What is Digg?141 Comments
- sameerb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Direct link to the video Youtube- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5RQrxkGgCM
- dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35That's okay. We're not too lazy to mod you down for being "the guy who wastes our time yelling dupe"
- quaispalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20"if your ISP decides to pursue this, change ISPs."
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works. If I access Google from my Verizon Internet connection, the data doesn't pass directly from Google to me via Verizon. It may jump through some AT&T lines, some Internet 2 lines, a few other backbone carriers, and then to me through Verizon.
To say that you can change ISPs and fix the problem is incorrect. If just one backbone carrier starts prioritizing their lines, ALL lines will be slower. - Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@dclowd9901
Which company exactly has the capital to rebuild a new internet?
Once the corporations put a stranglehold on new lines it's the end plain and simple. FIOS may look speedy and innocent enough, but the government gave Verizon permission to lease it out or not. They chose not to.
Project Lightspeed if you want the cable you cant have a second internet provider. So AT&T essentially locked in their userbase that switches to their system. The only real competition can really be cable companies and they're in on it also.
corporations would love nothing more than to regulate the internet to 1 gig of transfer a month 25c a gig past the first gig for 60 dollars a month. There's no greater good here it's about who's going to vote in favor of the telco's and get a board position and make millions once they're done serving corporate america, not serving the hardworking people of America. - bobbybobington, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25awesome video about net nuetrality Digg++
- Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Every time I hear this I relaize how ignorant it sounds all over again. If AT&T says they are going to start charging for google traffic on their backbone what makes you think that everyone will be able to vote with their wallet? What if customer John on ISP backwoods.net is happy because his company doesnt charge, however when backwoods.net reaches Google.com it has to cross the AT&T backbone at least part of the way so the traffic is degraded? Now what if all the major backbone companies say 'hey, they are going to make money off of this, so lets us do it to!'.
Who are you going to call now? Think its hysteria? Take a look at http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=2747 and really read the data. If just 3 or 4 backbone providers decide to do this do you really think that you can vote with your wallet? - bonked, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Remember, your tax dollars are what was used in the 80s to build this monopoly, so perhaps that should be considered when you say a capitalist solution is the only way to fix this. They used public money to build it, now they want to completely control it with no public input.
While I am Libertarian, but I do not think that unregulated highways are a good idea, and to me the "information superhighway" (I really hate that term) should have regulation as well - not in what can be on it, but that it be available and of use to everyone. - rewritable, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Lets all get together and run ethernet cables to all of our houses and stick it to the man, WHO'S WITH ME?
*crickets* - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21I agree that 'prioritized' access could be a very bad thing, but I'm almost never in favor of legislating a business's freedom to do business as they see fit so I don't know if I'm in favor of a law as the solution.
I think the real solution is the capitalist solution. Vote with your dollars, and if your ISP decides to pursue this, change ISPs.
Then again though many people have no choice in ISPs, so perhaps a law is necessary. I'm SO confused. :) - devzer0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I would be all for the market working this out, but only if there was an actual market. You know, scores of small-to-mid-sized companies competing for your business.
Instead we have a handful of very large companies who seem to have the government in their back pocket. There will be no market competition; they are colluding. It is very unlikely that other companies -- even Google -- would be able to offer an alternative.
That's not capitalism. That's fascism, by definition. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19@dclowd9901
Yeah, that's right.
Don't worry.
Don't make a ruckus.
We can fix this after they remove freedom of speech from the net.
No need to act now.
Really! - elfguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What many people don't understand is how powerful these handful of big corporations are. You may be on a small ISP, but that ISP is connected to one of those big ones. Even if you did your reasearch and made sure your ISP isn't connected to these big ones, the backbone of the Internet is owned by just a few companies, so at some point your packets will travel through their network, so this affects everyone.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Or just one. Lets say Verizon starts to shake down Google for money. Google says - "how about I take that 100 million I would have paid you, and use it to build up WiMax in all sorts of cities you control and offer internet connectivity for half what you charge?"
Google is already working on a WiFi network in San Francisco, they have the resources to bypass attemtps like this. - itsallgeektome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The solution to that problem is opening up the markets to more competition. Of course, that's easier said than done. Not everyone has millions of dollars lying around to try it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9pray tell genius,
which ISP is my dollars going to go to that doesn't support splicing up the internet? Verizon? HDNet? AT&T? Bellsouth? Comcast?
Hell even small timer local cable companies support it.
There is no option to "shop around" here. The market only works if it provides you a choice.
And lets say i stumble across some rare local ISP that doesn't favor this. Guess who's backbone lines they connect to? - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@dclowd9901
Nice words. Shame it's entirely unrealistic. What you don't seem to understand is that in order to compete this brave new net builder would have to replace the entire world wide web infrastructure. The entire backbone. Lines out to every subscriber. And then they would have to get people to switch to them. There would be no content on this hypothetical network, and any connection to the old internet from the new one would be severely penalized if allowed at all by the internet Czars.
It's a dream. A nice one, but a dream. - Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Who do you think little isp's get their pipes from?
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23There's nothing awesome about sensationalism. I'm so tired of people saying "the death of this" and "
the death of that." Is net neutrality something to be concerned about? Absolutely. Will the internet, as we know it suffer? Absolutely. But the key thing to remember is that the internet's success is and has always been dependent on the free exchange of ideas and social networking. It's what people have been craving for so long. Supply and demand.
Because of this, the internet won't go away, the same way p2p has never gone away. Even if the internet, as we know it was busted, someone could create a new internet network. And, it'd probably be even better, because it wouldn't be reliant on legacy technologies created in the 70s.
Stop with this whole "death of the internet" *****. If you want the internet as you have it now, some enterprising person looking to make some money will give it to you. I promise. - lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What most people don't realize is that these aren't the ISP's we are talking about here. These are the back-bone providers (some of which happen to be ISP's). I use Comcast, say that Google uses AT&T. Comcast and AT&T should be the people paying the backbone company to transport our information. We already paid for our services, why should there be a second charge?
Secondly, these backbone providers will have to intercept every single packet that goes over the network in order to re-route traffic for the premium/non-premium packets. Sounds like a bottleneck to me. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"Which company exactly has the capital to rebuild a new internet?"
Google, Microsoft, other huge profit web companies that would suffer from this. Hell, maybe GE or Honeywell would like to. I'm saying it's something that would benefit the enterprising companies out there. I know that if my internet sucked, and someone offered a better one with no restrictions (you know, like it should be), I would go to that, and I'm sure many people would follow suit.
"Once the corporations put a stranglehold on new lines it's the end plain and simple. FIOS may look speedy and innocent enough, but the government gave Verizon permission to lease it out or not. They chose not to."
I think you're thinking too "plainly" and too "simply." How would pissing off people benefit these telephone companies. They're going to make far more money from your average subscriber than they would from any big business with deep pockets. Web companies are only going to pay so much to get preferential treatment, and I assure you it won't even compare to the revenues and margins they make from you and me.
"Project Lightspeed if you want the cable you cant have a second internet provider. So AT&T essentially locked in their userbase that switches to their system. The only real competition can really be cable companies and they're in on it also."
We've been in telephone and cable monopolies for years. Has it destroyed television or communication? No. In fact, when people found they couldn't stand the service telephone companies provided, they moved over to *cell phones*. Now, almost everyone I know has a cell phone as their primary number. As I said, it's another instance where enterprising and tech development push their way through. Consumers demand what they want, and they get what they demand. Always.
"corporations would love nothing more than to regulate the internet to 1 gig of transfer a month 25c a gig past the first gig for 60 dollars a month. There's no greater good here it's about who's going to vote in favor of the telco's and get a board position and make millions once they're done serving corporate america, not serving the hardworking people of America."
...And you think people are going to keep subscribing to this Internet if it costs this much? I hate to break it to you, but as much of a net junkie as I am, I can certainly live without it just as easily, and I'm sure the majority of people are with me on this front. Why would telcos want to do something that alienates the broad majority of people? That's where their biggest income group is. You guys see these companies as big evil conglomerations who want nothing more than to make your life hell. But they're just businesses. They're looking to make the most money in the most efficient way possible. Alienating every web user and web company with exhorbitant prices will NOT get them profits. Being reasonable, and providing good service will. And if they can't do that, someone else will step in and do it.
This is market, and this is people. You're a person. I'm a person. And if we don't want something to be a certain way, it will change. I'm not saying just roll over on this net neutrality thing. Obviously, we should fight it, cause, personally, I don't want to wait until someone finally puts something reasonable together during the fallout. But what I *am* saying is to stop with this sensationalist "The world's going to end" crap about the internet dying.
At this point, the internet is more of a philosophy than any singular thing. And it takes *everyone* to make it work. Not Al Gore or any telco, or even all of them. If the people want it, it will be there. - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What if KRose and the Digg crew didn't pay your ISP but /. did? Then you wouldn't be able to come here and would be stuck over there.
- netjd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7First, lets remember that the Internet and the WWW are two different entities. I believe the internet should remain open to the public. After all it supposedly 'belongs' to the American public as do our airwaves. All the media companies want is another avenue to get into the 'TV Broadcast Delivery' business without having to go through all the regulatory red tape of traditional delivery. As far as ANYONE controlling the internet and charging for access to public websites is just ludicrous. If they would like to build, say a second subnet of the internet similiar to WWW and offer it as a package of access to content then fine, but to try and take over the current WWW and control access and charge for access, they will kill the WWW as we know it.
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yes, just to crystalize what the above are saying:
You CAN'T vote with your wallet anymore. All the "candidates" for your money support the same initiative. The free market has become a myth, and that's when you need legislation.
A truly free market needs no legislation, but we're essentially at the polar opposite of that now. - Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's not the end of the internet. If Google or Yahoo is slowed down for internet users unless someone pays a premium, then people are going to start using "AT&T Search" or "Verizon Search".
That is the thing that would suck, they should not be allowed to limit speeds on the internet. You could stay with Vonage or Skype, although say AT&T ePhone and Verizon ePhone are new developments that decide to come out after this and you get clearer connections than the competitors and less dropped calls, who are you going to use?
It would give these large telco's the power to create a monopoly out of every online business...
Competition would go out the window unless you paid an extortion fee, so no the internet is not dieing, it's just being bought for a few million dollars paid to US Senators. - TortfeasorG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You have obviously missed the point. The internet is a media outlet that, thank God, has not been completely ruled by content from big corporations whose bottom line is always the dollar. The question is whether we want to make the internet like cable tv, where a few huge companies get priority. Yeah, you'll still get your local access channels, which would serve as an independent outlet, but that's about it.
The point is about not trampling innovation, and whether we WANT to have a "neurtal" net, not whether we have a RIGHT to it. - mycatsboots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't worry. Soon you won't have the ability to view the messages.
- roxy1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i wouldn't be surprised if the government was trying to control the internet. It's pretty much the only thing they don't have complete control over.
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not if the telcos get anti-city-wifi legislation there before Google can!
The race is on! - tijer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well this is probably not the end of the Internet as such. If passed, it will only be the end of information freedom for the US - a process that has been steadily progressing for some time now, while enjoying wide support by the elected leaders. This is really not news. The electorate has known for a while, only people not paying attention could have missed this.
The Internet will probably continue to live freely in the parts of the world that are still holding on to such values.
Ohh, and did I mention. Good luck guys. - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Ultimately, the market will snap towards neutrality. If the big telcos want to run it, the very nature of the internet will foster innovation towards a neutral solution. Eventually, the Telco's would be back asking for a bail-out and for the neutral solution to be shut down.
- 4ooFdvr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree with you that regulation should be used sparingly but I think the concern here is that if all of the ISP's are playing the same game, what would be the point of using a different ISP.
Also, you should be confused; with the way current politics are I too am hesitant to trust any regulations or laws that is supposed to help me/us. - JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Death of the Internet... I find that alarmist and not believable
I'd say "America to become technology backwater" is more accurate.
The US Corptocracy will have it's "Disney Land Internet", and the rest of the world will move on. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I managed to get to the article with Google Cache. There was a YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5RQrxkGgCM
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah, I mean... theres nothing better than a DUPE story... except for the 40/50 or so users on digg that have no lives and ALL they do is look for dupe stories so they can post 'DUPE' in the comments... I mean, yeah.. that is SOOOOO usefull.... 'Dupe!!' big freakin deal! for the most part dupes are rarely every hitting the front page.... the few times there is a dupe... its 1 with a horribly worded description (posted first), and 1 with a great description (posted later). And quite frankly.... thats ok.... sometimes the title needs to be re-written
- dbre2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Essentially it's turning the internet from a tool for free speech into a monopolized communication channel, like how TV is now. All major media outlets are owned or shared by the same 10 companies...GE, Vivendi, Viacom, News Corp, etc...If you watch NBC news, you probably won't see any stories slamming GM. When the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed it got a total of 19 minutes of coverage on news networks...because it gave them free use of the broadcast spectrum. If the internet is owned by AT&T, Verizon, etc, they'll have the power to limit what messages are sent over the internet. If there's a site out there saying unflattering things about AT&T, then AT&T might just make that site unreachable. Deregulating = no more "free" speech. You have to pay to send your message.
- Sagarian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Didn't we go through this with the railroads, once upon a time?
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A future use of that "Your broken business model is not my problem." t-shirt.
- anarchocap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here is to diggs liberty lovers:
http://www.mises.org/story/2139
stay strong my friends - AdverseE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Generation X: We were bamboozled. We spent our teens and college years in a world filled with free speech and progress, only to watch it get flushed down the toilet as soon as we got jobs. Its really quite sad when you think about it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RE: "When did internet access become a 'right' instead of a privilege? "
*****! i am sick of hearing that *****, this country was FOUNDED by the people, and FOR the people.... When the hell did the american people loose so much backbone that they let their government talk to them that way???? THEIR JOB is a privledge, elected into position to SERVE us.... not dictate us, not get paid millions by big corporations to do their bidding....
This country was founded on the concept of power does not give right to dictate another.... Enland was quite powerfull, decided they could tax us, and do whatever they wanted with us... we stood up.... we faught..... we won. - gregmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apparently, editing is not the strong point of "Democracy, Now!". Good little clip of the extremes that could occur, but interesting nonetheless
- Chive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Sadly the electorate is aware of little more than what Fox news tells them.
- ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:http://www.coanews.org/netfreedom
googleCache - mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Even if the internet, as we know it was busted, someone could create a new internet network. And, it'd probably be even better, because it wouldn't be reliant on legacy technologies created in the 70s."
It's not easy to create a second internet. The internet isn't just a crummy piece of software that can be rewritten in a few months. It's an empire, with checkpoints everywhere guarded by Telcos. - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We can try to keep this at bay, but ultimately, government is out for big business first, citizens second. If you don't like that, we need to vote different people in.
- qster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2stuff em! I'll make my own private wireless network
- PBoiIceBerg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Part of me hopes the telecos do succeed and basically own the Internet. Then hopefully company's like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo would band together and fund their own Internet, one like we have right now. Making the telecos Internet look like the biggest piece of crap and running them out of business. Then the Internet could flourish like it is suppose to, and not being continually held captive by the worst companies in America. Essentially, company's who's CEO's don't even understand what the Internet is.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dont forget, yet another way to silence....
Media & Government are in bed together.... the only real way to spread a message now, is through the net... and if the backbones get this accomplished... guess what? The government is alreday in their pocket, and will expect 'pay back'
example:
GOV: 'hey remember that net nutrality thing we destroyed for you last year?'
BackBone: 'Yeah thanks again!'
GOV: 'Yeah, well its time for payback, next week were going to burn the constitution!'
Backbone: 'Wow...'
GOV: Yeah, we need to make sure that ANYONE that talks about this... is unreachable... ok?'
BackBone: 'Deal!' -
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is