What is Digg?161 Comments
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+52Big business....Big government...
What's the difference these days?
At least big government (in this case) means hands-off to pretty much everyone. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47In this case, I think I'd rather have government intervention then be left to the tender mercies of Big Telecom as they struggle to prop up their failing business model via extortion.
- shm0edawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34handsoff.org is registered by "the mercury group" which is a PR firm. The registrant email address is @att.com...... DNS it for yourself. Kind of funny. If you'd like, you could also contact the tech. Here is the information from the whois. They could have at least been a little more secretive about who they are. A PR firm with an ATT email address, or even something similar just smells fishy, or like bacon. No, bacon would be if the government was involved.
Registrant Name:The Mercury Group
Registrant Organization:The Mercury Group
Registrant Street1:1932 First Avenue, Suite 611
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Seattle
Registrant State/Province:WA
Registrant Postal Code:98101
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9999999999
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant *************@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
Admin ID:16213551-NSI
Admin Name:Tom Stock
Admin Organization:TSE Enterprises, L.L.C
Admin Street1:3101 E Shea Bvld Ste 201
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:PHOENIX
Admin State/Province:AZ
Admin Postal Code:85028
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.6029925408 - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27That hands off the internet is way too pro looking to be grassroots. Grassroots flash often looks like trash - swears a lot - and is usually funny...
Their video is funny, but not crappy enough for grassroots. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26@Geterix
"We" did make our own network. It's called the Internet.
And tt does NOT belong to the Telcos. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26This is starting to really piss me off. If I met one of these greedy ignorant telco execs right now, I'd kick them in the balls and spit in his face, just like they're doing to the American people. What a bunch of *****. They'd rather pocket as much money as they can and keep control of every little piece of crappy infrastructure they can, rather than allow an open competition of broadband networks and freedom of choice for the people to surf where and what they want with no restrictions. What's more sad are our politicians who accept free vacations or a steak dinner from these lackeys and somehow come out thinking it's good for companies to be able to sell you web access at specific price/usage points and that competition is somehow bad for lowering prices and creating variety to consumers. FU telco companies and FU braindead, lying lobbyists and fake consumer groups.
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23The network they put together WITH OUR GOVERNMENT ALLOWED SUBSIDIES! And still no fiber!!! Remember these companies are semi-monopolies/oligopolies and their endless greed needs to be kept in check. Another thing... I don't remember getting any kind of discount or money for that ***** telephone pole sitting in my backyard. Companies that use municipal land/public resources need to benefit the public, not themselves.
- Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I think it is time for us to start lobbying for the national Kick a Telco Exec in The Balls Day. I would vote for it!
- m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Wow, total telco-schill....only 1 article dugg and it's anti-NN...bah.
At least the story did make the front page. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Since the site's down:
"I wouldn't believe DontRegulate.org
DontRegulate.org appears to try to appeal to everyone's inner libertarian, but it's full of crap. It's assertions about precedent and who pays for what just aren't correct.
Everyone already pays for the net; users (be they home subscribers or companies) to their ISPs, and ISPs to each other in peering agreements.
Dontregulate.org also claims that the the attempt to affirm net neutrality through law would be the first major legislation of the internet, implying the US government has never stepped in before. But the US government basically subsidized its invention and the US still retains control of the root DNS servers. (There are arguments to be made against precise points of the current situation, but the arguments for total privatization or running roughshod over existing cooperative models with disingenuous assertions [telecomms wants to have their peering-agreement cake and eat it too] is hardly a progressive, evolutionary move, to put it nicely.)
Those are just the fundmental qualms I have with this campaign. It really irritates me too much to watch again and then nitpick.
The site, along with handsoff.org (which dontregulate.org links to) was put together by TSE Enterprises, an internet-oriented lobbying/PR firm. The campaign's member organizations (and likely bill-payers) is dominated by telecom industry players, despite the "About Us" page asserting that "Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users..." Sure. Of course, corporations are users too.
The campaign is awfully anonymous-sounding and missing actual humans (in addition to missing and misrepresenting actual facts), with the exception of Mike McCurry, the chair of this coalition of users. McCurry is a K Street lobbyist and PR consultant, formerly a press secretary in the Clinton White House.
The Center for Public Integrity has TSE Enterprises tied the conservative Progress for America Voter's Fund and Sourcewatch has aggregated some bits on other projects they're associated.
This is clearly an example product of the PR and lobbying sector enabling the facade of broad support for unsubstantiated claims from unaccountable entities, many of which are subsidized by government run by politicians who often seem to be in effect, subsidized by those same entities (in the form of their top-ranking executives personal contributions and the activities of lobbying efforts associated with industry). " - Braddock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21How do you go to sleep at night? Not only are you a hired gun, but you are erroneously advocating that the net-neutrality (leaving it alone) bill is regulation. You may try to justify your actions as working for an industry group, or just doing your job for your client, but your grassroots movement is clearly manufactured propaganda.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Anyone look at his ***** members list? It's like a telco yearbook! At least they don't even try to hide that they're a puppet org.
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Ah, so you must be from the Telcos too. thanks.
- taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Big telco does make money. I pay for their service. They want to get double pay. In fact Google would already pay for their service, as does Microsoft, as does Yahoo, as does Apple, as does anyone with an Internet connection. If it is a 56k to a 0C48 they still pay $$$$ to get on the Internet! BIG TELCO wants double pay. It wants EXTORTION, and MONOPOLY. It is a detriment to free enterprise.
They should be stopped with clear legislation. Call your Senator today and demand that this behavior be stopped in its tracks!!!! - jonathantneal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"On the contrary, right on the Hands Off webpage we list who we are."
HOTI1 is right, in fact, I know all those guys listed, and their legit. I used to play softball in the local park with Alcatel and DiamondWare. I ran against MRV Communications, Inc. in school elections but then had to drop out when he stole my girlfriend (long story, not worth digging). And ... I had my first time with Prysmian Communications (i will never forget you). - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The telcos may have built the intrastructure themselves, but we all know damn well they've received billions in government money to create and maintain all that fiber, so as far as I'm concerned I, as an American taxpayer, own part of your ***** fiber and I have a say in how you can use it.
So piss off, you greedy sots. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17^
Better than 5 bucks a month extra to reach google.com, or amazon.com becoming a pay site b/c they can't afford the extortion of the telco's and the loss of business it will create.
Look not only will this piss off the consumers (who are paying) and what most tech guys think of as content providers (who are also paying), but think about the amount of business done online.
Every financial institution offering online services, will be extorted by this. Every online shopping business, extorted. Every search service, every online application like Writely. And what about the little guy? How is some small timer going to afford extortion fee's?
And you don't think these ***** aren't going to offer comparable serivces after they successfully slow down Google and Flickr, and myspace, and ebay, and amazon and yahoo to a grinding hault?
This is pure anti-competiveness and frankly and a threat to every business in this country, large and small.
For all your ***** saying this is capitalism at work, i'm afriad not, this is monopoly abuses and anti-trust ***** that harms all business, that harms all consumers.
There's one benefitor here, it's the telecos. That's it.
***** morons. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It's been said before, and it'll be said again: The government shouldn't have to force companies to do what they'd be encouraged to do anyway in a free (non-oligopoly) market. But there's the rub.
If telecom companies want an oligopoly, then they have to have the needs of their customers mandated on them. If they don't want mandates, then they need a free and open market. Can't have your cake and eat it too. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16you think anyone would believe these sites?
kinda like big oil saying poilution is good. - TortfeasorG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Well, I'd be happy to have an open debate about the merits of net neutrality...
For starters, though, HandsOff has misstated the argument from the outset.
Their argument: Don't regulate the internet because it will stifle innovation.
The REAL argument: Don't let Congress make it so the telcos can't double-dip.
They want you to believe NN supporters are in favor of all internet regulation, when, in fact, they're just in favor of a single law that says you can't extort content providers, especially when you're in competition with them.
DON'T LET THEM DISTORT THE DEBATE
NN'ers aren't for total internet regulation, just a single law. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Ahh yes... there's nothing like a little sunshine-exposure to make the roaches run!
Just made it to the frontpage after you posted this 3 days ago? Looks like you have a little algorithmic-grassroots action of your own!
Nice post, Chompy.
PS: any way we can order up a side-order of DDOS... to go? - empraptor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15This is in response to Geterix's comment.
They're ***** because they're getting paid already but want to blackmail content providers into paying them more. - Squinky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15No, that's what happens WITHOUT net neutrality. Net Neutrality = legislation that prevents Telco's from tiering your bandwidth and forcing you to pay extra for access to services that aren't google, ebay and amazon, (ie. the highest bidder). Congrats on buying into the site's reverse-propaganda, though.
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@Geterix
Actually yes, the internet AND the telcos are a type of public utility known as an O-L-I-G-O-P-O-L-Y.
http://www.investorwords.com/3404/oligopoly.html - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@ geekee
Oh come on... you know I'm talking about fiber to the home not the freaking backbone. And actually those subsidies ON MY PHONE BILL have been IN EFFECT since the early nineties... I guess that money just keeps piling up, doesn't it?
Educate yourself:
http://guerrillanews.com/headlines/7403/The_200_Billion_Broadband_Scandal - D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13We are making the internet right now. As far as I am concerned, the Internet no longer means the physical connections between computers. The internet is the content. The internet is Slashdot. It is Amazon. It is some kid's personal webpage. Even goatse.cx was a contribution to the internet collective. We are all "making" the internet. Where do you think the internet's content is coming from? Not from the telcos, not from Google, not from the government. It is coming from US. WE are the website creators, the users, the business people. We are the ones that determine what the internet is. When we wanted a way to shop easily, the internet became associated with shopping, Amazon and eBay. When we wanted it for information, it became associated with Wikipedia and britannica.com. Even when we wanted to view the Schmo family photos, joeschmo.net would come along and get a hit or two. And now when people want their voice to be heard, the Diggs and Slashdots are the place to do that.
To say that we have nothing to do with putting together the internet is probably the wrongest statement I have ever heard. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I sent this to info@handsoff.org:
I can't believe you twist the facts to try and brainwash people with your fake grassroots organization ads and websites. Do you think we're really that stupid? Obviously you do...
The network you put together is possible because of GOVERNMENT ALLOWED SUBSIDIES ON MY PHONE BILL! And still no fiber!!!
Remember UNIVERSITIES AND THE GOVERNMENT CREATED THE INTERNET. Don't forget you are a collection of OLIGOPOLIES and your endless greed needs to be kept in check. Another thing... I don't remember getting any kind of discount or money for that ***** telephone pole sitting in my backyard.
Companies that use municipal land & public resources need to benefit the public, not themselves.
I hope you rot in hell for betraying the American public's trust. - MeekSpiffinton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Come on, you could've at least did like dontregulate.org and used private proxy to register through.:
Domain Name:HANDSOFF.ORG
Created On:16-Jun-1999 21:37:45 UTC
Last Updated On:16-May-2006 22:07:37 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Jun-2006 21:38:24 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Registrant ID:22704712-NSI
Registrant Name:The Mercury Group
Registrant Organization:The Mercury Group
Registrant Email:TEStock@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
Admin ID:16213551-NSI
Admin Name:Tom Stock
Admin Organization:TSE Enterprises, L.L.C
Admin Phone:+1.6029925408
Admin Email:webrequest@tseaz.com
Name Server:DNS2.IRIDES.COM
Name Server:DNS1.IRIDES.COM - rr525356, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13How is it secret? Telco's are listed under their "Member Organizations" section.
- toveling, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13It's called astroturfing (read the wikipedia article). It's surprisingly widespread, and completely despicable.
- deesine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users united together in the belief"
That's the first sentence from their 'About Us' section.
So, yes, they are claiming to be a grassroots movement, rather than an organizational front for the telcos. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I don't have to pay to upgrade *****. I pay for my connection and Google pays for theirs. The if i decided to get a T1, i would pay more. If google added 500 more T3 lines, they would pay for each of those.
What's not to understand?
Paying more for higher speeds already happens. There's a difference between purchasing the speed you have, and extorting a company from their consumer base.
Is it really taht complicated? - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@HMTKSteve
Nice try, but again, your analogy is flawed. In this case, I can pay more for the 100MPH lane and equipment (ie fiber) if I want to, but the destinations I hope to reach on that highway shouldn't have to pay anything. What the telco's would like is for all destinations to pay an extortion fee so I can reach them at 100MPH. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12It's amusing watching the schills trying to digg down comments like this one. Are they getting paid by the Digg?
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Is this guy for real? Go get a real job punk ass...
- skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If all the major telcos decide to pull this (which is 150% likely), you're not going to find any *alternate ISP* that will enable you to access a site without going through a tiering Telco's pipes.
Nice try. - Solol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11From http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/ :
"Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users ..."
Pretty misleading no ? - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Nice try, shill. Fortunately for your corporate masters, it looks like this story won't make the front page.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@chompy
Your spam is how I found this, and I don't think anyone blames you... - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Yep, I'm pleasantly suprised. I feel guilty that I had to spam that other NN article to get this one dugg to the FP, but I really think this needs to be generally known.
- xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This is grassroots http://www.savetheinternet.com
It's really sickening how http://handsoff.org they will even try to run a nationwide ad trying to deceive consumers about the real threat of killing the Net Neutrality bill I just watched the webcast today and it looks like a lot of people voted on it with only one amendment.
It's surpassing how fast they managed to publish a newspaper ad and tv campaign that is NOT cheap but of course they are backed by telcos ( AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) so no surprise there.. - jhunt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I like how the handsoff.org webpage has a huge anti-government regulation message to make people think "***** the government, I don't want them censoring my Internets!", but really it's better for consumers if it is regulated.
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@geekee
Absolutely wrong. I lease several webservers and I am definitely not paying the last mile providers. I pay hundreds of dollars a month for bandwidth provided by my server host through several BACKBONE providers. And the ones paying for the last mile are the consumers, so what the telcos want here is to add a third middle man fee. - Squinky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Erm. I guess Net Neutrality has been warped into something else.
'grassroots' (o_o) Flash vid fails to mention that whole original point of net neutrality is about preventing telco's from setting up tiered bandwidth allocations. Also leaves out that this would apply to the 'little guys' too, not just the big three (that means you, and your personal websites). Want people to be able to access your site properly? Pay up.
In essence, net neutrality is the exact opposite of what that site is proclaiming. Propaganda at it's best. - NJank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"What about thing to destroy first regulation of telco companies and make concurence enviroment where the customer choose right internet provider..."
Let's see. Destroy regulation. So now the phone company can prevent anyone else from providing service to you over their lines. (no more choice of telecom provider, would be just like cable monopoly). So now you can choose between (1) single cable provider broadband, (2) single telecom provider broadband, (3) single telecom provider broadband, (4) non-wired broadband. (excluding BoPL). and without any competetion over individual wires, the rates for 2 and 3 would be able to go up. that will stop pulling (1)'s prices down. And, in most areas where (4)'s not a real option...? So much for choices. - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7geekee / HMTKSteve our own shills! perhaps you should pay us for polluting our internets!
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7All they have to do now is equate network neutrality with terrorism and kiddie porn. Only in the firm and able hands of the telecoms can we be free from the scourge of other people's freedom!
- Squinky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7On the upside, if this DOES go through and they try to extort google, maybe google will light up all that dark fiber they bought last year and set up a very fast, very cheap 'googleNet'.
Rather google than AT&T, Bell and Verizon imo. - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@nteriot
Perfect.
To be honest... even though what the Telco's basically want to do is be fed twice for the same piece of work... I'd still actually support them if it wasn't for the fact that the telco numbers are so few once again.
I wish more people understood non-regulation is fantastic ONLY when the entities involved remain in competitive industries. Otherwise there is little economic incentive to improve products It's far cheaper just to buy out (or crush) small local competitors before they can influence the marketplace. Or even have unofficial non-compete agreements with your 3-4 buddies that own the rest of the network.
A good example (for the confused laissez-faire crowd)... until Ma Bell was broken up by DOJ in the 80's WE WERE STILL USING ROTARY PHONES (decades old technology). Once the market became competitive again... there was a huge explosion of innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
I seriously doubt the Internet would have existed today if the telco monopoly hadn't been smashed (as there would have been no incentive to spend the money building infrastructure). My bet is the current oligopoly also probably explains why broadband improvements in the US have lagged behind much of the rest of the world.
After the NSA incident, I hardly think they should be bringing more attention to just how powerful they've become again-- or this ploy can just as easily backfire in their faces. No doubt federal regulators (at the behest of Google, Microsoft and others) are going to start paying more attention to their business practices if they make a big stink over this issue.
They have two choices here... either spin off parts of their companies and diversify into other areas or face regulation. - drenei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"No, net neutrality is regulation that prevents someone from paying extra for improved quality of service. Even if they wanted to charge per bit per mile, I still don't see the problem with that. However, I suspects p2p leeches would."
except net neutrality would stop telcos from charging content providers (anyone from google, amazon, digg, voip services, even you for your personal website/small business - essentially what makes up the web!). i know telcos are going to argue that they'll play nice, won't restrict competitors content, or content that they choose to restrict... but telcos are trying to make money and that will influence their choices.
for those of you that really believe that net neutrality isn't a good choice, those of you not working for the telcos do some research.
here would be one place to start: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051024-5475.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is