Slashdot Mirror
Every Time You Vote Against Net Neutrality, Your ISP Kills a Night Elf
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."
So you mean WoW players would be forced to have a life outside the Horde???? Isn't that a good thing?
Unto the upright there arises light in the darkness...
This gets my vote for the most catchy title since Fark's 'ceiling cat' incident.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
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.
[
People don't want to have to pay extra for something they were getting already. And we certainly don't want server operators to pay more for what they were getting standard. Besides that, we don't want things being blocked or intentionally degraded. Simply, keep the same user experience as now without increasing the price. If network providers aren't making a profit, then raise prices and let the market deal with it.
If this is a big concern then the MMO operators should carry the weight of the bill to hire lobbyists. Of course, they dont represent the same economic weight as bandwidth providers.
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.
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!
"Every Time You Vote Against Net Neutrality, Your ISP Kills a Night Elf". That's fine. I play Tauren. You seen one Legolllas, you've seen them all. (By the way, did every person who came to Wow with no sense of fantasy make themselves a night elf? What was the draw to that stupid race for most people, anyway?)
Perhaps, but it seems to me that legislation which could just as easily be titled "Decimating a Legitimate Industry That Generates Billions of Dollars In Revenue and Employs Tens Of Thousands Of People" deserves more than a single sentence.
The post says it all : if they built a business out of it, they have to pay for it.
Yeah, because Blizzard gets a free OC48 pipe, just for being such a good customer.
Fucking idiot.
I didn't think bottled water would sell too well either. Things that seem silly to knowledgeable and sane folks just don't sink in to the rest of the populace.
Right now I have 1.5Mb/256k ADSL from AT&T for $15 a month. The chuckleheads keep trying to sell me on "pro" service for twice as much, but in truth I hardly use the bandwidth I've got now, I'm happy with what I've got as long as they don't screw it up. Sooner or later they're going to key in on the fact that quite a bit of the demographic they've targeted is saturated for bandwidth and go after latency so they can ratchet up the price that way. That (I think) is what this tiering is all about..how to find another way to charge for the same things they sell now, without having to spend too much more on infrastructure.
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Where's this guy's +1 Insightful...seriously.
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.
Basicly, there are 2 things that I think ISPs should be forbidden from doing
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)
Right now the US is in a situation where they are no longer the "majority" of the tech elite. India, China, Brazil, Souoth Korea and others are fast moving from suppliers of the US pot to being able to just say "Screw the US, we don't need them." As we move forward onto a less neutral net the end result will be nothing less than a mass exodus of cutting edge technology from the US to other countries.
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.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.