Why gamers should care about net neutrality


Recommended Posts

We've heard the term 'net neutrality' bandied about the internet for more than a decade, yet many gamers aren't aware of how important the concept is to their continued online entertainment. Why should you care about net neutrality?

Perhaps you don't know what net neutrality means. That's a fair assumption, considering the phrase doesn't exactly lend itself to impressive, eye-catching headlines. Net neutrality, or network neutrality, at its most basic, is the idea that all network traffic should be treated equally.

Say you pay $30 a month for your internet connection. Net neutrality dictates that, for your $30, you have access to everything the internet has to offer, without restrictions to content, platforms, or equipment you have connected to it. All data sources are treated equally.

Mind you this is a very basic explanation. It's a complicated issue.

Net neutrality is a hot topic at the moment because one of its chief proponents, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, recently lost a court appeal to Comcast over the prospect of denying their users access to BitTorrent, a popular means of sharing data both legitimate and shady across thousands of users at once.

Comcast attempted to restrict access to BitTorrent in 2008, only to have the FCC step in and ban them from doing so. Now a federal appeals court says that the FCC had no right to do that, and Comcast is free to do what it likes with its customers' service.

Now as gamers, we could live without BitTorrent, though some publishers make extensive use of torrent files to deliver content patches for PC games. There are plenty of other ways to deliver patches that a ban on torrents wouldn't cripple a gamer.

It's the potential restrictions that could come down the line that are more frightening.

Net neutrality, again, calls for no discrimination between data or the devices that connect to that data. With today's game consoles easily identifiable via network, what's to stop a broadband provider from claiming that too much traffic is being used by your Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, and demand you pay a premium to connect them to the web?

Or massively-multiplayer online games, for that matter. Millions of people play World of Warcraft in the United States alone. What happens when an ISP decides that World of Warcraft players need to pay a little extra for the constant connection to the game?

It may sound ridiculous to some, but there are already restrictions in place. Comcast now restricts its standard users to 250GB of bandwidth a month. While that's not a problem right now for most gamers, PC games are getting larger every day, and consoles are already starting to allow users to download full games directly to their hard drive. If a company like Comcast were to suddenly start breaking that 250GB into segments based on use, we could be in trouble.

Net neutrality isn't just about gamers, of course. The concept would keep companies from creating artificial scarcity for internet services, or offering premium services by simply slapping a price tag on services other internet operators provide for free.

As it stands right now, the internet is one of the last bastions of freedom left in the world. If the way we access the internet is allowed to be controlled too strongly, we risk losing that freedom. I'd really rather that not happen.

The internet is increasingly important to video games, and so net neutrality should be important to all of us.

For those in the know, feel free to share your net neutrality resources with each other in the comments of this post.

http://kotaku.com/5512448/why-gamers-should-care-about-net-neutrality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh.

Restrictions are not just limited to data amounts either. Maybe one day you will have to pay a premium for international content as your desired information requires travel across more and more networks. This ruling by the FCC is a step in a very bad direction. Also, how long will it take for Time Warner and others to do the same now that there is legal precedent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dunno, but the day that all the major ISP's start implementing net non-neutrality, i plan to get rich by starting my own ISP which keeps things the way they are now...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the notion that ISPs should never be allowed to charge you premiums to access certain content. I do not, however, support the notion that they should have no power to stop you from using an exorbitant amount of network resources. Not only does that degrade performance for other people on your network, but if you are using more than 250GB per month on a residential account, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that you are using it for illegal downloading. :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I do not, however, support the notion that they should have no power to stop you from using an exorbitant amount of network resources.

...

Just wondering, has anybody actually said that? I've heard the argument used before, but never actually heard of anybody making it (that sounds strange)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh.

Restrictions are not just limited to data amounts either. Maybe one day you will have to pay a premium for international content as your desired information requires travel across more and more networks. This ruling by the FCC is a step in a very bad direction. Also, how long will it take for Time Warner and others to do the same now that there is legal precedent?

What? How is the FCC decision a bad thing? They're trying to maintain net neutrality, not destroy it - unless you're not a fan of net neutrality? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not, however, support the notion that they should have no power to stop you from using an exorbitant amount of network resources.

Then the ISPs should NOT sell unlimited accounts. Mine is unlimited and I use it to its fullest extent.

Not only does that degrade performance for other people on your network, but if you are using more than 250GB per month on a residential account, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that you are using it for illegal downloading. :crazy:

Nice of you to make some wild assumptions there. I could bust that amount in as little as 10 days, and I often have, and never once do anything illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only does that degrade performance for other people on your network, but if you are using more than 250GB per month on a residential account, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that you are using it for illegal downloading. :crazy:

While I agree in principle with what you said, the definition of exorbitant is going to be wildly different from ISP to ISP and consumer to consumer. Because of that, there either needs to be a mandate for that from some oversight body (i.e. the government) and I for one do not want that, or there needs to be net neutrality. Net neutrality doesn't preclude the ISP from imposing bandwidth limits or additional charges for extra bandwidth - all it means is that data is data regardless of where it came from or what it is.

In addition, it's not hard to break 250GB in a 30-day stretch without doing anything illegal - ever heard of Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, iTunes, legal torrents (game patches, linux distros, etc.), downloading legal full games and game demos from services like Steam, XBox Live Games on Demand, Direct2Drive, etc.

We're in an era where high quality content is being increasingly delivered in a non-physical medium. The current ideas and standards regarding bandwidth are antiquated and won't hold up much longer as broadband adoption and streaming content become more popular and prevalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care about this for the future of digital distribution, luckily I'm on O2 though who do offer unlimited, therefore with 3 games consoles it's a non-issue.

I can't bear to think what it's like if you owned 3 games consoles with multiple heavy users on each and a cap, then throw in a PC as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This subject is actually something i believe they are actually trying to do right. Julius Genachowski the chairman of the FCC is wanting to get a net neutrality bill passed. That is one subject i strongly agree with him on the internet should be open for everyone. Comcast it seems to be most against it, but if it is passed there isn't much they can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh.

Restrictions are not just limited to data amounts either. Maybe one day you will have to pay a premium for international content as your desired information requires travel across more and more networks. This ruling by the FCC is a step in a very bad direction. Also, how long will it take for Time Warner and others to do the same now that there is legal precedent?

The FCC didn't make the ruling, they were actually ruled against by the courts. FCC was attempting to back net neutrality.

edit: just for fun

and

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-19-2006/net-neutrality-act

and

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-26-2009/from-here-to-neutrality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.