digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

"There's a problem. It's called Net Neutrality"

crooksandliars.com — AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre to step down, but it is still business as usual. Net Neutrality will continue to be assaulted under the guise of deregulation.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 6, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

170 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jgrady, on 10/11/2007, -22/+169We've got to keep the pressure on the Senate and House to pass a net neutrality bill. Reading this ass clown's speech from ATT makes me sick, greedy f***er.
  • misterpony, on 10/11/2007, -13/+113@jgrady (#7035384)
    It's not just the greed. It's also just ignorant to put profit before advancement...apparently AT&T enjoys the fact that the US has slipped 15 places in world rankings of broadband penetration and 8 places in world rankings of broadband average speeds. AT&T and Verizon are exercising their economic and democratic rights by trying to get as much profit as possible, but this is a perfect example of when regulation is necessary. They can't hinder the progress of the US just so Ed and his cronies can get their kicks.
  • JFen, on 10/11/2007, -8/+56This is a VERY important issue.

    Amazing that this has been up for 18 hrs. and has 30 Diggs.

    Ron Paul can ***** in a can and the report will have 1500 Diggs in two minutes.

    Good luck using Digg in the future if Big Business wins out. Hope you are up-to-date on the Dewey Decimal System.
  • FuzzyBunny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+44Note to EVERYONE: THIS WAS A SPOOF! He did not actually say those things. See the original source and watch the video.
    http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/06/05/ed-whitacre-gone-but-not-forgotten/
  • Vandon, on 10/11/2007, -11/+52The "Save The Internet" group, which is for "internet freedom" (that is, it wants net neutrality enshrined in law), has really taken things to a new low. Ed Whitacre, one of the biggest sources of hot air in this debate, stepped down this week at CEO of AT&T. Save The Internet decided to mark the occasion by making a video of what they imagine Whitacre's final pep talk to AT&T execs was like, with all sorts of inflammatory -- and made-up -- quotes. They then put the quotes in a blog post, as if they'd actually come from Whitacre. While they embed the video in the blog post, there's no indication that the quotes aren't actually real. If you watch the video, it's pretty obvious, but few people seem to be noticing.

    Take a look at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070606/105850.shtml
  • retral, on 10/11/2007, -6/+44Well said, jdgrady.

    @orelses: Steve jobs has nothing to do with net neutrality.
  • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -6/+34"Ron Paul can ***** in a can and the report will have 1500 Diggs in two minutes. "

    Let's test that out, shall we?

    http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Sh_s_in_Can
  • gravyplaya, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26OBVIOUSLY, They arent thinking of the consumer.. If they start "toll-boothing" the internet we'll see its use decline dramatically, perhaps even some sites shutting down, and when they want to go to a site that they cant get to that they used to before, they'll know how much they phucked up. STOP BEIN SO DAYUM GREEDY. Dont you guys already rake in $32 billion dollars a year? WTF? When you start losing customers then youll wana take it all back huh?
  • Kanzan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26 The profit motive is still front and center with America's telecoms as they attempt to further privatize Internet. Prioritizing data means that everyone who cannot pay their premium will be relegated to the data equivalent of a goat path, slow and balky.
    Do not buy into the industry hype, their "deregulation" will stifle innovation and make what is a pretty level and open playing field into their own private country club. Servants entrance in the rear.
  • Widbee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23If these companies would listen to their own engineers, marketing experts, operations people and others, they would know that net neutrality is better than "toll boothing," not just for others but for their own business, as well. What they are doing is bad for everyone and will allow a short term profit boost to the detriment of their long-term business growth.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25"We've got to keep the pressure on the Senate and House to pass a net neutrality bill. Reading this ass clown's speech from ATT makes me sick, greedy f***er."

    Actually, if the FCC would do it's damned job and classify all cablecos and telcos as Common Carriers, Net Neutrality wouldn't even be an issue. Seriously. We don't need MORE legislation and governmental regulation, we just need what's in place to be applied correctly.
  • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24@eksai

    He's for net neutrality so much that he voted against it :)
  • fejwuzhere, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23It's no wonder AT&T's logo is a death star
  • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22Net Neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic is transfered via the same standards as any other internet traffic. As it is now google sending info to me would take just as long as yahoo. If AT&T gets their way only priority data would get the best speeds and the priority status of your data would come at an extra price than just admisson to the internet. SO if yahoo pays extra, search results from them would come to me faster than google's search results all because yahoo paid an extra toll. Bascially handicapping the interent with no real postive outcome other than Telco companies making 2% more profit.
  • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19"If these companies would listen to their own engineers"

    Throughout the history of business, no company has EVER listened to its engineers. Engineers want things to run SMOOTHLY, which costs money. Businessmen want things to just work with the bare minimum equipment possible. If an engineer requisitions a server just a smidgeon over the bare minimum requirements, the businessmen go ape *****, prattling on about waste and so-forth. Even if the engineer explains that getting the expensive server NOW avoids having to buy a whole new server a few years down the road, the businessman promptly stuffs tissues into his ears and hums loudly. Companies don't listen to engineers because businessmen fail to see future needs and are only concerned with the here and now.

    This short-sightedness is in almost every company because shareholders put an incredible amount of pressure to make bigger and bigger profits every quarter. They don't care that spending a bunch of money now will help down the road, they want instant gratification on their investments.

    When a corporation goes public, they inevitably come to an impasse where they have to choose their shareholders or their customers. Most choose their shareholders.
  • BrainLag, on 10/11/2007, -7/+24@mrfoos2

    That's all well and good when there is a truly free market with plenty of choices to begin with. Broadband in most areas is not a free market. If you have more than two choices you are lucky. Allowing a monopoly/oligopoly to take advantage of that status to compete in other business areas does not advance the free market, it hinders it.
  • jeremyflavored, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17wikipedia has an extensive write up on the subject:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

    or google's very simple summary:

    http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
  • Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070606/105850.shtml

    It's a made up speech. Whitacre's an idiot, but it's still a false story.
  • dclowd9901, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17But the problem you don't foresee isn't good sites shutting down. It's the fact only sites with the finances and corporate strength and ties to the telcos will be up and running. So the corporations will merge and merge and merge, and keep building themselves up by eliminating the threat of competition on the digital playing field. THAT'S the big problem here. THAT'S why they want to control the internet.
  • longbow486, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Scientists built it, the government financed it
  • plhearn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16@Kanzan

    You're absolutely right. They are trying to double dip by charging us internet users for bandwidth and then charging website owners extra for bandwidth to provide fast access to their sites. And every time someone tries to build local T1 or T3 lines and bring their broadband services to a local community Comcast or AT&T will sue them into oblivion. They are really trying to have their cake and eat it to with this one. They want to charge us for crappy broadband service and charge content providers a premium to to provide a stable connection to their websites. If they get away with this the web will become a place where only the wealthy have a chance at being successful, much like the U.S. political system.
  • Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18"You guys talk like Net Neutrality is about freedom. It's actually the opposite. Freedom isn't about controlling someone else's resources... it's the ability to control your own. Net Neutrality is stripping the freedoms of the "little tubes" providers in the interest of others - others being you guys who don't own the "tubes". It's a move towards socialism, not freedom."

    Nonesense. The Telcos (and to some extent the cablecos) were basically granted exclusive leases from the government on largely taxpayer financed networks until the could afford to buy those networks outright. And are mostly still allowed "exclusive" rights to service areas. The days a company like a Google, or a Microsoft, or an eBay or an IBM is allowed to build there own fiber networks right alongside a Verizon or a Comcast and compete fairly in the marketplace is the day we can dispense with any talk of "net neutrality". Until the day honest competition is allowed, the net neutrality debate will continue.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17Well, you could always vote for Ron Paul.
    Wait, oh ***** he voted against network neutrality. (Jun 2006)
  • MeThePeople, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14no scientist built the internet to share their data ME THE PEOPLE
  • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Remember kids: if you buy the iPhone, you're supporting these guys (AT&T).

    Your $600 MSRP and the monthly bill (for two years minimum) fund the AT&T lobbyists who oppose Net Neutrality.
  • plhearn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Actually, this past year they grossed 35 billion. And they still claim they can't afford to provide us service without screwing over content providers.
  • misterpony, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Try watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

    Or reading this: http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/

    Or surfing this: http://www.savetheinternet.com/
  • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9@ Whiteraven

    What do you mean properties? The telephone system is a public works. Hence why it's regulated by the FCC. Meaning my taxes help pay for my telephone service. Please elaborate on whose rights we're ***** on? Who the hell is being hurt by everyone getting a fair amount of bandwidth and the correct rate? Why is the telco company demanding more money for less bandwidth? Why does 60% of america still not have broadband? Why are you being a dick to me when I simply explained what net neutrality is? Why am I asking you? Why the ***** did you ask me?
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9http://digg.com/business_finance/AT_s_a_problem_It_s_called_Net_Neutrality

    guess what, it not only links to the source, but was also submitted before this one. And it's even in the correct category! thats probably why it doesn't have any diggs.
  • DTJunkie07, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I like net neutrality. Its okay if the government is involved, sometimes having the government involved is a good thing..ever think of that?
  • Lyanto, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16@mrfoos2
    Freedom is a nice word but it's an ideal, and ideals are inherently impossible to achieve. Net Neutrality is not about controlling ISP's resources, it's about preventing ISPs from having such extensive control over their resources that they begin to abuse that power. Freedom is freedom, but it has limits. So what would you rather have? Stripping the freedoms of the "little tubes" providers? Or stripping the freedoms of end users? Considering how badly ISPs are ripping us off in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world, I have no sympathy for them. Socialism or not, a little regulation to keep them in check is exactly what we need right now.
  • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11some of the extreme libertarian folk can't seem to grasp the fact that part of living in a society requires some order of governance. a civilized society protects the weak from the powerful. they are under the delusion that the free market will correct everything. what they don't realize is that the free market is a tool, not a system with a conscience.
  • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -12/+19Ron Paul is against net neutrality, so it's up to the Ron Paul crowd to spin Net Neutrality as a bad thing.

    Good thing Big Brother is always looking out for us. *cough*

    PS - a vast majority of anyone I talk to still doesn't even know who Ron Paul is unless you tell them. They've utterly failed to take the campaign off the internet.
  • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7He's right, The government did not build the internet, unless you want to consider the Defense programs as Internet precursors. By and large, however, the government did not bild the internet and does not control it.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I'm beginning to wonder if Ron Paul supporters actually know what the man stands for besides government=bad.
  • MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@mrfoos2 Sorry you got dugg down so far for just expressing your opinion... BUT..
    You can't simply take the telcos word on everything. Even a die hard capitalist has to accept that there needs to be regulation for 3 reasons.
    1. The federal and state governments paid for a significant portion of the telcos lines, including free land that the lines are placed on. (The government really should have forced dual ownership like they do on toll roads, but thats another issue)

    2. The internet is way too important to our economy to risk letting the interest of a few large companies destroy.
    (As before we shouldn't have put it squarely in their hands in the first place).

    3. Telcoes expect common carrier status, meaning they are not legally liable for what goes over the wire. In exchange for this they agree to treat all traffic equally. Once they start treating some traffic specially, they legally become liable for this traffic. So in reality we need to start properly enforcing the age old concept of common carrier, and the telcos need to pick, they don't deserve the best of both worlds.
  • rudy23, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9uh . . I have a question.

    What is Net Neutrality?
  • spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8LINK TO SOURCE:
    http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2007/06/05/new-at-t-same-as-the-old-at-t
  • dogshaft, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8The cure is... more cowbell.
  • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7well, considering the internet was already regulated to be neutral until the fcc reclassified broadband providers, i'd say net neutrality is a good thing. :P sometimes regulations are necessary to counter balance greedy, monopolistic companies.
  • arbulus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10The telcos (AT&T, Verizon, etc) want to turn the internet into a system where you have to pay higher fees to get decent bandwith. If you use AT&T for your internet provider, and Joe's Web Site hasn't paid AT&T enough in fees to insure that they will be able to get traffic, and you try to go to Joe's web site, you will have a difficult time. It will be slow, boggy, and might be choked out all together. Google on the other hand pays AT&T a large sum of fees to get the best access they can, and you can zip right over to Google, no problem at all. It creates a two-tiered system were those few sites with all the money get the most traffic and those with little money get little or no traffic because the telcos are explicitly choking their bandwith. But it might not even have to relate to fees. If Comcast doesn't like porn, they can choke out the bandwith to any porn sites from your location, so that you will not be able to access those sites, just simply because they don't agree with it. And they'll be able to do it because there isn't anything that tells them they can't.

    Net Neutrality aims to prevent this. It says "no matter who you are, where you are, or how much money you have, we are all on the same web. And the little guy deserves the same accessablity to his site that the big guy has" and it will prevent the very small handful of telecom companies from choking out an entire world of communication. The telcos want to control all of the tubes and all of the access points and wants to only allow you access to what they deem worthy. Net Neutrality will prevent this.
  • comedianX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I have always been baffled by the extreme libertarian faith that the free market will solve large issues like this. They somehow believe that a large bureaucratic corporation, with an ignorant board of directors and shortsighted shareholders is somehow MORE efficient than the government. How? "The Free Market!" Except there is NO free market for these large corporations, they own the everything from the fiber, to the switches, to the the local ISP's. How is competition supposed to arise here? A small company is going to lay down competing fiber next to the other fiber and "let the consumer decide?"

    The free market works perfectly with small things like service industries, and other things where the cost of entry in the market is small -- not on things like this. This legislation is more akin to anti-trust laws -- a large multinational corporation is NOT an American citizen. They shouldn't enjoy the same freedoms.
  • zengonzo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6 When companies seek regulation to protect their interests, it is important, vital legislation that will improve the security of their markets.

    When citizens seek regulation to protect their interests, it is out-of-control government mucking up the pristine perfection of the free market.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Its sad really, time to break away and create our own internet, thats separate from the real internet.
  • zengonzo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Great. But corporations wouldn't stop lobbying because protecting an industry is dangerous.

    Regulation isn't inherently bad. Some things ought to be regulated. Whether this does or not depends on the intentions of the companies involved.
  • ferndave, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7In my country there is problem.
    And that problem is a Bell.
    Video take a long time,
    Because the tubes are busy.

    Throw the Bell down the well,
    So my internet can be free.
    We must make internet easy,
    And we'll have a porn party...
  • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8sometimes laws and regulations are needed. not all are good. this one is.
  • demonsnake69, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Normally I would be against government regulation of any kind, but you can't trust any of the telcos in this case. So I'll be digging the article up.
  • NoodleGuy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I find it odd that a few years ago the AT&Ts, and Time Warners of the world were pushing for regulation of the Internet so they could be on an even playing field with the Vonages of the world. After all, a regulated internet means VoIP can be taxed in the same way that traditional phone service is taxed. It also means that new services like IPTV could be taxed as well. Everyone thought this was a bad idea at the time. We all said, the internet is different, it shouldn't be taxed on a service by service basis, and therefore the regulation that would allow this would be bad.

    Flash forward a year or two, they switch some wording around, make a few threats to sites like Google, and BLAMO now the whole world wants the internet to be regulated. Maybe I'm reading too much into the topic, but it seems to me like this may be playing into their hands??!?!??
  • Wacer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I agree with you that net neutrality is good. Look at the telephone market of the old days. The Internet has not been in mainstream use long enough to let companies manipulate content according to who fills their wallets the most. Maybe many years down the road there can be more deregulation. The only regulation that I want to see is that government does not allow sites to start charging according to how much is paid. Except for special traffic such as ICMP, NTP, and DNS packets that need priority, the rest of the packets that carry data to end users should not be discriminated against.

    I sounds like the big companies are look for an excuse to advertise subscriptions that are high speed to the Internet but then put in really fine print that only certain content will get high speeds and the others, such as peer-to-peer data, will be delegated to the garbage traffic lane.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
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.