Net neutrality is dead in 'murica.

[Triadninja]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/te...ules.html?_r=0


I don't know the extent to which this will damage companies, but if this crap gets passed(which it probably will), the internet will turn into a big pile of crap. This could(and probably will) affect Funcom. Want a fast lane(regular speed, nothing "fast" about it) for your players? Pay up. Don't want to? Too bad. Here, you can lose your customerbase because they can't play without lagging, even though they purchased 50mb/s for *insert extortion price here*.

I know politics is a touchy subject for some, but this isn't just going to affect America.

[Awikun]

I do not think this will be a problem as online games do not need a massive amount of data to be transfered.

The way I see it is that the existing speed of transfer will not be lowered but some companies offering video on demand services in full HD quality (or better) will have to pay more to make sure that their customers will be able to watch movies without interupts.

[Triadninja]

I do not think this will be a problem as online games do not need a massive amount of data to be transfered.

The way I see it is that the existing speed of transfer will not be lowered but some companies offering video on demand services in full HD quality (or better) will have to pay more to make sure that their customers will be able to watch movies without interupts.

While you make a valid point, don't forget game companies are mostly digital now, so they could throttle speeds unless they pay extra for downloads like the whole game/patches.

[Bekrowe]

Except the game company is sending 0s and 1s to the user not actual images. The bandwidth used by a server to communicate with a client has very little commonality with that of a streaming movie service, which has to send the images and audio. Each time you patch a game client you are patching the video audio and the text. The Server/Client Communication system is only performing a check on location, stating who you are talking to/fighting etc. They aren't actually streaming the NPC to your PC.

[Gorathon]

Except the game company is sending 0s and 1s to the user not actual images. The bandwidth used by a server to communicate with a client has very little commonality with that of a streaming movie service, which has to send the images and audio.

Wait, are you saying that that game companies send 0's and 1's but that that Netflix, et al. send something other than 0's and 1's? This would surely be exciting news!

[solcv2]

Wait, are you saying that that game companies send 0's and 1's but that that Netflix, et al. send something other than 0's and 1's? This would surely be exciting news!

Thats exactly how I read it too. Allthough I do know exactly what Bek means. The FC client just communicates amall items of data with the server, probably something you could do over a bloody telnet connection - all of the 'media' content is allrady stored on your machine.

Streaming audo, you are actually recieving the media content (still in 1s and 0s, but just a F**CK load more of them)

I realised you probably knew this, but I can guarantee there are some people who won't

Mark

[Raggy]

Just move the server out of the states?

[Triadninja]

Except the game company is sending 0s and 1s to the user not actual images. The bandwidth used by a server to communicate with a client has very little commonality with that of a streaming movie service, which has to send the images and audio. Each time you patch a game client you are patching the video audio and the text. The Server/Client Communication system is only performing a check on location, stating who you are talking to/fighting etc. They aren't actually streaming the NPC to your PC.

I figure as much, since there is no need for a game to stream images and audio, rather just stream positions and other server-info and have the client do the calculation work/image placement.

I may just be overreacting to the fact that net neutrality is dead. I am also very speculative about how ISPs are going to try and limit as much as they can so they can increase their bottom line.

I do appreciate your post though, thank you for clearing that up.

[Bekrowe]

Yes I apologize I wasn't really awake yet when I posted that. All companies send 0s and 1s in their data however the amount of such 0s and 1s are significant in the means of what this is discussing.

For a streaming video/audio service it would require a large data stream while a video game requires very little in the terms of data being sent, and this of course is reliant on exactly how much information is being sent.

However the two are apples to oranges as a video game doesn't actually stream the video/audio content just basic information about where a player is located vs were the client thinks it is etc.

[rakhabit]

I do not think this will be a problem as online games do not need a massive amount of data to be transfered.

It's not just bandwidth that's at risk here, but "speed" also. By speed I mean latency.

Let's say for example, that Big Company A pays for all its games to run on the super fast uber internet while Little Startup Company B is stuck on the slower generic internet.

All Company A's users have an average ping of 50, while Company B's users packets are forced to travel a less efficient network and they end up with an average ping of 150. The gameplay experience is going to be better and more responsive on Company A's game and as a result, Company B will struggle to build a large enough user base to be able to afford access to the uberinternet

[Doctrony]

Let's say for example, that Big Company A pays for all its games to run on the super fast uber internet while Little Startup Company B is stuck on the slower generic internet.

In a situation such as that, and a profit-driven society such as ours, you'd see third-party 'proxy' companies spring up that offer services that route the slower traffic through the faster lanes. The cost of this, would be some non-zero sum, which is what the original NY Times article mentioned when it said that the costs of prioritised service would simply be passed on to consumers.

I feel that everyone who is concerned about this is worried about the same sort of scenarios. If internet service providers implement 'fast-lanes' and allow companies to pay for access, you would get:

Scenario A: These 'fast-lanes' are 'in-addition' to current service offerings. Sort of like building a tolled freeway above an existing 4-lane road. The road is still there, exactly as it was, only there's now the option of a more-expensive and faster alternative.

Scenario B: Instead of being offered 'in-addition' to current services, the new 'fast-lanes' are simply given priority. So instead of a freeway being built above our 4-lane road, ISPs choose instead to simply turn two of the road's 4 lanes into 'premium lanes' that drivers pay to use. This effectively reduces the amount of traffic that can travel for 'free' along the road, while still offering the new 'premium' services.

Given many of these large ISPs are based in America, what option do you think looks more attractive to them? Even ignoring the track-records of companies like Comcast, it's difficult to see how this won't negatively impact almost everyone, except the ISPs and potentially the companies with the money to make such an investment worthwhile.

As to the effect of NetNeutrality on gaming, you have to think of the games industry as a whole. Yes, the amount of data being sent to and from servers while a game is running should be negligible (for the most part), rakhabit's point mentioning speed is an incredibly valid one. Then you've got all of the additional services that keep the games industry running smoothly: on-demand digital downloads (Steam, Origin, U-Play, Battle.net, any other company that offers digital downloads from their servers, like Funcom), then there's things like Twitch which does stream Audio and Video. The point being that these changes have the potential to affect the underlying nature of the very fabric of the internet. Should these changes go through it will not be a matter of 'is the games industry going to be affected?', it will be 'to what extent will the games industry be affected?'

Hopefully I haven't started any arguments with this post, as this topic skirts many political boundaries, and I am not a huge fan of political discussions.

Here's hoping things don't go too far downhill from here.
-Trony-

[Mastablasta]

They can still give packages different priority. Did not pay? Then, hey, your packages get less priority. Which was the thing with net neutrality in the first place, that all packets are equal.

[Demoder]

I'm going to try to explain this situation in an orderly way, trying not to be biased. My opinion is that ISPs shouldn't require payments from content providers AND their own customers for the same product.

Some terms:
ISP (internet service provider) is an entity providing an internet connection to their customers (you). For example Comcast or Telenor.
Customer That's you, an ISPs customer.
Content is the stuff you download from the internet. For example pictures of cats, knitting recipes for your friends, and videos from Youtube.
Content Provider is the entity providing the resources you access. For example Reddit, Wordpress and Google.

I'll keep to the example of the customer downloading stuff from a content provider, to simplify things.

The customer pays the ISP for access to the Internet, throttled to some speed according to which plan you're on; let's say 5 Mbit/s. The ISP has limited bandwidth to/from the Internet. The ISP assumes that not everyone will fully utilize their bandwidth all the time, and sells more bandwidth to customers than the ISP has available to the Internet. This setup worked fine for many years, but in recent years, people are downloading much more data-heavy content than they did in the past. This is often because people are watching videos on Youtube, streaming from Hulu and Netflix, etc.

Now, the ISP realizes that they have promised their customers more bandwidth than they can deliver. The ISP is in hard competition with other ISPs, and doesn't want to raise the price for the customers plan. But they need upgrade their network, because they're not able to deliver what their customers already paid them for. This money has to come from somewhere. Solution: Require the content providers to pay for the amount of data they're sending into the ISPs network.

This may sound fine at first glance. But wait a moment. Didn't the ISPs customers already pay for this? Would the customer even pay for this plan if they couldn't access the content providers? Let's not forget that the content providers already pay their own ISPs for their access to the Internet. This is one of the things your monthly fee to Netflix and the annoying ads on Youtube pays for.

tl;dr: ISPs want their customers to pay for access to the internet (i.e. to content providers). ISPs also want the content providers to pay for access to the ISPs customers. In other words: ISPs want to grab money in both ends.

Where else is this accepted practice?

[Triadninja]

I'm going to try to explain this situation in an orderly way, trying not to be biased. My opinion is that ISPs shouldn't require payments from content providers AND their own customers for the same product.

Some terms:
ISP (internet service provider) is an entity providing an internet connection to their customers (you). For example Comcast or Telenor.
Customer That's you, an ISPs customer.
Content is the stuff you download from the internet. For example pictures of cats, knitting recipes for your friends, and videos from Youtube.
Content Provider is the entity providing the resources you access. For example Reddit, Wordpress and Google.

I'll keep to the example of the customer downloading stuff from a content provider, to simplify things.

The customer pays the ISP for access to the Internet, throttled to some speed according to which plan you're on; let's say 5 Mbit/s. The ISP has limited bandwidth to/from the Internet. The ISP assumes that not everyone will fully utilize their bandwidth all the time, and sells more bandwidth to customers than the ISP has available to the Internet. This setup worked fine for many years, but in recent years, people are downloading much more data-heavy content than they did in the past. This is often because people are watching videos on Youtube, streaming from Hulu and Netflix, etc.

Now, the ISP realizes that they have promised their customers more bandwidth than they can deliver. The ISP is in hard competition with other ISPs, and doesn't want to raise the price for the customers plan. But they need upgrade their network, because they're not able to deliver what their customers already paid them for. This money has to come from somewhere. Solution: Require the content providers to pay for the amount of data they're sending into the ISPs network.

This may sound fine at first glance. But wait a moment. Didn't the ISPs customers already pay for this? Would the customer even pay for this plan if they couldn't access the content providers? Let's not forget that the content providers already pay their own ISPs for their access to the Internet. This is one of the things your monthly fee to Netflix and the annoying ads on Youtube pays for.

tl;dr: ISPs want their customers to pay for access to the internet (i.e. to content providers). ISPs also want the content providers to pay for access to the ISPs customers. In other words: ISPs want to grab money in both ends.

Where else is this accepted practice?

That's the stupid part: it's not accepted as a practice in many other countries.

What's surprising me is that I haven't heard from major internet companies about their stance on this (such as google, though this may not affect google since Google is such a large company that they can get a pass what with their services being used by virtually anyone who touches the internet). The only company that has a stance on this so far is Netflix, who recently released a statement basically saying the exact thing you just talked about Demoder.

[Esssch]

That's the stupid part: it's not accepted as a practice in many other countries.

What's surprising me is that I haven't heard from major internet companies about their stance on this (such as google, though this may not affect google since Google is such a large company that they can get a pass what with their services being used by virtually anyone who touches the internet). The only company that has a stance on this so far is Netflix, who recently released a statement basically saying the exact thing you just talked about Demoder.

Google has publicly supported net neutrality, though they haven't specifically talked about this current situation.

You're also misinterpreting Demoder's question of where else this is accepted practice. Or I'm misinterpreting it. I interpreted it as "what other field of technology/service does this happen in". It doesn't matter if it's not a practice in other countries, the US is a major backbone of the internet and anything that happens to the internet here directly affects the internet of a vast majority of the world. Look at how many websites and tech companies are in the US. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, lots of game companies, lots of porn websites, I believe that even AO's servers are based in the US.

[Dogtrauma]

The large tech companies stand to gain from this, it raises the "buy in" for any prospective competitors, Google, MS et al. can simply pass on the cost to the consumers.

The main reason that this can even be proposed is that A. for most Americans broadband is pretty much a monopoly market, what ever cable company put lines into your building, that's who you will have to choose. and B. the entertainment lobby that has a good long term relationships with the cable industry wants the the internet to be like cable, no real choices for j00, no small actors disrupting their very lucrative business model. I read recently that Comcast rates at 4th place on the most hated corporation list in the US, negative fallback is not a concern since everyone that could leave them has already done so.

Then ofc there are these little things making this type of thing even more disgusting, all kinds of trigger warnings on that one.

This all reinforces my image of "western democracy" as a bit like constantly being peed on by an army of small incontinent dogs, which on the whole is a lot better than having your throat torn out by the rabid pittbulls employed by small incontinent dictators but still, you know, stinks.
Hope you'll pardon me for channeling Spider Jerusalem a bit there.

[Demoder]

You're also misinterpreting Demoder's question of where else this is accepted practice. Or I'm misinterpreting it. I interpreted it as "what other field of technology/service does this happen in".

That's what I meant, but whether it happens in the same field in other western countries is also relevant, even if it's less so.

This all reinforces my image of "western democracy" as a bit like constantly being peed on by an army of small incontinent dogs, which on the whole is a lot better than having your throat torn out by the rabid pittbulls employed by small incontinent dictators but still, you know, stinks.
Hope you'll pardon me for channeling Spider Jerusalem a bit there.

Democracy is a bad form of government, but it's the best one we've found to date. Do keep in mind that most western countries are not direct democracies, but rather implements a "democracy by representation" system.

IIRC, FCC tried to enforce net neutrality some years ago, but they essentially discovered they have no power to do so. I think this may be why this stuff is happening now.

[Triadninja]

Democracy is a bad form of government, but it's the best one we've found to date. Do keep in mind that most western countries are not direct democracies, but rather implements a "democracy by representation" system.

The sad part about this is the US is no longer even classified as a democracy. They recently did a study that showed the United States is no longer a democracy, rather an Oligarchy.

[Crysantimum]

I believe that even AO's servers are based in the US.

Yes.

For Europe, or at least EU+Efta, can it look differently:

http://gigaom.com/2014/04/03/europea...aming-reforms/

"European Parliament passes strong net neutrality law, along with major roaming reforms"

It is not completely finalised, but it looks good.

[jorricane]

The sad part about this is the US is no longer even classified as a democracy. They recently did a study that showed the United States is no longer a democracy, rather an Oligarchy.

Just came across a school textbook from 1912 in my little antique shop, and interestingly, it describes the US as a "federated republic, and not a democracy as is commonly thought." I think in many ways there have always been oligarchical tendencies present, and the way the economy is flowing at the moment has merely magnified what was already a top-heavy society.

Edit: I am passing no judgment on the system, it's inequalities, or flaws, just posting a factoid followed by an opinion on our perception.