What is Digg?47 Comments
- Almadiel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17It would be much better if they just updated anti-trust laws, rather than try to regulate the internet directly. Laws like this are a slippery slope.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So a law that changes the rules of the game is not a disruption but leaving things as they are is a disruption? That's some seriously awesome logic.
- taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12It's not a new idea. It's actually they way that things were to start the Internet. Network Neutrality is about keeping the rules so the little guy can compete. The regulation that you are talking about is what made the Internet the phenomena it is as opposed to what we have with cable television.
The Information Revolution could not have happened with out the regulations in Network Neutrality. - tardpicard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"it's too soon to enact net neutrality legislation"??? "a solution looking for a problem"???
humbug, telecoms be damned! web app startups may soon be a thing of the past. - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Cisco, Notel etc need to answer to shareholders - ie increase profits. Of course they want Network Neutrality laws torn down. Then they can in turn sell billions of dollars worth of network gear that does the deep packet inspection, that would allow AT&T to throttle back traffic from competitors other nefarious deeds.
If you watched the CSPAN debates about this - they had the director of Internet2 discussing how they originally tried to implement tiered solutions to Internet2. He said that plainly, it didn't work - too much overhead, to complex and it "broke" how things were supposed to run. When it came to imporving speed and adding features to Internet2, he said they simply increased the size of the pipe.
The richness of the Internet is on the edges, and this is found at the application layer (OSI model). The physical, data and networking layers are relatively simple. Sites like Digg/Amazon and services like Vonage, etc, all make a lot of money at the edge - the applications that run on the Internet. The richness of content that you or I or anyone can create lies in our hands, not some centrally controlled location. AT&T and other telcos are in the position of controlling the lower levels of the OSI model (physical lines, routers, switches etc) but there is no money there. So rather than innovating and creating new services at the application level (and this is the exact reasons *why* monopolies suck - no need for innovation or new features) they simply are placing road blocks and barriers on the lower levels of the OSI model (physical, data, network) levels and will essentially "break" the Internet in order to extort money from those with enough drive, intelligence and creativity to actually make something people want to use.
CALL your congressman/woman and demand for network neturality LAWS. - msikma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"Disrupt the way the Internet works"? The Internet has always been neutral. Making net neutrality impossible--THAT would disrupt the way the Internet works, not the other way around!
- panthrosrevenge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6...the best politicians money can buy.
- StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They're right, we should wait until one of the big telcos decides the time is right to fleece the pants off of anyone that tries to do business on the internet, then complain bitterly about it for 5-6 years until the politicians get the picture. Then wait until the next election so it can be used in a manifesto, then wait 2-3 years for someone to get around to doing anything. That's a much better idea. Everyone knows cure is better than prevention.
- gummih, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lets just quote one ignorant fool:
"Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem." --U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, Illinois Democrat
Net neutrality isn't a solution, it's the way things have been and the way things should stay.
I'd say Bobby Rush is a problem that should be searching for a new job. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5FOR THE LAST TIME!!!!!
Imagine that instead of data... your talking electricity.
Now imagine that the electric company wants to charge you a different amount for the electricity that runs your air conditioner, vs. the electricity that runs your lights, vs the electricity that runs your stove.
Does that sound right? Does that sound fair? Do you like that idea?
If you said no to any of the above, you are FOR Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality says, "because there is NO difference between the electricity that is being used, you may only charge for what is used, and NOT HOW!!!"
Those against Net Neutrality are the Telephone, Cable, and Satellite operators who are already allowed a non-competitive market based on geography, by local governments. They want to charge you a different rate for video, vs. music, vs. Web surfing. More over, they want to avoid fair competition between other services from other companies.
The only people who will "loose" with Net Neutrality are the telco's and cable companies who won't be able to dictate who you are allowed to communicate with for their benefit, and NOT yours. - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Bobby Rush is bought and paid for by SBC.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bobby_Rush
"In an article published April 26, 2006, in the Chicago Sun-Times Lynne Sweet revealed that "An Englewood community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a key player on telecommunications legislation, received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T, one of the nation's largest phone companies." The SBC/AT&T grant payments began in 2001 and the final check came in 2004. Rush tried to play down the appearance of a conflict of interest by stating that the grant "you are referring to is over a half decade old."
So - the lobbyists "donated" 1 million to his community center (church actually) and he no stands in line arguing network neutrality should be tossed aside. I see a pretty clear conflict of interest here - why isn't this ***** in jail then?
We **need** network neutrality. Once the net has been completely turned over to AT&T innovation *will* dry up, as AT&T will simply tighten the screws on any new service that they want to usurp. Think what would happen if someone made a site called www.at&tsucks.com? What about Vonage? AT&T *will* hit Vonage with a bunch of network charges, which means Vonage passes those prices on to us, and then AT&T's VOIP solution starts looking that much better because it is so cheap. What about the next digg, the next free IPTV device etc?
Loosing Network Neutrality is a horrible thing. When the internet is turned into a corporate commoditized wasteland, we will be kicking ourselves for being so blind to allow this to happen. But by then it would be too late. - leereeves, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3:::NEWSFLASH:::
Telecommunications companies and their suppliers are against net neutrality!
:::::::::::
Seriously, I'd expect better from CNet, surely someone there must realize that Motorola, Qualcomm, Nortel, and Cisco would say whatever the telcos asked them to.
And then there's Tyco. Have we forgotten so quickly? - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If this were to pass we'd just see big companies buying off government regulators and smaller companies getting screwed.
It's like when Carter deregulated the trucking industry and the companies protested because the regulations were preventing new competitors from entering the market. That and the fact they were in cahoots with the regulators. - thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The telcos will get their way in the end and we will pay more for crappier access to the "US Wide Web". Meanwhile, the other countries on the "World Wide Web" will point and laugh at the ever falling speed ratings and increasing costs for US customers. All of this is ultimately a push for Telcos to whipe out Cable providers and offer TV across their networks for a higher premium.
But shhh! The Internet is currently too slow for you to watch TV AND surf, but once you pay to get your TV from the telco, low and behold, it IS fast enough! Gosh! I'm glad the Intarweb wasn't neutral! Thanks Cumcast! /sarcasm - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jcims
You've got it backwards.
What the telcos want is the power to regulate the Internet.
What network neutrality does, is forbid regulation.
You get those beneficial free markets with network neutrality in place, not without it. Just as the status quo shows. It is how the Internet works now and has always worked. It is what has made it so extremely successful.
I don't want a regulated internet. I want network neutrality. - marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ok then, leave it to America to ensure the rich get richer. The internet is a level playing field, Imagine all the great ideas that WONT get developed if we raise the barrier to entry.
- jcims, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Huh? The Internet has definitely thrived on the concept of net neturality, but so far there have been no regulations to enforce it...so 'Net Neutrality' as a set of regulations has had zero impact on the growth of the Internet, as it has yet to exist.
To me, Net Neutrality is about empowering the government with greater control over how the Internet operates. This whole concept of breaking net neutrality is completely untested on a wide commercial scale, and the dollar signs that Verizon and AT&T are salivating over are based on speculation that their plan will actually work. Maybe it will on a short term basis, but when the lawsuits start piling on for breach of contract, illegal content, etc, the advantages may not be so great, and the 'old way of doing business' may start to have the regain the appeal that most rational folks can see plainly. - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Is the management of these so called "high-tech" companies f%$king retarded"?
Well, yes, and no. Companies like Cisco (and the ones mention in the article) make the routers that run the backbones. If the tube-operaters want to start tiering, they're going to have to replace all of their existing hardware with new hardware that will allow for "intelligent prioritization".
That's why hardware companies want a tiered internet. Actually, the only people who don't want a tiered internet are... the people. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You got that backwards.
Net Nutrality = good.
All data is equal. You pay for Internet, you get everything without restriction.
Telco Net = BAD.
You pay a different price based ont he data you get, and FROM WHO YOU GET IT!!!! - nickwebb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Businesses lobbying for laws to improve their business at the expense of the citizens?!?!
THATS UNPOSSIBLE!!1! - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@Almadie
"would be much better if they just updated anti-trust laws, rather than try to regulate the internet directly"
The telcos want the power to regulate the Internet. Network neutrality forbids it.
Opponents of network neutrality are claiming that forbidding regulation is a terrible regulation.
Amazing the conclusions you can reach when enough money is involved. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@no1nos
I'm not talking about access as in "getting to the store" I'm talking about access as in "owning the store." Completely different argument then what you raise. - taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2net neutrality used to be a portion of the FCC rules on the Internet. This all started because that rule expired. Although it was not named that at the time, that is what it was.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your analogy does not work.
No one wants to buy "different grades" of electricity.
In the USA we have 110VAC delivered to our homes. We also have a few 220VAC outlets for washing machines, dryers etc...
Also, you DO pay differing prices for electricity depending upon when you use it. Peak electricity costs more then non-peak. That's why you want to do laundry out of normal business hours. - MikeMacMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's a series of tubes! And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled. If they're filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line, it's going to be delayed by anyone who puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
- bmh129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@DigitalDud
The FCC had a policy of net neutrality from the beginning. Then they handed the control over to Congress. If Congress enacts a Net Neutrality law, things will be as they were, but it will be mandated by law instead of policy. If they don't enact the law, things change (for better or worse). - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2HMTKSteve,
You're talking to the wrong people. Digg is made up of philosophers who live in an ivory tower where information is always free, people never pay bills, and the little guy always wins. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If I want to get to a retail store, I get access to the store with my car at a neutral rate because everyone pays the same amount (in taxes) to utilize the roadways."
Not in California. Your car registration is proportional to the value of your car. Also, gas is taxed, so the more you drive the more you pay. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@MikeCerm
Corning makes fiber, not routers. They know net neutrality is bad for internet growth, and therefore, bad for their business. - taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4somebody is trying to clog MY TUBES!!
- ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ hippie
How, exactly, would it be more expensive to get online? I know there's a lot of misinformation floating around about the whole net neutrality thing, but even that's one I'm not quite sure I get.
You can get online for the same general price in the future as you want now -- but if you want to buy dedicated access lines for VoIP or video or something, you could. Why this keeps getting misrepresented is beyond me. - BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Yes but not all the small guys on the internet are out to make money, they are the ones who will get screwed.
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Is the management of these so called "high-tech" companies f%$king retarded?
Don't they realise that without net neutrality, it will begin to be expensive for consumers to get on the net... so less people will buy tech products!
I so hope those companies get named. - ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ Smoked
I actually work with a company in the Hands Off coalition, that would typically be called "anti-net neutrality." It isn't, though. Non-discrimination is a principle the telecom industry supports.
But the Snowe-Dorgan bill would make it illegal to offer QoS, and yes, that's new regulation that the industry is opposing. Google doesn't want to be faced with having to choose to pay for this new service -- and so they want the Senate to force Verizon, ATT, etc to hand it over. Not very democratic... - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Get a clue people.
Network hardware people know that this net neutrality ***** will stifle internet growth. Therefore, it will have a bad impact on their business. That is why they are oppsoed to net neutrality. Internet growth is good for consumers, providing them a wider variety of services. Most of the net neutraliy talking points are unsubstantiated propaganda (known as FUD in the tech industry) - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2All those things do cost different amounts. An air conditioner costs way more to run than a light bulb.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is a landmark law because the Internet had not been regulated by the FCC before. It sets a bad precedence for making it easier to pass more regulations in the future.
- d00fy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The rich may not be getting richer, perhaps they are simply gaining/keeping power. There's a difference, isn't there?
- taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2actually, this so called tech company is also in the broadband business in some parts of the country, so uuhmm they think it would boost that market of their business. I guess they don't realize that it would hurt the other portions of their business.
- marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ d00fy:
RE: rich merely holding power.
I'm not really sure. I think if the world is getting richer as a whole (which it is), then merely holding onto power/money is essentially the same thing.
Please dont misunderstand me, I'm not a commie, but over the last couple of years I've begun to understand more how the US political/economic system works. For example I had no idea about lobbying system until a while ago, and I [personally!] think its disgusting.
I have recently begun to think America needs some kind of revolution to rebalance the power/money. Whether it can be achived we will see - perhaps at this point in history the masses just have it a bit too easy to be bothered to revolt.
PS Im sure the founding fathers did not intend for the richest, most powerful people to control so much. - no1nos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0If you want to look at it from that perspective, there is retail neutrality. If I want to get to a retail store, I get access to the store with my car at a neutral rate because everyone pays the same amount (in taxes) to utilize the roadways. It's like the city you live in setting up tollbooths to charge people to go to certain destinations. The Gap has a deal with the city, so you only have to pay a quarter to drive to their stores. Old Navy doesn't want to cut a deal with the city? Charge anyone who wants to drive there 50 cents at the tollbooth. Starting to see how this is unfair?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It's not a big truck.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5The only thing that opens markets is money. There is no "level playing field" in economics or business.
I hear people talking about "how will the start-ups compete?" They will compete the same way ALL start-ups compete.
1) Write a business plan
2) Raise capital
3) Put one and two together and open up for business.
What's next, retail neutrality? Housing neutrality? Is it fair that some Hollywood starlet can afford to by a mansion in Beverly Hills but I can't? I want some damn Real Estate Neutrality laws passed!!!! - d00fy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4***** you both!
Hahahaha!! Net neutrality, no net neutraility, I'm still able to reign with stupidity!
(Freedom of speech - I meant know offense). - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3what a bunch of FUD & mis-information, the government and Telcos sure are pushing hard...
they can both go to H E double hockeysticks... - gummih, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1(delete?)
- dgendreau, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3What are you 10? Its the thought that counts anyway. Just say Hell when you mean it...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is