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.

It's all in the titles

[robyannetta]

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

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"?

[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: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.

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 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