Well, we have politics. Now to completely derail this thread, we need an injection of religion and... viola!
Actually, given the topic, and all too many peoples refrain of "Government should DO something about that!" , and then those who rightly counter that more government interference in the internet is the LAST thing we need, politics is a natural progression of this topic. But that phase appears to have passed now.
Well, we have politics. Now to completely derail this thread, we need an injection of religion and... viola!
Actually, given the topic, and all too many peoples refrain of "Government should DO something about that!" , and then those who rightly counter that more government interference in the internet is the LAST thing we need, politics is a natural progression of this topic. But that phase appears to have passed now.
See my previous post(s) in this thread. I was kidding, mainly. I don't really agree that government involvement couldn't help in some cases, but you can go back and read my posts for my thoughts on that.
I just thought the political angle was being taken to a bit an an extreme, it was amusing, and I figured that the only thing that could possibly become any more inflammatory or predictable would be if you spiced it up with a little bit of religious fervor.
The bandwidth of even a heavy gamer is only on par with checking youtube a few times a day. However, the ISPs know that if they can gain control over the priority of different protocols and different destinations, they can begin to blackmail content providers - charging connection fees to allow apps/sites to cross its networks, essentially skimming revenue off any enterprise that depends on its Internet connection. Eventually the free and open Internet disappears behind a mesh of private gatekeeper networks.
The danger is not the traffic shaping itself, it is the potential to change of business model: dismantling the "selling you an open tube" Internet and recreating the far-more-lucrative charge-per-connection telephone business model.
I'm having a hard time understanding how government interferance would be a bad thing, because from my point of view, if the government charges extra money for an online gaming service, then that'd reduce the amount of teenagers on the internet, because a parent is less likely to want to allow their kids to play online games when it puts an extra strain on their pocketbook. Hell, hopefully our internet avatar would be tied into our real life identity, to reduce the anonimity of the internet, which would in return reduce the amount of asshats on the game. People aren't going to want to be a dick when their avatar name is the same as their real name. I'm just willing to consider anything to reduce the amount of teenagers and asshats that play online games. I'd much rather have the genre return to its niche where the communities were mostly mature and nice to be around.
I know lots of teenagers that play online that are a lot more mature than people in their late or early twenties. Some people play MMO's to not be tied into real life. The vast majority I would imagine.
The bandwidth of even a heavy gamer is only on par with checking youtube a few times a day. However, the ISPs know that if they can gain control over the priority of different protocols and different destinations, they can begin to blackmail content providers - charging connection fees to allow apps/sites to cross its networks, essentially skimming revenue off any enterprise that depends on its Internet connection. Eventually the free and open Internet disappears behind a mesh of private gatekeeper networks. The danger is not the traffic shaping itself, it is the potential to change of business model: dismantling the "selling you an open tube" Internet and recreating the far-more-lucrative charge-per-connection telephone business model.
That is EXACTLY the motivation I've spoken of. Once they can get away with that, their potential profits are literally staggering. They would have a literal lock on who can do what, and that translates to a LOT of money and power. Groups like Comcast would have not only a monopoly on broadband in all too many areas, but also near total control of broadband access to their captive audiences.
Very good article. It's nice to read about current events that are impacting the industry as a whole. I think MMORPG.com should feature more of these types of articles and less top 5 lists.
I have Comcast cable internet here, but my bandwidth is not capped yet. My choices are pretty much limited to Verizon DSL (3.5 Mbit, $40/mo) or Comcast cable (16Mbit, $40/mo). You can see the problem immediately, and this is not limited to my area (central IL, usa).
Cable companies, such as Comcast, have a serious monopoly on the best residential internet connections in the US. Perhaps the expansion of fiber optic cables will help drive more competition, but until then there is nothing to stop cable providers from limiting internet use as they please.
But I'm okay with that. This is how the market works. The real problems don't begin until the government decides to start regulating. Therefore it's really in the consumer's best interest not to complain too loudly. Just settle for lower speeds until they get the point people don't like their bandwidth limited. DSL companies will bend over backwards to get your subscription.
Although in time, I presume an internet connection will become seen as a basic utility, and be subject to all the regulations that electric and gas companies are.
Very good article. It's nice to read about current events that are impacting the industry as a whole. I think MMORPG.com should feature more of these types of articles and less top 5 lists. I have Comcast cable internet here, but my bandwidth is not capped yet. My choices are pretty much limited to Verizon DSL (3.5 Mbit, $40/mo) or Comcast cable (16Mbit, $40/mo). You can see the problem immediately, and this is not limited to my area (central IL, usa). Cable companies, such as Comcast, have a serious monopoly on the best residential internet connections in the US. Perhaps the expansion of fiber optic cables will help drive more competition, but until then there is nothing to stop cable providers from limiting internet use as they please. But I'm okay with that. This is how the market works. The real problems don't begin until the government decides to start regulating. Therefore it's really in the consumer's best interest not to complain too loudly. Just settle for lower speeds until they get the point people don't like their bandwidth limited. DSL companies will bend over backwards to get your subscription. Although in time, I presume an internet connection will become seen as a basic utility, and be subject to all the regulations that electric and gas companies are.
That last is amusing... "Public Service Commissions" tend to be revolving doors between current and former members of the industries that are supposed to be "regulated". Couple that with Sweet "contributions" from industry lobby groups to the politicians who appoint the commission members, and the only wonder is that things aren't worse than they are. Out here the only choices are comcast 8-9meg(top tier) or 1.5meg DSL. I'm all about real free markets, but the US broadband industry is ANYTHING but a free market.
How can it be, when the government comes in and hands one group priority access to the right of way to lay their network, and then makes a deal with them that prevents anyone else from effectively competing with them in that area? Its become so bad that cable companies are suing towns that lay their own networks, even if the cable company in the past had refused to set up one of their own in that town. At this point the cable companies pretty much have it their own way. The main reason that comcast had problems with the FCC was their in your face attitude with the FCC.
Comments
Actually, given the topic, and all too many peoples refrain of "Government should DO something about that!" , and then those who rightly counter that more government interference in the internet is the LAST thing we need, politics is a natural progression of this topic. But that phase appears to have passed now.
Actually, given the topic, and all too many peoples refrain of "Government should DO something about that!" , and then those who rightly counter that more government interference in the internet is the LAST thing we need, politics is a natural progression of this topic. But that phase appears to have passed now.
See my previous post(s) in this thread. I was kidding, mainly. I don't really agree that government involvement couldn't help in some cases, but you can go back and read my posts for my thoughts on that.
I just thought the political angle was being taken to a bit an an extreme, it was amusing, and I figured that the only thing that could possibly become any more inflammatory or predictable would be if you spiced it up with a little bit of religious fervor.
The bandwidth of even a heavy gamer is only on par with checking youtube a few times a day. However, the ISPs know that if they can gain control over the priority of different protocols and different destinations, they can begin to blackmail content providers - charging connection fees to allow apps/sites to cross its networks, essentially skimming revenue off any enterprise that depends on its Internet connection. Eventually the free and open Internet disappears behind a mesh of private gatekeeper networks.
The danger is not the traffic shaping itself, it is the potential to change of business model: dismantling the "selling you an open tube" Internet and recreating the far-more-lucrative charge-per-connection telephone business model.
I know lots of teenagers that play online that are a lot more mature than people in their late or early twenties. Some people play MMO's to not be tied into real life. The vast majority I would imagine.
Jam is sticky.
That is EXACTLY the motivation I've spoken of. Once they can get away with that, their potential profits are literally staggering. They would have a literal lock on who can do what, and that translates to a LOT of money and power. Groups like Comcast would have not only a monopoly on broadband in all too many areas, but also near total control of broadband access to their captive audiences.
Very good article. It's nice to read about current events that are impacting the industry as a whole. I think MMORPG.com should feature more of these types of articles and less top 5 lists.
I have Comcast cable internet here, but my bandwidth is not capped yet. My choices are pretty much limited to Verizon DSL (3.5 Mbit, $40/mo) or Comcast cable (16Mbit, $40/mo). You can see the problem immediately, and this is not limited to my area (central IL, usa).
Cable companies, such as Comcast, have a serious monopoly on the best residential internet connections in the US. Perhaps the expansion of fiber optic cables will help drive more competition, but until then there is nothing to stop cable providers from limiting internet use as they please.
But I'm okay with that. This is how the market works. The real problems don't begin until the government decides to start regulating. Therefore it's really in the consumer's best interest not to complain too loudly. Just settle for lower speeds until they get the point people don't like their bandwidth limited. DSL companies will bend over backwards to get your subscription.
Although in time, I presume an internet connection will become seen as a basic utility, and be subject to all the regulations that electric and gas companies are.
That last is amusing... "Public Service Commissions" tend to be revolving doors between current and former members of the industries that are supposed to be "regulated". Couple that with Sweet "contributions" from industry lobby groups to the politicians who appoint the commission members, and the only wonder is that things aren't worse than they are. Out here the only choices are comcast 8-9meg(top tier) or 1.5meg DSL. I'm all about real free markets, but the US broadband industry is ANYTHING but a free market.
How can it be, when the government comes in and hands one group priority access to the right of way to lay their network, and then makes a deal with them that prevents anyone else from effectively competing with them in that area? Its become so bad that cable companies are suing towns that lay their own networks, even if the cable company in the past had refused to set up one of their own in that town. At this point the cable companies pretty much have it their own way. The main reason that comcast had problems with the FCC was their in your face attitude with the FCC.