Slashdot Mirror


UK ISP To Prioritize Gaming Traffic

nk497 writes "A UK ISP is now offering a broadband package just for gamers, which will prioritize their traffic to give them an edge over rival players. Demon Internet has also set up direct networks with gaming companies to boost speeds, and is promising lower latency and a higher usage cap than standard packages. 'Looking at the usage of gamers, it's actually more akin to a small business,' the company said. While paying to get specific content streamed more quickly may worry net neutrality campaigners, Demon says it has enough capacity for its own customers and that's who it's looking out for."

8 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Illegal under Net Neutrality by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LOL wut? Net neutrality would prevent this, yes, but it would also prevent ISPs from holding you hostage for not paying up. I get that you're a Libertarian and it's all ZOMG gubment doin' stuff, but give me a break. The suggestion that what we have now works is as laughable as it is wrong. At bare minimum there needs to be rules to ensure that things are conducted in an above the board fashion.

    Additionally, this is in a sense a method of cheating, you're putting down extra money to have an in game advantage, It doesn't take a genius to see that it puts pressure on other players to pony up for it as well, whether it would otherwise be necessary or not.

  2. Prioritize? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prolly more like "Not intentionally slowing down"

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  3. Re:Illegal under Net Neutrality by klingens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's create preferred lanes for Mercedes, Lexus and BMW drivers. After all, these people paid a lot more than Al Bundy for his Dodge and they pay more taxes as well. So it's entirely fair they get preferred treatment and lower driving latency (get to their destination faster). They're businessmen and women, so their needs are different from the normal people. We still have enough other roads for all the other drivers, don't worry.

  4. Re:Illegal under Net Neutrality by Rising+Ape · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they had enough capacity on their network to avoid congestion, they wouldn't *need* to prioritise anything. This appears to be running a poor network, then charging more to compensate for it.

    Shame, Demon used to be a decent ISP in the 90s.

  5. Re:Illegal under Net Neutrality by squidfood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, despite the "worry over net neutrality" cited in the article, the actual service just looks like they're repackaging a higher speed/business connection as a "gamer" package. Nothing there actually says that your connection will be slower by packet category.

  6. Fair enough I guess by airfoobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Paying £3 to get something extra doesn't sound too bad. What worries me is that ISPs may quietly start crippling their default packages so they can sell "extras". For example, this ISP could artificially raise the latency of normal users' connections, and when anyone complains they might say "it's because we give priority to the more expensive packages -- if you want better latency you must also pay more". You might say "meh, that'll never happen"... But, this is exactly the sort of thing our ISPs are infamous for doing here in the UK.

  7. Re:Illegal under Net Neutrality by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prioritizing based on source or destination would be a problem under Net Neutrality but prioritizing based on protocol etc isn't necessarily unless it's to try to degrade a competitors products(like a phone company which is also an ISP intentionally degrading VOIP).
    NN doesn't stop you pushing VOIP packets through faster than FTP or UDP faster than TCP.

  8. Re:Illegal under Net Neutrality by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prioritizing based on source or destination would be a problem under Net Neutrality but prioritizing based on protocol etc isn't necessarily

    Since most games run their own protocol, it's effectively the same. So the WoW protocol gets prioritized and the Age of Conan protocol does not, it works out to exactly the same as a src/dst filter.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings