What is Digg?97 Comments
- Puppyfam, on 06/07/2008, -3/+27Because, if the theories are right, the major ISPs are acting as a cartel. If it was just one corporation trying to pull this, the free market would shift away from their service. However, since there is allegedly a cartel-like collaboration going on, there would be nowhere for the market to turn.
I hate unnecessary government regulation, but when corporations try to hijack the free market, someone needs to step in. - Acglaphotis, on 06/07/2008, -0/+15Youtube called, they want their comment back.
- jasonlfunk, on 06/07/2008, -7/+21How does Net Neutrality not conflict with free market principals?
- Betrayer, on 06/07/2008, -1/+13You obviously dont have comcast!!!!!
comcast has already started shaping the internet to there liking....
they say the torrents take up too much bandwidth, but id bet the porn takes up MORE.
whos to say they wont cut off your free porn next.
the NEW thing Comcast is working on, is ***** you by setting limits on the internet... if you use more then a set amount of data you pay extra. - FapCommander, on 06/07/2008, -1/+11Problem is all major ISPs are in on this, so you won't have an alternative ISP to turn to
- kenvsryu, on 06/07/2008, -3/+12The companies have been given $25,000,000,000 of our tax dollars to build the networks. They do not own it! They can't control it!
- JayD16, on 06/07/2008, -1/+9We have anti-trust laws because when you have monopolies the markets are NOT free...
Net neutrality is the same thing. - emehrkay, on 06/07/2008, -5/+13This is so disgusting, I want to throw up.
This level of control is the main reason why I am scared of Verizon Fios. I know that Comcast is probably worse, but Fios has that full control over your whole pipe.
I am leaving the country if our leadership does to the internet what they did with radio - Puppyfam, on 06/07/2008, -2/+10They're "robbing you of your money" by disallowing competition.
- 0Xonox0, on 06/07/2008, -2/+9The internet is in danger? This sounds like a job for the internet!
If everybody who sees this sends just one Email to their congressmen and ISPs expressing their outrage that this should even be a POSSIBILITY, we can stop it.
Get to work people! - jumbalia, on 06/07/2008, -4/+11I may be wrong but, even if the phone companies do try pull this BS, wouldn't it be easy enough for another company to come along and offer full access to the Internet for the same price. In a sense all the companies would be doing is blocking access to certain sites; you don't need the Internet to make a web page. Unless the government/corporations (same thing) come up with a way to block access into the network provider industry I can't see how companies could do away with net neutrality and stay competitive in th market. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.
- HomieG6189, on 06/07/2008, -2/+9I didn't know the CEO of AT&T was on Digg?
- HonoredMule, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7You need to take the blinders off and see just how much your government controls in the name of corporate interests already. Ironically, it takes government control to control the government.
Maybe you like it better when only corporations get government to pass laws. That seem to be working out swell. - inactive, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7I need glasses. I thought it said Net Nudity. :(
- flipperBaby, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6Haha theres a big giant AT&T banner at the top of this post
- FapCommander, on 06/07/2008, -2/+8I'll bury you for being a *****
- FreeTalkLIve, on 06/07/2008, -3/+9Shoulda had a Ron Paul.
- GIScope, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Dear Diggers,
Never in its history, human kind has been so powerful in its individuality. The Internet is the vehicle of this power. Individual ingenuity powers the Internet. You and I, and other ordinary people are the Internet. On the other hand, the new aristocracy of our time: media, corporations and government see their power slip away. They see themselves following the trends established by the people instead of stating their own to be followed. In fact, for the first time in history, they are starting to serve the people as they were initially designed for..and that scares them. So now they are starting to build literally a gate around the people to have them controlled.
This is a critical moment in our time as human beings. Our evolution as a specie is threatened and our children and our children's children will hold us accountable for it.
DO SOMETHING TO KEEP THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF OUR TIME ALIVE!
Yours,
-a scared digger - miles920, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6this vid is incredible. we need to do something.
- Chalks777, on 06/07/2008, -3/+8if you actually leave the country, good for you.
Buried though, because we all know you won't actually leave the country. - verkon, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6It isn't the companys network, they just own the infrastructure.
- Betrayer, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5and yet its happening before our eyes.
- BrendanSheehan, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4THIS MAN HAS TO WIN IN NOVEMBER!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd8qY6myrrE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k - nogahide, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6The companies were subsidized by the gov (all of us) to build the network. They built up the backbone but fiber to the house never got done.
The backbone was paid for by you and me, not the big telcos. They just run them. - stinkymonkey, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4I can offer my view as a hardware designer of routers to the issue of net-neutrality. Only read if you're interested in how routers work.
A router is basically a black box with inputs and outputs. Its job is to "route" data (internet packets) from the appropriate input port to the appropriate output port so it can go on its merry way. These ports can be physical or virtual. The way it is routed is called a "connection". For example, we could have a connection between input port 5 with output port 7. In reality, a telco company could have millions of these connections in one enterprise router.
One of the biggest problems is the physical reality of a bottleneck at the output ports. Meaning, you can't physically get all the data packets, all the time, from one port to another. The hardware can only work so fast - its based on clock ticks. For example, if you had 10 input ports wanting to go to just one output port at the same time, well...you can't do it. So we had to "drop" packets - meaning they get thrown away (don't worry, the internet protocol (IP) is designed to resend a packet when it is dropped). Its sloppy, but that's the way it is. People like to use the analogy of a car trying to get on a busy highway, except that when the highway is full, you and your car disappear. We would do tricks like add large buffers to help the situation (basically hold some information until the input ports calm down a bit) but again, this is just a temporary solution because eventually these buffers would get filled up and
now you're in the same situation.
So what to do? The solution to this data bottleneck problem is to have Quality of Service (QoS) levels. Meaning, prioritize some "connections" over other "connections". For example, I will make sure Billy's data will go from input port 3 to output port 5 100% of the time. And Julies data,,,well, to bad, it will be dropped. Her data will only get there when Billy isn't using his connection.
And of course, this priority level is based on who pays more. If you want a better Quality of Service (your data to get from point A to point B) then pay more money.
So how does this relate to net-neutrality? Well, the hardware is already in place today to limit bandwidth on certain people (using the above mechanism). Its not something that needs to be designed at the hardware level. Its already done. And its already in use. For some DSL and cable companies you pay for your bandwidth. You pay more, you get a higher Quality of Service (Its faster). And in Texas, there is a pilot program that only lets you use you connection up to a certain amount of data per month, then you must pay more for every GB of data you use over that. Its wrong and it will only get worse.
Another point. What about limiting content? Easy as pie in a router. In these routers there are many tables that keep ceratin IP addresses. They are there for different reasons. Lets say your favorite website is apple.com. Well, I could just program a table in the router to drop all IP taffic from this website when I see this IP address. OK, its not a great solution since the tables can only be so big, but it works. There are also few ways around it, but the point being, there is hardware is in place.
So my point is, there are very elegant solutions already in place at the telco level to limit bandwidth and content.
As a side note on a different subject - My forte was IP multicasting. Meaning, how to "duplicate" a connection or groups of connections in a router. It's really good for broadcasts. For example, lets say you have a sporting even and you want to get your video to 1 million people. Well, rather then broadcast from the source 1 million times, lets use the routers in the network to split the data (multicast) as it travels. Think of it like a tree. The video broadcast is the trunk of the tree, and as it travels it splits into branches (the routers) and eventually makes it to you (the leaves).
Well, multicast is great, but its design is also perfect for another application. Spying. Meaning, the router can duplicate (100%) any connection it wants and split it off to any location in the world. No one would know except a handful of people who control the router. Because you can't physically see what going on inside a router. Remember that story about the technician who physically connected a port from a router to a special room. Well, what a brute force solution. Its bulky and hard to control. Its better to use the capabilities of "multicast" and copy the connection inside the router and output it to wherever in the world you want. So spying is much more elegant and easier then the idea of physically connecting something. It's also very difficult to catch. - cramtod, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5Another company would come along if it was easy. The problem is that entry into the marketplace is prohibitive. This includes not only the cost to lay the lines but also the cost to negotiate with the individual towns for the right of way to do so.
It used to be that cable companies were required to open their networks to internet companies to provide service. However, that went the way of the dodo with when the Supreme Court upheld the FCCs (wrongly reasoned) decision in "FCC v. Brand X Internet Services" which eliminated the the only cost effective way to enter the marketplace. - avatarroku1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4Not with Adblock there isn't!!
- hermes369, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4I think we have the processing power to create our own internet with RF. Time to start building.
- Braddeharder, on 06/07/2008, -3/+7Then leave, because it was the Government that killed radio and TV with the FCC
- Twinnie, on 06/07/2008, -5/+9I'm still not convinced this is even happening, all I've heard about it is a few people on Digg saying they have inside sources. I've not seen anyone link to credible sources on this.
- icndvl, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5I look forward to buying satellite Internet from China...Its still better then AT&T.
- kenvsryu, on 06/07/2008, -2/+5It will be like Chinese internet if Net Neutrality dies. Call your politicians.
- JayD16, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3You can't just dump all these emails to congress on the internet. Its not some kind of truck!
- TGMD, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4We have laws to prevent collusion, we just need to enforce them.
Then after that we've just got to rely on market forces.
If there's a demand there will be a firm to provide it. - p014k, on 06/07/2008, -2/+5But once one doesn't do it, they win.
- u8eR, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4The dilemma is that when you have government regulations telling corporations what they can or cannot do, you do not have a free market by definition. Having a neutral Internet is not in conflict with a free capitalistic market per se, but only arises when the government enforces or regulates it.
- BrendanSheehan, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2And one more: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608_Sen.Barack_ ...
- xNIBx, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2You could play pc games online for almost 2 decades now. Just because consoloids only recently got online play, doesnt mean that noone played online before.
- KingMoses, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2+friend
- nogahide, on 06/07/2008, -3/+5The same way that the roads dont. The roads belong to us and what goes across them is our business.
The internet backbone was paid for by us and now the telcos want to control what goes across it. - sjweiss1, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4It's strange how every day the Internet is becoming more accessible and usable for more people (FF3, iPhone etc.), yet the men in the high rises feel compelled to limit what it is we are allowed to view, create, access, and distribute.
Earlier this morning I was working at a used computer liquidation at my local library. One woman came up to me with tears in her eyes, a smile on her face, and a computer in her hands. She said ,"My son makes movies, my nephew makes music, and my daughter takes pictures. Today I will finally be able to see and hear what they make. Thank you." We can't let the Internet we know fade away. Not with so much at stake.
Also, I don't care if this video is old, I hadn't seen it. I thought it was very well made. - inactive, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2We need a digital Bill of Rights!
The right to bear blogs.
The keyboard is mightier than the AK-47. - Puppyfam, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Even so, the concept of a cartel does conflict with free market values. Take oil companies for example. In a free market system, each company should be vying to dominate the oil market; they should be appealing to customers trying to gather a following... Cutting prices or offering services different from their competitors. Instead, we have essentially no competition between major oil companies: they all provide the same service at the same price. It's essentially a variation of a price-fixing cartel: there's no healthy economic competition.
The government has a responsibility to maintain the values of the free market system we live in; they shouldn't allow a cartel to control a market. - earthwormzim, on 06/07/2008, -4/+6Net neutrality is a farce. I think it is a bunch of phony hoo-ha perpetrated by the large companies for the very purpose of creating regulation. Why? Because, regulation is ALWAYS beneficial to the large companies, and harmful to the small companies, due to the fact that the large companies can afford it, and the smaller one's can't. It's a big protectionist racket.
The big companies...I bet their underpants get wet just at the very thought of actually achieving net neutrality. Why? Because, net neutrality would mean that they would no longer have to work hard to innovate, and no start-up company would be legally allowed to innovate beyond them. They'd all be on a "level playing field"...and thus, the big companies could sit on their laurels, and just reap a continuous stream of profit.
Without net neutrality, though...the large companies have to continue to research, and innovate, and work hard to please their customers, else they would lose their customers to competitors. Not only would they have to be worried about the competition of the other large companies that are in plain sight...but they'd have to be doubly worried about the possibility of some upstart company (like Google, perhaps), just springing out of nowhere, and taking over the market. Without net neutrality, the large companies dominances would not be guaranteed, whereas, with net neutrality, it would.
The plan is simple: get rid of the cumbersome necessity of having to innovate so that we don't have to innovate, and so that we can just keep the profit margins roughly the way they are for all eternity.
Listen up you Dems, and other net neutrality supporters: if you support net neutrality (or any governmental regulation for that matter), then you support harming the "little guy" in favor of big business. - Observant1, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2I might want to see how cute she is first
- ThaDRD, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2It's so sick that the regulations changed allowing them to keep all their profits and not put them back into upgrading their networks.
- ilikemonkeys1, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1If I was American he would definitely have my vote. If he can fix these two issues:
A) Net Neutrality
B) The copyright laws
He would have almost anyones vote. - earthwormzim, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2If you don't respect the private property of your neighbors...even if they are rich...sooner or later, your private property will be violated in the ways in which you allow others to violate theirs.
Freedom is a catch 22. If you want it, you have to be willing to grant it to your neighbors as well, or else you too will be enslaved. - hojin994, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1STEP UP PEOPLE!!
Lets stop this. - isimon42o, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Digg This!
-
Show 51 - 99 of 99 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