What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
1004 Comments
- pjvdg, on 10/28/2009, -12/+2256And that would be the end of the internet (as we know it).
- athinnes, on 10/28/2009, -13/+1571Scary, scary *****.
- D1Foley, on 10/28/2009, -21/+1178Wow I could easily see that happening, I really ***** hope net neutrality passes.
- Hetman, on 10/28/2009, -6/+1045No porn?
- jdmonmou, on 10/28/2009, -11/+854This will set back the internet by about 15 years.
- AManWithNoName, on 10/28/2009, -15/+748***** JOHN MCCAIN.
- mishabear, on 10/28/2009, -9/+579So, much like cable TV now.
- radda, on 10/28/2009, -2/+502Porn is included in the base price actually. The internet was made for it after all, they can't charge extra for it.
- quink, on 10/28/2009, -17/+438As a representative from TELCO, I would just like to take this opportunity to reassure you that the current business models under which each of the thousands of smaller content providers operates has become untenable. Instead of letting this disparate multitude of companies charge their own ticket fares, we have chosen to consolidate existing services to allow for a massive increase provided in the value to our costumers by content providers and maintaining the sustainability of media offerings across the web. Peering arrangements and recent legislative changes have allowed us to increase the quality of service we offer.
It's certainly not the end of the Internet this Halloween - it's free YouTube+ for the first two weeks of November on all our customers on the 'news' or 'marketplace' value packs. - blankman, on 10/28/2009, -9/+429the thing is even if they did do this, the majority of people would still be clueless. ISP's will offer "all-in-one" packages, and everything will cost a lot more, and people will just be like "oh its ridiculous, my bill went way up!"
The majority will still not understand what has happened. And will be as clueless about it all as they are now. - FredFredrickson, on 10/28/2009, -6/+348Why does John McCain want to ruin the internet?
- d2cole, on 10/28/2009, -2/+318What's going to happen is Google is going to start to provide "net neutral" internet as a competitor to the major ISPs, then after everybody switches to the new "Google Web," Google will pretty much own the internet.
- houi, on 10/28/2009, -8/+308This needs to be printed and posted on the streets of every big city.
- XKZ8, on 10/28/2009, -9/+304This is the most terrifying thing I've ever seen posted here.
- hokie47, on 10/28/2009, -3/+254Remember when AOL went to unlimited usage? Granted there was a mess of busy phone signals, but it was a boon for the internet. People just want unlimited usage.
- junkwheel, on 10/28/2009, -1/+233Yes, there was a ***** up when they made that card, porn is $29.99 for 1 hour of streaming per month.
Your credit card will be discreetly billed as 'Internets Subscription + HARDCORE PORN PACKAGE' - shaka776, on 10/28/2009, -7/+224Meh, add them all together... still cheaper than Comcast.
- artfiend77, on 10/28/2009, -9/+201Christ that image scared the hell out of me...
- jimmyp80, on 10/28/2009, -3/+184Money. That is why. He was the biggest beneficiary of campaign contributions from ISPs.
- hokie47, on 10/28/2009, -2/+175Guys I think we just found our 28th amendment.
- DecoyQ, on 10/28/2009, -8/+171The hell it is. I'd like to pay per channel on cable. But NOOOOOO, I'm stuck with QVC, stupid reality/fake TV, MTV crapola (mine as well be the same as reality tv) and other crap when all I wanna watch is National Geographic and History Channel.
- EdwardsNH, on 10/28/2009, -2/+164brilliant!
- utahband, on 10/28/2009, -3/+153***** NO
- magamiako, on 10/28/2009, -2/+149This is unfortunately very, very true.
But you forgot one thing.
* Due to the nature of the internet, we do not guarantee availability of any of these services.
^^ Opt-out clause in case ***** hits the fan and they don't have to refund any $. - jeremiahjw, on 10/28/2009, -7/+143:-(
- Leonffs, on 11/20/2009, -2/+134It's not $5 for the services, it's $5 for the ability to access them. You would still have to pay their individual fees. So to pay wow would cost you 15+5, and steam would cost you 5/month plus the existing cost of games. The plan isnt to pay the web companies, its to charge you for the ability to access them
- JoeHague, on 10/28/2009, -3/+127Digg should pay me $5 a month with all the ***** links I click/
- shujin, on 10/28/2009, -6/+123What's wrong with the current system? Won't this just make the internet more expensive for the average user, and especially the power user? Won't this stifle the propagation of opensource material and lead to a reduction of competition in the marketplace? Doesn't a reduction in competition, all else equal, lead to higher prices for consumers? Won't this stifle innovation and prevent the new Facebooks, Youtubes and Googles from even emerging? Is there even ONE way that an absence of net neutrality benefits consumers in the long run?
- crazyhorse13, on 10/28/2009, -0/+103Except they'd all think it was serious and try to sign up for it.
- SilentSpyder, on 10/28/2009, -6/+95Commie! ;)
- mishabear, on 10/28/2009, -0/+84right, but you pay one rate for Bundle A, another for Bundle B, etc. I'd be paying for MySpace if I wanted to use Facebook. Same thing. In this case, you get QVC if you want NatGeo. I am with you, though. I would love to pay for only the channels I use. Of course, right now, to get the good channels, you need to buy Bundles A, B and C.
- BabySinister, on 10/28/2009, -0/+82tbh should this become reality id think we see a "third internet" rising really really quickly. there will be solely nerds on this "internet" so it will be filled with memes and porn.
- jtens, on 10/28/2009, -5/+86Terrifying.
- jordantneff, on 10/28/2009, -4/+81DO NOT WANT!
- sephiroth99, on 10/28/2009, -1/+72so you can reach your bandwidth limit faster :)
- Arkveld, on 10/28/2009, -1/+67Ironically, all that together is still cheaper than the only isp in my area (which I have to use)
Go figure. - Kate1240, on 10/28/2009, -1/+64Would you pay $5 extra to use Ebay/paypal, after selling something, you would probably lose money. After they get finished killing you with fees.
- bigbadgoat, on 10/28/2009, -1/+61could be Canadian.
In fact it could be any non-american english-speaking country. - xerograde, on 10/28/2009, -10/+70Great resource for people who are on the wrong side. The masses must be educated!!
- BabySinister, on 10/28/2009, -1/+60oh dear christ what if 4chan started its own internet
- ludocris, on 10/28/2009, -2/+61Is your ISP your mom? Cause she's not really the ISP she just pays the bill
- pjhorrex, on 10/28/2009, -3/+60We need to legislate the packages offered by ISPs because the ISPs have been able to legislate their own monopolies in areas.
- Speed, on 10/28/2009, -0/+56cuby: the internet isn't free. I pay $40/month for it. The issue is ISPs (which are already making tons of money), throttling the internet to make you pay more for services they don't provide. Let's say your ISP makes an agreement with Reddit, but not Digg. Why should you have to pay extra to your ISP to be able to access Digg at the same speed you can access Reddit? Bandwidth is bandwidth, and as long as you're within the cap you agreed to with your ISP (if you have a cap), why does it matter how you use it?
The fact of the matter is, this is about censorship. maybe not to prevent information, but really, censorship to make an extra buck isn't any better. If Hulu decides they need to start charging to use it because the advertising model isn't profitable enough, I have to question it, but ok. If Shaw Cable decides, however, that quick access to Youtube should be included in my bill, but I have to pay to get quick access to Revision 3: ***** no. - Langford, on 10/28/2009, -0/+55Dude, read the news. He is trying to hand the internet over to AT&T.
- IamJustinM, on 10/28/2009, -0/+54Maybe he thinks it's the only way he can prevent the whole world from seeing more of his daughters *****.
- Bookant, on 10/28/2009, -1/+53You're almost right exect for the part where's there no net neutrality law currently. Although that may be *technically* true, it's a recent development. The Internet as we existed only came into existence in the first place because the dial-up we were all using WAS covered by neutrality laws (common carrier), as was the telegraph before that. Then we all started moving away from dial-up . . . . .
And although it's true that the non-common-carrier ISPs haven't YET gone into full-on-*****, let's-carve-up the Internet mode (though there have been plenty of incidents of abusive blocking of content they didn't like), I'd argue that fear of an FCC responce is largely what's kept them in check. What do you think they're going to do if Congress passes a law specifically sheilding them from the FCC? - aednichols, on 10/28/2009, -0/+52He is afraid of things he doesn't understand.
- deddiode, on 10/28/2009, -1/+53@shujin: Guess quink should have put "/s" at the end :)
- hellengineer, on 10/28/2009, -9/+60close to what will happen, any details about who made this pic?
- Hetman, on 10/28/2009, -5/+55I know just like that one free cable T.V. company I have. You should sign up for it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1021 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is