Could The Net Neutrality Ruling Affect Your Gaming?

[HardOCP News]

So what do you think? Will yesterday's ruling affect your gaming? Are we all hosed in general or is the whole thing being blown out of proportion?

A lot of doomsaying happens after an event like this, but I'm willing to bet that everything will be fine in the long run. The FCC's Net Neutrality laws didn't go into effect until 2011, but I remember the internet running pretty well in 2010. It's also worth noting that the appeals court did rule that the FCC still has jurisdiction over service providers and the freedom to make rules to protect the open Internet, so the FCC is free to come up with new Net Neutrality-like laws, as long as they don't treat internet service providers like common carriers.

 

[BoogerBomb]

TWC will now throttle Netflix immediately. Anything that they can do to fuck us over they will because they have a monopoly on controlling traffic.

 

[BigJayDogg3]

The FCC's Net Neutrality laws didn't go into effect until 2011, but I remember the internet running pretty well in 2010.

I remember the economy running pretty well in 2007.

Things always go well until they don't. Why let things get bad before doing something about it?

 

[cageymaru]

TWC will now throttle Netflix immediately. Anything that they can do to fuck us over they will because they have a monopoly on controlling traffic.

TWC calls me monthly to complain that I don't buy Cable TV service from them. Every month I tell them that I stream my content and that's why I buy their biggest internet package available in my area. Bet they can't wait to start throttling my internet access to make me reconsider my stance on Cable TV again.

 

[fishfreeman]

The services that could be affected by these laws, and the bandwidth they use, have been expanding and growing exponentially every year. Not to mention the proliferation of devices that consume the content. Comparing the internet and its use 3+ years ago and what it may look later this year and beyond is pointless. Net Neutrality didn't exist and wasn't an issue, because it didn't need to exist then. Now in a world of competing content providers and ISPs that control content (I'm looking at Comcast/NBC) and bandwidth caps, this is absolutely a necessity.

 

[sfsuphysics]

The FCC's Net Neutrality laws didn't go into effect until 2011, but I remember the internet running pretty well in 2010.

What an idiotic statement. Maybe because there wasn't a need for Net Neutrality until some company decided that they were going to start throttling certain competing services?

 

[kbrickley]

The services that could be affected by these laws, and the bandwidth they use, have been expanding and growing exponentially every year. Not to mention the proliferation of devices that consume the content. Comparing the internet and its use 3+ years ago and what it may look later this year and beyond is pointless. Net Neutrality didn't exist and wasn't an issue, because it didn't need to exist then. Now in a world of competing content providers and ISPs that control content (I'm looking at Comcast/NBC) and bandwidth caps, this is absolutely a necessity.

The only impact that net neutrality would have on caps is that they couldn't selectively apply them to certain types of usage or favor their own offerings (they could still use caps as long as they are universal) ... even if the FCC classifies the ISPs as common carriers they could still use caps (we still have minute based calling plans) ... only a change in the local licensing of ISPs will have any potential impact on caps (if some players decide to offer uncapped services to better compete (like Sprint does on mobile)

 

[Ashbringer]

Murica!, by the corperations for the coperations!

 

[Lith1um]

It would be great if the US would create a publicly owned fiber infrastructure. That's the only thing that will put pressure on industry other than a consumer revolt. Right now, companies like Comcast are like hogs that haven't lifted their head out of the trough in decades.

 

[PensFault]

It would be great if the US would create a publicly owned fiber infrastructure. That's the only thing that will put pressure on industry other than a consumer revolt. Right now, companies like Comcast are like hogs that haven't lifted their head out of the trough in decades.

Sounds like the worst idea ever. Get government out of it all. The problem is fascism and the over reaching arm of government and their marriage to big companies which in turn push out oppressive regulations that erode free enterprise. Net neutrality laws are a silly joke. If the free market weren't being burned to the ground by our oligarchy, this problem would be solved.

 

[kbrickley]

It would be great if the US would create a publicly owned fiber infrastructure. That's the only thing that will put pressure on industry other than a consumer revolt. Right now, companies like Comcast are like hogs that haven't lifted their head out of the trough in decades.

A better solution would be to just make the Telcos controlled monopolies (like the power companies) ... also, look at the dismal state of repair of our highway systems (which are funded by the federal government) ... do we really want to inflict that on the internet infrastructure

We should probably just restructure the tax laws for ISPs so that if they follow the behaviors we want they will get enormous tax breaks or subsidies and if they don't then they are on their own ... that would be cheaper and require a lot less maintenance than the infrastructure approach ... and where business is concerned money always talks loudest

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Ugh,

I'm less worried about gaming than I am about video streaming services. With this struck down, ISP's (who often usually are the cable service providers as well) can arbitrarily slow down competing online services, forcing users to buy their old-world cable packages...

Not to mention the overall societal implications, and fundamental impacts to the freedom of our nation. Let's say it's election time, and ISP's favor one candidate. Wouldn't it be interesting if access to material promoting the opposing candidate were slower and more difficult to reach?

Gaming? They probably won't bother limiting it at all. The UDP packets don't use much overall bandwidth. Latency is more important here.

Question to the folks who understand the legal side of this better than I do:

Can't the FCC just reclassify internet service as a "common carrier", and be done with it?

 

[NeghVar]

The ISP could also block political and consumer rights stuff that goes against their views. Goodbuy eff.org, publicknowledge.org, tea party site, libertarian site, etc.

 

[NeghVar]

It would be great if the US would create a publicly owned fiber infrastructure. That's the only thing that will put pressure on industry other than a consumer revolt. Right now, companies like Comcast are like hogs that haven't lifted their head out of the trough in decades.

Instead of it like that, a private company that runs and maintains the grid only and leases gateways to ISPs. Prices vary based on the amount of bandwidth the ISP requests.

 

[NeghVar]

It would be great if the US would create a publicly owned fiber infrastructure. That's the only thing that will put pressure on industry other than a consumer revolt. Right now, companies like Comcast are like hogs that haven't lifted their head out of the trough in decades.

Instead of it like that, a private company that runs and maintains the grid only and leases gateways to ISPs. Prices vary based on the amount of bandwidth the ISP requests. This would also allow free market to flourish.

 

[kbrickley]

Ugh,

I'm less worried about gaming than I am about video streaming services. With this struck down, ISP's (who often usually are the cable service providers as well) can arbitrarily slow down competing online services, forcing users to buy their old-world cable packages...

Not to mention the overall societal implications, and fundamental impacts to the freedom of our nation. Let's say it's election time, and ISP's favor one candidate. Wouldn't it be interesting if access to material promoting the opposing candidate were slower and more difficult to reach?

Gaming? They probably won't bother limiting it at all. The UDP packets don't use much overall bandwidth. Latency is more important here.

Question to the folks who understand the legal side of this better than I do:

Can't the FCC just reclassify internet service as a "common carrier", and be done with it?

I think they were worried about pissing off the Republicans in the House if they did that (and what the repercussions might be) ... but they still have the power to reclassify them (unless Congress takes it away) ... I did see the quote below on Forbes concerning this

Kevin Werbach, associate professor of legal studies & business ethics at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and former FCC official, says he believes the FCC has a surprisingly large amount of running room.

“A key resource the FCC has is its transparency mandate, which was the one part of the net neutrality rules that the Verizon court upheld. If the FCC builds on those requirements and enforces them, it will produce a degree of self-policing. Again, the kinds of arbitrary blocking and discrimination that net neutrality is most designed to combat are easiest to do in secret. Even powerful broadband providers need to respond to customer outrage and regulators questioning potentially anti-competitive conduct.,” he says.

“Whether the FCC promotes net neutrality through across-the-board rules or case-by-case adjudication, the biggest impact will be in how companies assess the risks and benefits in certain business models, not the FCC enforcement actions themselves. If the broadband operators believe the FCC remains serious and vigilant on net neutrality, and is willing to reclassify broadband as a regulated service if its current efforts fail, I don’t see them engaging in the most egregious kinds of conduct. “

 

[sfsuphysics]

Can't the FCC just reclassify internet service as a "common carrier", and be done with it?

It seems that would be the easiest way to go about it, the courts struck down what the FCC because it treated them like common carriers.

I mean you have parts of Europe who are claiming that internet access should be a fundamental right, and while I won't go so far as that, I would put it in the same category as telephone and having access to it.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I think they were worried about pissing off the Republicans in the House if they did that (and what the repercussions might be)

Aren't house republicans always upset over non-issue straw men all the time anyway? I don't see how this would be any different from business as usual, and they still don't have the numbers to get a veto-proof majority through both houses...

The FCC should grow a pair...

 

[Ashbringer]

Gaming? They probably won't bother limiting it at all. The UDP packets don't use much overall bandwidth. Latency is more important here.

Unless we talk about cloud gaming, which is probably beneficial since who wants cloud gaming? Probably the only upside from this ruling. Get ready for slow YouTube video streaming!

 

[kbrickley]

Unless we talk about cloud gaming, which is probably beneficial since who wants cloud gaming? Probably the only upside from this ruling. Get ready for slow YouTube video streaming!

Because the ruling kept the transparency requirements in place I wouldn't expect any provider to immediately start throttling anyone (since they would have to publicly disclose it) ... they are more likely to offer enhanced services (for enhanced prices) since that would have much less backlash when they publicly disclose it ... that also lines up with their current product offerings (FIOS vs Quantum, etc )

Comcast (the largest cable provider) is also required to follow the Net Neutrality requirement for three more years (regardless of the court case) since that was negotiated as part of their merger agreement

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Because the ruling kept the transparency requirements in place I wouldn't expect any provider to immediately start throttling anyone (since they would have to publicly disclose it) ... they are more likely to offer enhanced services (for enhanced prices) since that would have much less backlash when they publicly disclose it ... that also lines up with their current product offerings (FIOS vs Quantum, etc )

Comcast (the largest cable provider) is also required to follow the Net Neutrality requirement for three more years (regardless of the court case) since that was negotiated as part of their merger agreement

Well, with fixed bandwidth, how QOS by necessity functions is to prioritize one data stream over another, so any way you look at it, these "enhanced services" will have a negative impact on users of non-enhanced services.

Also, I wonder what the disclosure rules look like. If it just winds up being in fine print in the middle of a vague paragraph on page 47 of a 120 page document, then it ultimately winds up being useless for most intents and purposes.

 

[Advil]

Let's just start with the obvious questions of monopoly. We used to care about such things.

How many ISPs are ALSO part of broadcast networks?

If ISPs, no matter how many, were ONLY interested in selling you internet they would be more concerned about competing between each other for internet performance and features.

These combo network/ISP companies are only interested in how many bundled services they can sell you. The actual internet connection itself isn't their primary concern.

Frankly, this is lunacy. Your ISP should provide access. Whether you choose to pay for programming on a network should be separate.

 

[Ashbringer]

Because the ruling kept the transparency requirements in place I wouldn't expect any provider to immediately start throttling anyone (since they would have to publicly disclose it) ... they are more likely to offer enhanced services (for enhanced prices) since that would have much less backlash when they publicly disclose it ... that also lines up with their current product offerings (FIOS vs Quantum, etc )

That's not how networking works. You can't enhance one part of your network, without adversely effecting another part. There's no magic in trying to improve performance without hurting performance for others.

 

[Fumz]

Sounds like the worst idea ever. Get government out of it all. The problem is fascism and the over reaching arm of government and their marriage to big companies which in turn push out oppressive regulations that erode free enterprise. Net neutrality laws are a silly joke. If the free market weren't being burned to the ground by our oligarchy, this problem would be solved.

Explain every other western civilizations approach to the internet, and explain how they've been kicking our asses for years?

 

[kbrickley]

Well, with fixed bandwidth, how QOS by necessity functions is to prioritize one data stream over another, so any way you look at it, these "enhanced services" will have a negative impact on users of non-enhanced services.

Also, I wonder what the disclosure rules look like. If it just winds up being in fine print in the middle of a vague paragraph on page 47 of a 120 page document, then it ultimately winds up being useless for most intents and purposes.

Here is the exact wording on the disclosure requirements

Rule 1: Transparency A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices,performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings

Based on that I would say the FCC gets to decide what is sufficient ... given how they communicate on cable stuff currently I would say that it will be part of your initial Ts and Cs when you sign up for service (they might be able to bury it here) but that changes to services must be announced beforehand through the established communication means with their customer (with Verizon Fios I tend to see a pop up message on my cable screen, get an email, and a mail notification when they drop or add channels ... I would suspect it would be something similar if they offer an "enhanced" service) ... because it is harder to spin a negative action (we are blocking or throttling Netflix, for example) I suspect they are more likely to try (we now offer an enhanced performance package for our streaming partner Redbox, for example) ... time could prove me wrong but I suspect that is the route they will go

Alternately in areas where they feel there is no alternative to their services they might try implementing tight caps (with their preferred partners being exempt from the cap) ... this one would be very popular with the movie studios as it could reduce the threat of piracy if file transfers are limited by the cap but the legal (and paid) streaming is cap exempt

 

[Ur_Mom]

Rather than have these content providers pay to allow priority traffic, why not have them pay for upgraded infrastructure? If they are taking 50% of the bandwidth, get them together to pay more to upgrade for more capacity. Better for the provider, the ISP has more bandwidth to advertise to customers (hopefully without the added cost), and the end user gets to watch quality streaming still.

ISP's will still own the lines. Content providers will now take up 25% of the line, improving the end user experience, and the end user gets more speed. A few bad things, though.... Content providers will raise prices to cover it and still want traffic priority or some other contractual concession (they think they own the lines now). That, and the few major ISP's are also delivering competing content (TV).

Still, the basic idea should be happening. ISP's upgrading a network that is nearing capacity. If Netflix takes up that much and things are just growing, it might be time to upgrade the network to handle it before it's too late... End to end.

 

[Jon855]

It seems that would be the easiest way to go about it, the courts struck down what the FCC because it treated them like common carriers.

I mean you have parts of Europe who are claiming that internet access should be a fundamental right, and while I won't go so far as that, I would put it in the same category as telephone and having access to it.

For me - I have a videophone and I use it as my phone (I'm deaf) and it requires an internet connection. I would argue that that the Internet is an Utility and should be treated as such.

No internet connection - should it all go down in one entire sector of a state, I'm sure it would just as damaging as if the power went out - economically thus it should be considered as an utility.

 

[weebling1]

" Could The Net Neutrality Ruling Affect Your Gaming? "

All depends on how much EA will pay *NOT* to be throttled.

 

[Team Obi Juan]

" Could The Net Neutrality Ruling Affect Your Gaming? "

All depends on how much EA will pay *NOT* to be throttled.

And they'll just absorb those costs with a lower profit.

 

[DoubleTap]

The traffic shaping monkey business is driven by the fact that online streaming competes directly with Cable provided Premium and PPV services.

Gaming is only a "threat" in the sense that if people are playing WoW, they are not renting movies.

The fight is going to be over Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/VUDU/etc

I prefer to buy/rent movies from VUDU in terms of the actual experience, but they are not a very robust service provider and they have a lot of problems so a lot of times, I'll just pay my cable company the $5.99 instead of some other service and then I don't have to worry about bandwidth during prime time.

 

[SpecTP]

isn't game performance being affected now by peering fights between ISP's?

 

[WaltC]

What an idiotic statement. Maybe because there wasn't a need for Net Neutrality until some company decided that they were going to start throttling certain competing services?

You're close...but what happened is that some people with too much time on their hands (the so-called "non-profits" needing to justify their jobs/existences and raise the banner of consumerism without doing much in the way of contacting any consumers about what they actually think is important) decided that it would be a really horrible thing if suddenly the ISPs started charging for access to their favorite web sites, and so they started pretending that this is what actually goes on everywhere, all the time. Alarmists at work--kind of like the global warming, Sky-is-Falling rhetoric. Thus was the 'net neutrality movement born. (And then somebody "uncovered" the "horrific" fact that once upon a time Comcast throttled some Bit Torrent traffic--a little bit--and so that "proved" the case for the 'net neutrality supporters--that it was going on everywhere, every day, all the time.)

I've been on the Internet darn near every day since I dumped my dial-up and went cable broadband back in '98 and, funny thing, I've never had the experience of being unable to reach my "favorite sites" on account of my ISP wanting to charge me more to access them. Not even once. So for me, this is a lot of noise over nothing--it will be business as usual on the Internet--Comcast beat the FCC years ago in lower court and with the recent ruling nothing has changed--except that Comcast's position that the FCC could not regulate its ISP business like that of a common carrier telco has now been upheld by the highest court in the land.

The real story is that we've all had 99% complete Internet freedom since "day one," because the ISPs have to provide their customers with what they want else their customers will go elsewhere.

Incredible anecdote: my apartment building sits square in the middle of AT&T/Comcast country, and the prevailing wisdom of the Internet has it that no one can usurp the turf that already "belongs" to the big ISPs. Comcast wouldn't service our building at all, and the only thing available from AT&T was 6mbps down, 512k up ADSL... (This is in a well-off suburb of a notable southern metropolis, btw.) The landlords weren't happy with the way Comcast & AT&T responded to their requests for a very large block purchase for service to every room in the sizable building--guaranteed not by individual tenants but by the Landlord company itself (Landlord just bills us along with the rent each month)--so they set out looking for an alternative to Comcast & AT&T.

OK, this deserves its own paragraph...they installed the new service last Friday--a few days ago--and it knocked my socks off as I had expected and hoped for at least 12Mbps down (hadn't thought much about up), but what I got was 70-100Mbps down & and up! Depends on the server and their policies of course, but best down & up speed I've seen so far for actual file transfers is 8 MegaBytes per second...! Yea, that is MegaBytes (not bits)... (Backbone is supplied through Cogent Communications.) With AT&T's supposedly "fastest" tier for my location, I was fortunate to see 700k/ps down and *maybe* 300k/ps up! On a good day. I'm still reeling in a pleasant stupor from all of this at the moment...

Did I also mention that we've got an excellent HD television service included as well, a (270 channels +) service which both Comcast and AT&T refused to provide to our building--although if either company was going to service a residence across the street or next door with either U-Verse TV or xFinity TV--no problem! (I gather that Comcast & AT&T evidently lack the skill sets necessary to support an apartment building...)

It's great for me and every other person living here that those companies don't have the skills/desires to do business here because I have no doubt their services would have been a fraction of what we wound up securing! Did I mention that their service also includes unlimited land-line telephone service with its own internal answering service, caller id, and much more as well? Best of all--the price for the whole darn shebang is *less* than I was paying AT&T for their crappy 6mb/ps down ASDL & VOIP & *no television service of any kind*. We had to get our TV from a dish subscription setup as old as the hills (still 100% analog!) 'Scuse me while I pinch myself...

Anyway--the moral of this story is--competition does exist, even in areas saturated by the traditional ISPs like Comcast & AT&T. In the coming years that competition is really going to heat up and intensify. (Three years ago my present ISP didn't exist: now they're booming from what I understand. With ISP sluggards like Comcast & AT&T around that is not surprising.) The ISPs who try and continue to yank their customers around are going to lose in the end, I have no doubts. That's why the recent ruling means little to nothing will change.

 

[Scythe]

THIS ^. The big guys start being jackasses, others will come that will allow everything through.