This dude.......

Jan 5, 2016
4,202
17,241
1,100
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
#25
If the removal of nutrality decision has been driven by the 'free market' then do as the free market tells you, and don't pay for something you don't want.

If zero people/companies pay for priority packet, the traffic would essentially stay the same as it is now....?

Use the free market the way it's supposed to be used. Make Pai pay - if he is the only person in the country willing to pay for it the Free Market will make his bills a million dollars a month due to supply, demand and having to cover the costs of running the system in the first place.

Look at the French. When wheel clamps came to France, they as a people reacted all in the same way: Whenever a Frenchman saw a clamped vehicle, they jammed the lock with Super Glue - the clamping devices has to be distroyed to free the car once the fine had been paid which cost time and resources and the clamp companies went bust. I don't know if thats an urban legend but it's online, I'd love Snopes to look into that one.

If clampers want to clamp cars in France, they can - and they'll stay clamped. But if ISPs want to slow down your connection, they can. But you and every other captive customer can then spam review sites saying the service is slow. When their Net Premotor Score hit single figures, they'll have to act or distroy their businesses with shareholder revolts.
 
Last edited:
Sep 25, 2017
1,838
5,996
750
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
#26
If zero people/companies pay for priority packet, the traffic would essentially stay the same as it is now....?
All it takes is one. Its why tree's are so tall, its why people stand right next to the baggage carousel instead of stepping back. In fact there is an extensive study in game theory on why. While it is in our best interest for everyone to not pay for priority service, it will happen due to the fact that those who jump in first will gain a significant leg up on everyone else and those who do not pay will quickly be left behind.
 

Printimus

Grand Admiral
Officer
Dec 22, 2015
7,681
29,771
1,235
RSI Handle
Printimus
#27
All it takes is one. Its why tree's are so tall, its why people stand right next to the baggage carousel instead of stepping back. In fact there is an extensive study in game theory on why. While it is in our best interest for everyone to not pay for priority service, it will happen due to the fact that those who jump in first will gain a significant leg up on everyone else and those who do not pay will quickly be left behind.
Interesting point.
 

August

Commander
Aug 27, 2018
223
712
100
RSI Handle
Countersink
#28
If the removal of nutrality decision has been driven by the 'free market' then do as the free market tells you, and don't pay for something you don't want.

If zero people/companies pay for priority packet, the traffic would essentially stay the same as it is now....?

Use the free market the way it's supposed to be used. Make Pai pay - if he is the only person in the country willing to pay for it the Free Market will make his bills a million dollars a month due to supply, demand and having to cover the costs of running the system in the first place.

Look at the French. When wheel clamps came to France, they as a people reacted all in the same way: Whenever a Frenchman saw a clamped vehicle, they jammed the lock with Super Glue - the clamping devices has to be distroyed to free the car once the fine had been paid which cost time and resources and the clamp companies went bust. I don't know if thats an urban legend but it's online, I'd love Snopes to look into that one.

If clampers want to clamp cars in France, they can - and they'll stay clamped. But if ISPs want to slow down your connection, they can. But you and every other captive customer can then spam review sites saying the service is slow. When their Net Premotor Score hit single figures, they'll have to act or distroy their businesses with shareholder revolts.
You’re equating someone being punished for parking illegally with commercial interests throttling what’s very reasonably considered an essential service so they can obtain more profit?
 
Jan 5, 2016
4,202
17,241
1,100
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
#29
You’re equating someone being punished for parking illegally with commercial interests throttling what’s very reasonably considered an essential service so they can obtain more profit?
Nope. I'm highlighting what can be done with a common reaction to a situation. :slight_smile:
But as @Bambooza says, although we can it'd not very likely that we will.
 
Last edited:
Aug 20, 2016
538
1,984
650
RSI Handle
Bruttle
#30
European governments throw people in jail every damn day for hate speech online. Pretending they are just now crossing the line into 1984 is silly.

Exactly this. 1984 has been the reality for quite a while. The funniest part is that the population is actually to blame, not "big brother" like everyone thinks. People willingly and intentionally gave up their privacy. Now, just about everything is either public record or voluntarily given. There's no conspiracy, just people giving up their privacy in little chunks ever since the beginning of the internet. Remember that whole Snowden thing? We're way past that.

Look at a company called Choice Point. They collect information about people. They combined other databases along with any other public or freely given information they could get their hands on. This company was also busted in 2005. It was generally downplayed and wasn't publicized much. However, they had a "data breach" that allowed ID thieves to get the personal information on 145,000+ people. The best part was, this "data breach" wasn't a hack. They sold the information to the ID thieves. Oops?

In 2010, they had one of the largest databases in the world. ...and that was 8 years ago. They have since been bought out by LexisNexis Risk solutions and have continued on the same road, building and amassing information about US citizens. In 2010, they had built and organized a 250tb database on 300 million citizens. That's a huge database when you think about it, almost 1mb of personal information per person. Just imagine what they have now.

Now just for comparison, in 2013 a scientist named Petter Bae Brandtzæg of SINTEF ICT (they do research on data, software, ai, etc) made a somewhat famous observation. That was the fact that 90% of all the data in the world was generated in the two previous years... in 2013. Fast forward to 2018 and we supposedly now generate 2.5 quintillion bytes of data each day (2,376,425,855gb). That's us. That's our lives, photos, home videos, tweets, and every other piece of information we willingly hand over.

So yea. 1984 is here. It's been here for a long while because we made it happen. Just like we made net neutrality end. Just like we will drive it into the ground by willingly paying for the services the IP's will be generating. People will kick and scream, but those very same people will stand in line to pay the necessary cash so their internet works again. They will do it because they are dumb and there's no escaping it. To quote Tommy Lee Jones...




Here's the bow on top. You know what they're using our information for now? Pre-crime and watch lists, that's what's next on the agenda. Don't believe me? Jump down this rabbit hole. It's not even a conspiracy. It's just that nobody is talking about it...
 
Last edited:

Radegast74

Grand Admiral
Oct 8, 2016
1,302
5,171
1,100
RSI Handle
Radegast74
#37
From that article:
California's bill prohibits ISPs from blocking or slowing down websites or "whole classes of applications," like video. It also specifically prohibits ISPs from charging online services access fees to reach customers, a practice known as paid prioritization.

Those same consumer protections were part of the federal net neutrality rules that the FCC scrapped. However, California's rules takes things a step further by also disallowing ISPs from not counting certain content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps, a practice known as "zero-rating."

Pai's comments can be viewed as him wanting to get ahead of the situation, and perhaps put pressure on Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, to not sign the bill.
Pai said:
"Let me be clear: The Internet should be run by engineers, entrepreneurs, and technologists, not lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians. That’s what we decided in 2017, and we’re going to fight to make sure it stays that way," Pai added.
My corrections:
"Let me be clear: The Internet should be run by engineers, entrepreneurs, and technologists, not lobbyists, lawyers, telecom bureaucrats, and politicians under the influence of cable companies. That’s what we me and my donors/overslords decided in 2017, and we’re going to fight to make sure it stays that way," Pai added.
 

Printimus

Grand Admiral
Officer
Dec 22, 2015
7,681
29,771
1,235
RSI Handle
Printimus
#38
From that article:


Pai said:


My corrections:
"Let me be clear: The Internet should be run by engineers, entrepreneurs, and technologists, not lobbyists, lawyers, telecom bureaucrats, and politicians under the influence of cable companies. That’s what we me and my donors/overslords decided in 2017, and we’re going to fight to make sure it stays that way," Pai added.
That's essentially what Pai is saying.... the fuckin turd.
 

Havrek

Vice Admiral
Sep 10, 2016
148
429
560
RSI Handle
Havrek
#40
Spirited debate and if necessary, legal protests are much more effective, as is voting in local, state, and federal elections.
I'll put my money on the Entrepreneurs. Bill McGowan with MCI took AT&T and Baby Bells to the woodshed in the late 80s and early 90s. People will vote with their pocketbooks as innovation will always find a way to beat the companies relying on politicians to protect their bottom lines.