Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Every Time You Vote Against Net Neutrality, Your ISP Kills a Night Elf

Posted by ryuzaki0 on 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."

13 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm a geek who has followed this issue for some time, and even *I* don't understand the term "net neutrality," and the seemingly confusing ways it's used. Some use "net neutrality" to refer to legislation which prevents phone/cable companies from selling preferential bandwidth to certain websites for a fee. Others (as in the summary above) seem to use it for the opposite meaning, referring to the position that the government should stay neutral and not interfere with phone/cable company rights to sell this preferential bandwidth.

    Now, if *I* can't even understand it, how the Hell is Joe Sixpack supposed to?

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm eternally confused when it comes to the legislation. When someone says "net neutrality legislation," they can mean legislation to PROTECT net neutrality, legislation to PROTECT phone/cable company's rights to offer preferential treatment, or neither. Adding to the confusion is that, without legislation affirmatively protecting neutrality, there is nothing to stop the phone/cable companies from going ahead with their plans with or without their legislation anyway.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, this argument is confusing because the grandparent forgot to mention that the Telecoms are currently restricted from discriminating against companies because of their common carrier status. Current legislation means to change that, though.

      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 pertains to the content flowing across their network. If they block material based on content, then they are responsible for any other content on their network. However, I don't believe it's clear that CC status prevents ISPs from blocking/slowing *all* content from a given source.

      Point being, I don't think it's at all clear that telecoms can't start throttling traffic *now*, if they so choose. And hence Google's (and others) efforts to get legislation passed to *prevent* this from happening. Last I'd heard, anyway.

    3. Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? by mojodamm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I'd rather my ISP limit my bit torrent downloads so my BF2 doesn't lag. Works for me."

      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. Currently, ISPs are (AFAIK) restricted from doing this without giving up common carrier status. However, the legistature currently in front of Senate would remove these restrictions, and allow the service providers to play favorites, catering to the clients with the fattest wallets.

      --
      I'd rather be an ignorant moron than an anonymous coward.
    4. Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? by debest · · Score: 2, Interesting
      By redefining our term, they have turned it into an evil thing, which no one wants.

      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 STATE Act"?

      In the "net neutrality" debate, however, it was the non-evil party that managed to get the term for the discussion coined first, leaving the companies that want to prioritize network traffic in the position of arguing against something that seems so reasonable and fair, when you hear the term. What to do? Exactly what they did: attempt to co-opt the term to make people confused about its meaning. They appear to be doing a splendid job.
      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
  2. The problem is not net-neutrality by Casandro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem is not giving certain packets a higher priority, the problem is who decides who gets higher priority and why.

    But anyhow, it's pointless. The only bottleneck there is is the DSL uplink.
    Once your packet is at your local ISP it will only go through relatively empty lines. Bandwidth is incredibly cheap these days. A simple pair of optical fibers can easily handle 10 GBit or 40 GBit.

    Anyhow, if you are really worried about it: Get off your A** and build your own network. Wireless meshed networks are really simple to build.

    1. Re:The problem is not net-neutrality by doon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bandwidth maybe cheap, but router interfaces are not. I work on a DWDM network that covers a good portion of NY, along with running a decent sized Regional ISP. Sure you *can* put 10G on a piece of fiber and it isn't that expensive, it gets expensive when you need to be able to route @ those speeds.

      --
      To E-mail me, replace the first period in my domain with an @
  3. oh for god sakes... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What, broadband providers don't have enough bandwidth?

    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??)

  4. What i don't get is... by carlmenezes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why does this only apply to online gaming? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Net Neutrality, "an idealized concept of network design which has been defined by Tim Berners-Lee as "If I pay to connect to the net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service.""

    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?

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  5. Yes, but the phone company HOSTS the MMOs by miller60 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While there's a certain logic to the scenario presented by Ramprate in TFA regarding phone companies and ISPs, it's also true that the largest online games are actually hosted by a phone company. AT&T hosts World of Warcraft and Sony Online Entertainment's major games. At this year's E3, AT&T announced the expansion of its online gaming operation. Given the hosting fees coming in from Blizzard and Sony, AT&T/SBC has a vested interest in their success. Does the nation's largest phone company have leverage in dealing with ISPs who might be tempted to mess with MMO traffic? I suspect they do. Food for thought.

    If Net Neutrality did squeeze online gaming, it might create an opportunity for someone like GameRail, 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.

    --
    RichM
    Data Center Knowledge
  6. Re:FUD and Fear-mongering... by chef_raekwon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    outgoing port 25 (for good reasons)

    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.

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  7. The article is exactly backward by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate to say it but Cringely got it right and this article gets it wrong. Without net neutrality we move to spoke and wheel internet where the hubs are the high QOS cliques of the major carriers. all other paths joining nodes that are not in the intra-carrier cliques and thus getting first rank quality of service will be slow connections. As a result two things happen: the actual network capacity, compared to a peer-to-peer model goes down. and the number of players who can simultaneously be connected within one clique drops.

    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

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  8. Re:ps3 kick m$ a$$! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    only because the ps2 is really only worth about $100. i used to be ps2 all the way until i saw the light, a glowing green light. sony had their day and screwed up royally. did everybody forget about the rootkits? just imagine whats going on in your ps3....