digg

Join DiggAbout

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

2012: The Year The Internet Ends watch!

ipower.ning.com — How the industry will kill the Internet in about 4 years from now.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • GravePwnage, on 06/01/2008, -53/+866There's not really much for me to say except for that this information is important, and the word should get out.
    • SoopremeLee, on 06/01/2008, -4/+71And the faster the better, four years is too little time now that the agreements have already started.

      I see riots happening in four years from now. :)
      • kingfoot, on 06/02/2008, -0/+21WHAT.
        THE.
        *****.

        how can ANYONE think this is a good idea? even those goddamn hypocrites who are "in talks" that are busy surfing the net at will while not doing said talk...

        *****!
        • mavsman4457, on 06/02/2008, -1/+12When this thing happens I'm sure there will be some person in the Linux following that believe in freedom and makes their own ISP that everyone gets into because of sweet sweet freedom. Openness FTW. Oh and by the way, I'm pretty sure there has got to be some sort of antitrust laws that would thwart this plan. The internet lovers and justice are too great of a battle for these ISP's to even begin to make this happen.
        • tektalk, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1Oh man, if the talks are really happening and this really does happen in 2012, then it is incontrovertible proof that there truly is no god.
      • tornadosniper, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5I'll be rioting next to everyone else if/when this ***** goes down.
      • speakafreaka, on 06/02/2008, -2/+7The proposal doesnt work at all. Its assuming the users are all within the US.

        Its alarmist BS that could never be implemented. I could understand a relaunch of Web 2.0 in an early AOL/Compuserve-like fashion for the techtards out there, but you would need a world wide implementation for it to completely kill the internets. which wont happen.
    • xXIrsotehkewlXx, on 06/01/2008, -4/+24It does need to get out, but really, what can be done?
      We can write strongly worded letters.
      We can come together to make our voice louder.

      It just worries me that it won't be enough.
      And, what if we aren't strong enough to stop it?
      • theonlywizdum, on 06/01/2008, -2/+49We can shoot all the CEOs that came up with this moronic idea.
        • Rahodeb, on 06/01/2008, -7/+76Don't worry about it, it's not going to happen, this is a bunch of alarmist bullcrap. There are laws in place to stop this kind of anti-competitive behavior and they are enforced.

          Additionally, what it the hell makes anyone think that the internet could be restricted down to a handful of sites without a full scale riot. No new domains? No new e-commerce sites? Riiight.
        • defectDS, on 06/01/2008, -0/+19Sometimes alarmist bullcrap is all it takes to just bring these kinds of things to attention. To say that nothing can happen with the internet in the hands of the ISPs is completely ignorant. If that were true, net-neutrality would be a nonissue.

          They may not section off the huge websites, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't section off the little things like bittorrent and the like.
        • Sanctums, on 06/02/2008, -1/+4I agree this is somewhat alarmist; I don't mean to sound naive, but if they did that, tens of billions of dollars in the US alone would be lost. I would at least hope that some politician is in the pocket of big e-commerce.

          Another thing. ISPs aren't the internet. In a very worse case scenario, and a grim one this would be, we can forge a new network.
        • XGC75, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2"but if they did that, tens of billions of dollars in the US alone would be lost"

          I'm sure that's what Ford, the General and Chrysler said about the Unions (hah!). In other words, it's possible. Unlikely, yes, but very possible.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/01/2008, -0/+18That's what the 2nd amendment is for, as long as you start considering industry a tyrannical arm of the government, which in some cases is true because of how corrupt they both are.
        • sephiroth965, on 06/01/2008, -0/+14Considering our current president is just a puppet of corporate lobbyists, I'd say it's the other way around.
        • kuzotz, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7I htink poeple make the mistake that it's te gov't. fault. First of all it's all fault we lost control of the gov't and now the gov't is controlled by corporations. Our enemies are corporations.
        • Junior612, on 06/02/2008, -10/+0Jee, kuzotz.... seeing as you're from the United States I bet you've never purchased anything from a Wal-Mart. Probably you've never had McDonald's before either. Those damn EVIL CORPORATIONS!!!! In fact I bet everything you own you've made by hand, or had someone else make by hand for you. Right? Never give in to those EVIL CORPORATIONS!!!!


          ***** schmuck.
        • libervisco, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4The problem aren't corporations by themselves as much as this whole authoritarian system of government which allowed making of corporations as business forms too protected from consequences of irresponsible and unethical business practices.

          This makes corporate world an extension of government, like a layer that is fueled by government and stands between government and true honest businesses like Small and Medium Enterprises as well as the rest of us.

          It's not that governments control corporations or that corporations control the governments. It's both at the same time, because the power structure we have allows it. Translation: thanks to our modern governments we do not have a truly free market. And this is what makes threats like this possible.
      • Dotcommer, on 06/01/2008, -4/+58If we're not strong enough to fight it, then we'll retreat into the woods, and fight boars until we reach lvl 70. Then we go back and destroy them.
      • mangojump, on 06/01/2008, -0/+19all you need to do is start an ISP and offer access to any site to anyone. You will get more customers than you ever dreamed of, all other ISPs will look at you and realise "damn we had it right the first time!"
        • gbarberi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+14If you start your own ISP, who's pipes will you use? Theirs?
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7Yea and I'm quite sure the tier 1 providers will refuse to offer you service or peer with your network
        • rpgmaker, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7If it was that easy to start your own ISP "from the scratch" you wouldn't be stuck with 3 bigs ISPs. The greed from those bastards and their lobbyist have made competence almost obsolete, even the "smaller" ISPs need the big ones to provide their services.
        • mangojump, on 06/03/2008, -1/+43 big ISPs? There are more countries in the world than America
      • Latentsage, on 06/02/2008, -1/+10It's kind of a simple matter. They can't control the internet. If the isp's lose the fragile balance they have between freedom and control, a new net will surpass their old one. We can lay new cables, we can make new connections. They can't stop us.
      • hodrige, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3VOTE WELL!!!

        Don't vote for someone that is on the telco companies payroll!!!!!
      • muffinmonk, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5We need to get Al Gore for President.
    • salomejones, on 06/01/2008, -5/+152"certain isps" does NOT cut it. For the last time, NAME THEM. Any wafflehead with a handicam can send out a "warning" and make it to the digg front page. But now its time to pony up the information and bring this story from paranoid fringe into relevancy.
      • shwerm601, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7touche good sir
      • superoven, on 06/02/2008, -6/+0were you listening? they did. try again
        • m0shen, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4The only one I heard was virgin media
      • vanscott, on 06/02/2008, -5/+9They sound exclusively like paranoid stoners.
      • bennovw, on 06/02/2008, -1/+9Actually, these people are a very prominent net neutrality group in Belgium. Have you seen those stories about a Belgian girl having sex with virgin guys who support net neutrality?

        http://gizmodo.com/383944/sexy-lady-offers-to-harv ...

        These people are associated with her campaign. So NO they are not just any "wafflehead with a handicam".
        I have to agree though, NAME THEM, WHO is against net neutrality!
      • chaosblade77, on 06/02/2008, -0/+12Mentioning specific ISPs in an announcement like that could be extremely dangerous. Even if they just mentioned "Comcast" in the video, Comcast would practically go on a manhunt to try to figure out who gave them the inside information. Not only would that hurt the insider, but it would hurt their ability to gain inside information again.

        Makes it a believe it if you want to believe it type thing, but with what we've seen these corporations do I wouldn't put this sort of thing beyond them. Who knows.
        • salomejones, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Alright, then I shall demonstrate by example:

          RCN in Chicago has been letting the FBI look live customer data streams (email, web browsing, etc) without warrants, and also without *notification* either to the customer or to RCN...for the last nine years. They were one of the first Carnivore testbeds, and it stuck. How do I know this?

          Because I quit my job the moment it was made clear to me that I would do exactly what agents ***** and ***** told me to, when they told me to do it--or I would be fired. Thats the great thing about the FBI, if you're not being hunted by them, you're working for them, whether you like it or not.

          There, thats a bit of juicy information. The company is named, a timeline is defined, and I expect precisely nothing to come of it at all. I realize I no longer work for RCN and therefore my job is not in danger, but it comes right down to this---in the case of massive fascist moves by the FBI or neutrality opponents--if you're lifting one ***** finger to help these bastards, you're ONE OF THE BASTARDS. You deserve to be fired at the very least, so cough up the information.
        • supermanKD, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2I have a question Why hasn't Kevin Rose Dugg this?
      • earthforce1, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1We know who the enemies are in Canada:
        http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/30/tech ...
        http://torrentfreak.com/rogers-fighting-bittorrent ...

        And who the heroes are:
        http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Indie-ISPs-Eyei ...


    • phatcat77, on 06/01/2008, -2/+59It doesn't matter, if they do this someone will make an alternate web. Businesses have to provide what costumers want, or someone ells will. The internet is a technology not a property, people know how it works. If every provider stopped providing the internet experience that void will be filled by someone ells. It's something we should be aware of but I wouldn't worry about it that much.
      • TheJokerV, on 06/01/2008, -1/+10Making an alternative web isn't easy. The cost/time needed to build up such an infrastructure is enormous. Really if all internet companies choose to make the switch at the same time we're *****.
        • neko6, on 06/01/2008, -0/+20I will switch to spending most of my time on this alternate web if the free internet is destroyed - and I'm sure millions of engineers, programmers and computer scientists around the world would join.
        • shwerm601, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I could see the internet moving infrastructure in the next few years if technology continues
        • kuzotz, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7neko don't forget that the hackers already have an underground internet. Trust me we might just have to use what is given to us, and find ways to break the barriers that will be put on the net. I think this is the best time to join the fight and learn how to program that way you have the knowledge to hack and crack. Internet wars have always happened, but it's about to seriously become hackers vs. corporations very very soon because right now it's usually hackers against other hackers and then the corporations that manipulate them, and then the corporations that hire hackers to combat other hackers on the net. I wouldn't worry so much because the alternative internet has always existed, and is just going to become more hidden. I suggest you find it now before it becomes too impossible. Because trust me you don't want to be stuck in what's going to be fed to the mainstream.
        • anarchyx34, on 06/02/2008, -0/+11HACK THE PLANET!!!!
        • stoanhart, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8Wireless Mesh Networks

          That is how you create an alternate internet. Once they start springing up, routers with good mesh capabilities will sell like hotcakes. In turn, the creators of those routers will make better ones that can network together more people, faster, and over a longer distance; this will cause the mesh to grow faster and stronger, so more people will join it, and so forth.
      • defectDS, on 06/01/2008, -0/+16Come oooooon Google.
      • asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9The access providers are in on it. That means the ones who lay the cables and own the airwaves... It's not possible to circumvent this.
        • phatcat77, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2First of all where is your evidence? second of all there are lots of competing companies regulating those services including the government. As of now the Federal Government would not allow a monopolization or agreement of that kind. Thats why you should be aware of the issue and legislation that comes up about it, but I honestly cannot see this happening. The consumer backlash would be monumental.
        • userperson, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2The people are 'supposed' to own the airwaves.
          Granted in reality it's the government.
      • benecere, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2You have to remember, though, a company has to get permission to lay those lines. There will be claim after claim of interference to existing lines and you are talking about a network spanning the entire nation.

        It matters who comprises our government, now, as well as in 2012, Now is exactly when we need to make "net neutrality" a major issue that determines who gets our vote. That's really the bottom line because that's what's going to determine whether net neutrality will be born or be stillborn, and whether the ISPs get to be even more monopolized than they are now.

        I seriously doubt that a mythical "somebody" can save us if the legislative and judiciary power of the country leans against it. And the longer it takes, the longer the current ISP's will have to solidify their "new" structure.
      • skaggmannen, on 06/02/2008, -2/+0It would be quite hard to create an alternate internet if all the IP addresses are owned by said ISPs. It would be like the licensing of radio frequencies for the TV or mobile networks, in the way that only a few large companies could actually afford to own IPs.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 06/01/2008, -3/+28I support free internet but, that video was really bland to the general public.
    • Floomdesk, on 06/01/2008, -1/+12digging this can help saving digg... I don't think companies like these will want a neutral site like digg to co-exist beside their sites.
      GET ACTIVE NOW
      • anotherdigguser, on 06/01/2008, -0/+15if this actually happens, there won't even be a need for digg, interesting stories online will only be limited to the few sites people have access to.
        • rex84, on 06/01/2008, -0/+19I think the problem is that there won't be any interesting stories, everything will be provided to you by the same people who brought you "reality" television.
    • rezist, on 06/01/2008, -6/+1then why say anything at all?
    • bj1989, on 06/01/2008, -7/+43There are now 197 comments, this story has 888 diggs. In the video they keep claiming that anyone with some contacts should be able to confirm what they are saying, they keep hammering the fact that deals are being signed everywhere. Nobody on digg, out of all the thousands of people who read this, has been able to provide a source that confirms this. Nobody!
      While net neutrality is something we should take very seriously, these people are just attention whores.
      • benecere, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Regardless, I cannot doubt for a minute that the cable companies and telcos aren't out to do this. It is their business model; it is the way they rack in the big bucks.

        I think Comcast will definitely want to tier my service if they can get away with it. They package and sell, then package and sell some more. That is what they do.

        Hell, they tell you that you may not set up your own network (here they do, anyway) and charge $150 bucks for some contractor to hook up a router and configure your network . Fortunately, they don't complain if you go ahead and do it, but they tell you it's not allowed.
    • topgigmedia, on 06/01/2008, -3/+51$ is the bottom line. Trust me, if this does happen and consumer demand pushes for the "old internets", a company or 10 will rise up out of the abyss and start offering the service again. The Net is going nowhere. If these companies try to do this they will loose.

      With Television, most of us had/have nothing to do with the content. With the internet, we ARE the content. It is like comparing apples and oranges when the Internet and television (cable) models are compared. Someone will always be offering access the "whole internet" as a service

      • shwerm601, on 06/02/2008, -1/+4best comment thus far
        • Appleologist, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2best as in most intelligent
        • smthop3, on 06/02/2008, -0/+9It was a good comment, but it's LOSE. I'm sorry, I can't be the only one coming across that misspelling a lot.
      • oolatin79, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5Just something to consider: Which pipe will the 10 companies that will supposedly "rise up out of the abyss" get their internet content from? Will they connect to the magical internet pipe in the center of the earth and start pushing that out to people? No. They'll probably have to rent one of the ones owned by the major players; which means that it is highly unlikely that the major players would allow another company to not play by the same rules.
      • chijim70, on 06/02/2008, -7/+2I don't know if what you say is necessarily true because of the ability of these large companies to influence government and produce insanely unconstitutional regulations already. There are a million instances already in many disparate businesses where corporations in the U.S. let alone the world are doing things that we would have thought unheard of in the past; from production and resale of a countries own currency by private banking corporations (federal reserve) to corporations forming their own private for hire armies (blackwater). So, many of the things we used to think futuristic sci fi are now realities. Look at Starbucks and how damn hard it is to find a mom and pop coffee shop let alone any store non corporate. You should see how many previously thriving communities here in Chicago now have a main street of closed shops. I was struck traveling to Lancaster, PA from Chicago 2 weeks ago at how they charge you to use the interstates while running the rest stops for anything you might need (including internet, and no tmobile or att hotspots... state ones even with a damn Starbucks in them!) with extreme price gouging and the penalty (let alone difficulty) of tolls for jumping off said interstate to get to anything local where prices would be more reasonable. They even seem to have situated the interstates in a manner that makes it non cost effective to even travel that far off it to save the money you would otherwise spend at their rest stops. This is corporate social engineering at it's finest. In Chicago here I go out and about and hear so much now about how (being a technician and a social drinker etc.) people have major problems surmounting regulations, zoning, permits, and how the "other guy" who knows such and such got ahead of the game, is constantly eeking out start up or smaller business. Sure there is supply and demand, but if the obstacle to your need for a certain supply comes at an unsurmountable cost for the provider that by necessity was passed on to you by the provider of that service then of course demand flows to that which is cheaper and more easily attained. The ideas of pure supply and demand where you stand back and watch as the market regulates itself are only possible as a by product of a more libertarian or deregulated society and we certainly do not have that. Insert if you will a Ron Paul plug but it's true. We are living and in an ever increasing corporatist society where the corporations set the rules not the consumer. I was just joking with a buddy earlier this evening about how I dare you to go out and about in Chicago and spend a normal day or hell even a holiday shopping spree buying American. Since we literally produce almost nothing anymore unless you live in a very rural area it is nearly impossible to do. And by rural i mean like in PA where you can buy Amish goods and you obviously are not getting your tech or auto needs met by them! I am sure that is the case for the majority of us here in the U.S. let alone overseas.
        We have let this happen though and honestly only have ourselves to blame. Had Americans and for sure people all over the world not had their heads up their asses consuming with abandon and living fat and happy thinking this will never end we wouldn't be in this mess. Perhaps not thinking as a family of generations but as individuals has cause this result as well. "THEY" (you pick who "they" is) obviously thought further ahead than us common people. In the US we allowed the son of a Nazi bent on global dominance economically to take office then invited his son to power too. Being kind and liberal socially we did not invite the sins of the father argument into public discourse... perhaps we have learned a lesson? In the middle of father and son we bought the lie that democrats and republicans are any different than eachother and let Clinton sell our jobs overseas via NAFTA etc. Now Americans are rich or poor... no more middle class which used to be the backbone of this nation that specially were you to be elected you must appeal to. We did all of this thinking what the media tells us is true about any of these people as if they had no corporate masters themselves and no interest in lying to us because after all they "seemed honest". I won't lie, I was there too, but in my defense I was young and unaware and of course nothing in this society encourages individualism or self education which speaks to the issue of how we educate our kids. i had suspicions certainly but never understood the broader picture until into my 30's. They got us coming and going and in the grand scheme it isn't even that many who hoodwinked us... just enough to run it from the top and fool us all. It's a long road back if it's not too late and short of people waking up and voting in some seriously extreme reformers things are going to continue as they are in faster or slower pace but continue nonetheless onward to an enslaved subservient consumeristic ignorant majority that the corporations own...
        • inspecality, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6Paragraphs, dude.
        • chijim70, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3tried... they didn show up in the end result... I didn't program this *****... maybe it was because I'm on a mac?
        • rahulkolasseri, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1just shut up!!!
        • chijim70, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2rahulkolasseri - genius,,, perhaps argue against anything I said intellectually? Just a thought...
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -11/+5This information is wrong.
      • chromerium, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2You're right, but you're being dugg down because you don't say why.

        It's wrong because they're confusing the exhaustion of ipv4 space in 2012 with the net neutrality issue, and its in no way related.
    • CasaMan, on 06/01/2008, -2/+33You guys really think ALL the isp's in the world would are against open internet. Net neutrality is a serious issue but that doesn't mean these conspiracy theorist are right..

      It will never happen, at least outside not the united states.. Every isp that will close down the internet will essentialy close down it's business.. Consumers will move to open prividers like xs4all. The law of supply and demand will correct such behaviour.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XS4ALL
      • shwerm601, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3its interesting, because in some ways they are making more money by letting us do what we want... ie. download pirated software (movies, games, mp3s, apps etc.) but how many of us actually pay top dollar for a fast connection or do we just settle for the low end and still leech our warez? Is the cup half full or half empty? I dont know but I do know that i am waiting on fios to hit Columbus because I am so tired of time warner.
        • JDiZZle300Z, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Amen to that brother. Waiting for it in Cincinnati. Not that TW is bad just that they have absolutely no high speed competition here and that makes absolutely no sense to me.
      • DeadElephant, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5I'll bookmark that site and keep it, when 2012 rolls around and I'm paying for what they said, I'll switch (even if it's dial up).

        Till then, I'll bide my time and see where this goes.
    • 40yrOldVirgin, on 06/01/2008, -1/+14What would be the point of google if this happen? Don't you think they would fight it?
      • noots, on 06/01/2008, -0/+14also, why the ***** would they even put google in a package? nevermind that it's in a lesser priced one. If you were going to restrict the access to certain websites you wouldn't give the user the number one search tool on the internet for finding other sites.

        seriously, either i'm retarded or it is completely impossible for this business model to work.

        there is no way in hell EVERY isp would switch to this business model instantly, and if a couple tried to they would lose 99.9% of their custom and all of the other ISP's wouldn't follow suit.
        • chromerium, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4Hah yeah, exactly. It doesn't work unless every single ISP is in on the deal, and they're not.

          I think the conspiracy nutjobs in question here are confusing the exhaustion of the ipv4 space in 2012 and the ongoing migration to ipv6. But what they don't understand, because they're not in any way technical people who understand the problem, is that the internet won't "cease to be" on 2012 - it just means new ipv4 addresses can't be handed out, and companies will need to make do with what they have, and possibly trade some of the space around a little more efficiently until ipv6 has enough penetration.

          There won't be a 'big bang' switchover to ipv6, and when ipv6 is made the default protocol for users they'll find everything they used to access and use on the net is still there, with 6-to-4 gateways providing access to the older internet until those old hosts are upgraded.
    • goelp, on 06/01/2008, -0/+10Number of websites have sprung up to prevent it from happening such as SaveTheInternet.com, SaveNetNeutrality.com, OpenInternetCoalition.com and Google’s stance on the issue ( http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html ).

      Such sentiments are echoed by Sir Tim Berners Lee (inventor of web) in his blog post on net neutrality ( http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 ).
    • mikegt92, on 06/01/2008, -7/+1um...i dont now about you guys...
      but wasn't the world supposed to end in 2012
      from this cult person..

      and simmilarities internet 2012 world 2012
    • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/01/2008, -2/+15What the market wants, the market gets. Simple as that. Stop being alarmist.
      • rodent54, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2What the market wants = marketing..... Lot of people think how you tell them to :( I table this story as proof.
      • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I table every wildly successful product and service ever made.
    • JettaMan, on 06/01/2008, -5/+13This is overly dramatic *****. Forgive me if I don't go marking 2012 in my calendar. No the internet will not end if we "don't do something" (AKA force companies to do ***** they shouldn't have to). The people in this video are *exactly* the type of fuzzy-headed thinkers I imagined would support more government regulation. The free markets brought incredible innovation in the Internet space and they will continue to do so. Don't stifle it with unnecessary government regulation! All it does is makes it more difficult for others to enter the market. Haven't we learned from the drug companies? From the car companies? Only multi-billion dollar corporations can survive when everything is regulated.
      • kuzotz, on 06/02/2008, -10/+5YOu seem to be one of those fuzzy headed thinkers that have forgotten that once monopolies start, and once competition stops. That to make money they no longer need to innovate be be creative, and be top of the edge. They can just throw out the worse possible ***** and know they will make a profit from it anyway. This is what is happening today, and corporations are controling governments more and more. The US government is heavily controlled by a few powerful corporations, and it has had tremendious effect on the American economy, and the America society in general. My god America has the worse cars that just dirnk gas up. Just dirnk it up, and we can't get access to cars that are more efficient to fuel. 35mpg is not good enough. My god 40 mpg isn't good enough. In germany I saw cars that did 50 mpg.For christ sake America is being left behind and it is at the fault of the corporations.

        No system is perfect, and that includes capitalism. This is what happens when capitalism goes worngg. To say it will never go wrong is ridiculious in and of itself. To be brain washed into thinking capitalism = true freedom is ridiculious because under capitalism someone else suffers so that you can prosper. And it isn't a 1:1 ratio.

        every 1 successful person had to step over and make at least 10 others suffer.

        so it's 1:10. It's extremely exploitative, and yea the economic policies and different economic systems before capitalism was worse, but it's time we evolved from capitalism. Take what's good from it and develop a new economic system that can benefit more people and exploit less. Then we evolve from that and do the same thing. Until yea only 1 unlucky bastard gets *****.

        With that being said capitalism isn't the best, and socialism alone can't help us. We just need to evolve, and develop something that continues to allow innovation and creativity, and progress towards human kind. Because if we stay capitalistic forever I think it would become our down fall as humans. We need to get out there and stop being complacent on having the same ***** we need to keep changing, and keep improving, and keep from becoming stagnant.

        Because at this point the downfalls of capitalism is no different from the downfalls of communism, and trust me communism is not socialism, and socialism is actually a bit better than communism because it doesn't try to break down te social systems that yes humans ***** need to survive. Pure ***** capitalism does destroy social systems that humans need to survive, and yea sure socialist regimes have been despotic, but corporations in a capitalistic system that is pure market does the same ***** to it's workers. ***** that ***** as far as I am concerned the only different between the two is that I can choose to get ***** in the ass by a dildo or a pink dildo.
        • JettaMan, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3"YOu seem to be one of those fuzzy headed thinkers that have forgotten that once monopolies start, and once competition stops. That to make money they no longer need to innovate be be creative, and be top of the edge. They can just throw out the worse possible ***** and know they will make a profit from it anyway."

          Wow, you haven't been around very long, have you? When companies stop being competitive, people stop using their products and they go broke. If they don't innovate, they are replaced *as long as we don't do something stupid like make regulations that make it impossible to enter the marketplace.* All you need to do is let the market remain open for entry by new entrepreneurs. Let me know when you have some grasp of basic free market principles.
        • perlhaqr, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1"In germany I saw cars that did 50 mpg.For christ sake America is being left behind and it is at the fault of the corporations."

          I suppose all of those cars you saw in Germany were hand built then? No? Made by corporations? My god, how can that be? In fact, I'd bet at least some of those cars were made by corporations that import cars to the United States. And do you know the reason they don't import those high mileage cars to the United States? Because they don't meet EPA regulations, or DOT crash standards. You don't think VW could sell 75 MPG Lupos all day long? I don't think it's the f'n corporations you need to be railing against here, bub, all your woes on those lines are governmental in origin.

          "To be brain washed into thinking capitalism = true freedom is ridiculious because under capitalism someone else suffers so that you can prosper. And it isn't a 1:1 ratio.

          every 1 successful person had to step over and make at least 10 others suffer.

          so it's 1:10. It's extremely exploitative, and yea the economic policies and different economic systems before capitalism was worse, but it's time we evolved from capitalism."

          Pull your head out of your fourth point of contact, and leave your idiotic statistics there. Economics isn't a zero sum game. The whole point of the bloody free market is that both sides of an exchange consider themselves to have improved their situation by the trade.

          Just take a moment to look around the planet, and figure out where all the improvements in life came from. Here's a hint, it wasn't places where the market is weak, and now that America is weakening the market through government regulation, we're not innovating as much any more. So take your sophomoric wage-slave drivel and get a f'n clue.
      • libervisco, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Well said. I frowned when these guys suggested to "make it political". If there is a threat here it wont be solved by more regulation without bringing in a possibly even worse problem. The way to fight this is through the market and ONLY through the market. Build alternatives, compete and be very very vocal about your desires.

        Supply and demand is what it's all about. Why the heck would they shoot themselves in the foot if they realize that by doing this they would only lose customers?

        The only way they could possibly succeed at doing so despite violating the natural law of the supply and demand is by having government help the force their monopoly on us. Therefore the last freaking thing we should do is invite government to help us! We might as well just do nothing then.

        Besides, these corporations managed to get as powerful as they are in big part because of government instituted protection from consequences of doing bad business. What else is "limited liability" about, seriously? Limited liability should die. If everyone was 100% responsible for what they did it'd be much harder for any company to become too powerful.

        So, we're in fact fighting a problem *created* by government regulation of the market. Sure as hell we can't solve it by increasing regulation.
    • rodent54, on 06/01/2008, -0/+11I support net neutrality but I think these guys (and gal) have it wrong or at least have gone OTT.

      For most big firms having a net that has lots of providers is a good thing. It is for Goggle, Yahoo! etc. It is for HP, IBM, Sun, and all the hardware providers. Only a few 'traditional media' companies would benefit from the channel approach.

      They also assume the the net is about the web, and nothing but the web. Most companies rely on the net to provide access to data that is not web based. Often B2B systems use SOA over the net, VOIP, FTP, etc. Often these interactions occur over VPN's the run over the public internet backbones.

      Now even if the net was only just the web, do you really think all these 'big firms' could agree of providing limited 'channel' like access? Get a grip - they squabble like school kids most of the time.


    • reyesz, on 06/01/2008, -0/+15microsoft and yahoo can't get to an agreement, do you think all the ISPs in the world will?
    • BlaenkDenum, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6Whenever I hear these issues of net neutrality I feel devastated, sad, angry, nostalgic, etc. all at the same time. *****, this is the Internet, we better not let this happen. A tiny portion of us were able to make noise with the whole Scientology issue, I think we will all come together, in greater numbers, and make not only noise, but the point that no one will ever ***** around with OUR Internet. This is the only free medium, non-unilateral mass media where anyone can convey their views, anyone can be creative and show what they have, anyone can do /anything/, become /anyone. We all talk about the practices of the corporate world and how the fat ass corporate dicks who only want more money for themselves, we know what goes on in this world, we won't let them ***** up ours.
      • JettaMan, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1You know they are the ones who built that computer in front of you, ya? And you know they are the ones who built those routers that make the Internet, ya? So in fact they actually made the world a better place - without even forcing you to do anything against your will. You decided you wanted to use their products.

        Got anything else dumb to say jackass?
        • BlaenkDenum, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Define 'they', I'm not saying every corporation is by nature evil or anything, I'm referring to the ones trying to exploit the current situation at this moment. And no, 'jackass', /they/ didn't build the routers /or/ the computer, the poor bastard children in poor raped countries like China and Indonesia did.
    • thebrok3nsystm, on 06/01/2008, -2/+5If the best Paladin in the world says its a big deal.. Well you just have to trust what he says..
      • Aikidi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0i knew i recognized that ***** from somewhere.
    • SquigglyP, on 06/02/2008, -3/+23If anyone... ANYONE... honestly believes that the ISP's would do something so HORRIBLY ***** STUPID, then you probably need to have your net shut off, anyway. Seriously... limiting the internet to even 100 or 500 specific websites would completely ***** cripple our economy, and economies all over the world. Do you realize how many people have internet-based jobs, and how many brick and mortar businesses would also be damaged? A couple of weeks after a switch like that, I guarantee you that at least 5% of the population of the US gets laid off or fired. Our economy would tank. The net - the whole net - is too ingrained into our daily lives now. The ISP's would effectively kill the one thing the internet has going for it at all - the fact that you and me and my aunt Gertrude can access stuff, upload our own content and build and maintain our own sites.

      Any ISP that made that switch would be committing suicide, if not immediately, then the ramifications economically - on a global scale - would kill them off. There's just no ***** way the ISP's are that stupid.
    • mrASSMAN, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Luckily I use a local and city-sponsored ISP.. not only is it much cheaper than the national ISPs like Comcast, they don't throttle torrents and they value happy customers over immediate profit. Plus, annual speed-increases.

      Check out your own local providers, punish Comcast for their dirty business practices.
      • Whaines, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I always look into this but it's always more money for less speed where I've lived.
    • zxgravediggerxz, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8LOL
      brought to you by..... the infamous Athene the "World of Warcraft tips from a drug addict"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlP6wbiPhB4&eurl=ht ...

      so that vid is fake even tho it does touch on net neutrality issues
      • JettaMan, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4Digg users have to be some of the dumbest people on the planet.
    • hikarateboy, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5Check out one of the key people from this video. This all just a big viral marketing stunt to make them 'somebody' after you get done with seeing him here (Dork!) look for his pwning noobs on wow video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq0tLHhsWtQ
    • Marijuana, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The internet challenges the status quo. That's all I have to say.
    • hollyminkowski, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3This is crap.
      Don't be stupid and believe this.
      Anyway, any 'damage' of this sort would be routed around and made ineffective.
    • Nollykin, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Screw scientology. Anonymous should get behind *this*.
    • trunkster, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Talk about subliminal boobies shot (I know it's for the youtube thumbnail). The rest of the videos on her channel have nothing to do with this either.

      If this were to happen, then all those addicted to the internet will be ***** raiding all ISP offices. We could still organize through dial-up BBS!
    • Xviper78, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0OhhhNoWZZ! I getz my Caturday by mail in 2012?? yoothinize me befores I klaws my Iyes out!!
    • PRlME, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The amount of diggers that think this ***** is real........ is truly saddening.
    • Silverbluenote, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Why do you people believe everything you are told ? Do you think a giant like Google would let this stuff happens ? if the net would consist of only 200 or so web sites, it would render google's search engine meaningless. who needs a search engine when you have 2 or 3 sites for each subject you look for ?
    • HamNCheese, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
    • bot001220, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1There's "something awful" going on here.
    • KingPastis, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Corporate entities will have to start taking responsibility for their actions publicly. This means that the public will have to start to take responsibility for their consumption, and commerce. I am talking about group/people-power being used in a strong movement towards holding responsible the business community for infractions upon human rights. Currently our business community is in an imperialist movement, exporting finance from one place back to their homes. Companies use their market share like a Sherman tank sitting on the border, protecting their own interests. This is how wars are being waged right now. As the buying public, all people have to ask the businesses that we are buying from what their intentions are. If net neutrality is not in their agenda, we will have to find another place to buy from, or simply not buy for some time. The power is in the money that runs these companies, and that money is in our pockets.
    • parallelblue, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0For anyone who is stupid enough to thing this isn't happening, or think "Google wouldn't let his happen":
      http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
      Google does not own the internet, and can't do whatever it wants. It wants net neutrality as much as we do. This is happening.
    • nimawin, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Question... ummm, suppose i buy the package that has google in it.. how the ***** am i going to use google if i can't visit my ***** search results? *****
    • leffunov, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1The US government needs to hear our words more than the corporate lobbyists who we are really fighting against. As long as lobbyists exist we can't have true representation.
    • HamNCheese, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0Pure FUD. Nothing to see here, move along...

      While some people may not have a clue about network neutrality, there is no way in hell it will go on unregulated for much longer.
    • linsignifiant, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0I think the net neutrality is important for the free thought and to explain his ideas.
      viva la libertad y la revolucion !
    • smallchaz, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0It's not really that tragic. Because it won't happen
    • OblivionMage, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1How can I vote against the 'is inaccurate' tag?
    • pwsinc, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0Clearly to remove the freedom of the internet would be an atrocity.
      Don't think that people looking to profit don't consider it. After all,
      governments have put tollways that require you to pay to drive on
      them so this would not be a HUGE shocker.

      At the same time, I feel that it can all be avoided if people just raise their voice.
    • jasjoe, on 08/25/2008, -0/+0i dont know what to say,,, but dont think 2012 its the end of the Internet... our internet poWEr its just begun... anyway goodluck to you'll ... peAce

      http://longboard-skateboards.blogspot.com
  • wtf, on 06/01/2008, -29/+1188I can't tell if this is completely true. But even if it's only 10% true: this is a big ***** deal.
    • sockpuppets, on 06/01/2008, -7/+184I do as the boobies command me.
      • vondrak, on 06/01/2008, -1/+44Yeah when I saw that chick's cleavage I thought this was going to be some kinda joke, but aside from that and those haircuts it's a serious issue.
        • uhhNo, on 06/01/2008, -0/+61I like that random cleavage shot at 6:23.
        • scarwars, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4the madonna with the big boobies saved me
        • legom, on 06/01/2008, -1/+12@uhhNo: That's because it's exactly half-way through the video and that's precisely where YouTube grabs the screenshot for the preview.
        • mrbeagle, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8Subliminal advertising at work
        • tyywebb, on 06/02/2008, -2/+8legom: Yeah but notice how the camera is on the one guy talking then suddenly for no apparent reason cuts to glorious boobie shot. They obviously added that in the exact middle of the video because they wanted that as the thumbnail to try to get more viewers!
        • candlestickjack, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0That's the reason I started watching this video tbh.
      • theone3, on 06/01/2008, -2/+10Haha.. actually that's a valid point.

        This will never work. The internet is for porn. People will happily what they are currently paying for access to porn, so these cut-price limited accounts are going nowhere unless Disney starts dishing out the boobies.
      • onlinegames, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0yeah! :-)
    • Milo45, on 06/01/2008, -14/+3No I can assure you its real
      • purzzzell, on 06/01/2008, -1/+11Great - I now have the assurance of Milo45 on Digg, so it must be real.


        Look - I believe in net neutrality - we know it's an issue due to actions/statements by companies such as virgin and comcast - but a statement like this, with poor grammar and punctuation no less, adds NO VALUE.

        WTF? Source or STFU!
      • TheSabre, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4Prove it. Show some proof of these secret discussions taking place under signed NDAs.
    • ozid, on 06/01/2008, -2/+18There is no downside to supporting this cause, unless you don't want these people to make money. The girl has been using her assets to push her agenda for a couple months now, I don't really care if my pageviews generate them some cash.

      I do care if people want to take away my website, or websites I visit and internet as a whole just to squeeze the most cash out of it. It's unfair that it has even come to this, and I'm more than willing to put some coin in these people's pockets to help spread the word about something that nobody wants to happen.
    • offtone, on 06/01/2008, -7/+45I love the images of possible packages... "Over 60 sites!" These guys aren't really showing a lot of foresight, are they? I mean, consider the money invested in current infrastructure to provide the current scope of content to the current number of customers. Why would ISPs simultaneously decrease their offerings and increase their prices, all the while completely obsoleting their billions of dollars worth of networking hardware to provide what they do now? They'd end up with a product that few people would want, and that even fewer could afford. Plus they'd be responsible for ruining the global society's most cherished asset.

      The Internet isn't going to die. It might change, but I suspect it'll just get faster and easier. In any case, it's certainly not going to be chopped down to 60 sites for $29.99. Let's try to stay sharp, shall we?
      • purzzzell, on 06/01/2008, -0/+14But it will be comparable in some way, which is the point - I mean - think about if Comcast blocked all torrent traffic instead of merely throttling it, but offered the capability to do it for $10.00 more a month. What if IM was another $5.00 a month for one client, and then $3.00 more for additional clients.

        That, in essence, would be no different than $29.99 for 60 sites.
        • ikillpeoplexx, on 06/01/2008, -5/+3No. It's called competition. If comcast does that, then people switch to verizon, or other providers. As web technologies advance, we're just going to get better service for less money. Or at least better service. No question about it.
        • StinkBait, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Competition? From where? Where I live I have exactly *two* choices for net access - Bright House (RoadRunner) cable and BellSouth/AT&T DSL. If both companies decided to filter the internet, I'd be screwed. Sure, I could use my Verizon FastAccess aircard, but compare the ~8 mb I get now with the ~1.5 mbit I can get over the aircard.
        • otros, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1@stinkbait

          So you wouldn't trade ~6mb for free access to im, torrent, etc.?

          that's just idiotic
        • TheWookiee, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I know it would give the NSA access to what everyone was doing, but what if we lay a new backbone along the existing Interstate system with a node at every off-ramp with power in the area. That way every small town along the interstate would have a high speed backbone connection. That would allow Internet access to be provided by the municipalities as a public service like water is now
      • Terr01, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5I can't believe you've been around here without learning about hyperbole for emphasis.

        That would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable.
        • DiscoLando, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
        • joesintal, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Anybody want a peanut? First comment to make me smile, cheers DiscoLand.
      • MattBD, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Too right. I'm not convinced by any means that this will happen, but I have to concede it is possible. I would certainly boycott any ISP that tried to block me from using specific sites - say if it locked me into using a certain search engine. I'd take my business elsewhere. Consumers should absolutely crucify any ISP which tries to do anything like this.
      • ikillpeoplexx, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Thank you for saying this. It's kind of sad people don't find what you just said obvious.
      • pintong, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4Cable TV providers have backbone in place to deliver every premium channel to every subscriber. This makes it very easy for them to deliver the content to anyone who is willing to pay more.

        The infrastructure in place for the internet could be used to deliver the "full" internet to anyone who pays. They would be making more off of it and could rent out the extra backbone to other companies who might need it.
        • offtone, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1And what of the tens of thousands of datacenters around the world that host the majority of the web, and feed ISPs huge sums of money as things are? They're going to be given the middle finger?

          The web isn't made up solely of ISPs. They're obviously key, but it's a "web". Not a "pole".
      • RainbowApe, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3"Why would ISPs simultaneously decrease their offerings and increase their prices, all the while completely obsoleting their billions of dollars worth of networking hardware to provide what they do now? They'd end up with a product that few people would want, and that even fewer could afford."

        does this not sound like the swith to dvd, or hdd? we had the ability to watch tv, or films before but some companies invested in new and different technology rendering thier own earlier realeases obsolete. of course they'd do it if they thought they would get more money in the long run.
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -11/+5It is 0% true. What he describes in the video is 100% illegal under existing antitrust legislation.
      • hempydave, on 06/01/2008, -2/+12the governments been doing a lot thats illegal lately.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1This has nothing to do with the government doing illegal things.
        • Lazydriver, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6Sure it does. ISP's are trying to get rid of these laws that enforce Net Neutrality, which is a really big ***** mistake on their part.

          Mostly Cable ISPs, for obvious reasons, though I wonder why the hell AT&T supports getting rid of Net Neutrality - they THRIVE on the lack of cable demand.
        • theone3, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1If that continues to be the case in 2012 then a lot more than the internet is doomed.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1@Lazydriver

          ***THERE ARE NO LAWS THAT ENFORCE NET NEUTRALITY***

          The Internet has remained as neutral as it has because it's economically efficient.
      • Gryphon09, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5EXISTING legislation.
    • Eucolastic, on 06/01/2008, -17/+0I DONT EVEN CARE



      AT ALL
      • Blikus, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4Well in about 4 years you probably wouldn't be able to use this site to tell us that.
    • bdfariello, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7Whether this NDA truly exists or not is only slightly relevant. The possibility it might happen at all is enough to make me want to email all of my politicians and start encouraging legislation that will ban anything even remotely like this of ever occurring - BEFORE it becomes a problem.
    • kelmaster1, on 06/01/2008, -1/+22The problem is that the stupid people using the internet outnumber the people who use more than 5 sites on the internet. These stupid people are voters, and can definitely ***** things up because they don't know whats going on. I think the US electing bush for 2 terms is a good testament to stupid voters.
      • kuzotz, on 06/02/2008, -4/+10in 2000 bush was put in office by the supreme court.

        In 2004 bush stole the election again through rigged voting machines.

        Americans did not vote bush in. Just because he was popular after 9/11 until 2005. Doesn't mean ***** really.

        Because in 2000 he was not popular, and in early 2001 he wasn't even doing his damn job so no one liked his ass then either.
        9/11 happened patriotic fervor took over, and it all went down the drain from there.

        I of course was in 8th grade during 9/11, and now I am a junior in college realizing that the damage that has been done. There isn't ***** I can do to fix it yet I inherited because of these dumbass. So for the most part I have to agree with you.
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/01/2008, -4/+15a couple of random guys + hot girl making home video without any citations does not = truth.

      Basically what I'm saying is that, even if this is true, this is the absolute WORST way possible to get the word out. No citations or anything.

      But I wouldn't be surprised if some ISPs eventually provide an alternate service plan that only allows people to access popular sites for a lower price. But they would never eliminate the full plan as an option because there would still be demand for it. this would be completely legal unless laws are passed to stop it, and that would only work if those laws are upheld as constitutional, which is iffy.
      • graphictruth, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1I dunno. All kinds of people have been talking about this in the way you suggest - just google "net neutrality" or "internet freedom" for, what, better than two years? Yet, you did not notice.

        But a perky pair o' boobies calling attention to the impending threat to unlimited free porn. got your attention. Now you want the boobs to have footnotes?

        DO. YOUR. OWN. DAMN. HOMEWORK.
    • MattBD, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Oops, meant to reply here!
    • pedestrian28, on 06/01/2008, -9/+3It is true. Look it up. CEOs have already issued statements saying that they plan to do exactly this.
    • JKAL, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8This scenario was already in the works back when AOL was littering the Globe with their CDs. The plan was for AOL to be the one and only ISP (Offering a filtered version of the Internet via subscription "for your safety")
      However the Big Corps did not foresee the speed the Internet usage would grow, and the growth was mainly due to the freedom of information it offered. So that plan needed to be re-thought, and now they have been in the process of executing this plan int he last 4-5 years, and they plan to implement (enforce) this when Internet 2 is released. Noticed how lately there are many mainstream articles about how the current internet will run out of addresses...?
      this is just the beginning of scare tactics so that everyone begins to accept the "necessary change".

      This is now the time for Anon to take on an additional and very important cause... Just talking, blogging, twittering and making clips about this is NOT going to do anything, taking actual mass physical peaceful action is the only way.
      • doctordbx, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1The model failed completely with AOL, and not just a little bit. You cannot create your own network when the very backbone of it is user developed content.

        That, and the USA doesn't own the internet.
    • DiggMasterJ, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7I'm guessing it is zero % true.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=cLYrFR9RT_U
    • IpecacNeat, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1It will suck if the internet turns into the internet in GTA IV. That ***** is boring as hell.
      • V2012, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3GTA IV's internet changed the way I look at the Web. It certainly seems boring when you just popped in your disc with an urge to kill some hookers, but once you've gotten that out of your system, it's actually some brilliant social commentary.
      • funkywood, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1BabiesOvernight.com FTW!
      • faatbuddha, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0Seriously. None of the guys on loveseek will ever date me.
    • Morac, on 06/02/2008, -4/+4This is completely false. There's no way the ISPs would do this since it makes no sense. Not only that it's bad business for them.

      Let's see you pay $30 and get unlimited access to the big time web sites like YouTube and the like which let you stream gigabytes of data, but block Joe Blow's web site which might add an extra 10 KB to your monthly download size. Yeah right.

      What's more likely to happen is that your ISPs caps the amount you can download per month regardless of what web site you go to.

      Buried as inaccurate.
      • DMoney16, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Bell Canada already does this and it sucks.
      • jopjop, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Many UK ISPs cap monthly usage too.
    • brundlefly76, on 06/02/2008, -1/+4the assertions are ambiguous and specifically unsourced.
      net neutrality is important by this is hyperbolic.
      nice ***** though.
    • kawstick, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2All you have to do is take a look at Canadian ISP's. I live in Toronto, and on top of throttling, un-guaranteed speeds and data caps they have begun screwing anyone using cellphone Internet royally. Unlimited mobile browsing is the biggest lie ever and is the best example of companies starting to shape the Internet. You pay for the unlimited package only to find out you can tether your phone to a comp without expecting to pay thousands of dollars for a Gig. And when you do use your phone only the sites Bell or Rogers says are fine are covered under the unlimited plan.

      I remember when the Internet was evolving now its just stagnating. Seeing how companies companies are taking advantage of the customer like this is frustrating to say the least. We should be using Japan as an example. They recognize the Internet is important and are going great lengths to increase country wide broadband and keep it how it is.
    • danconia, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3You guys are kidding me if you think an ISP is going to go to only a quarter of the sites on the internet... not even GO to the rest and that people will continue using them for their service. Haven't you guys ever been in an econ class?
      "Contact those companies yourself"? Right like they'd really admit they are doing it if they really were doing it. Sorry but there's so much hearsay when it comes to this issue. The FCC didn't keep cable/satellite/syndicate television neutral so why on Earth do you think the government would neutrally regulate the internet? The second you give the government more control over the internet then the companies will just end up lobbying the bureaucrats and then you will REALLY see your internet go to *****.
      • neFariou5, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1No.. an isp will go to all of the sites and things that don't threaten mainstream media
        anything that threatens mainstream media or has the potential to do so will be charged extra for to ether kill it or make extra money out of them.
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2I think it's true.

      Think about it. If you are rich and powerful, and that position is challenged then you will do whatever it takes you retain power and control.

      Why do you suppose the idiots at Fox news say stupid *****? They have an agenda. But when real information is readily available people don't need to rely on their *****, and that is a problem.

      What good is it to be Rupert Murdoch if you can't shape public opinion anymore?
    • fatjoe, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3nice rack. sign me up to whatever she's selling
    • dreamtiger, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1The Internet is us. We are the internet. It is us, communicating with each other. You can have my Internet when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. The people will never allow this to happen.
    • ozz314, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6There are only ten Tier 1 carriers:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_carrier

      Among them are AT&T, Verizon, AOL, Sprint. Tier 1 means those companies don't pay anyone to connect to the Internet, but everyone else pays them to connect. They also make it very difficult for anyone else to become a Tier 1.

      If those 10 companies decide to make an unholy alliance to turn the Internet into a subscription based model, this is very possible.
      • funkywood, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2This is actually one good point so can someone alleviate the fears over this rather than just digging him down?
      • InfamousAtheist, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I dugg him up... but cannot alleviate his fears. I have little doubt that the Tier 1 providers are up to no good when it comes to Net Neutrality.

        The video is alarmist but this is an ongoing issue that needs public attention and support.
    • equiliberate, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1I think it is a successful hoax - successful, however, because it could very well happen.
  • Soulbow2, on 06/01/2008, -31/+509How can we stop this?
    • littlewing82, on 06/01/2008, -2/+105By making sure a lot of people know so that we can all speak up against it!
      So digg it up!
      • Hickeroar, on 06/02/2008, -1/+4HAHA. People talking does NOTHING. People VOTING doesn't even do anything anymore.
      • Muzztein, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Amen to That.
    • wush, on 06/01/2008, -0/+33Well, Soulbow2, I'm glad you asked..
    • exomni, on 06/01/2008, -34/+456Vote for Barack Obama, he's been a strict and principled supporter or Net Neutrality for a very long time now.

      Net Neutrality is the doctrine that internet providers must remain neutral on their provision of internet content, and may not discriminate speed or access to particular websites, but must provide access to all content freely and openly and equally. In summary: to enforce the basic principle of the internet that has made it so successful: open and easy access.

      http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neu ...


      And send letters to your representatives asking them to support Net Neutrality. If Obama is elected, send letters urging him to take action and encouraging him of his support for Network Neutrality.
      • zephyr42, on 06/01/2008, -7/+46Honestly, this could swing my vote to Obama... If he is actually serious about acting on it.
        • rm17, on 06/01/2008, -26/+3wow. THIS issue could swing your vote to Obama?
        • HA5TY, on 06/02/2008, -3/+28I know everyone will digg me down but I was gonna vote for McCain before reading this.....

          Obama may have my vote now because this is a huge deal for me and I couldn't imagine having a "controlled" internet.
        • zephyr42, on 06/02/2008, -0/+9@rm17: If you think that network neutrality is a small issue AND it will be easy to solve then by all means my bury vote was in vain and you can continue to flame.
        • Patori, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8@rm17: If this goes into action, you may not be able to go to Digg to complain about people.
      • dynatos, on 06/01/2008, -15/+3Let's be fair and give credit to everyone that supports it. In this case, both Clinton and Obama support net neutrality, and it's great that they both are. This shouldn't be an issue of one candidate being better than another for supporting this issue but that we need everyone to be supporting it. Basically, rest assured that whoever does become the Democratic nominee will be in support of net neutrality and that is a great thing.
        • sephiroth965, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8He didn't bother to mention Clinton because she's already out of the running. It doesn't matter at this point what she does or doesn't support.
        • zephyr42, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Yep, her views are like the points on "who's line is it anyway"
        • hollywood084, on 06/02/2008, -2/+0well, that being said, ok lets be fair, ron paul supports it too.
        • exomni, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Errr, yeah.

          1. Clinton has absolutely no chance at the Democratic nomination, I was talking about voting Barack for PRESIDENT, not for the democratic nomination. The democratic nomination means nothing if it's not followed by the presidency.

          2. Clinton is a lobbyist crony who will say one thing and vote where the money's coming from, unlike Barack who is stalwart about rejecting Lobbyist money.

          3. How many people on Digg live in Montana and South Dakota, and thus would still be able to vote for Clinton? I know there are a few of you, but I was definitely not directing my comment at you.

          4. Even if I were talking about primaries, voting for Clinton only extends an already long enough race. We should unite the party behind one candidate, not vote for a candidate who has repeatedly campaigned for the Republicans, and John McCain who opposes net neutrality and is in bed with the telecoms trying to give them immunity from their crimes.
        • exomni, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3@ hollywood084: Ron Paul DOES NOT support Net Neutrality.
        • exomni, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Also, if you're into science and tech, you should be aware Ron Paul, while he opposes inordinate spending like endless wars in Iraq, he would also oppose all Science subsidies, he also does not believe in evolution, and has repeatedly made speeches and written articles about how "the separation of church and state" is overblown and unconstitutional, and says we need good Christians like him in government who don't believe in evolution. He talks about how all our founding fathers were Christians, and wants to insert his rather fundamentalist faith into his politics. Ron Paul would be as stalwart as Bush in opposing science and education.

          While libertarianism is great, and I certainly lean libertarian, I am like Adam Smith in that I realize idealism bows to pragmatism when it comes to the rough and dirty. Our nation NEEDS to get ahead in the science department. Thanks to Bush's ignoring science, our economy is struggling as jobs and innovation is being shipped overseas, our education is abysmal, and Ron Paul would only further pull funding for both science and education.

          Ron Paul, despite being supported by a vocal few on the internet, is NOT the "nerd's" candidate.
      • logandurand, on 06/01/2008, -13/+3Internet Services Providers can operate their network any way they choose - who are you to force them to sell the product you want? If they want to sell tiered internet, that's their right.
        • ajde, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5Whose side are you on here? You're really alright with the fact that independent users of the internet would lose their ability to access it however and wherever they choose and the kind of restrictions that would put in place? Consider, for example, how this would affect the ability to research online, which is absolutely essential to succeed in school and sometimes work.

          And why do they have the right? Because we're a capitalistic society, and they have the demand to jack up the supply? It would be like forcing you to subscribe to only a few phone numbers you could call, and then to sell you the option to make calls to other numbers but only at astronomically high prices. It takes away a huge measure of our freedom, especially at a time when our lives can be so dependent on internet accessibility.
        • logandurand, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I'm not alright with it, I just recognize their right to sell whatever product they wish to. A tiered internet would suck for everyone, but it's not your place to make it a crime simply because they aren't selling the product you want.
      • BFMonster, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6Also Check here:
        http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open ...
      • mrASSMAN, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8His positions on technology and science were one of the main reasons I supported him from the outset.
      • hollywood084, on 06/02/2008, -5/+1/sigh obama is just like all the rest.
        • zephyr42, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3the cynical/normal side of me would totally agree with you, but compared to the other presidential possibilities, i'm cool with hope.
      • neFariou5, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3Isn't Ron Paul also for Net Neutrality?
    • dood, on 06/01/2008, -0/+96Other than the obvious, writing to congress, I think we should be ready to form an underground replacement internet network. URIN. Catchy, eh?
      • LinkGCN4, on 06/01/2008, -1/+39How about "Peers Operating Open Protocols"? POOP.
        • Klowner, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4All the wiring would run through the sewers, ala Google's TISP april fools joke
        • justadakaje, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I thought POOP was already taken by the Greenie huggers -- Protect Our Only Planet... I guess you can have two POOPs though. I don't like #2 as much as I do #1 though...
      • Soulbow2, on 06/01/2008, -0/+18I've written to my Congressmen. They say, "Thank you for your concern. I will personally see to it that this issue does not go unnoticed."
        Then they vote to help out Comcast and other companies like it.

      • exomni, on 06/01/2008, -2/+20How about Modem Enabled Network Standard Transfer Resource Uniform Automated Line / Direct Internet Subscriber Channel Holding Asynchronous Redialing General Entity
        • JrGhoull, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2uuhhh...yeah...what he said!
        • Parkinsons, on 06/01/2008, -0/+11For those to lazy. M.E.N.S.T.R.U.A.L. D.I.S.C.H.A.R.G.E.
        • justadakaje, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Protocol Enabled Resources Inverted Over DSL for short?
      • theone3, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah, kinda pushing it at the end there.
        How about Xnet? - http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/
      • sylvok, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3If this happens ***** them I am buying my own cable and opening my own ISP. Digg I shall rely on you for support, and to help spread the word
      • ackza, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1How about We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
        WASTE?
    • Betrayal, on 06/01/2008, -11/+49We can stop it with big boobs.
      • hempydave, on 06/01/2008, -0/+11Boobs are all over net neutrality ,
        those boobs are free, msn's will cost $
      • longbow486, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2They can end a war, take the Goodyear blimp paint a giant nipple on it. Fly it over the Middle east during a confrontation.
        -Denis Leary
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -19/+5Why should we stop this? The Internet has never been neutral. There exists no net neutrality laws on the books.

      If all the ISPs got together and decided to start controlling the Internet in the way that he describes, that would be illegal under EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS. It is collusion.

      This video is just fear mongering to further someone's political agenda. It has no basis in reality, or the actual issue at hand.
      • HonoredMule, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Buried for the "Why should we stop this" part.

        You are too naive if you truly believe that it won't happen just because you have a possibly valid view that it is currently illegal. If you don't take the wheel, you can't complain when the car careens off a cliff.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2That is not how legislation is supposed to work. You don't just go around, effectively nationalizing entire industries through government regulation, just because you suspect that something may eventually be a problem.

          The Internet has NEVER been neutral, and it's worked out just fine now, hasn't it?

          And my argument isn't "possibly valid." A group of companies getting together to price fix an entire industry is collusion. It's that simple. This is illegal in both the US and most of Europe under existing antitrust legislation.

          When you actually look at the net neutrality laws being proposed, they are ridiculous. They effectively treat the entire Internet as a public good, like a state park. They advocate unlimited use to everyone, and essentially tell telcos the only way to innovate is by providing more bandwidth and charging everyone more money.

          It's kind of sad to see that most Digg users really have no idea what's going on.
        • HonoredMule, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1You sound like the kind of idiot who would witness a murder then walk away, blissful in the knowledge that what the murderer did was illegal and therefore a police officer would magically appear and arrest him.

          The Internet's capacity for non-neutrality certainly has NOT worked out fine. Claiming otherwise would be like saying patents can't have harmed innovation because you don't know about any inventions that don't exist. The beauty and power of the Internet is and has always been its capacity for neutrality--the blogger's opinion able to stand on its own merits next to a professional reporter's; the accessibility of small, niche websites on equal terms with msn.com, the equality of communication cost regardless of who you are and to whom you are speaking. Where this has not been the case, damage has most certainly been done. Beneficial services have been unable to operate, information has been stifled, and proprietary, corporate interests have been protected at a detriment to society.

          The Internet is not an industry. It is an infrastructure, and here in Canada, a government funded one to which every Canadian citizen has a right to fair and non-discriminatory access. Private companies have no right to manipulate federal handouts for solidarity. Collusion may already be illegal, but mere matters of legality won't stop collusion if the government itself doesn't actually intervene. YOU are responsible for the actions of your government. The law is only a system. Systems are powered by people, and people only do what is in their own self-interests. If they're not enforcing laws correctly (or at all), you have a responsibility to strengthen the laws and/or light a fire under the enforcers.

          And yes, I know this particular article is hogwash, but there's plenty of REAL sewer water spewing from other sources. So long as you're so blithely unconcerned, I hope you get the lion's share of it.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Telecom in Canada is still nationalized? That's now how it is in the US.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0*not how it is.
    • WickEd101, on 06/01/2008, -10/+2It cannot be stopped. All we can do is leech as much as possible in the next few years to get through the dry season.
    • kerryhall, on 06/01/2008, -2/+25We create our own internet using wifi:
      seattlewireless.net
    • sobpanic, on 06/01/2008, -1/+17Decentralized, distributed, democratically controlled networks. See:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad-hoc_network
      • darkciti2, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Mobile won't work, because they regulate the airwaves.

        We need the cables and solid connections.
    • MadHarvey, on 06/01/2008, -1/+45I don't understand how things like this are even possible. What kind of engineer would help implement something like this? If my employer put me on a project like this, I would laugh in their face, quit, and tell everyone about it. Engineers have a responsibility, just like doctors, police officers, etc. to work for the good of human kind. If you would work on something like this, you don't deserve to be called an engineer.

      The good news is, there are plenty of good engineers and hackers. As long as we exist, technology and the freedom of information will always be in the hands of the people.

      http://www.order-of-the-engineer.org/oblig.htm
      • MxM111, on 06/02/2008, -7/+7I am sorry, but this is *****. Engineers do what they are told - if you do not want to do it, you will be fired, and somebody else will do it. Blaming engineers for doing this is like blaming solders for starting Iraq war.

        Do not put this on engineers. The net neutrality problem can be solved only by government.
        • MadHarvey, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6If you can compare this to soldiers in Iraq, I suppose I could compare it to Nazi in Germany? I COULD, but I would sound like a idiot because its not even close to the same thing. A soldier often has to react without thinking due to time criticality involved, and trust his leadership (for better or worse). An engineer can think for weeks about the merits of the project he is working on. A soldier takes an oath to follow orders. An engineer takes an oath to NOT follow orders, but work for the common good.

          I don't blame engineers for creating the net neutrality problem, and its not their responsibility to solve the problem. But, I do blame them if they choose to work on something that would so clearly be detrimental to the common good.
        • justadakaje, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Herein also lies the fundamental difference of a Democratic-minded person and a Republican-minded person. You don't have to tell me, and I don't care to know, but MxM111, you suggestion that is the bigger the government, the better it is for all of us. I am quite the opposite of you. I believe in Free Enterprise, less control from the government. Sure, there are plenty of topics in which society has too many differing points of view so a high power needs to create a structure, but I don't feel this is the solution in this case.

          MadHarvey is correct in stating that if engineers decide to create something that will go against what they believe in, I place blame upon them. You can say that someone else will take their job, but engineers are not just a dime a dozen. If another engineer takes that position, one could only hope they will stand for beliefs too.

          I'm not going to write any further comments because teh chances of someone reading this now that the main entry was buried and greyed out is slim to none. If you do read this and want to continue this conversation, let's chat elsewhere.
      • Scaryclouds, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2But what if the job market is weak? What if you have a family you need to support and your budget is already tight? I doubt you will be much less willing to "laugh and quit." This quote pretty much sums up what I am trying to say
        "I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of principles. "
        -Mel Gibson, The Patriot
      • rentmitchum, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't they make it so like... if you try to have your own radio station? That always bugged me but I never looked it up, why the hell don't a lot of people have their own radio stations, radio waves don't harm us.
    • BillMoocho, on 06/01/2008, -0/+19Won't more people just be going to smaller ISPs, thus turning them into larger ones? Even if the MAJOR providers switch to this new system, can't small ISPs still let us use the internet the same way?
      • AngryBacon, on 06/01/2008, -0/+15Smaller ISPs are usually just buying bandwidth off of larger ISPs. The big ISPs could just pull the plug.
      • kylere, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8Smaller ISP's buy their bandwidth from larger ones
      • Parkinsons, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5I am digging you up because It is a valid question but as stated above, small ISP's rely on big ISP's.
      • Dohko_Xar, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3How do you get to start your own ISP and plug yourself into the huge pipes? I mean, if I were to have the huge wallet to start such investment and I don't want to be plugged to a big corporate ISP but rather the real deal, the huge pipes..
        • zbarnett, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I've been thinking the same exact thing for years, if no one controls the internet why can't we all be our own little isp with huge pipes? I understand some of the battle is keeping the pipes functional, but it shouldn't be too hard.
        • justadakaje, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2I wonder, is there an ISP that control large connections like a T1 or T3 connection? If so, why does it have to cost money?

          I dunno... I just think the world would be so much more simplistic without the idea of currency. I know that on all of the RTS I've played, it is always a sign your civilization is growing or more successful when you introduce money and currency, but why?

          I know that in a socialist society, everyone contributes equally, and I just want to know why this couldn't work. There has to be someone out there willing to brainstorm with me and figure out a way for this to work. I do not want material things, like Internet access and computers, and electricity and knowledge to be controlled or limited or even encouraged by something intangible like money.

          I just hope when we get to Mars in a few years, people will consider this. Maybe I'll just request my own celestial body to start my own society. If you have a niche idea and you want to be apart of my society, let me know!
    • michigander, on 06/01/2008, -13/+8Why do we concern ourselves with things that will not come????? Way too many businesses rely on the internet for business and without unrestricted internet access, they and our economy would crash. Please don't think our government officials are stupid either. They snap down on monopolistic behavior quickly.

      My motto:

      Don't worry.... be happy.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnvSQuv-H4

      • chaosblade77, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0They care more about profits than the common good or the economy. Just like the oil and auto industries.
      • Schmich, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Yeh that's what mainly makes me skeptical. For A LOT of companies the internet brings a very high % of the revenue. So without it the economy would be a disaster. But I guess the providers can just take the internet freedom bit by bit and you'll have the companies adapting with it.
        • michigander, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1What I can image is ISPs charging an hourly or per MB fee, or just package a certain number of hours or MB allowed under certain packages just as minutes are with cell phones . That would really hurt us diggers who are on the internet all the time. We would have to conserve or internet use or use websites that are less data rich. For example, in the future when all vids on Youtube are HD, those who want to conserve there internet use would watch the standard def version of the vids if they didn't want to run through their MB as quickly while the rich watch HD. This is how the internet will become like television( SD, and HD packages), but it wont come nearly as close as what was mentioned by this article or what many net neutrality activists (diggers) say.
    • poutch, on 06/01/2008, -4/+17send this to at least 10 of your friends or else something bad will happen to you
    • bearsandbulls, on 06/01/2008, -2/+15Revolution
    • Hangly, on 06/01/2008, -0/+38Hack the ***** out of it.
      • Dohko_Xar, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6Hack the planet!
      • buky125, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Hacking won't matter if all the small sites disappear.
        • Hangly, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2The only parts of the internet that can be controlled centrally are the DNS supernodes. Traffic can't be controlled because it's easy to encapsulate things and there are so many proxies around.

          DNS hasn't existed forever, and there are ways to get places on the internet without it.
          For example, bang paths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP
    • chillmandan, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6I personally think it would stop itself. If a subscription based system of internet surfing was introduced consumers wouldn't have any of it. All it would take is one rogue ISP to provide the "old internet" for everyone to return to normalcy. The loss in customers would be just too great.
    • jatoskep, on 06/02/2008, -0/+9Best way to do it would be to Boycott ISPs that do not support net neutrality.
      • xaxxon, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Kinda tough to do when you only have two choices - cable or dsl. Neither one is a good choice. If this type of behavior starts, you know cable and dsl are going to be the first two to jump on it.
      • ch33sehead, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1FiOS, to the rescue! Hopefully, they won't go all non-neutral on us.
    • soundsofreason, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3If this actually goes through, we all need to make a huge push back by refusing to purchase the "channels" and spreading the word to others to do the same.
      It would be difficult for a while because we would be without the net for an undetermined amount of time, but it would be a necessary sacrifice to restore net freedom that everyone should have a right to.
      • Wellman, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0This needs to be pushed right now so that it doesn't go through, the more people know the more it can be pushed
    • j0c1f3r, on 06/02/2008, -5/+3The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to make everyone believe that he doesnt exist....
    • GregFD3S, on 06/02/2008, -0/+14Head out to Californie-way, they gots a whole mess of internets there!
      • drexl, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4I heard they only had a little bit of internet!
      • jkr801, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1Ya give us some of that internet money!
    • ttamshadbolt, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1Sign the petition =>

      https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=dis ...
    • Cryoniq, on 06/02/2008, -7/+4By stop digging lies like this on digg up. Seriously.. read the history and structure of the internet and you will understand why you been a retard hitting the digg button on this on.. geez
    • crowbarred, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3when this happens... we rebuild the old internet like what we did with napster
    • econofast, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1How can we stop what? Obviously false pranks or insane conspiracy theories? I guess for either, the answer's the same - use your brain.
    • Gillos, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2I emailed the link at the bottom and asked the very same question.

      The response I got was to get the word out to as many people as possible. Friends, family, co-workers. Post it on message boards, on facebook, on myspace, everywhere.

      Write your congressman/woman and let them know what you think about net neutrality.
      Same goes for your ISP, mail them a letter too. Don't email, write. I think it is more effective that way.

      I hope this never, ever happens.
  • Isoro, on 06/01/2008, -36/+175I do not quite belief in exactly 4 years, but surely within a decade.
    • mojoface, on 06/01/2008, -23/+13This will never happen
      • tenspeedogbb, on 06/01/2008, -1/+13This SHOULD never happen, but it's becoming more and more probable every day.
    • SteveIsTheDude, on 06/01/2008, -10/+12Don't call me Shirley.....
      • cmapes2, on 06/02/2008, -2/+3Dugg for Naked Gun reference
        • wainman, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Airplane not Naked Gun. But its still Leslie Nielsen</