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."

Wait...

[dark_15]

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

It's all in the titles

[robyannetta]

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

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.

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.

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.

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! [savetheinternet.com]

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: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: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: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.

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.

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_ [wikipedia.org] 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?

I don't know about net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Confusion on this issue is rampant, even at Slashdot.

The Slashdot blurb says: "Any interactive communications could stand to take a dive (VOIP, streaming video, etc) with the advent of Net Neutrality legislation."

In other words, it's opposed to the passing of laws about this.

The actual linked article takes the opposite view. It envisions the same problems, but it says they will happen if we fail to pass a law. That's why it has the title "Every Time You Vote against Net Neutrality ... [blah blah Night Elf blah blah]"

Probably the submitter (and the Slashdot editor) believe in net neutrality, and think that they agree with the article, but somehow don't understand that the solution being recommended is to pass a law.

Certainly I favor the principle of net neutrality. But we seem to have effective net neutrality already. So far MMORPGs have been doing a booming business without the benefit of any kind of net neutrality legislation. I agree if ISPs start to deliberately introduce significant latency, it would be a problem for many online games, but it's not clear to me that they are planning to do anything like that. I am reluctant to screw around with a regulatory environment that already works.

If you look at RampRate's client list, [ramprate.com] they include several major players (Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.) who are in favor of net neutrality legislation. So in terms of personal testimony, this article does nothing to sway me.

I need some kind of fact-based argument that this law is really and truly necessary to prevent bad behavior from the ISPs. Until then, I'm agnostic on the subject, and so by default I'd oppose changes to the status quo.

Screw gamers...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what about the impact this kind of thing would have on our society and economy as a whole? My whole livelihood and the livelihoods of many more like me are based around the idea that people with high-speed internet will be able to access web-based content at high speeds.

More than that, this tiered internet crap would effectively kill the internet's power as one of our greater equalizers (yes I know not everyone has access, but we'll get there). The internet as it stands brings down barriers to entry for businesses and gives us all a greater pool of knowledge to pull from.

I sure wish I had so much carefree leisure time to burn that the first thing I think of when I hear about this legislation is "OMGZ THE GAMEz!!1"

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.

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.