Every Time You Vote Against Net Neutrality, Your ISP Kills a Night Elf 178
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."
Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommate's (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope that he was also a student or something or else that's pretty sad. Maybe that's why US jobs get outsourced - the 40 hour work week is apparently unreasonable (not referring to your joke, but to the GP). Of course, I can't really complain since my current job is basically outsourced from the good old US of A :)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, with exchange rate, that's nearly as much as my outsourced IT (not tech support, just to be clear) job. Maybe he's on to something :)
Re:Here's hoping the next one killed is my roommat (Score:2, Funny)
Wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that if you are a customer of the latter corporation you end up paying just as if you were the target. This is similar to "corporations don't pay taxes".
Re:It's all in the post (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because Blizzard gets a free OC48 pipe, just for being such a good customer.
Fucking idiot.
Re:It's all in the post (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't paint the entire telco community with that brush.
In regions like Canada where there are crown, private, and co-op telcos competing via copper, fiber, and cable, the billing issues for bandwidth are much clearer and cleaner than with a purely market driven mess.
Whoever builds the "last mile" network has the right to install servers and accelerators within their subnet to give their customer service. Internet traffic is only ONE aspect of what the telcos use the data backbones for.
For examp
Yay. The cats are saved! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yay. The cats are saved! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yay. The cats are saved! (Score:4, Funny)
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" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What i don't get is... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that ignorance belongs to the policy makers and elected officials who are expected to rule on net neutrality. Remember, it was a United States Senator who gave us the phrase "series of tubes". 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 gu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The nation may be undereducated, but Jack Thompson's mania is not evidence thereof.
Re:the meaning of the word "gaming" (Score:4, Informative)
I think people would accept free network priority (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
wrong perspective (Score:4, Funny)
Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if *I* can't even understand it, how the Hell is Joe Sixpack supposed to?
-Eric
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Read the article... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
No, the link does but the summary has it backwards, which pretty much makes the OP's point.
ISPs and double-talk (Score:3, Informative)
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'l
Understanding Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:5, Informative)
- 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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 S
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point about traffic shaping is that it's legal for you to do it at the endpoint. Thus, if you don't want to lag, just give your game priority over your torrent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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"? (Score:5, Informative)
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:
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"? (Score:4, Interesting)
-Eric
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the FCC appears to be enforcing som
Re: (Score:2)
What the... okay, now I'm *really* confused.
If "the government is currently
Re:Does anyone even understand "net neutrality"? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 pert
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I agree. I am against any legislation here though. I currently QoS about 700 users traffic. We prioritize based on just about everything. An
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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. Currentl
"net neutrality" explained (I hope) (Score:2)
Lately some ISP's (generally US phone companies who have some local monopolies) have started looking at the contracts and agreements and have discovered that they are not required by law/contract to stay neutral. They may also want to limit competition from Voice Over IP and Internet Video (not that
Re: (Score:2)
FUD and Fear-mongering... (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Merits of blocking outgoing SMTP (Score:2)
It is not "money and greed" in this case, but, rather, an explosion of hijacked PCs sending spam. ISPs are right blocking SMTP port (other than to their own server) by default, although I agree, that they should be making exceptions for those, who explicitly ask for it enabled.
That said, this is a completely different subject from the one, with which I started the thread...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Protects customers who don't need to know, and keeps customers who do
Re: (Score:2)
You're being silly. ISPs block port 25 for good reason; they're trying to stem the tide of SPAM zombies flooding everyone's email inbox with junk mail. If you want to run your own email server, simply use your ISP's email server as a smart host. Every email server I've seen in the last few years has this capability. Plus, smart hosting has the added benefit of side-stepping the problem of RBLs' blocking anything that comes from an IP address listed in IANA's records as originating from a dynamic DSL por
Re: (Score:2)
love your photos -- i use an Eos 1D mark2, with a 35-350mm L series lens
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let the MMO operators pay for the lobbyists (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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 r
Re:The problem is not net-neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A port on a router capable of effectively routing 10Gb is very expensive -- but that is 10.000 1Mb adsl-connections, assuming they where all used 100% 24/7, which they ain't typical usage is more like in the 5-10% so that port would be able to handle the traffic of the order of 100 to 200 *thousan
Paid market "research" firm anyone?! (Score:3, Informative)
oh for god sakes... (Score:5, Interesting)
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, $110 a month??)
Re: (Score:2)
It also means that if there isn't a reasonable amount of bandwidth, then we may get to a point where everyone and their grandmother is saturating the network with BitTorrent. In this scenario, net neutrality is bad, because you ca
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't articulate my argument very well, and I'm not going to now (I'm at work), but telecommunications providers shouldn't expect me to shell out a large sum eve
What about the night elves now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd play a Tauren, but as a grownup with years of gaming experience I can't bring myself to play a game in easy mode...
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:2)
Likely situation: convergence of movie and gaming industries. The movie industry has the huge bankroll necessary to launch a game. Game producers will be sought after just as movie producers are, and
Do we have net-neutrality NOW? (was: Wrong) (Score:2)
I'm confused... Do we have net-neutrality now? Why then can't anyone connect to my port 80, and why can't I connect to port 25 of anyone other than my ISP's mail server?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, informally.
Why then can't anyone connect to my port 80, and why can't I connect to port 25 of anyone other than my ISP's mail server?
Net non-neutrality means Google would be able connect at one speed and Uncle Harry at a different speed or not at all. Basically Net Neutral means no discrimination on level of service based on originating IP or destination IP.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to answer my question:
Please, try again...
I already connect at much lower speed than Google. Probably, it is because I pay a lot less for my connection...
Strategically placed login message? (Score:2, Funny)
Tell a WarCrack fiend he may have a high ping during that critical Patchwerk attempt then open a voting station on maintenance day. Voter turnout would probly spike by 3-4 million (current US wow base?) people.
If the people who had the most to lose(M$,google,Blizzard) made an effort to saturate every aspect of online entertainment with things like "fa
Yes, but the phone company HOSTS the MMOs (Score:5, Interesting)
If Net Neutrality did squeeze online gaming, it might create an opportunity for someone like GameRail [gamerail.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Summary is frickin' backwards (Score:2)
Um, no. That's not what TFA says. TFA says those thing are all threatened by the absence of net neutrality legislation.
Of course, TFA also says that gaming shouldn't really be threatened, because without net neutrality, ISPs are better off leaving gaming alone and taxing Google and monopolizing VOIP. (Though given the scale of the gaming industry, I can't see them n
The Horde is Against Net Neutrality (Score:4, Funny)
As a member of The Horde I will have to vote against net neutrality then.
Nonsense. (Score:2)
Companies are desperately seeking new ways to nickle and dime customers to the most ridiculous degree. So many companies today a
Not quite (Score:2)
Actually, the free market would say that new ISP's would fill the void, offering good service at good prices. If there's money to be made in offering unfettered bandwidth at $xx, then somebody will do it, because demand will be there.
Competition! (Score:2)
Look at the server end: Online biz (especially big biz like gaming, maybe VoIP) will make bloody sure they've good good pipes. They pay kilobucks per month with negotiated service levels, and ping _will_ be good. They'll switch backbones to get it.
End users have less negotiation power, but signific
Its A Trap! Arguement goes AGAINST N-N (Score:2, Informative)
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 t
I see an opportunity... (Score:2)
Vote against Net Neutrality, everybody, so those pesky purple skinned elves can go extinct.
FOR THE HORDE!
WTF is the blurb talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Just get the fucking Gamer ADSL package? (Score:2)
Paying your extra dollars a month gets you a better experience. We ALREADY experience the effect
that a lack of Net Neutrality would get us, which is a-la-carte bandwidth options from our ISP
depending on what services we want to provide. ISPs already kill off bandwidth to newsgroups (but
not for their OWN news servers which you may have to pay extra for), throttle P2P or
Captain Obvious Says... (Score:2)
A good place to start (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
2. Some services require a certain bandwidth to work at all. VOIP is the most common example. If BT is on the same link VOIP has to get priority.
FINALLY: gOD BLESS aMERICA? (Score:2)
THEREFOR: Government based on special interest politics, economics, and religion, then spiced with xenophobia of other dogmatic devils [AKA: HUMANS] has determined that a semiliterate elitist culture is better served by Net-Nepotism.
ALSO: Any opposition/objection by the many to the few Fiat-Rulers will be severely punished with "NO INTE
Night elves are the smallest risk for the US (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I still don't see why this is a law question. (Score:2)
Most of the time, when people describe a proposed "net neutrality" rule, the rule they propose is something to the effect of "you may not discriminate against particular networks just because you feel they use a disproportionate amount of your traffic". So, for instance, I can't tarpit spammers, because that's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, free market lowers prices (Score:4, Informative)
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~
The article is exactly backward (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)