Games Could Be Hit Hard by Net Neutrality’s Death

[mygreeneggsandham]

So you want to trust the corporation? That's historically had wonderful success for the consumer!

It's fairly evident you are part of the segment that hates "big gubment" and cherry picking a few examples that are literally apples to oranges versus a utility as internet access should be (it checks all the boxes if you haven't looked recently).

I have nothing to fear from a corporation. I buy clothing made by corporations, live in a house with materials made by corporations, drive a car manufactured by corporations and have even worked for a corporation and the only thing that happened is that they gave me money. The govt on the other hand takes my money through taxes and inflation, limits my choices of cable provider through antifreemarket regulations, squanders my children’s future on unsustainable debt and lies about everything to my face all the time.
If a corporation does evil the market will punish them until its fixed or they go out of business. If a govt does evil and you push against it they come after you and try to destroy you. Big difference in power.

 

[dr.stevil]

Your energy company also has a finite amount of supply... so again apples to oranges.

Then how do DDOS attacks work?

It just boggles my mind. We have the 2nd largest case of "fox in the hen house" since big oil and people still keep falling for it. ISP's have knocked out smaller competitors due their abuse of regulations meant to prohibit them, and yet at the same time these are the people you are going to trust to do the right thing if no regulations existed at all? I mean what in the actual fuck.... jesus

Nobody trusts ISPs. You're conflating people not trusting the government/FCC with people having trust in the ISPs, which couldn't be further from the truth. If people really wanted to make a difference, they should be contacting their reps on capitol hill, as well as the FTC, to break these monopolies up. A Ma Bell 2.0 is past due.

edit: NN is nothing more than a shitty bandaid at best, and a trojan horse at worse, for a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place (thanks gov)

 

[nysmo]

I have nothing to fear from a corporation. I buy clothing made by corporations, live in a house with materials made by corporations, drive a car manufactured by corporations and have even worked for a corporation and the only thing that happened is that they gave me money.

The wheels on your car dont fall off thanks to gov't regulation. Your house doesnt give you lung cancer thanks to gov't regulation.

 

[nysmo]

edit: NN is nothing more than a shitty bandaid at best, and a trojan horse at worse, for a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place (thanks gov)

How can you thank the gov't for a problem that the ISP's were complicit in creating? You seem to think that gov't forced them to be anti-competitive, as if Comcast would have welcomed all the competition in the world if given unfettered control over the wires laid in the ground.

 

[nysmo]

Maybe what we need is a little analogy here to demonstrate the absurdity of trusting ISP's in a post-NN world:

Imagine for a second I'm a bank robber. Thanks to the installation of a new security system in the bank I am forced to rob you in a roundabout manner, tunneling my way to the bathroom, climbing into the ventilation system and sneaking towards the vault undetected. I slip in under the cover of darkness and while it was a bit of work I get the job done.

Anti-NN folks would argue that the installation of the security system enticed me to rob your bank in this way. Therefore the solution is to...... remove the security system???

 

[dr.stevil]

How can you thank the gov't for a problem that the ISP's were complicit in creating? You seem to think that gov't forced them to be anti-competitive, as if Comcast would have welcomed all the competition in the world if given unfettered control over the wires laid in the ground.

The government is supposed to protect consumers, but they've let telecoms, ISPs, media companies, etc buy up all their competition over the last 30 years... leaving us with the current situation, which is nothing more than the illusion of choice. Yes... I thank the government for that. Neither them, nor the telecoms, are your friend.

 

[Jagger100]

Well to use your own earlier comment.

There were a multitude of choices before 2015, you could get many true broadband options to choose before 2015!

Memories are short. It was just as shitty then as it is now. DSL was just as defunct. most the country had a choice between one cable provider and DirecTV. I don't understand this sudden claim for choice that was pretty close to never true, ever. Federally subsided local municipal cable was rare. Non-federally subsided municipal cable was almost non-existent.

 

[nysmo]

they've let telecoms, ISPs, media companies, etc buy up all their competition over the last 30 years

Ok so WTF do you think would have happened with no regulation at all? A fair playing field?

I thank the government for that. Neither them, nor the telecoms, are your friend.

So then the last people we want to listen to is the ISP's themselves

 

[dr.stevil]

Ok so WTF do you think would have happened with no regulation at all? A fair playing field?

That's the point you seem to be missing or glossing over. There is regulation on the books in the form of anti-trust laws, that is[was] supposed to prevent that. Yet, somehow, it happened anyway.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

Why are ISPs allowed to run regional monopolies, with the blessing of the federal government no less?

So then the last people we want to listen to is the ISP's themselves

Exactly, so stop listening to them

 

[Nytegard]

And this is why I play Call of Duty, a game which punishes you in multiplayer for having a good connection!

 

[aaronspink]

The government is supposed to protect consumers, but they've let telecoms, ISPs, media companies, etc buy up all their competition over the last 30 years... leaving us with the current situation, which is nothing more than the illusion of choice. Yes... I thank the government for that. Neither them, nor the telecoms, are your friend.

As a reminder, they were able to buy up the all their competition largely thanks to repeal of regulations... Complaining that the government doesn't protect consumers while calling for the removal of regulations that protect consumers... Something about that seems a bit disingenuous.

And for ISPs, the buying of the competition didn't create the problem because that so called competition generally didn't compete with anyone since they all were monopolies within their area of operations.

 

[aaronspink]

That's the point you seem to be missing or glossing over. There is regulation on the books in the form of anti-trust laws, that is[was] supposed to prevent that. Yet, somehow, it happened anyway.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

Why are ISPs allowed to run regional monopolies, with the blessing of the federal government no less?

Because monopolies aren't illegal. Only abuse of a monopoly position is actually illegal. And then there is also a bit of a legal quagmire with what counts as a monopoly in this area.

 

[dr.stevil]

As a reminder, they were able to buy up the all their competition largely thanks to repeal of regulations...

Which regulations are those again? Anti-trust laws are still on the books BTW

And for ISPs, the buying of the competition didn't create the problem because that so called competition generally didn't compete with anyone since they all were monopolies within their area of operations.

I don't disagree. The second that the internet went from dialup to broadband is when competition dried up. Those regional telecom monopolies need to be broken up. Shit, when I was kid, we had half a dozen mom and pop computer shops in my area all offering internet, not counting the big boys like AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy and NetZero.

We're both on the same side, I'm just not willing to give the government that kind of control of the internet without a damn good reason.

 

[dr.stevil]

Because monopolies aren't illegal. Only abuse of a monopoly position is actually illegal. And then there is also a bit of a legal quagmire with what counts as a monopoly in this area.

agreed.

"On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed."

It seem to me that regional monopolies are in clear violation? Edit: I'm guessing they donate to various political causes and 'foundations' to avoid scrutiny though.

 

[viivo]

In my little town, Charter ruled for years. Low prices, no caps, and speeds faster than advertised. Then Comcast judged us worthy of their presence and consumed fair Charter. It's okay though because they promise to bring us the JCPenney and the photomat.

 

[Lizard Testes]

It turns the internet into a world of haves and have-nots, and we already have enough of that in the games industry to begin with. The richest gamers will have the best bandwidth and lowest latency, gaining an unfair advantage in competitive online games, while the biggest and richest games companies will be able to throw their considerable weight around so that the little guys don't even have a fighting chance.

Gamers have already voted overwhelmingly in support of this by buying hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of digital advantage in all sorts of p2w games like Star Citizen.

 

[lcpiper]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...lls-net-neutrality-dont-expect-our-help.shtml

Care to comment since you're clearly well informed?

I will, that shit is old and outdated information.

The techdirt article is making claims based on information from 2012 and is now eclipsed by this ruling which itself dates to 2015.

In other words, Techdirt is behind the times and needs to catch up.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/third-circuit-rules-ftc-v-wyndham-case
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/third-circuit-rules-ftc-v-wyndham-case
As it stands, the FTC does have the power to effect such things. The Wyndham Hotels case was a data breach in which customer's personal information was compromised do to poor security practices. The data breach is a privacy protection issue. The courts have found in the FTCs favor.

But keep something in mind. This doesn't mean that ISPs can't sell your information. It means that ISPs can't tell you they are not going to sell your information, and then sell it. They can't be deceptive, they can't lie about it., they can't cheat you. But they can tell you straight up that they will sell your information and if you sign up anyway, then you agree. They must offer a way to Opt-out so that if you still don't want them to sell your information, you have this right. If the company is unfair about how hard they make it to opt-out, that is also in the FTC's power to enforce. In other words, consumers need to look out for themselves and not assume that their information won't be sold.

It's not the Automatic Prohibition against data sale unless a user explicitly Opts-In, but it's not the total lack of protection some of these people claim it is and it is certainly not a lack of FTC regulatory power.

 

[aaronspink]

Which regulations are those again? Anti-trust laws are still on the books BTW

The big ones were things like media ownership limits, etc. The FCC over the past 30ish years (basically since Reagan) has been removing regulations left and right.

 

[aaronspink]

agreed.

"On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed."

It seem to me that regional monopolies are in clear violation? Edit: I'm guessing they donate to various political causes and 'foundations' to avoid scrutiny though.

The problem is proving that they are dividing markets. AKA, it isn't enough that the markets are divided, they have to be purposely colluding to keep the markets divided. Anti-trust law is written in such a way that there pretty much has to be an overt act in order to get an actual ruling. It is important to point out that it is rare for the FTC to actually win a major anti-trust claim in court let alone in anything close to a timely manner. The reality is that most big FTC anti-trust suits drag on for more than a decade and tend to finish off in a consent agreement rather than an actual verdict. Most of the consent decrees end up in little more than closing the barn door after the horse has already left.

As an obvious example, ATT was not found guilty of anti-trust violations, they negotiated a consent decree to spin off the baby bells instead which had almost no actual effect on the market and certainly not an immediate one *while* already under another consent decree which they got nullified in the process. And that was a process that took almost a decade to complete (1974-1982). And that spin off was used as reason to get a lot of regulations removed from both the remaining ATT and the baby bells in the following years.

Anti-trust is, when actually applied, a long drawn out process that generally results in less than desirable outcomes because companies have become smarter over the years in ways of avoiding the overt acts.

 

[Uvaman2]

Actually it makes sense.
I am sure same as with a bandwidth argument can be made about Netflix, a Ping argument can be made about gamers.
Maintaining low-pings could be argued costs money... server placing or some such bullshit.
The fact that you get them now and won't later if you didn't now.. wont matter.. all that matters is that the argument can be made, it will be made and the fees will be set depending on the region.
Tolls will be instituted in the places which used to have low pings, making pings higher is probably very easy.
They won't offer/set the fees in places with high pings already, that would require investment in the infrastructure to make the pings low in the first place, so simply not creating the fees and avoiding the issue is cheaper.

Shit, the ways to make more and more money for less and less service are fucking endless.
Money will be pouring from everywhere... we will be lousy with new Carlos Slims all over the place.

 

[aaronspink]

I will, that shit is old and outdated information.

The techdirt article is making claims based on information from 2012 and is now eclipsed by this ruling which itself dates to 2015.

In other words, Techdirt is behind the times and needs to catch up.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/third-circuit-rules-ftc-v-wyndham-case
As it stands, the FTC does have the power to effect such things. The Wyndham Hotels case was a data breach in which customer's personal information was compromised do to poor security practices. The data breach is a privacy protection issue. The courts have found in the FTCs favor.

But keep something in mind. This doesn't mean that ISPs can't sell your information. It means that ISPs can't tell you they are not going to sell your information, and then sell it. They can't be deceptive, they can't lie about it., they can't cheat you. But they can tell you straight up that they will sell your information and if you sign up anyway, then you agree. They must offer a way to Opt-out so that if you still don't want them to sell your information, you have this right. If the company is unfair about how hard they make it to opt-out, that is also in the FTC's power to enforce. In other words, consumers need to look out for themselves and not assume that their information won't be sold.

It's not the Automatic Prohibition against data sale unless a user explicitly Opts-In, but it's not the total lack of protection some of these people claim it is and it is certainly not a lack of FTC regulatory power.

That court case literally has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

 

[lcpiper]

Gamers have already voted overwhelmingly in support of this by buying hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of digital advantage in all sorts of p2w games like Star Citizen.

Star Citizen is pay to win?

It's not even truly in Beta yet. Hell, what is there to win anyway?

I bought a ship and a pass into the Beta, and access to the single player version of the game, Squadron 24, if that ever releases.

The single player still isn't available hasn't got anything to do with pay to win so that's off topic vs your comment.

What I did get was access to my ship, I flew around some, blew up some, completed a couple of quests, maybe 2 out of 5 available missions, that I didn't care to repeat over and over again for a few years. I didn't try the arenas, multiplayer death-matches are not what I was looking for and frankly only exist as a test and development mechanism for the game mechanics when the world goes live. I did find some space salvage which was part of what I wanted to do, but over all, too much was missing still for me to spend more time on this game.

So how exactly do you pay to win in Star Citizen?

 

[lcpiper]

That court case literally has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

It has everything to do with establishing the FTC's regulatory authority over privacy protections. Net Neutrality is one issue, but people have been screaming just as loudly over the recent "capitulation" by the FCC regarding Privacy Protections.

Furthermore, it also refutes people's off hand claims that the FTC won't do anything regarding these issues, because the FTC does, and the FTC has.

But as an aside, check out these articles and see if there is a different point of view that makes sense to you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryd...rom-the-ledge-on-net-neutrality/#332a43f17d6c

So it was last week when the FCC announced, to no one’s surprise, that it would be voting in mid-December to undo much if not all of the Commission’s 2015 Open Internet order, a four-hundred page monster that, almost as an afterthought, attempted to codify rules limiting the network management practices of ISPs--the third such effort to do so after courts twice told the agency it had no legal authority to do so,.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryd...for-net-neutrality-may-be-close/#3617bcd73dd8

 

[Iceshot]

It has everything to do with establishing the FTC's regulatory authority over privacy protections. Net Neutrality is one issue, but people have been screaming just as loudly over the recent "capitulation" by the FCC regarding Privacy Protections.

Furthermore, it also refutes people's off hand claims that the FTC won't do anything regarding these issues, because the FTC does, and the FTC has.

But as an aside, check out these articles and see if there is a different point of view that makes sense to you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryd...rom-the-ledge-on-net-neutrality/#332a43f17d6c



https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryd...for-net-neutrality-may-be-close/#3617bcd73dd8

You are correct about the court rulings, but lacking in critical context. The courts ruled the FCC could not codify the ISP's UNLESS they were Title II. In significant part due to increasing public outcry / reporting of the widespread abuses ISP's were engaging in, Tom Wheeler former FCC chairman reclassified ISP's to Title II (for the 2nd time in the Internet's history) to reign in ISP's bad behavior's. It was the only recourse the FCC had and the ISP's have only themselves to blame. Today, Ajit Pai and two other "appointed" FCC commissioners want to reverse this decision reclassifying ISP's under Title I. As I just pointed out, Title I gives the FCC very narrow and limited power and awards the very same ISP's who have long well defined record of widespread abuse unchecked power to run amok once more. This is why people are so against and up in arms about the ending of Net Neutrality! Regarding the FTC, if Title II is abolished the current head of the FTC has publicly stated they do not posses the authority to stop ISP's from engaging in the very behaviors that forced the FCC move /regulate them under Title II!

The ISP's, Telecoms, and media giants claim Title II is crippling expansion and infrastructure investment and "limiting freedom". The only freedom's these Multinational Corporations are being denied is the ability to throttle, censor, prioritize, and reshape the internet in their image (See Television and Radio for fine examples). The Internet is a massive threat to the few Corporations (Oligopoly) that own and control the traditional communication mediums (Television, Radio, and Newspapers). Their viewership, profits, and relevancy are tanking thanks to the level FAIR playing field of the Internet protected under Title II. This is the REAL reason Net Neutrality is under decades long relentless assault by the ISP's, Telecoms, and Media Giants! They detest and abhor having to compete on a level playing field where Money does not drown out people's voices and choice. So rather than truly compete, they want the "keys to the kingdom". A return to Title I classification gives them just that.

 

[aaronspink]

It has everything to do with establishing the FTC's regulatory authority over privacy protections. Net Neutrality is one issue, but people have been screaming just as loudly over the recent "capitulation" by the FCC regarding Privacy Protections.

No it doesn't. By the FTCs own bloody PR, it isn't and wasn't a privacy case.

Furthermore, it also refutes people's off hand claims that the FTC won't do anything regarding these issues, because the FTC does, and the FTC has.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with issues wrt privacy or NN.

But as an aside, check out these articles and see if there is a different point of view that makes sense to you.

So much outright lies and BS in those articles that it is a good thing its a blog post and not something Forbes could actually be sued for.

 

[aaronspink]

The ISP's, Telecoms, and media giants claim Title II is crippling expansion and infrastructure investment.

This is actually false. In public legally sworn statements, almost all the ISPs and Telecoms have stated that the Open Internet Order has no impact on either their expansion or investment, repeatably.

 

[Iceshot]

This is actually false. In public legally sworn statements, almost all the ISPs and Telecoms have stated that the Open Internet Order has no impact on either their expansion or investment, repeatably.

Aware of that, forgot to expand on (debunk) that "claim" with everything else that I said. In truth, this brazen lie by ISP's is WAY worse than most remember / know. A notable example, during the Clinton/Gore years roughly 200 Billion dollars in subsidies were given to a consortium of ISP's to greatly expand infrastructure (Al Gore was the lead on this project). Virtually all of that money was pocketed (ie: stolen)! Even worse, more of it was spent attempting to lobby (bribe) members congress members on oversight committee's NOT to investigate this THEFT of taxpayer money than actually spent on Infrastructure itself!

As I have stressed in previous posts, the exploitative behaviors of ISP's, Telecoms, and Media Giants is WELL DEFINED spanning decades! This is in large part why Title II was placed on broadband and we need to fight like hell to keep it that way! The end of Net Neutrality (return to Title 1 classification) gives ISP's VAST unchecked "legal" power to abuse and reshape the internet in their image for the benefit of a tiny rich few.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Stolen -

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit.edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

The foundation of Reason's argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet.

edit: obligatory "thanks for the gold," but please consider donating to the EFF or ACLU instead!

 

[MrGuvernment]

Then how do DDOS attacks work?



Nobody trusts ISPs. You're conflating people not trusting the government/FCC with people having trust in the ISPs, which couldn't be further from the truth. If people really wanted to make a difference, they should be contacting their reps on capitol hill, as well as the FTC, to break these monopolies up. A Ma Bell 2.0 is past due.

edit: NN is nothing more than a shitty bandaid at best, and a trojan horse at worse, for a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place (thanks gov)

DDoS attacks work by saturating bandwidth and hardware. bandwidth can be increased with a few small changes assuming the hardware behind it can handle it. Unlike power that can only be generated at a specific rate. bandwidth is solely dependent on physical barriers like cabling and routers and switches et cetera.

 

[MrGuvernment]

This is a lot of hand wringing and nonsense. I just don't see ISP's playing games with latency, and gaming, in general, is low bandwidth. It's just the downloading of the game, and updates.

It really just screams "the sky is falling." when there is zero evidence that this has happened, or going to happen.

Because ISP have not blocked content before in years past......or filtered it down.... these are greedy companies that will do what ever they can do milk more money from the consumers.

 

[Uvaman2]

This is a lot of hand wringing and nonsense. I just don't see ISP's playing games with latency, and gaming, in general, is low bandwidth. It's just the downloading of the game, and updates.

It really just screams "the sky is falling." when there is zero evidence that this has happened, or going to happen.

Are you on of those that say companies have only a duty to shareholders to make as much profit as possible when discussing tax- dodging bullshit moves by companies? If you are or anyone reading this is but thinks none of these dirty anti NN moves will happen.. you do realize that its totally contradicting thoughts?

 

[haste.]

DDoS attacks work by saturating bandwidth and hardware. bandwidth can be increased with a few small changes assuming the hardware behind it can handle it. Unlike power that can only be generated at a specific rate. bandwidth is solely dependent on physical barriers like cabling and routers and switches et cetera.

Thanks, you got that one for me.