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."

Comments

Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommate's

[Spazntwich]

Maybe then he'll do the dishes, or shower.

Wait...

[dark_15]

So you mean WoW players would be forced to have a life outside the Horde???? Isn't that a good thing?

Re:Wait...

[Archangel Michael]

No!

And I think I am speaking for all the people who don't want the WoW Hordes invading Real Life.

It's all in the titles

[robyannetta]

This gets my vote for the most catchy title since Fark's 'ceiling cat' incident.

Yay. The cats are saved!

[EmperorKagato]

As long as the kittens are spared. I don't feel bad about ISPs killing our Night Elves.

Re:Yay. The cats are saved!

[toleraen]

Think of it more as a raid...you have to slaughter your way through fields and fields of night elves, until you finally arive at the boss mob: the cute little kitty sitting on a tree branch a few feet off the ground. Awesome.

Re:Yay. The cats are saved!

[The Darkness]

Think of it more as a raid...you have to slaughter your way through fields and fields of night elves, until you finally arive at the boss mob: the cute little kitty sitting on a tree branch a few feet off the ground. Awesome.

Until that kitty jumps out of the tree and rips your throat out before you can count to 5.. er.. 3.

the meaning of the word "gaming"

[Speare]

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.

Re:the meaning of the word "gaming"

[MBraynard]

The gambling lobbying/policy efforts have been trying to re-brand their business as 'the gaming' industry rather than 'the gambling' industry. It's not the legislators fault that 90% of the stuff they have to deal with and lobbyists they here from are from the 'gaming' as in gambling industry. You need to be aware of these things to get the results you want.

Re:the meaning of the word "gaming"

[Nematode]

"This is a nation where a loudmouthed lawyer can file a lawsuit to prevent a game from being sold, on the basis that it would unleash a generation of "school shooters", even though the closest thing to a firearm in the game is a spud gun. " ...and it's also a nation where that lawsuit gets unceremoniously bounced out of court, without stopping anything from being sold.

The nation may be undereducated, but Jack Thompson's mania is not evidence thereof.

I think people would accept free network priority

[axus]

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.

wrong perspective

[joeyspqr]

think of all the stockholders not profiting from the extra fees paid by MMORPG addicts for preferential routing to tonight's server

Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[elrous0]

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

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[Aadain2001]

I am so with you on this!! People seem to be using the "Net Neutrality" boogyman to push their own agendas, even if those agendas are completely contradictory! For example, TFA (which I haven't read btw) seems to take the stance that the current setup allows for online games to receive higher priority than other traffic (which I doubt very much). Under Net Neutrality, everything would run at the same speed, irregardless of available bandwidth capacity and latency. But I always thought Net Neutrality meant 'keep things the way they are', ie, don't let Comcast and Verizon charge extortion fees to companies like Google to prevent their outbound traffic from being given the bandwidth and latency of a 3600 baud modem while giving their own offerings the highest level of priority possible.

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.

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[Hijacked Public]

There is a Wikipedia entry for it, if you trust such things to be correct.

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?

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[Truman Starr]

Net Neutrality is the "good" thing. Net Neutrality means that the Providers Of The Tubes cannot prioritize (i.e., charge more) for one type of traffic or destination than another. That is to say, if all of the users on an ISP spend their days watching YouTube, a Net Neutral ISP can't do much about it. The ISPs would like to be able to throttle down some traffic unless they get paid. So suddenly, you have all these people trying to watch YouTube, but the ISP is artificially choking the access. Priority is given to people downloading Fur or something. This would in turn frustrate users (except the furries) and drive them away from the "restricted" areas of the Net.

I'm sure that lots of nice arguments have been made in Congress. VoIP, for example, is a case where generally you want prioritization. You don't want your Vonage 9-1-1 call to be stuck because your kid is raiding Molten Core.

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[smilindog2000]

Just to clear this up a bit, there are now two common definitions for "Net nuetrality". The original definition, which has been enforced since the early days of the net is:

- 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?

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[alanQuatermain]

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:

Let's assume the that Google leases its internet connection from Bell, and that there are a large number of consumers using AT&T DSL service to access Google.

So, AT&T looks at its traffic, and realises that they are routing a lot of traffic from their customers to Google, and routing the replies back again. They send someone to Google, asking for money. Google tells AT&T that it already pays some ridiculous amount of money for its internet connection (say, $250'000 per month), and is not going to pay AT&T. Neither will it pay Comcast or Rogers, who over the last week have also asked for large amounts of money.

AT&T (and Comcast, and Rogers) go back to their HQ and tune their Quality-of-Service so that Google's traffic is slowed down significantly. Now only Bell customers can access Google at the speeds for which Google is paying 3 million dollars a year.

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

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[elrous0]

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

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[VGPowerlord]

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.

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.

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[ACMENEWSLLC]

Great post alanQuatermain (840239).

I agree. I am against any legislation here though. I currently QoS about 700 users traffic. We prioritize based on just about everything. An .EXE in FTP/HTTP traffic gets lower priority than a Citrix session for example. But they both can fill the pipes if they need to. SMTP has a cap limit so it can not fill the pipe. It also has a low QoS. HTTP traffic in general is lower priority than HTTPS traffic. ISO downloads are capped at 90% and QoS very low. Certain web sites have bandwidth caps and/or low priority while some websites have high priority.

That is what I do. It works very well. I can share a limited resource and get much better utilization out of it. Why shouldn't ISP's be able to do the same thing?

They should not, however, expect me to pay if I am not their customer. Now say I want to pay them to get my website to have priority. I have no problem with that. But how can they quantify these results to me? How can I to myself?

My ISP limits bandwidth on certain ports. Many block certain ports. Some cap certain websites. I have no problem with this. I would much better see priority throttling over bandwidth limits, but thats my opinion. I'd rather my ISP limit my bit torrent downloads so my BF2 doesn't lag. Works for me.

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[mojodamm]

"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.

Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"?

[Qzukk]

it gets there with the same priority as yours or anyone's

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"?

[debest]

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.

FUD and Fear-mongering...

[mi]

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:FUD and Fear-mongering...

[jamie]

The FCC has made it clear that banning certain types of traffic -- as at least one ISP has already tried -- won't be tolerated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Legal_ history

Re:FUD and Fear-mongering...

[chef_raekwon]

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.

Re:FUD and Fear-mongering...

[mi]

The FCC has made it clear that banning certain types of traffic -- as at least one ISP has already tried -- won't be tolerated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Legal_ history

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...

[Barny]

Correct, this is how my ISP does it, if you want your port 25 + windows networking ports opened, you go onto their website, and use the drop down box to select "open the floodgates" or something similar, about 5 min later they are open.

Protects customers who don't need to know, and keeps customers who do :)

Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat

[__aaclcg7560]

Don't count on it. My roommate came down with the flu a week before he got married and I ended up cleaning out the place after I moved out. I thought he was joking that there was puke on the floor until I almost step into it. The shower was worst. I don't know what it was but it was weird and pissed off when I tried to kill it. I was tempted to call his wife-to-be to come over to see it and ask her if she really wanted to marry this guy. God knows I scared her with the true state of his finances (a big number on the wrong side of zero) and she made him work 40+ hours per week after their honeymoon.

Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat

[JavaTHut]

Maybe then he'll do the dishes, or shower.

You're first post on slashdot. I can only imagine the stench that must wreak forth from your apartment.

Let the MMO operators pay for the lobbyists

[gorehog]

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.

The problem is not net-neutrality

[Casandro]

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.

Re:The problem is not net-neutrality

[doon]

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.

Paid market "research" firm anyone?!

[phantomcircuit]

The original article is by a paid market research firm, if this was a article about total cost of ownership for windows being less than that of *nix it would just be a joke.

Understanding Net Neutrality

[norminator]

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.

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!

oh for god sakes...

[Vegeta99]

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??)

What about the night elves now?

[SilentChris]

"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?)

Re:What about the night elves now?

[geekoid]

Because they're hot?

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...

Re:TFA

[BoberFett]

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.

Re:It's all in the post

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Strategically placed login message?

[Kirgin]

I wonder what the implications of a strategically placed login message for World of Warcraft, with the names/ridings of the politicians against Net Neutrality.

Tell a WarCrack fiend he may have a high ping during that critical Patchwerk attempt then open a voting station on maintenance day. Voter turnout would probly spike by 3-4 million (current US wow base?) people.

If the people who had the most to lose(M$,google,Blizzard) made an effort to saturate every aspect of online entertainment with things like "facts" and "consequences" on the Net Neutrality debate this issue would become a huge pariah for more politicians. I mean who wants pasty faced basement dwellers emerging every tuesday to block you office entrance...or maybe a costumed Tauren hiding your water cooler with their bulk...etc.

What i don't get is...

[carlmenezes]

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?

Yes, but the phone company HOSTS the MMOs

[miller60]

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.

yeah, but...

[HalfOfOne]

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.

Read the article...

[norminator]

TFA (which I haven't read btw) seems to take the stance that the current setup allows for online games to receive higher priority than other traffic (which I doubt very much).

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.

ISPs and double-talk

[norminator]

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.

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'll be non-neutral, so you shouldn't regulate us", then they turn around and say that neutrality prevents them from funding the growth of the Internet infrastructure... using astroturfing fake grass roots campaigns (how genuine). So how are they planning on funding that growth? If they really didn't plan on being non-neutral, how would neutrality prevent them from funding the growth of the Internet?

They give one answer (We haven't been non-neutral, and we don't think we will...) to one group, then turn around and give another answer (How else can we help the Internet grow?) to someone else, then they turn around again and complain about the "freeloaders" like Google, eBay and other content providers, even though those providers are already paying for the bandwidth they use. They basically have said that they will charge for priority, and that they won't, at the same time.

Considering that the Government is responsible for the creation of the Internet, I'd say the government ought to have some say about the neutrality of the Internet in this country.

Re:No, free market lowers prices

[Xyrus]

You have a very twisted view. Let me put it too you bluntly.

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~

Re:It's all in the post

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The Horde is Against Net Neutrality

[AHumbleOpinion]

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

As a member of The Horde I will have to vote against net neutrality then.

The article is exactly backward

[goombah99]

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

Its A Trap! Arguement goes AGAINST N-N

[davidwr]

From TFA:
he move will not be aimed at restricting usage per se, but rather to extract a fee from the game operator.
Or, from the end user.

Gaming will not die. Yes there will be a hiccup but within 3-5 years there will be a new normal.

If Net Neutrality fails and ISPs are free to treat different traffic differently, you can expect high-demand features like low-latency traffic to require a premium from either the end-user or some other sponsor, such as a game company or an advertiser.

You sort-of-kind-of have this already happening at the back-end, where sites like Yahoo and Microsoft ante up to make sure that almost every user can see them quickly no matter where they are, by using systems like akadns.

So, the gaming arguement isn't a great arguement for Net Neutrality. What is?

How about freedom of speech.

There are more important reasons for net neutrality. An ISP may block web sites of political opponents, labor unions, and the like if there is no legal protection. Likewise a small, privately-held monopoly ISP may block sexually oriented web sites just because the owner is morally against them.

Where there is little or no competition, which is the case in most cities with a single dominant telco and a single dominant cable provider, Net Neutrality is as necessary as Cable-TV's "must carry" rules or the longstanding "must carry" common-carrier rules that date back to the early days of AT&T.

Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat

[timster]

40+ hours a week? The horror!

WTF is the blurb talking about?

[The Master Control P]

If network neutrality harmed gaming, why isn't it hurting how?

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

[jonwil]

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)

Night elves are the smallest risk for the US

[Allnighterking]

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.