ISPs Can Charge Extra For Fast Gaming Under FCC's Internet Rules, Critics Say (arstechnica.com) 29
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Some net neutrality proponents are worried that soon-to-be-approved Federal Communications Commission rules will allow harmful fast lanes because the plan doesn't explicitly ban "positive" discrimination. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel's proposed rules for Internet service providers would prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The rules mirror the ones imposed by the FCC during the Obama era and repealed during Trump's presidency. But some advocates are criticizing a decision to let Internet service providers speed up certain types of applications as long as application providers don't have to pay for special treatment. Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick, who has consistently argued for stricter net neutrality rules, wrote in a blog post on Thursday that "harmful 5G fast lanes are coming."
"T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon are all testing ways to create these 5G fast lanes for apps such as video conferencing, games, and video where the ISP chooses and controls what gets boosted," van Schewick wrote. "They use a technical feature in 5G called network slicing, where part of their radio spectrum gets used as a special lane for the chosen app or apps, separated from the usual Internet traffic. The FCC's draft order opens the door to these fast lanes, so long as the app provider isn't charged for them." In an FCC filing yesterday, AT&T said that carriers will use network slicing "to better meet the needs of particular business applications and consumer preferences than they could over a best-efforts network that generally treats all traffic the same."
Van Schewick warns that carriers could charge consumers more for plans that speed up specific types of content. For example, a mobile operator could offer a basic plan alongside more expensive tiers that boost certain online games or a tier that boosts services like YouTube and TikTok. Ericsson, a telecommunications vendor that sells equipment to carriers including AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, has pushed for exactly this type of service. In a report on how network slicing can be used commercially, Ericsson said that "many gamers are willing to pay for enhanced gaming experiences" and would "pay up to $10.99 more for a guaranteed gaming experience on top of their 5G monthly subscription."
"T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon are all testing ways to create these 5G fast lanes for apps such as video conferencing, games, and video where the ISP chooses and controls what gets boosted," van Schewick wrote. "They use a technical feature in 5G called network slicing, where part of their radio spectrum gets used as a special lane for the chosen app or apps, separated from the usual Internet traffic. The FCC's draft order opens the door to these fast lanes, so long as the app provider isn't charged for them." In an FCC filing yesterday, AT&T said that carriers will use network slicing "to better meet the needs of particular business applications and consumer preferences than they could over a best-efforts network that generally treats all traffic the same."
Van Schewick warns that carriers could charge consumers more for plans that speed up specific types of content. For example, a mobile operator could offer a basic plan alongside more expensive tiers that boost certain online games or a tier that boosts services like YouTube and TikTok. Ericsson, a telecommunications vendor that sells equipment to carriers including AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, has pushed for exactly this type of service. In a report on how network slicing can be used commercially, Ericsson said that "many gamers are willing to pay for enhanced gaming experiences" and would "pay up to $10.99 more for a guaranteed gaming experience on top of their 5G monthly subscription."
I smell bullshit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm. This is like the old military joke, "Everyone wanting to volunteer for this mission, take a step forward...", and everyone but one poor schmuck takes a step backward.
This sort of seems to cancel most of the good intentions of NN. Or at least it leaves a loophole wide enough to drive at truck through.
Re:Traffic shaping and QoS is now evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess they're assuming that offering these features will slow down other traffic.
Giving the customer the choice is a good thing. Forcing a choice on the customer is a bad thing.
If I don't use VoIP, I don't want part of my bandwidth cut off because I don'y use that type of service. If I do use VoIP, I don't want my call quality to suffer because someone else just started watching a video and it's buffering.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, I can see where that might be a concern on a small home net but we're talking about ISP backbone level traffic.
Traffic shaping allows them to more efficiently uses their bandwidth so you get the bandwidth you need when you need it and so does everyone else. You're not being hurt by QoS. The other customer is getting bandwidth you don't need. If your need goes up, bandwidth will be there for you because someone else not using it will yield some capacity for you.
The potential problem is if they start c
Re: Traffic shaping and QoS is now evil? (Score:2)
Of course there will be a charge for it, thatâ(TM)s the issue.
You can hav traffic shaping prioritize your stream for $11 extra a month, otherwise itâ(TM)s treated like other content.
They would have to downgrade everyoneâ(TM)s experience over time, ensure a poor service, so then people see value in qos.
Re: (Score:2)
The bufferbloat folks proved that you don't have to have your call quality or gaming experience suffer if someone starts asking for tons of bandwidth. To oversimplify, the mongo download process is forced to compete fairly with the voip call, not just drown it out.
An ISP that doesn't use modern software is at moral hazard. They're tempted to rob Peter to pay Paul, exactly as we see <curses elided/> Telcos doing here.
At the same time, they need to legally use fq_codel and CAKE on their network, to
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? My home router sells QoS as a feature. Why would the average customer -not- want their gaming, video conferences, etc, to get priority over their random html surfing on Facebook?
I don't see what the complaint is.
^ ^ T H I S ^ ^
Seriously, unless the FCC explicitly forbids something or clearly spells out the constraints for it's use, and that is very difficult to get right in any legal framework, any ISP will hire good lawyers to find the loopholes and creative electrical engineers will find ways to exploit those gaps.
The only alternative is a flat-out ban by the FCC on ALL forms of prioritization except that which is needed by the ISP to operate their own network. Of course there will be the usual loopholes for go
Re: (Score:3)
QoS is always Network specific, meaning your local network only, ISP networks only, Hand off networks only, etc.
These statements only show those that make them dont know shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not how QoS works. If you can get your ISP to use your QoS across their network, and then work with all other networks to use your QoS, then you must be the government, because aint nobody use local noobs QoS setting on their network. QoS is always Network specific, meaning your local network only, ISP networks only, Hand off networks only, etc. These statements only show those that make them dont know shit.
If you pay for a "priority lane" for an application then you should get a "priority lane" for that application; the current FCC rules do not forbid that, and that was my point. R-I-F
I think the FCC does forbid content providers (or at least my former employer's Legal folks forbade it) from paying for priority for their content; all content was treated equally (hard to believe, I know, but true, at least where I used to work). Seriously, as an ISP if your "pipes" are big enough then you don't have to play t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? My home router sells QoS as a feature.
I'm assuming your router doesn't charge you anything to enable the feature. The problem here is ISPs could conceivably fuck up your gaming latency on purpose, and then charge an extra monthly fee for a special feature that unfucks it. Kind of like what mobile providers do with streaming videos, except that most people don't really notice the downscaled resolution on a 6" screen. You will, however, notice when you're trying to play Soldier's Call of Bullets 2050 and you keep getting constantly teabagged.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming your router doesn't charge you anything to enable the feature.
I don't know. Based on their comment, I'd say their router probably does charge them extra for that feature. And they are happy about it.
The problem here is ISPs could conceivably fuck up your gaming latency on purpose, and then charge an extra monthly fee for a special feature that unfucks it.
Anyone who doesn't see that this is the desired result has got their head up their ass. Or maybe they expect, contrary to 150 years of prior evidence, that the Telcos will suddenly become altruistic?
Re: (Score:1)
This is the world you want to live in, you absolute fucking muppet.
Your analogy isn't even that great, because the ISP isn't setting QoS, they literally locking awa
If this happens (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that simple. Port is just one part of a network. Protocols matter and can be determined. Traffic matters and can be determined unless it is protected. In practice most games would not be able to look like normal SSL internet traffic, they typically use the UDP protocol (to allow packets to be dropped and ensure minimum latency) and would not run in an encrypted tunnel (due to the added latency required).
So no, games would not switch to port 443. Also ... "open source" games? Talk about a niche of a
Re: (Score:3)
If there is sufficient competition it will all even out fairly quickly...
I think you've put your finger on the problem.
"specific types of content" (Score:2)
Been This Way (Score:3)
Access any Big Tech(tm) site on phone "5G" connection: instant.
Phone video playback on Big Tech: instant.
Access my own e-commerce web site on the phone: 20-30 seconds minimum, even if 97% text.
Access the same site from a wired connection: instant.
All this posturing is bullshit. 5G is bullshit too.
If you don't have a Big Tech URL, your site is already fucked.
Wooosh!! (Score:2)
What you should be worried about is how the big ISPs will use 5G network slicing in the long term plan to abandon consumer landline connections (large infrastructure costs for them) and force everyone to share the same bandwidth. Unless you pay extra of course, the same way you pay more for a Gig connection vs 300M
Re: (Score:1)
Great point. I don't use my phone for high bandwidth stuff, but this does look like an opening for ISPs to move traffic away from wires. I don't like that.
How do they know? (Score:1)