable the telecoms to get away with anti-competitive practices, which are at the heart of the issue."

            Yeah, this is the self-validating position generally taken by people who have done no research whatsoever into the actual situation - particularly if they have libertarian leanings. The lack of competition in the telecom industry has absolutely nothing to do with hypothetical bureaucrats 'allowing' businesses to aggregate a monopoly. Well, actually, maybe it does - only not at all in the way you meant it. The telecoms were created by the free market. They gained their infrastructure and power back when the Internet was still seen as a novelty, and they managed to do so with enough inertia to maintain control over the market straight through today. The free market created these monopolies, and therefore the dearth of competition, and only in that the legislature has yet to effect preventative regulations did they play any active role in precipitating the current situation. Can't you see that regulation exist to ENSURE competition?

            "You want better service, you need the liberty to provide such competing service."

            And also, as of now, financial support not even God could muster.

            "Tokyo is a smaller area geographically, and their economy came to power as a manufacturing giant."

            Oh puh-lease. There are 130 million people in Japan, and about 15 million of those people live in or immediately around Tokyo. The country has a population density ten times that of the States' - Tokyo almost 200 times. Moreover, mainland Japan has absolutely zero resources for manufacturing. So why can you get better household broadband anywhere in Japan than you can anywhere in the States? Well, it has to do with your question.

            "Explain what it is that Japan's government does which makes the internet run faster?"

            Invest in it. The Japanese government played a huge role in laying and modernizing the infrastructure that provides their citizens with Internet service. This is something the free market will never do, and it's a really simple reason why - it isn't cost effective. Connection speeds and prices would skyrocket if the States' Internet infrastructure were expanded and improved, but there are only two entities with the means to do so - the government and businesses. Just like it didn't get involved in the Internet to begin with until the government had put down the skeleton, the telecom industry will not bother with improving its service until they actually have competition. The effective monopolization of the industry caused by corporate collusion (that's the Nash equilibrium again - not 'bureaucrats') has broken any incentive they would otherwise have. The only way to restore that incentive is by preventing the collusion. That means regulations.
        • slvrbullet87, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3Well if you can point out where in the constitution it says the federal government is supposed to protect net neutrality could you point it out to me?
          • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Well if you can point out where in the Constitution it says the federal government is supposed to form the Air Force, could you point it out to me?
        • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1"Oh yeah, it is much better to let Comcast and AT&T decide the fate of the net. /sarcasm"
          Any concern as to to who may have undue influence on the government and the attendant direction of that evolution?
      • JayD16, on 05/08/2008, -4/+6Tell me about it. I can't remember the last time I had a car that didn't explode, medicine that didn't kill me or food I could eat. Damn this government regulation! /s
        • JettaMan, on 05/08/2008, -5/+4Right, businesses would be killing their customers. And how long would they stay in business if their customers stopped buying their products? Think a bit about it.
          • yellowcakewalk, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4JettaMan, are you for abolishing safety standards for products? Do you think we should, for example, not allow inspectors into meat packing plants?
          • JayD16, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Regulation exists BECAUSE the free market wasn't working....think a bit about it.

            Deregulation just leads to monopolies, price fixing, less competition and unsafe products.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4The concept of the free market cannot be faulted for the fraudulent actions of a few. If you're not willing to take responsibility for what you consume, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying regulation is bad, but you have to explain the difference between government and private regulation and why one is better than the other.

            Monopoly implies a company is either providing a great service (which doesn't seem to be the case, does it??), or that your freedom of choice is being curtailed somehow. Nobody can force you to do things against your will legitimately, including big business coercing smaller businesses with threats.
          • JettaMan, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2@Yellowcakewalk: Yes, I am absolutely for removing all regulations, including meat packing plant. Why? Because PEOPLE work at these plants. Lots of people, in the community. All over the US. If something funny was going on in the plant, the workers start talking about it and it ruins the reputation of the packing plant. Workers will go to the press. There is zero compelling reason to treat businesses as though they are guilty before they have committed a crime. That's precisely what regulations are: guilty until proven innocent.
          • JayD16, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Seriously JettaMan, either that was sarcasm or you really need to go read a book.
          • scottc, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Tobacco companies.
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -4/+6Get a grip. Do you really think businesses want to kill off their customers??

          The predominant reason that they can get away with poor service is because they can lobby to restrict competition, diminishing your freedom of choice in this regard. If people don't wake up to the fascistic advances of government working hand in hand with corporations, fighting for a neutral environment will not matter. Sure, you'll probably get your equality, but it will be equality in mediocrity where competing service providers can't participate without agreeing to act in proxy for state interests, which include, by the way, spying on citizens.
          • Timetheos, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4Lead paint in toys.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -4/+5Were you assuming the government would protect you from the lead paint? If so, I guess you were mistaken...

            Regulation is important, but I draw the distinction between what passes for regulation via Government agency, and private regulation, the likes of which has provided us organizations such as Consumer Reports and Underwriter's Laboratories.

            It's clear the manufacturer was in the wrong for producing a dangerous product, but this does not constitute a justifiable reason to make everybody pay for safety screening, as government is wont to do. No measure of legislation "for the children" will ever ensure safety if you do not have the incentive to perform safety checks and get the support and cooperation of the manufacturer to have their products screened BEFOREHAND so that lead paint toys no longer fall into the hands of children. Branding can be extremely reliable, provided a network of checks and balances exists, as opposed to trusting the name of a single company with no third party oversight.

            I must say, however, that MANY products from China are safe, and that price-point and labor conditions tend to be the remaining points of contention amongst people doing the purchases (buy USA, etc). Even toys such as Lego, which has moved much of its production into Asia, is a company with an impeccable reputation. They are also a company with high ethical standards on safety and product quality. Here, brand on its own proves to establish trust with consumers, but it's always smart to be skeptical!

            If parents are serious about buying safe products for their children, they might want to buy toys from other countries, or made domestically which have better quality control and working conditions, but they will have to pay for that quality. You get what you pay for.

            The reality today is this: Not only does China have the US by the balls in terms of debt, but China is an attractive source of cheap products. Cheap doesn't always mean badly made, but it happens. What does this say about our domestic market, that people, upon discovering the threats of Chinese products, continue to purchase from this region of the world? I think it says many things, but one important thing it might say is that people are willing to compromise on products based on affordability.

            Fraud and negligence happen, but you can't condemn the free action of individuals because someone somewhere did something irresponsible. Nor can you shun your own responsibility for educating yourself about what you are buying. Now that you know the dangers, there is no excuse. If enough people know the dangers, they will avoid these products and these companies will go under. This is the invisible hand of the market at work.

            To be sure, the US Government can be scolded for the fact that they created tacit support for the integrity of Chinese products by permitting so few regulations, and that's really where the confusion lies where such indiscriminate support for an ENTIRE NATION's INDUSTRY is given the OK. Large, bureaucratic government agency cannot be trusted to ensure the safety of products with reliability or efficiency relative to the speed at which products move through the market.
          • JayD16, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4You have yet to describe to me how regulation restricts competition. If businesses would regulate themselves with the same scrutiny whether the government was forcing it or not I don't see how that pushes out competition. You act like all things start out government regulated. Its when the free market isn't working that the government is called on to step in.

            Deregulation is fine if you like unsanitary food or monopolies but what about things like medicine? You can say the free market will sort it out but that's certainly tough ***** for the first wave of guinea pigs...I mean consumers that try a drug that turns out to be lethal.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Corporations, by their very nature, are entitled entities given the ability, by the government, to be less accountable when they do harm individuals.

            When a corporation grows to be a dominant force in an industry, it's convenient for them to support regulation claiming to advance 'safety', so long as the measure details all kinds of cost increases, like purchasing new safety machinery and staff for conducting inspections. Thing is, smaller companies don't always have the means to do this, so when they can't meet these regulations, they lose business, or go out of business entirely. No, things don't start out regulated, but regulation exists and grows over time. The only good thing we seem to have is that technology is outpacing the government's ability to regulate it. Costs SHOULD be going down, but they're not, and this is due to both regulation and increasing taxation.

            The world naive! Do you think people want unsanitary food and monopolies? The principles I'm explaining apply consistently to medicine, as they would food or other products.

            We've learned what happens when you don't test products. There should be no excuse for people to practice good judgment in buying products, unless they don't actually care.

            The FDA sure didn't help all the people who died because they fast tracked big pharma drugs through the system.

            The road to hell is paved in good intentions. Government 'regulation' and safety inspection is a bloated bureaucracy that acts with favortism towards certain companies. Remember when Elizabeth Dole mandated passenger side airbags, and then there were all those child deaths caused by the airbags? So what did the government do then? Mandate that kids sit in the back seat. Everything is one mandate after another, based on the narrow-minded conclusion that only one solution is viable.

            Industry law is a scourge, because big companies will continue to support regulations which reduce the ability of competitors to keep up, and your products will become more homogenized over time. THEN you'll see economic crises when foreign competitors are creating better, cheaper products, and the US government will start bailing out economic sectors because they're 'TOO BIG' to let fail.
          • JayD16, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3You keep saying this regulation adds extra costs to small business. They SHOULD be paying for the safety equipment whether they're forced to or not.

            If you want less corruption in regulation I'm all for it but privatizing the regulation won't lead to less corruption.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Yes, regulation adds costs, but these are costs the business might not have chosen, or might not have been able to take on due to their size. It's akin to regulating children out of the lemonade stand because they don't conduct the same measure of 'professionalism' and licensing as corporate restaurants. Maybe that example is a stretch, but let me tell you that children HAVE been harassed because they were competing with licensed vendors.

            If people want safety, a business ought to listen to what their customers want, else that business will die off. And businesses already act to please customers despite this regulation.

            I would argue that the FDA has more problems and corruption than Consumer Reports.
          • JettaMan, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1@JayD: Take any industry, but lets use the auto industry. Say I want to build a cheap electric car. There are regulations with crash testing, fuel emissions tests, etc... that add up to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS just to pass for a product. It also takes a long time to pass (decades in the medical industry) which makes it impossible for a new company to enter the market. New companies just don't have millions of dollars sitting around! This means only large corporations can afford to participate in those industries. It squeezes out the little guy. Big uncompetitive corporations love this system. This is not an open market. We need to cut regulations if you want fair competition.
    • chaoswings, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5I was thinking "Awesome! they are finally doing something". Then I read the last line "Despite the rhetoric on this issue, it looks unlikely that Congress will actually take any action this year. " Then I began to think "Ah ****, they are just messing with us again this is going nowhere"
      • mocheeze, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11It's not Ron Wyden's fault if other people's senators are in bed with the telecom giants. Contact your senators if you want bigger results. :)
        • sliksta, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8I would, but that's like asking the devil to please be good.
        • yellowcakewalk, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Senator Barbara Mikulski ( F-MD ) always sides with the telecoms. F is for Fascist.
    • flamingmb, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6today I am proud to be an oregonian, thanks Ron!
      • darkwing81, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2YAY Oregonians! i knew i voted for him for a reason
    • slick519, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5i love my oregon. greatest state EV4R
    • celkin, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2That's a first name we haven't heard on Digg in a while.
    • KiraDnote, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Just what we need, a lot of useless bluster.
  • DanNZN, on 05/07/2008, -3/+188We need more of these.
    • HyperJack, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Politicians?
      /s
      • BXRWXR, on 05/07/2008, -0/+18Good politicians.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -4/+14No such thing. You've made the sophomoric mistake of confusing "sucks less" with "good"
        • ElbertF, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Universe implodes.
    • huertanix, on 05/07/2008, -6/+5MOAR RONS!
      • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Ron Paul voted *against* net neutrality.
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1What's your point, though? Defend your position and explain how it will work.
    • JettaMan, on 05/07/2008, -10/+2Need more what, regulations? Actually no, regulations are the heart of the problem. There are too many of them and they hold back progress.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2I support Net Neutrality, but not through the barrel of a gun. JettaMan echoes my sentiments. Get the FCC to stop regulating the airwaves. Let the people establish free internet via WiFi.

        If you support Net Neutrality, I would be surprised to hear you argue this is not a good idea. If so, explain why the hell not. :)
        • ncairns, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Because your proposal in insubstantial, uninformed nonsense. Businesses own the guts of the Internet. They do not care about net neutrality - they care about profit. Without legislation in place to, yes, regulate how the telecoms do business, they will do whatever secures them the most profit. As per the Nash equilibrium, that generally means collusion.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Well, I see you proposed no actual solution. Good job.

            This solution is feasible, assuming the government doesn't come and perform a crackdown at the behest of the telecoms.

            You're engaging in rhetoric. Profit isn't a dirty word. Why should the government, with it's practical lack of customer service, be the only organization sought to have your wants and needs of life met??

            Collusion happens because government enables corporations, and vice versa. You're expecting the government to solve a problem that it itself has created.

            Talk about uninformed, you act as if government has no negative bearing on what happens in the market.
    • naju, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2The force is strong with this one...
  • crazyjake, on 05/07/2008, -23/+7the guy may look like a creeper, but he is ok in my book.
    • jmkiii, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10He looks nothing like a vine to me.
      • Terr01, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I thee you have thome grape powerth of obthervation, thir.
  • ppjsmith, on 05/07/2008, -49/+5I wish everyone in our government was named Ron. It seems to be something about that name.
    Ron Paul, Reagan and now Wyden!
    • Gillos, on 05/07/2008, -13/+1Why was this dugg down so much?
      • BXRWXR, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7Because.
        • Terr01, on 05/07/2008, -0/+13Because Reagan :P

          (Seriously, how does he fit in there?)
      • esilverski, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4It adds nothing to the high political discourse we value so much in this nation!
      • onetimer, on 05/07/2008, -4/+19Because it was yet another unnecessary, unrelated plug for RonPaul™ that reminded everybody why they hated his spammers in the first place.
        • ppjsmith, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2Yet he is related because he is also a VERY STRONG advocate for Net Neutrality
          • PueSi, on 05/07/2008, -1/+10WTF? Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality, he's pretty much against everything
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3If you have to ask, you shall be dugg down too!
    • MammasMilk, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8Reagan?

      puh-LEEEEZ
    • 40yrOldVirgin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3You forgot McDonald, their leader.
    • cybrguy, on 05/07/2008, -4/+7Reagan? No... Paul? yes.
    • birdykilla, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Gillos- Why was this dugg down so much?
      Me- Reagan was made to look like a good president by the MSM, he ***** up way to much in my book!

      have you ever heard "the prison song" by System of a Down - "the percentage of Americans in the prision system, the prision system, the prision system has doubled since 1985." Reagon was President from 1981-1989 during those years he put a huge amount of Americans in jail, casualities of "The Drug War." His wife and him created the D.A.R.E. program which I was a part of in 6th grade. Stupid ***** government programs in all the school's around the whole USA trying to curb the next generation of drug users into being a good citizen! ***** if that worked. Reagon = Asskisser because he must of been insane if he actually did what he thought was right. Instead of doing what he's Administration or CFR wanted.
    • ppjsmith, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Well I stand corrected. Reagan was horrible, yet his message before his election was better, he just didn't act on his views (more like he acted on the views of CFR and his V.P. Bush). Also Paul is against the government forcing net neutrality on companies, but still supports a free internet. Can the issue of net neutrality be fixed without government intervention?
  • RSS14, on 05/07/2008, -4/+171If net neutrality dies, the internet companies will have a tighter grip on us than they do now. Japan's internet is fast, and our cable companies can match their speed, but they choose not to, and they even place quota's on our bandwidth. ***** assholes.
    • orxor, on 05/07/2008, -15/+4And what makes you so sure that the government won't do the same thing? Maybe teh gov will introduce regulation not to allow certain types of pornography or even all pornography to protect the minors, or certain types of speech that it deems "a threat to national security" or maybe won't allow marijuana advocates to put up websites since marijuana is illegal. Giving the government control of the internet is a dangerous thing. Right now you have many resources to fight unfair practices by corporations including switching to a different ISP but if all of them have to obey a certain set of rules dished out by one organization you won't have so much choice. If the government deems that bittorent is used mostly for copyright infringement and all ISPs should block it do you won't have choice, but if just Comcast blocks it there are still plenty of ISPs to choose from. And you have a much better chance of making a difference by taking Comcast to court, or filing a class action lawsuit against them than you have against the government.
      • Oronar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11Except the whole problem of consumers only having a choice between crappy ISP A and crappy ISP B.
        No one's saying "I want the government to regulate the intarwebs!", they're saying "I want the government to ensure ISPs follow net neutrality and aren't ***** with my data."
        • orxor, on 05/07/2008, -6/+3Yeah, good luck with that. Once the government starts say what ISP's can and can't do you can expect all major corporations will send lobbyists to pay off politicians to vote the way that they want. Most of the politicians won't even know what they're voting for they'll just hear that they need to do something for "national security" or "to stop piracy" or "to stop terrorists." This will prevent competition, will make it nearly impossible for smaller ISPs to compete with the larger ones without the infrastructure to obey the new rules from the government. You will still end up with all the same BS that you have now but you won't be able to even go after any of the ISPs 'cause all they're doing is obeying the law and you won't have the choice to switch to a different ISP.
          • HonoredMule, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4It doesn't matter what authority government does or doesn't assert. You have to police your government all the time or take a tumble down a slippery slope regardless of whether you actually took the first step.

            Too little regulation is as damaging as too much, and offers no guarantee of any actual, practical ability to exercise freedoms and rights.
        • randumbusername, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2i doubt people choose hitler because they wanted him to exterminate and expel the jews.

          people make the mistake of believing government is so easily controlled and precise in what you want it to do.

          it doesn't make sense to me. people give government power to solve a problem....then another problem surfaces from previous government action which brings on calls of more government....and so on.

          government should be the last action ever attempted since it is a powerful unwieldy weapon. but people are so lazy and noncreative it's usually the first option.

          if the politicians and electorate of today were around during this country's beginnings we'd be one of those country's the left feels sorry for.
      • yellowcalx, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1whoa a post this ill informed could only come from a ron paul fan...*checks orxors profile......i called it!
    • cawpin, on 05/07/2008, -7/+5"and they even place quota's on our bandwidth"

      What? I don't have a quota on my internet.
      • nominalgeek, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2You have your own internet!!! OMG!
        • xlneoMAXlx, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2He was referring to how his internet service does NOT HAVE A QUOTA. ***** MORON.
      • ajb2015, on 05/07/2008, -0/+11Some people have found that even service packages that claim to be "unlimited" actually have a cap.
        • JakeyG14, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6A "fairuse" policy, also known as a "*****" policy.
    • zhepp, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1If net neutrality dies, other things/people may die also...
      ***** now I'm tagged in like 10 more government databases
    • johnmearns, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Conspiracy theories are fun but yours doesn't make sense. Why do you think your ISP is holding back on bandwidth and giggling about? What do they have to gain? Why not blow your speed throught he roof and wipe out all of their competitors? The truth is bandwidth costs money and as consumers use things something is going to have to change. Tech is going to need to improve to make it cheaper, we'll need to pay more if we're using more, or we'll need to accept traffic shaping to be sure we're all sharing equally. I hate it too but its the harsh truth.

      What does japan have to do with anything? No doubt their cellular network and mass transit systems are loads better. Big surprise, its easier to make big changes in a small country with a dense population than a huge country with a much more sparse population.
      • yammy1688, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I thought the biggest hurdle with fiber speed broadband was the problem of the 'last mile', which is their way of saying: It's most expensive and hardest to implement in densely populated areas.
        • johnmearns, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Not for my ISP.My main cost is the bandwidth my users suck down and the reason they dont' have more is because its cost prohibitive for me to get more bandwidth without raising their costs.
    • assassinmonkey, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3I work for an isp and its true. fairusage policy applies to most isps. but fair usage policies only started to be enforced because people were taking the piss with their internet connections, and putting the network under pressure because of it. the average person downloads about 10 - 20 gb per month but there were a lot of people downloading up to 100 gb per month, this takes a big chunk of network bandwidth away from other people.
      We can actually separate out and check what protocols are used and most of the damage is done by the bit torrent protocol and gnutella and you people definitely aren't downloading 100gb of linux distros with it.....
      dont blame the isps for this.
      And as for holding back bandwidth... what a joke, in order for us to be able to provide higher connection speeds we have to actually upgrade the exchange you are connected to. and we cant just provide this to a select few we have to upgrade every exchange..... which takes time..... this isn't as easy as flicking a switch. you have to beta test in different locations around the country, then test the network under load, then run individual line checks to find out who's line is capable of what. and even when we install the broadband on your line its still not guaranteed you will get the full connection speed.
      I wish isp customers would stop whinging about not being able to download all the illegal software they want.... hell we all download illegal software films and music just don't take the piss out of the network its not indestructible.
      • slamtv7, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4I pay for my service, I can do whatever the ***** I want with it.
        • MikeFallopian, on 05/08/2008, -3/+0You also agreed to certain terms in the fine print.
        • familynight, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4@MikeFallopian: but why is it only in the fine print? the real issue is that most contracts with isp's have material terms that are not advertised and are not understood by the vast majority of customers. i would be fine with an isp setting a cap if it was advertised as such or i was made aware of it during the sales call. the fact is that they are hiding behind fair use clauses instead of being honest and upfront. by being dishonest in this way, it makes it more difficult for your average person to make an informed choice when choosing their isp or for them to understand and protest the decisions of their local governments that limit their choice of isp's.
        • johnmearns, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0Thats a good stomping stomping tantrum but it doesn't really mean anything. When your isp's "tubes" are full all the hissy fits in the world won't change that. They'll either have to raise their rates to afford "bigger tubes", put caps on people or shape traffic to be people are sharing properly, or just kick the high users off. I hate it too but when the well is dry there isn't much I can do as the ISP, things will have to change.
        • assassinmonkey, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1@ Slamtv7
          I didn't say you couldn't do what you want with it....
          I said the reason broadband speeds are being throttled and fair usage policies are being enacted is because some douchebags are downloading as much as they want, and damaging network traffic for the rest of the customers in the process, and as a business we have to think about the rest of the customers.

          @familynight
          why do you think they make it fine print? in this day and age you should expect that any contract with a set of terms and conditions is there to cover the corporations ass. legally and otherwise. you should expect to be screwed over by any company that makes you sign a contract with fine print.

          To be honest i don't agree with it, but then again if you don't agree with it don't buy into it. simple as. I don't have any sympathy with anyone who doesn't read the terms and conditions of a contract and gets all huffy when they find out they've been screwed.
      • dafunkmonster, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Oh, so now the customers who pay your salary are the bad guys?
        Tell you what, tell your bosses to start chipping away at net neutrality. I'll quit using the internet if they succeed.

        Then who's gonna pay your salary, asswipe?
        • johnmearns, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0What net neutrality are you talking about? The net neutrality that has existed since the dawn of the internet that still is working great? I don't see any ISP doing anything to that. We know that if we screw up our users connections they'll go to someone who doesn't. Are you talking about the Net Neutrality legislation that people are proposing to fix a non existant problem?
        • assassinmonkey, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1lol cry me a river.

          all your smart comments and i still get paid at the end of the day....

          I wasn't talking about stopping you from viewing any information you want captain knickers in a twist. which is what the issue of net neutrality is all about.....
          i was explaining the reasoning behind a fair usage policy and "bandwidth quotas". we can't just pipe as much broadband down your line as we want and we're not just holding it back on you for the fun of it.....
    • TDR25, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4***** assholes, eh? Yep, that's actually what they're doing to their customers...***** our assholes. Not literally though, I definitely didn't mean it like that!
    • nstern2, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2So your idea to speed up the internet is to let the govt handle it? Just because major telcos "might" make our internet worse off then it already is does not mean that the govt will make it any better. I really don't like net neutrality one bit buy I also don't want telcos to regulate the internet either. Why does someone HAVE to control the internet? What is wrong with it now.
    • aimhelix, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Dugg for '***** assholes.".
    • fumar, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2Letting the government solve our problems is a bad idea. I agree that the ISP's should be neutral just like the telephone companies are. However by setting up a precedent to regulate the internet, which is what this is, it opens up pandoras box. Opening the door to greater government intervention in the future is not a good idea.
    • daEvan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2"ISP's sappin' my internetz!"
  • timusca, on 05/07/2008, -45/+4He looks like a child molestor
    • Terr01, on 05/07/2008, -0/+10I think it falls within the "All government photos tend to look terrible" phenomenon. Like your passport or driver's license. *I* wouldn't trust me based on my license photo--it looks like I just robbed a convenience store. Apparently even Senators are not immune from whatever evil sorcery or luminiferous aether that happens in the realm of "official photos".
    • arbiterusa, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6He's ***** your mom.
  • spamcrusher, on 05/07/2008, -37/+9The internet flourished with very little government control, lets not start now. Think about it, from TCP to HTML to Javascript, AJAX, and everything in between is all here and working together great without the government setting foot in the whole ordeal. Why start regulating it now? Lets just see what happens first between the ISPs and some of them wanting QoS. Remember, the ISPs are big but if they begin implementing QoS then they are fighting with Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and many more very powerful and rich companies.
    • klco, on 05/07/2008, -3/+25There wouldn't be an internet without DARPA... history, heed it.
    • Gillos, on 05/07/2008, -4/+25Do you even know what Net Neutrality IS?
      • steveboutin, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1if he weren't a digg member i'd say 'no'
    • fluxion, on 05/07/2008, -1/+14this is more about keeping the internet de-regulated, whether by government or private interests.
    • onetimer, on 05/07/2008, -5/+8Can you form an argument that doesn't rely on a slippery-slope fallacious (by definition) argument? It sounds eerily similar to the bogus one that AT&T used in the '80's to try and prevent the government from splitting their monopoly.
    • dsmx, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12What are you talking about? The current government intervention created the internet as it is today as was explained it that article which if you'd even bothered to read it you would of known. We have the monopolies/duopoly's for internet connections because of the policies the government put in place.
    • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -17/+3Don't try and plead common sense with these idiots; they need a free and open internet connection to violate copyright laws and post ***** blogs.
      • LordVance, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8Or perhaps so we can see true innovation on the last open front.

        Let's just take a little example of what can happen once the internet begins to become regulated and shaped.

        Youtube opens it's doors - Youtube is an instant success (go back before the google buyout for this hypothetical).
        Comcast sees youtube is getting a lot of hits from there customers.
        ComcastTube.com opens up, a rival site. Youtube beings to work 50% slower, while ComcastTube.com works 10x faster delivered at blazing speeds to Comcast customers.

        Youtube goes out of business, Comcast wins again.
    • arbiterusa, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Let's first see what happens if we cut off your oxygen. Stupid idea, you may say, as you know what the outcome will be.

      Exactly.
    • anillop, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10* paid for by Comcast and AT&T.
  • Ethek, on 05/07/2008, -6/+95While I am normally against government regulation and interference, Telcom companies have in essence been granted a government backed monopoly. Free market does not apply here. Some type of intervention is necessary to keep the medium open.

    The US has moved from a service based economy to an information based economy. What happens when a select group of companies (with all the legal rights of an individual) get to control access and dissemination of that information? It basically translates that they get to make peoples decions for them.
    • Ethek, on 05/07/2008, -0/+18correction, I meant to say the US has moved from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy based largely on information exchange.
    • Terr01, on 05/07/2008, -0/+20I see it as a "Regulation because it's effectively a monopoly" angle.

      Some peopel go "OMG THEN IT'S CENSORSHIP LIKE CHINA OMG", which is of course like saying the First Amendment is "government censorship" because the government is meddling.
      • nominalgeek, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6Those are the people you ignore because they don't know what they are talking about.
    • GMorgan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+12Indeed there is nothing worse than a 'free market' in a government enforced monopoly. Look at the banking cartel for the perfect example of abuse of such a monopoly.
      • oldgal, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Wouldn't it be fun if all our roads and highways were privately owned?
        • progpen, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Yea! Not only would our bridges still fall down due to disrepair, but we will get a CHOICE! Either I can pay out the ass to drive on Bob's Road, or I can drive 30 miles out of my way and pay out the ass to drive on Joe's Road.
    • SeasonedBeef, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2So you want more government intervention as a solution to band-aid previous government intervention? Why don't we just work to remove the prior mistakes and allow true free market competition amongst telecom industries?
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Because that's crazy talk! lol...

        People don't seem to understand that they can't sidestep the laws of economics. If you raise the bar for these corporations financially, they will have to find ways of offsetting the cost, which either means higher prices, bad service, or possibly scaling back and not providing service at all in rural areas.

        But nobody wants to listen to reality, and expects more fantastic legislation to fix this.
    • Myonosken, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Indeed your free market is a serious issue in the US. Whilst in the UK there are two 'major' ISPs, there are lots of little ones and sub ISPs, which means competition will affect any attempts to de-neutralise the internet. Look at Virgin- their decision seriously backfired and BT reported that their numbers of users were going up far faster than usual.
  • McGrude, on 05/07/2008, -4/+17Dugg for the use of the word "wonky" in the article.
  • xxgigavirusxx, on 05/07/2008, -13/+2Well isn't he just a cutie
  • siktath, on 05/07/2008, -34/+6Thank you, Stalin. May I have another?
    • klco, on 05/07/2008, -1/+20Can we extend Godwin's law to include Stalin as well?
      • siktath, on 05/07/2008, -14/+2How do you talk with a mouthful of your dictator?
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1lol

          klco, its not your compassion that is in question. Its the soundness of the solutions being proposed.

          "Lets let the government figure it out, besides, I pay this much in taxes, I expect them to fix everything for me."
  • TheZorch, on 05/07/2008, -3/+107About time a Senator did something for the common good rather than for special interests.
    • Midoc, on 05/07/2008, -2/+16This is Oregon, we do things differently here.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+13And sometimes for the better.
        • TheZorch, on 05/07/2008, -1/+13Maybe I'm living in the wrong state.
      • mikusjay, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3The Green Guide's Top Green Cities At a Glance
        http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/113/top10cities
        The Top 10
        1. Eugene, OR
        (score 9.0375, pop. 137,893)
        3. Portland, OR
        (score 8.24, pop. 529,121)

        http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/ ...
        1. Portland, Ore. 23.1
        * Electricity: 7.1 Transportation: 6.4 Green Living: 4.8 Recycling/Perspective: 4.8
        America’s top green city has it all: Half its power comes from renewable sources, a quarter of the workforce commutes by bike, carpool or public transportation, and it has 35 buildings certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.
        5. Eugene, Ore. 22.4
        * Electricity: 10.0 Transportation: 4.7 Green Living: 2.9 Recycling/Perspective: 4.8
        * CATEGORY LEADER: Electricity
        Much of the wet Pacific Northwest draws its energy from hydroelectric dams. But Eugene draws an additional 9 percent of its municipal electricity from wind farms. It also buys back excess power from residents who install solar panel


        Oregon is AWESOME.
    • ralphthemagi, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2The "common good" is fallacy. One man's common good is another man's special interest.
      • stretch611, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Chances are it is not "common good" if it only positively affects the top 5% of wealth earners in the US.
    • zhinker, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0Who's to say the guy isn't working for Google ;)
  • novenator, on 05/07/2008, -3/+36Thank You, keep fighting for our freedom!
    • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -16/+4Where is it written that you have the freedom to a non-prioritized Internet connection?
      • FlagrantDrugUse, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Probably right under where it's written that you're allowed to have a creepy molestache.
        • MammasMilk, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4brilliant, dugg
        • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -7/+2How mature of you, an excellent rebuttal to my comment worthy of the annals of liberal discourse. Do the world a favor and go back to smoking doobs in your mommies basement.
          • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Spoken like a true childish Paulite. Go back to your bunker fruit-loop.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1My bunker?
          • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Yeah, your bunker...oh I assumed that's what you called YOUR mom's basement.
          • FlagrantDrugUse, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1For your information, I smoke doobs in my own basement.

      • familynight, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5do you only believe in freedoms that are written down and clearly enumerated? i want net neutrality laws specifically because the concept is not clearly written down in any statute.
    • Noods, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1You are free. Free to choose another provider over one that prioritizes traffic.

      Except where the FCC (read: government) tells companies they can't compete. It is one huge sham. Government regulation sets up a non-competitive market, then justifies a need for more regulation (and its own job).
  • ColorBlind, on 05/07/2008, -1/+44May Comcast, Cox, ATT, and the others burn in a fiery blaze.

    You continue to provide impeccable overpriced crap.
    • fivefootfour, on 05/07/2008, -8/+1I guess that's the price we pay for perfection.
    • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -0/+15I'm doing my part to not support ISPs; I use my neighbor's!
    • cawpin, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2I have no problems with Cox. My internet runs at or above the published speed all the time.
      • Lazydriver, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah same, they're reliable as hell compared to the Embarq out in Vegas.

        I sound like a ***** commercial, but yeah, my DSL goes down like 3-10 times a day.

        Cox is pricey, but at least you get what you paid for - and then some -.
    • geneticlone, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1and drown in a lake.
  • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -26/+2"a caffeinated and surprisingly sharp defense of network neutrality"; More like made political threats to dictate how an industry conducts business. Hope the men he said this to call his bluff.
    • Terr01, on 05/07/2008, -1/+13Yeah, like dictating that you can't use asbestos for pillow stuffing.
      • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -15/+1Silly me, you're right.....Havnig a priortized internet connection would be hazardous to my health. Christ there is no hope for the U.S.
        • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -1/+10
          Who subsidized all the infrastructure the ISP's use? That's right - taxpayers.
        • Terr01, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7WTF is this "prioritized" tripe you keep bringing up?

          It's about discriminating traffic based on the content.

          I mean, I have no problem if the power company "prioritizes" the supply for a local hospital, but I'm not about to let them charge me extra for the same electricity if I don't use a toaster that was made by a corporate partner of theirs.
        • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5You know, all your comments made me wonder about something - "checks 10ofDiamonds profile" - Ah, I was right. Paulite. Christ, all you guys sound the same.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1You say that like being aPaulite is a negative?
          • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Very negative. You guys are the most naive bunch of imbeciles to ever exist. Trusting in the "free" market is nothing short of complete lunacy.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2Hmm I've got 500 years of history that disagrees with you. What does socialism have?
          • Terr01, on 05/07/2008, -0/+9500 years of comparatively regulated markets that you despise, you mean?
          • familynight, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2seriously, which and whose 500 years are you referring to?
    • sliksta, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Are you on comcast's payroll or something? The internet is public communication and as far as I am concerned that means it deserves protection from crooked ISP's.


      • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -6/+1The internet being public is debatable; however acces to it is not(public).
        • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6WE paid for the infrastructure with the understanding it would be used as a common carrier (like the phone system) If the ISPs want to refund our money and re-do all their infrastructure at their expense then they might have an argument.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -6/+1You paid for some of the infrastructure that the millitary used before there was an "internet". You dont pay for the switches, routers etc. that relay and direct traffic.
          • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5So you actually think that the ISP's paid for all the fiber/cable being used right now out of their own pockets? Dream on. Their switches/routers would be useless without it.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1I'll play your silly little game.....your fiber/cable would be uselsee without the switches and routers.
          • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Sorry, but the fibre/cables were laid ON PUBLIC property. Usually at the taxpayers expense. You and the ISPs can go suck it if you don't like it. IF they want their own internet, let them negotiate with all the land owners to lay new cable.
          • sliksta, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Don't the people deserve an internet free from ISP interference on bandwidth? It's not like there's more internets to choose from. So you're stuck with the few, sometimes only one, ISP in your area. This is a situation thats ripe for abuse without consumer protection. The ISP's are building a poor track record already, while raking in the dough. They should not have free reign to interfere with traffic as they see fit.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1You still didn't address my point. Without the switches and routers, the Internet ain't.
          • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4and my point is that your point doesn't ***** matter. The cables were laid with the promise that it would be a common carrier. If the ISPs don't like it, they can pound sand.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1you're an imbocile
          • nblsavage, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4"you're an imbocile"
            Ah, the ironing is delicious.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1I haven't tasted my ironing lately....I'll be sure to check it out.
          • nblsavage, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4buried for not getting a simple "The Simpsons" reference.
  • twiztidsinz, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7Hell yeah!
  • vexingmodstwo, on 05/07/2008, -11/+6FYI... just because you happen to like the idea doesn't mean this isn't a blatant attempt at pandering. Just sayin'
    • jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+13Correct, but it's nice to see someone pandering to ME for a change.
      Besides, he's not running for anything right now, and he's helping me, who has no ability to help him. We could use more pandering like that.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Just making sure you're aware of it... What I'd like to see is one of these phonies (i.e. politicians) actually shut up and do something about it.
        • mocheeze, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/technology/02onl ...

          "Published: March 2, 2006

          Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, will introduce new legislation today that would prohibit Internet network operators from charging companies for faster delivery of their content to consumers or favoring some content providers over others."


          You could do SOME research before spouting off claims that this "phony" doesn't put his money where his mouth is.
    • mocheeze, on 05/07/2008, -0/+10I'm going to disagree. I fail to see how complying with one's consituents' wishes is "pandering". Ron Wyden has been a prooponent of Net Neutrality for a LONG time. He's been fighting for it for years now, IIRC. If you're in Oregon, I also suggest voting for Steve Novick (D) to replace Gordon Smith (R) as our second senator. Novick and Wyden both recognize that a neutral network is in Oregon's best interests: both for citizens and our large contigency of open source and internet-based business.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1Well, he hasn't "complied" with anything yet. Just making threats.
        • mocheeze, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8By putting pressure on ISPs (like Comcast) they can make two choices: Face regulation, or take steps (like their recently announced "P2P Bill of Rights") to satisfy congress's urges. If you read the article, you can see that his threats are not meaningless.
    • pintomp3, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4pandering is usually taking non-issues and inflating them for public support, like abortion, gay marriage, or the gas tax holiday. he is doing something for the public, which most people don't even realize is important. if he were pandering, there are many other issues he could bring up.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1Not necessarily, but whatever...
        • mocheeze, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering
          I know it's wikipedia, but it doesn't really sound like Wyden is pandering at all (by that definition). Wyden is already a popular senator in Oregon, and he's made his views clear on the subject since it became an issue.
      • johnmearns, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0If your definition of pandering is taking a non-issue and blowing it up, how doesn't network neutrality fit? What ISP is charging google extra for traffic? What ISP is filtering out VOIP traffic? What ISP is charging you extra for access to hulu and youtube? What issue is network neutrality fixing?
  • Pstmann, on 05/07/2008, -1/+35Thank the man! It takes some balls to get up in front of a bunch of suits and tell them they're greedy and short-sighted instead of groveling at their feet for campaign donations.
    http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
  • Gillos, on 05/07/2008, -3/+11Way to go! Time for that man to collect his "1 free sex" coupon from that Net Neutrality for Virgins girl.
  • plizard, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2an hero
  • units, on 05/07/2008, -5/+0"In return for helping out ISPs, what did Congress get in return?"

    excellent editing.
    • steveboutin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1this is a stupid thing to complain about over an otherwise great article.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9Looks like Sen. Ron Wyden loves him some free porn and music!!
  • galvo, on 05/07/2008, -19/+0That guy looks freaking hilarious. Child molester for sure.
    • greenm1981, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7You don't have to be good-looking to be an excellent Senator. Wyden is a great resource for Oregon.
    • sliksta, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5What in the HELL is wrong with you people. How many are going to comment on this guy's physical appearance?
      He was VOTED into office to represent the people and that's all that matters. But hey it's your vote. If you want to vote for a handsome jackass I guess you're only hurting yourself, along with every other citizen in the district.
      • galvo, on 05/08/2008, -3/+0You're a ***** moron who takes things too seriously.
  • azimir, on 05/07/2008, -2/+55Ron Wyden is a rare quality Senator:
    From an announcement by Senator Ron Wyden:

    U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today announced his intention to vote against and support efforts to filibuster the conference report reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act, citing concerns about numerous provisions that could compromise Americans’ privacy rights that would be made permanent under the legislation. Specifically, Wyden announced his intention today to oppose the legislation because it does not include sunsets for controversial powers and diminishes congressional oversight over the government’s use of these powers.

    “The current version of the report strikes the wrong balance between security and civil liberties and leaves Congress with inadequate oversight,” said Wyden. “Just as troubling is the inclusion of new language that will make it much more difficult for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves from possible Patriot Act abuses. These unjustified changes do not make the Patriot Act a more effective tool for fighting terrorism and in fact, make it more susceptible to abuse. I will vote against the current version of the legislation and support efforts to block its passage.”


    From: http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/12/wyden_to_filibu. ...

    Yes, he did end up voting for the modified version, but not for the extending of the wiretapping provisions.
    • thedragon4453, on 05/07/2008, -0/+17Wow, I'm from Oregon and I'm kind of ashamed I didn't know how awesome Wyden is.
  • Rapter09, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11It's nice to see *our* guys come out swinging for once.
  • mrwesticles, on 05/07/2008, -2/+25Want to thank Ron for this effort? E-mail him through a form on his site:
    http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
  • steveboutin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5people with power and money often forget where they get their power and money from... US. the people. the government derives it's power from our consent to be governed, just like the companies derive their wealth from our consent to pay them for *****.
    take us out of the loop, and they've got nothing.
    • scamper22, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2they've figured it out.

      Now the government derives its power by removing our consent to pay just like
      Companies derive their wealth by removing our consent to their power
  • daizaru, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6The only issue I take with what he's saying is that the response basically is:

    "If you do this, we'll charge you more money."

    A lot of internet companies might just go "oh well" and pass these charges along to the consumer raising the already expensive internet prices, that or the will subsidize it the way Virgin wants to by making all sites inaccessible or god-awful slow unless you pay some sort of tithe.

    Charging them more is not the answer.
  • rootkilla, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Makes me happy to be an oregonian.. Oregon ftw!
    • FatBurger, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Same here, I've always been happy to have Wyden around.
  • wookiecontrol, on 05/07/2008, -6/+0They don't have the Internet in OR so he can afford to forgo any contributions from ISP's
    • FatBurger, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Guess they don't have original jokes in Houston either, eh?
    • ceredron, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3That's... pretty stupid. I mean, we're not even really a hick state, or backwater, or anything... we're actually working on city-wide wireless internet in Portland. So... you're just pretty ridiculously wrong?
    • Axemantitan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3I guess that is why Symantec (Norton Systemworks) is headquartered in Springfield, LaCie (storage media) is in Portland and Intel has R&D facilities in Hillsboro? More info on the high-tech industry in Oregon here: http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2006/0 ...
  • Jan33, on 05/07/2008, -1/+18wow. A US politician fighting for US citizens' rights. Awesome. Really cool! Haven't seen that for like a long time.
  • Titan615, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Before anyone says that broadband companies can match the bandwidth provided by fiber companies, lets get something straight, coax cable is limited to about 50mbps down, fiber can transfer at speeds far beyond that.

    Your broadband company won't be able to match those speeds unless they started bringing fiber to your door, and that is ridiculously expensive.

    //If you ISP has a bandwidth quota, time to find a new ISP....
    • B3bomber, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Look up DOCSIS 3.0. There is no infastructure upgrade required to use that. Fiber lines are getting cheaper since there is now a demand and they're making more. That should have been done in the first place.
    • scyon, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1> Your broadband company won't be able to match those speeds unless they started bringing fiber to your door, and that is ridiculously expensive.

      idk about that, people in SK, SE and JP seem to be getting 50Mbps FTTH for something around $50 a month (iirc). It doesn't sound ridiculously expensive to me. If I'm way off on my numbers I apologize for the error.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7Yea, coming from the same organisation that made the problem in the first place by handing out monopolies. I'm sure they are a good bunch to help. It's akin to getting the fox to guard the hens, good luck with that.
    • randumbusername, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1good luck trying to relay that message. im surprised your diggs are still in positive territory
  • sugarhigh4242, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Does anyone have a link to donate to this man?

    I will donate to ANY legislator on the consumer side of the copyrights/patents/trademarks/neutrality/drm issue.
  • username484767, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4these tech assholes need to be shot in the head to stop their evilness.

    Long live a free internet.
  • fani, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I am all for Net Neutrality. Free internet.

    I am absolutely PISSED the internet on my iphone is censored when going over Edge. What the *****. What gives ATT the right to censor my content. I'll call them now and yell.
    • Tommyhawk, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1That's your own fault. You could have bought any phone you wanted but you bought the one that locked you into a carrier.
      • fani, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Only a doofus would say that. All cell phones in the US are locked to a particular carrier. Is it my fault that the cell I want is locked to a carrier ? Its idiots like you who don't understand such concepts and blame the victims.
        • tnoy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1My cellphone isnt locked to a carrier, and I bought it in the US from a US company.
  • thekubmi, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Unfortunately, if net neutrality fails and these “protections” stop who do you think will be paying for the taxes and litigation fees that come back on the ISPs? We will be…
  • nusuni, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Wow, for once I completely agree with a politician.
  • dunyasi, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1why doesnt this article not have a million diggs already?

  • Corrosionx, on 05/07/2008, -7/+8Ah the subtleties of double-speak.

    Net neutrality = Government control of the net

    DO NOT WANT

    Thank you for playing, have a good night.
    • johnmearns, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5What most diggers support as network neutrality is government intervention in the form of prevenative laws passed now and I agree, thats a bad thing. This senator seems to be saying that ISP should be neutral carriers or things will change. I think the market forces alone are enough to keep them in check and threats like this are just lip service to the network neutrality crowd but his comments in no way seem to be pushing legislation at the current time.
    • Corrosionx, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3If they really wanted to help the industry they would destroy the Comcast monopolies and the likes. Often these companies have government granted monopoly privileges in some areas and that's the real problem.
    • DavidGX, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Ah the ignorance of the common conservative.

      No Net Neutrality = ATT/COMCAST/VERIZON control the net.

      DO NOT WANT!
      • Noods, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2The FCC, which is part of the government, is ensuring that these monopolies stay in place. Regulation to fix a broken system doesn't make sense. The FCC needs to step aside and let companies who don't tamper with traffic into the markets.
      • Corrosionx, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Please, DavidGX, tell me who prevents new companies from entering the market? Who grants ATT/Comcast/Verizon those monopolies?

        Also, I'm not a freaking conservative.
  • Arkons24, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1wtf! a democrat that believes in freedom?! Dugg up!
  • johnmearns, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I think the issue is become cloudy too. The senator seems to be advocating network neutrality, the concept (which I support), but not talking about Network Neutrality (legislation) which I don't support. If anything his remarks seem to imply that things are working fine and ISPs shouldn't change which is a key argument against government intervention in the form Network Neutrality legislation.

    Many people also seem to believe that traffic shaping as a means of network management is a violation of network neutrality (the concept) and I don't think that is the case. His remarks don't address that.

    I'm also somewhat offended that he views not taxing us for our internet connections as helping out ISPs and not just doing the right thing.

    "Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), speaking at the same event, issued a reminder of how much popular traction the idea has gained: when she goes into high school classrooms, the kids "ask me about 'Net neutrality," she said. "
    I'd sure hate to ask people that actually are professionals who keep the internet going about something, high school kids are often the best barometer for measuring the quality of an idea. Pizza for dinner everynight and madonna will write the new national anthem!
  • Magnolit, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Like the US isn't already regulated to the death. At what point do you say enough is ***** enough?
    • stretch611, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I would say it is enough when the people in this country get a fair shake in comparison to the corporations.
  • Tommyhawk, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Why am I not a surprised that a Senator is so gung-ho for giving the government more power?
  • OSuX, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2Ron Paul for president!
    Barack Obama for president!
    Hilary go back to the kitchen!
    Ballmer sux!
  • Chase, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0Damn, Oregon has awesome Senators, Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith. They both have my votes next election!
  • SkinnerBox, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1Let me guess, Republican?
  • trestevenson, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3This guy's THE *****!
  • bbliss17, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2That is awesome!! thanks pimp. keep up the work, all you oregon weirdos vote for this man
  • AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1Neutrality is a curious thing. Switzerland favored being neutral. So does a car when it's not in gear. After a while though, especially in the information age, there will be conflict, and people will be forced to team up, take sides, and claim territory in pursuit of the almightly dollar.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.