Slashdot Log In
Every Time You Vote Against Net Neutrality, Your ISP Kills a Night Elf
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Nov 22, 2006 03:46 PM
from the legislation-from-smoking-a-series-of-pipes dept.
from the legislation-from-smoking-a-series-of-pipes dept.
Perhaps one of the more overlooked problems that could arise out of a bad Net Neutrality decision is the impact to online gaming. In fact, any interactive communications could stand to take a dive (VOIP, streaming video, etc) with the advent of Net Neutrality legislation. RampRate has an interesting look at the possible fallout and where we are headed. From the article: "What will be murdered with no fallback or replacement is the nascent market of interactive entertainment - particularly online gaming. Companies like Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Sony Online Entertainment, and countless others, have built a business on the fundamental assumption of relatively low latency bandwidth being available to large numbers of consumers. Furthermore, a large -- even overwhelming -- portion of the value of these offerings comes from their 'network effects' -- the tendency for the game to become more enjoyable and valuable as larger number of players joins the gaming network."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommate's (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
And I think I am speaking for all the people who don't want the WoW Hordes invading Real Life.
Parent
It's all in the titles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all in the post (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because Blizzard gets a free OC48 pipe, just for being such a good customer.
Fucking idiot.
Parent
Re:It's all in the post (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people think individuals are the only ones paying for internet access? Just because you don't see Blizzard's bill from AT&T doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Blizzard already pays for bandwidth. Google already pays for bandwidth. Amazon already pays for bandwidth. TelCos just want a legal reason to extort more out of them cause they need another gold swimming pool.
Fully agree. Fucking idiot.
Parent
Yay. The cats are saved! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yay. The cats are saved! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yay. The cats are saved! (Score:4, Funny)
Until that kitty jumps out of the tree and rips your throat out before you can count to 5.. er.. 3.
Parent
the meaning of the word "gaming" (Score:5, Insightful)
As has been mentioned before, to legislators and industrialists, "online gaming" is part of the much older "gaming industry," which is the politically correct word for gambling. This article refers to "online computer games" which has an entirely different stigma involved. You have to speak with policymakers clearly, so they don't confuse tempt-husbands-to-wickedness gambling and train-kids-to-shoot-up-schools computer games.
What i don't get is... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, why aren't the VoIP telcos crying hoarse? What about companies that rely on video streaming? Why only online gaming? This story seems to me to be a plant just to get the average gaming geek up in arms.
I mean, if everyone suffers the same fate, isn't everyone else gaining as well? What's the problem?
Parent
Re:the meaning of the word "gaming" (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
I think people would accept free network priority (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong perspective (Score:4, Funny)
Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if *I* can't even understand it, how the Hell is Joe Sixpack supposed to?
-Eric
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:4, Informative)
The whole scheme is just badly defined, by both sides, and it is really hard to fight the FUD when the FUD seems to take on new shapes (but keeps the same names) depending on the source and their agenda.
Parent
Read the article... (Score:4, Informative)
Hint: Don't reference "TFA" without reading it... I can understand if the summary confused you, but then you should have just referenced the summary
No, the article doesn't say gaming gets preference now, the article says there is no preference now. But if that changes and neutrality goes away, online gaming will be all but killed off, unlike VoIP and video. ISP's have alternatives to VoIP and video (and so do other non-internet sources, like land lines for phone and Video on demand service for video), but it's not likely that the ISP's will offer online gaming services, because they don't know anything about that whole industry. And even if they did try to offer it, it wouldn't be good, because it wouldn't be coming from the good game publishers.
So, to sum up, TFA says that gaming, like other internet services, will suffer due to latency problems. Unlike other services, there are not alternatives to online gaming, and a worse experience for a large segment of users upsets the rest of the users (if there are any who don't have latency issues) so the whole industry stands to be hurt badly by non-neutrality.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And as far as I can tell the summary agrees with your first guess at the meaning of Net Neutrality. The idea is to pass legislation to prevent ISPs from doing something they aren't doing in any great numbers anyway in the absence of the legislation, presumably because we either suspect that they will begin doing what we don't want them to do or we just love legislation kind of in general and want more of it to be passed.
Clear?
ISPs and double-talk (Score:3, Informative)
It has been done, here a little, there a little. It was an issue of discussion on the Vonage forum for a while. What I think is funny is that ISPs say "There's not evidence that we'l
Understanding Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
Net Neutrality refers to a neutral internet... the ISP's wouldn't be able to treat one type of packet different from another. The point the original article is making is that if net neutrality isn't protected, the only services (VoIP, gaming, video), that won't suffer will be ones that are either supplied by your ISP, or ones where the providers have paid your ISP extra. Hence, if you like XBox Live, and Microsoft hasn't paid Verizon (or AT&T, etc), your online games will suffer. If Microsoft has paid up with all of the ISP's, then you're in great shape. Suddenly it's a whole lot more difficult to provide content and services, unless you are the ISP.
Now that you know, the best way to make sure Joe Sixpack understands is to Spread the Word! [savetheinternet.com]
Parent
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:5, Informative)
- Carriers will not discriminated against data based on who sends it.
This simply means that my bits have just as much right to reach your DSL customers as Microsoft's. Under this traditional definition, network traffic shaping is legal: you can discriminate against BitTorrent, gaming traffic, spam, video, etc. Traffic shaping is a critical component of running a network well.
The new definition is total BS created by the phone and cable companies. They've redefined our traditional term to mean:
- You wont be able to pay more for high-bandwidth connections, or less for low-bandwidth. All customers will pay exactly the same rate.
This stupid FUD is unfortunately working. By redefining our term, they have turned it into an evil thing, which no one wants. Who would vote in favor of making cheap low bandwidth connections illegal?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is exactly what the telcos / cable companies wanted to do. "Net Neutrality" was one of those terms that was created by a special interest group, an expression designed to be have a positive connotation, regardless of the content of the message. The "USA PATRIOT Act" is another such example: who could be opposed to an law that says "patriot" in it? Would support be so high for the law if it was called the "USA POLICE S
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you can discriminate against BitTorrent, gaming traffic, spam, video, etc
Unless you're name is John C. BitTorrent, it's not a contradiction. Your BitTorrent traffic will get there with the exact same priority as his BitTorrent traffic. Your spam will get there with the exact same priority as his spam. But your BitTorrent may end up a lower priority than your spam email, because of what it is, not who you are.
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:5, Informative)
The thing most folks are concerned with is the ability for a network provider to request money from someone with whom they currently have no business relationship, and to penalize anyone who doesn't pay up. Here's an example:
Now, the government is currently trying to enact legislation which will make the above possible. The supporters of the Net Neutrality movement argue that the rules should stay as they are: we've not needed explicit rules before, we shouldn't be adding them now. The opponents of the movement argue that network companies shouldn't be stopped from using Quality-of-Service in their offerings. Now, there were some important points there:
Firstly, the existing legislation is effectively in favour of Net Neutrality; it doesn't grant any privileges which aren't intrinsic to the operation of the system as a whole. There is new legislation being created which changes that, however, and that new legislation is what people are trying to get rid of, to keep the existing level playing field.
Secondly, you see the argument that Net Neutrality shouldn't be allowed because then Bell won't be able to charge more for higher bandwidth, or for better quality of service, and so on. This is a red herring, however: Net Neutrality supporters don't much care about that. We don't expect that everything will cost the same. It's perfectly acceptable to us that any consumer -- be they private or corporate -- desiring higher access speeds or better quality of service would pay extra for that. It's a service, you pay for it. That's fine. What we don't like is the way that a company like AT&T or Comcast could potentially charge money from any company whose data crosses their network at any point.
So, if an AT&T customer uses Google, they would ask Google for money. The AT&T customer is already paying them, and is getting exactly what they paid for. Google is paying their provider, and getting what they paid for. Some network providers, however, believe that data crossing their network is not being paid for, and so should be able to request reimbursement from the content providers. At which point one might well ask: What are the consumers of AT&T's home DSL service paying for, if not for their traffic to be routed across AT&T's network?
The arguments come thick & fast, but it ultimately comes down to something similar to that employed by Universal against the iPod and (successfully) the Zune: These people make money by selling something which works alongside our product. Even though we're paid for our product, we want money from the device our product works with, because without our product, the device couldn't function.
So, I hope this clears things up for you: charging your customers extra for better QoS is not a problem. Charging people who aren't your customers for QoS -- or explicitly lowering QoS for companies who don't hand you money -- is not. We're not asking the government to create rules disallowing it, we'd just like the new rules enabling that behaviour to be removed please, or at least re
Parent
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:4, Interesting)
-Eric
Parent
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, Supporters != screw Google. Supporters are OK with traditional type-based QoS. Meaning that, if they want to screw Google, they have to screw all HTTP web traffic. Which is pretty much everything not using secure pages.
You will note, however, that this doesn't actually save MMO companies because they use unique ports.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And do you have proof this is the case? This whole can of worms started because a telecom head (Comcast's, I believe) stated they might start performing source-based descrimination. This implies that they feel free they can do this.
Further, AFAIK, CC status only pert
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's exactly the point. In your example, let's substitute the bit torrent users for a large corporation. Now, said corporation can go to your ISP, plop a wad of cash on the table, and throttle their bandwidth up, causing your BF2 to be completely screwed. Since you don't have the same deep pockets, you end up paying the same amount for your service that you had been, only the service is now degraded. Currentl
FUD and Fear-mongering... (Score:3, Informative)
There is nothing in the current laws, that requires ISPs to carry any particular type of traffic, yet the only stuff some of them have come around disabling is the outgoing port 25 (for good reasons), and the incoming ports 80 and 443 (for bad reasons)...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, then, can't anyone connect to my port 80, and why can't I connect to anyone's port 25 — except my own ISP's mail-server?
Re:FUD and Fear-mongering... (Score:5, Interesting)
are you mad? i switched away from a provider simply because they decided that outbound traffic on 25 was not allowed. i asked, simply "please disconnect my service." i got the "why sir?", to that i responded about 25 being closed, needing a mail server, etc etc. bastard company kept on insisting that I could not have a server on their network, but wouldn't close my account. after some freaking, and raised voices, they heard.
now, i understand that some clowns haven't any idea what 25 is, or how smtp works. people like that should have everything disabled by default at the isp, but the option to open the port should also exist. whatever happened to making your customer happy? somewhere along the way, money and greed removed any politeness between lowly customer and huge corporation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Protects customers who don't need to know, and keeps customers who do
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Let the MMO operators pay for the lobbyists (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like a simple thing to figure out. Are the bandwidth providers in a situation where they are in the red? I dont think they are. So, do they need government price protections? I dont think so. This is another case of corporate interests begging for a handout when they want new yachts.
Paid market "research" firm anyone?! (Score:3, Informative)
oh for god sakes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lay more fucking fiber, you god damned piece of shit greedmongering lazy bastards! I pay $110 for cable per month, and that ONLY includes analog, digital on ONE TV, and a cable modem. I have an HDTV, and I REFUSE to pay them another $10 for 8 760p.
Eat my shorts, telecoms.
(Note that my cable company is not a large one, and my modem's speed is routinely 1.5x advertized with no latency problems or blocked ports. Still, $110 a month??)
What about the night elves now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd play a Tauren, but as a grownup with years of gaming experience I can't bring myself to play a game in easy mode...
Yes, but the phone company HOSTS the MMOs (Score:5, Interesting)
If Net Neutrality did squeeze online gaming, it might create an opportunity for someone like GameRail [gamerail.com], a high speed network that directly connects online game players to the servers that host popular FPS titles. GameRail peers directly with ISPs, universities and game server providers (GSPs). The question is whether game server hosts see usefulness in that type of middleman. The answer to that question might change in some of the scenarios imagined int eh article.
The Horde is Against Net Neutrality (Score:4, Funny)
As a member of The Horde I will have to vote against net neutrality then.
WTF is the blurb talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
Network neutrality means that you don't discriminate for or against packets based on origin or destination.
Your ISP should be free to discriminate with HTTP, BitTorrent, VoIP, and game traffic (for or against). Why? Because things like QoS are necessary to a properly functioning network... It's fine if HTTP is 500ms latency, not if VoIP is, so packets for time-critical services get priority (to a point). Your ISP should be absolutely forbidden from discriminating against HTTP traffic from Google because Google refused to pay protection money, because that is exactly what made the Internet great.
So, here it is: The Network Neutrality Act
1) No ISP, herein defined as an entity providing access to remote services ("The Internet") for a regular fee, shall be permitted to perform any form of Internet traffic shaping based upon the source or destination of said traffic.
2. Any ISP found in violation of this act shall be fined an amount equal to 2% of its entire last fiscal year's net revenue per day that it remains in contravention of this act.
I'd love to see the first ISP that tries discriminating after this... heh.
A good place to start (Score:3, Insightful)
1.They should be forbidden from discriminating on network packets based on source or destination address
and 2.They should be forbidden from limiting the physical bandwidth available to a given network protocol (blocking it e.g. port25 or virus ports is different and is perfectly ok, what I am talking about is the practice of port shaping so that e.g. BitTorrent is cut down so its effectivly operating on a slower link)
Night elves are the smallest risk for the US (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU, China, India all provide single currency markets that are larger than the US market, if not now then very soon. So the power the US market had won't last much longer. The question is if the US throws up too many barriers to the market will the market adjust or, just move on to greener, and easier to graze, grass.
With the loss of the technical edge in market, will it also result in a loss of technology development. To we finally become a market made up of people selling things to each other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is not net-neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:No, free market lowers prices (Score:4, Informative)
Google, Microsoft, Download.com, and Slashdot ALREADY FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING BANDWIDTH. That's why they have dedicated fiber lines running into their data centers. That's why we can access them.
Joe Sixpack, Grandma Jones, and Little Boy Blue ALREADY FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING BANDWIDTH. That's why they have cable/dsl/regular modems that allow them to connect to their ISPs so they can surf the web. Its how they connect to Google, etc.
The telecos are already getting paid at both ends of the pipe. Now, they want to add a QoS layer to make Google and Grandma pay AGAIN, or else suffer degraded service. Or worse, intentionally degrading service to sites that may be in competiton to their services or displaying views/opinions that the teleco does not support.
If the telecos want/need to charge more for bandwidth, then charge more. This QoS crap borders on extortion: "That's a nice website you have there....be a shame if something were to happen to it."
~X~
Parent
The article is exactly backward (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the providers like this. First, the guy with the biggest clique wins and it drives out the little guy competittion. Second, they don't care what your bandwidth is as long as they are the gate keeper and can charge you what it costs them plus a fixed profit. They have no strong incentive to build more bandwidth since as gate keepers their profit will be the same. It's not like there are suddenly be fewers internet users. As long as you can play some games you will be shelling out 49.99 per month--you wont decide well hey it's not fast enough so I wont use the internet at all. You'll still belly up. You might be willing to pay a premium for faster service, but unless all the other game players were willing to do so also then your speed limit in the game is not your connection but the connection to the other players on the slow links.
Now the way they can deliver better QOS to everyone is to maximally exploit all the interconnects they don't gate keep. Namley the the peer-to-peer connections that may span provider networks. If all those have high QOS there's more bandwidth for everyone. They just can't change you extra for it and since it allows competition and the small cliques can compete you are not slaved to one provider: you can move to the best value and still have good QOS. So there's incentive to the providers to provide faster and faster connetions at the lowest cost.
the article is exactly wrong
Parent