The throttling we are talking about is not on your individual connection it is on the backbone side where the content provider connects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaethra
How does Net Nutrality affect SE/XIV?
Printable View
-
12-15-2017, 11:18 PMClaviusnex
-
12-16-2017, 12:15 AMSenlitenLeft one out, People of the State of NY vs TWCQuote:
Originally Posted by Pondera
Which oddly enough, involved Riot games as one of the Plaintiffs.
Just gonna uhh.. leave this snippet from This court summons here on why this is big deal for all of us, and no not just Leauge players.
This line alone, explains just why people are fighting to keep NN in place, and what can happen with it no longer being around.Quote:
329. It was not until Riot Games agreed to pay Spectrum-TWC for access to its
subscribers, that Spectrum-TWC agreed to connect its ports to Riot Games. Prior to this,
Spectrum-TWC deprived its subscribers of reliable access to online content as promised.
-
12-16-2017, 01:19 AMChortleQuote:
Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea
Regional monopolies give some of us little choice. I absolutely loathe my current ISP because of constant price increases for the same service year after year. There are no other high-speed options in the vast majority of my state so I am stuck with this money-grabbing company that hasn't had adequate competition in years.
Funny enough, they are one of the main backers of the FCC repealing Net Neutrality.
There is no suicide for the company to commit because there are no options for us as consumers. The could do whatever they wanted. Our options would be to fork over the cash or have terrible internet. -
12-16-2017, 01:25 AMFhaerron
The world is going to end tomorrow!
You were able to play before 2015 .. yes?
At most the sub prices of streaming services like Netflix will increase (and mmo's like this too).
QQ-ing here is not going to do anything about it, best is to let your local authorities and stuff know you are unhappy and I've also heard that 20 states (might be more by now) have this so joined forces and are against go support them! -
12-16-2017, 01:35 AMMaloraYukiOr you will see companies start to bundle internet like cable. The you could play before 2015 is bullshit that doesn’t stop Internet providers from being greedy and wanting more money. This whole thing is about greed nothing else, Companies wouldn’t care if there wasn’t a way they could profit off of it. However, You are right about no point in complaining on here and go join the effort, no one is going to check the ffxiv forums for your thoughts on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fhaerron
-
12-16-2017, 01:35 AMZojhaAm I the only one who finds it ironic that this is an issue in the US of all places? <.<'Quote:
Originally Posted by Chortle
The USA, the "Land of Competition", propagating "Free Markets" across the world... has regional monopolies. For someone across the ocean not intimately familiar with the situation, that sounds somewhat odd. -
12-16-2017, 01:42 AMChortleQuote:
Originally Posted by Fhaerron
Informing others is always beneficial even if it is through a video game forum. I find it is crucial information especially for gamers to be made aware of.
Contact your state representatives: https://www.house.gov/representatives#state-alabama
Contact your state senator: https://www.senate.gov/general/conta...nators_cfm.cfm
Keep track of their votes!!
Make sure they know that their job is on the line with this vote. Their job is to be the voice of the people. The VAST majority of consumers do not want to repeal Net Neutrality. -
12-16-2017, 02:05 AMClaviusnexMost American companies are only for "Free Markets" as long as there is no competition. The reality is they all rather be monopolies where they can freely control their market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zojha
-
12-16-2017, 03:09 AMXtrasweetteaHi, Xtrasweettea who is an ISP shill* here to respond!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chortle
Two reasons for monopolies:
1) Regional (whether it be city, county, or state) governments allow them to happen. Those governments accept money from the ISPs, whether they be campaign contributions or paying taxes/fees to have their lines operating in that region.
2) Because they are “utilities” you can only have so many lines, switching stations, and routing stations within an area. Your local monopoly may happen to own all of the hardware and lines in the region. If no one else had set up that hardware or lines within the region, then there is no real competition. If another ISP wants to operate on those lines (example, Comcast being able to operate on AT&T lines and switching stations), then that ISP has to pay to do so. This is no different than how things work with the electric company. I bet you don’t have choices to which electric company you can purchase power from. The same concept with the Internet.
As for your last statement, yes, it is suicide if a company within the USA to try do those tiered based packages. Those types of plans work in countries and regions that do per-bit internet services instead of per bandwidth like here in the USA.
As for forking over more cash, well that is the crux of Title 2 of NN isn’t it?
What seems like a fight between “the people” and the ISPs is really a fight of corporation versus corporation. It’s ISPs versus .com companies (Facebook, Google, Pornhub, Neflix, etc.). As someone who actually deals with these .com companies at a business level, they are really greedy and selfish. They do not want to pay for the traffic they create for their services. The amount packets and sizes of the packets can actually bog down networks. The traffic Pornhub alone in 2016 was massive:
http://observer.com/2017/01/pornhub-stats-data-2016/Quote:
A petabyte is equal to 1024 terabytes, or a million gigabytes, which means a whopping 3,110,400,000 GBs were used. That’s enough data to fill 194 million 16GB USB sticks. End-to-end, they would span all the way around the moon. By contrast, only 1,892 petabytes were used in 2015.
That is one company’s data usage for only one function of their company in one year. That is not including the company performing their standard business transactions.
Imagine the amount of data Netflix and Hulu sent out in 2016? How many 16GB USB sticks worth?
Here is the thing with video streaming packets: they are large, they require very low chances of being dropped, very high requirement of perfectly being timed to delivery, also very low chance of causing poor quality. It takes some very high end equipment that eats up a lot of power to do this consistently. These .com companies don’t want to pay for it.
That is like me having a shipping and freight company, but me not paying my fair share of taxes in order to maintain and improve the roads. In scenarios like that, you get one of the three outcomes:
• in order to maintain the roads and improve the roads to handle the huge trucks, everyone will pay an increase on a tax (sales, property, gasoline)
• nothing will happen and a war of attrition will happen and the roads will fall apart. The goal is for the government to get my company to pay for road maintenance cause by me
• force my company to pay via lawsuit, which my company will probably pick up and leave if that happens since I am not getting any special treatment anymore.
That scenario is exactly the same thing with Net Neutrality.
• If the .com sites won’t pay for their fair share, then the ISPs will charge consumers more money since they are the end users
• If a law prevents ISPs from charging consumers too much, then a war of attrition will happen. The ISPs’ goal is to get the .coms to pay for their increased traffic. Though the .com people will never pay, instead the consumer will be dealing with degrading technology and lines. ISPs will just keep doing bare minimum
• A lawsuit goes against the .coms and the just get up and leave. They don’t even have to physically leave, they can change their headquarters to another country just by moving a few pieces of paper. Of course, they won’t need to leave, they have “friends” in all levels of government ready to protect them if that comes about. Of course, NN Title 2 was their baby.
This is what NN is actually about: corporations not paying their fair share. We all want corporations to pay their fair share, correct?
InB4: “Look how much money the ISPs made X year, <insert something about greed here>.” I will point to how much these .com companies have made. Most of that money comes from selling your personal information to other companies and the government.
*Yes, I do actually work for an ISP. -
12-16-2017, 03:21 AMFreytThis is incredibly enlightening. I look forward to anything else about this you wish to share.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea
-
12-16-2017, 03:31 AMToasterMan
We're not completely screwed yet. They'll have to defend this in the courts.
Meanwhile, if you live in the US, do your part to vote out the congress members who supported this repeal during the mid term elections.
YOUR VOTE MATTERS! -
12-16-2017, 03:32 AMClaviusnexNo corporation pays their fair share. Those costs get passed to the consumer regardless of who is charging whom. As an end user I pay my ISP for a connection to the internet with the expectation to reach all sites equally. An ISP deciding to throttle one of the sites I want to reach is not equal. I can also point out that due to the monopolization of service franchises many ISPs never invested in their infrastructure until they were absolutely forced to and then they did the minimum. So while end user demands have increased the ISPs share culpability for the capacity problems as well. Now I'm of the opinion it is the ISP company shareholders that should pay the cost for the ISP share not the end users or content providers yet the big ISPs seem to think it should be me paying for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea
-
12-16-2017, 04:20 AMuvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweugwemu
The arguments made sense tbh. In rl traffic there's assigned roads for specific types of vehicles. Simply put, .coms are getting too big, they need to reconfigure or rebased their connections to several destinations especially since they're the most crawled from other sites too. It's not really a problem for the game since we already have split datacenters. Customers should be left alone inside a protection law, it's up to them where they want their content from, but the content provider should either provide that alternatives or deny them access.
-
12-16-2017, 04:23 AMLastFireAce
I just wanted to say, I'm no complaining tho !
Was just asking what could happen to XIV/SE since the only game I play for the past 2 years :')
But I know more of less what could happen in general. -
12-16-2017, 04:48 AMXtrasweettea
Hello, ISP shill here again,
Well, yeah, that is something I can think no one can disagree with on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
It just seems from my perspective, that people don’t mind certain companies never paying their fair share.
If the ISP advertises it and the fine print shows that you should be able to reach all sites “equally,” then yes, you should get what you are paying for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
Here is the thing, “equally” is terrible goal to strive for. I will use your point below:
Technically you are reaching the site “equally.” Equality, when it comes to connecting to something, is based on the lowest speed when connecting. Example, you have 10MB connection and you connect to Hulu, which uses gigabyte based circuits, Hulu will send packets to you at your base speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
What may seem like directed throttling may not be at all.
Have there been cases of on purposely throttling connections to certain sites? Oh, yes. Comcast being the “main reason” for NN Title 2.
But, if on the network, everyone is not able to properly connect/poorly connect to an ISP, then they are still being connected “equally” on that ISP. Your goal has been met. You got what you paid for.
What you want is the freedom to connect to any site you want and receive great content that you ISP provider claims they will allow you to do. You want that freedom to be able to do this on any ISP.
Aiming for “equally” is just aiming for nothing. It is easier and cheaper to offer nothing or very little equally than trying to offer a lot equally.
Not going to argue this because you are correct. Historically, this has happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
Though, my prior posts outline why these monopolies exists.
They are here to stay as along as we keep treating the Internet like a utility and we keep voting in politicians that accept ISP money (and don’t have a spine).
Your opinion has some good merit. The boards that oversee these ISP companies do put in CEOs that lead the company in a way that may not benefit end-users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
The thing is that the ISPs built and own the network and the backbones within the USA. There is a regulatory board that is supposed to make sure that there are shared standards, but that is it. Beyond that, the board doesn’t do much. There are laws out there to help the consumer, but those only go so far as to not prevent the ISP from performing their job.
It is their network. They have built the modern infrastructure (either directly or absorbing it from other ISPs). The network was built with 5 to 10 years ago in mind (more than likely 20 years ago in mind). HD was not readily available in 2007. You Tube was still new. MMO’s in 2007 were WoW and FFXI mainly, which sent data differently in smaller packets to support 56k modems (yes, people used 56K modems still in 2007, not everyone lives in a city or suburb). The infrastructure did not keep up with technology. HD You Tube, HD Streaming video services, HD porn, games that require very small ping to function properly. That is all what, 5 to 6 years old, maybe 7 if we are stretching it?
Yes, the ISP believes you should pay for it, since you are the one consuming additional traffic that was not meant for their network. Yes, the ISPs want the .coms to pay for it, they are the ones creating the product/service and are using the ISPs’ network to ship on it.
But, no one wants to pay for any infrastructure improvements, or to pay for the costs of the additional energy required to run these devices constantly at near peak capacity. NN Title 2 just prevents the .com’s from legally paying anything. You will always pay more, regardless if it is a yearly increase (even under NN title 2) or forcing you to pay more for more data usage (no NN title 2 protection).
All of this because a set of corporations don’t want to pay their fair share and government officials who happily accept their money. -
12-16-2017, 05:51 AMClaviusnexIf your referencing the IETF I am well acquainted with it being a representative for my company from 1992 through 1998 and still having friends that are active with it. You are correct that its function is as a standards not regulatory body. Regulation is considered in the realm of politics and left to government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea
Yes it is their network and much of it is older that 30 years old. To be frank we were talking about cable internet access hitting a wall back when I was still working with the IETF. Even then those of us doing operating system and hardware development were telling the cable companies they needed to start building up their capacity. The responses were like those of many large companies who are slow to change and put more emphasis on milking the cash cow of today while trying to ignore the disruptor of tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea
I have no issue with paying for improvements but it depends upon the end. I think it is the ISPs job to handle the backbone costs. For local infrastructure such as the 30+ year old copper that provides the internet connection to most people I have no problem with payments being the subscriber's responsibility. However I also expect the company to do more than lay it and forget it for that additional cost. The copper network that most of us are on is overloaded yet nothing is being done to fix this. Instead they complain about the backbone connection which is the cheapest place to add capacity. In fact I think it is frequently used as a coverup for the poor quality of their local networks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea
As for the .com corporations. I could say they do pay their fair share as they pay an ISP to carry their traffic just as I do. So maybe the cable companies should be dealing with their peers or backbone provider. As to the Title 2 protections they worked for phones even after competition opened up the networks. The Internet isn't really any different. As far as rate increases they have been pretty stable in my area, Research Triangle Park, for the last 10 or so years. Mostly because some of the larger towns have a viable alternative service provider which help those of us in the boonies. We also have Google and Ting building or planning to build in the area putting further pressure on the cable/phone companies. Also for full disclosure my rates can never go up due my contract with the ISP but I'm an exception to the rule. -
12-16-2017, 07:01 AMXtrasweetteaI honestly do not have the breadth of knowledge and experience as you do within this industry. I have industry jumped from electrical (Power plants mainly) to over seas shipping and stevedoring, to now telecommunications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and history.
What you have stated above reminds me of how at the power plant I was working at, they had the same mentality of milking the cash cow with their current equipment. One of the transformers edging up there in the 20 year range blew out one day after we just got done with a three month outage. We had another month outage to replace the transformer. So, the company lost millions of dollar that month to fix one thing that should have been replace anyway during the three month outage that was planned. But, they had to milk it as much as they can.
Sounds like something I can get behind for the local network upgrading. I don’t mind paying for that as a subscriber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
As for the backbone being the coverup for the poor local area coverage. I can believe that… especially in other countries. If it can happen in other places, it can happen in the USA. So I can argue against that.
As point taken, though I will say that some of these .com companies do not come to us with the idea of having to have their sites to even match what they are asking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claviusnex
This is quite frequent, and it isn’t unheard of between the ISP companies.
Google and Ting planning to build within your area to force the hand of the cable and phone companies is something that I cheer for. That is competition. -
12-16-2017, 07:39 AMLaurieB
I already spend 129.00 a month plus 14.99 equipment fee for internet that is capped at 50GB per month, max 25mps download, most times 10-17 in reality. These companies took millions and did not expand high speed internet https://arstechnica.com/information-...nment-funding/ http://thehill.com/policy/technology...ternet-service, they have done nothing. You trust them to be de regulated? Most people don't even know that 30 million Americans, like me, don't have access now and this will make it even longer. But they will keep the money, your money.
-
12-16-2017, 07:51 AMLaurieB
I might also add that many people here still use 56k dial up modems as they can't afford the 129.00 a month. That is the ONLY option here, and for many people in the United States. These satellite companies that supply this expensive service are raking it in because there is no other option and they know it. But, for sure they will be taking advantage of this deregulation's full tilt, and we as customers will pay even more for much less. Unless we sell our house and move, or they use the money they were given to expand. They won't. And being five miles from town, just five miles from "real" internet is infuriating..but money is what this is all about, who has the most wins, but these companies got a big win from this.
-
12-16-2017, 08:28 AMFreytSo is it your understanding that that one provider is prohibiting any competition, and not that the local government has not provided a suitable environment for new competition to enter?Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurieB
-
12-16-2017, 08:52 AMLaurieB
Yes. I have taken them to court over it. The local government has no jurisdiction because we are outside of the city limits and the mayor has directly told me that. He has said that he is open to anyone coming here, but they will not. They have plenty of electric lines that they rent space on inside the limits to run cable, but they refuse to do it here. Cox, ATT, Century Link, no dsl lines, no less restrictive Satellite service, none of them want to compete with Hughes.net, that is the company out here. We have cell phone service but Verizon is the only one, and they want 185.00 a month for a 15GB, with large overage fees if we use it.
-
12-16-2017, 08:56 AMFreytMy dude, if you live outside of city limits, perhaps you should move.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurieB
-
12-16-2017, 08:57 AMLaurieB
I also might add what I took them to court over is misusing federal funds. So, this issue has nothing to do with anyone else people say. Not true. If you want to let a person or company have free reins that has already misappropriated federal funds, in the billions, then there is something really wrong with that. Like letting someone that stole from you before come right back in and say "don't worry, it will the same as it always was, we promise, nothing will change we won't do it again". That is the premise this is under. That is why what they did then and now, they now report to no one. Light hand means five finger discount.
-
12-16-2017, 09:00 AMLaurieB
Not a dude. And I do not want to sell my house here. I love this house. I shouldn't have to make a decision to get rid of my house and go through selling it and buying another when they were given money to expand out here and did not use it. Months of selling, buying, moving no. I can't do that.
-
12-16-2017, 09:48 AMCanadane
Nothing will happen really.
Unless you're American, I guess. Then something might happen maybe. -
12-16-2017, 10:22 AMGemina
I don't know much about it. However my opinion is it is just another money making scheme similar to gas, food, tobacco etc. Where they take advantage of the population's dependency on such things by figuring exactly how much they can milk us for before we finally say eff you!
When games like FFXIV starts losing subs because customers can no longer afford it, it affects the companies involved. Restructuring happens, they downsize, and people ultimately lose jobs. Then the economy suffers because no one is spending money; unemployment rate goes up, along with personal and national debt.
How's my aim? We are in dire need of a Robin Hood. These greedy fvcks really need to be put in their place. -
12-16-2017, 10:25 AMQojonThat's just political blustering on their part. They don't really have a leg to stand on since they're in violation of federal law. I really wish they'd get around to teaching those cities some hard lessons, because illegal immigrants are a huge threat to public safety. In my previous career, I'd often process a lot of guys who were in for kidnapping, rape, robbery, burglary, DUI, DWI, child molestation, etc. I'd hand them over to ICE to put them on the bus to Mira Loma, but then I'd see them in the jails again a few months later. There's also the recent travesty of justice in San Francisco. Such a traitorous city, they even tore down that woman's memorial. Although, their mayor just died. Poetic justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roth_Trailfinder
But as far as net neutrality, I'm not really worried. I've had the same ISP for over ten years. -
12-16-2017, 10:35 AMQojonAnother option is encouraging state governments that do a better job with their spending. My state is a prime example where they spend 24 billion a year on people that don't even belong in the United States. In order to make up for their wasteful spending, we're forced to pay a tax on nearly everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemina
-
12-16-2017, 02:41 PMmicropanther7Quote:
Originally Posted by Taika
Yes I know I'm cynical, distrustful and worrying for nothing.. but I can picture big companies like Sky, Virgin etc rubbing their hands together gleefully at this kind of news, quite easily. Where money is involved, it's only a matter of time... so the bigger the stink people create the better, even if you're NOT from the US, I'm sure plenty of people from around the world will be pretty vocal in their support, and we should be :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadane
-
12-16-2017, 03:08 PMCrystalRainbow
It's a 2 way street which makes things a lot harder then you think.
There are now basicly 3 party vs 2.
before it was You and content. ISP got there cut by giving you the connections.
Now lets say I want some google content. But comcast wants to charge its customer $2 a day to access google. Then google goes ok find comcast we will be jerks because we beleive in net nutrality. If you charge your customers to get to google we will just charge such a rate to comcast but free to other providers so people switch ISP.
But that only works where there is more then 1 ISP. and large parts of the USA only have 1 of not 2 ISP choices.
Also google could be like oo you want to charge your customers $2 to access google over your fast lain to to google. the fine we disagree with this charage so we will throttle your connetions to google so people paying the fast lane rate will get pissed off at comcast for not providing the services.
Honestly we will not see many changes for 6-12 months. because right now it would be easiser to over turn. if company started pushing out wroste case people would bitch and it would get over turned very quickly which it still might.
Also not all Republicans support this. -
12-16-2017, 03:19 PMBobs
This will be in the courts now. No company will want their content throttled. And as soon as the ISP does it to any company it will become a legal case.
For all we know the Courts may decide that internet IS a utility voiding the FCC, the FCC is just some body like the EPA, It has no real authority, the courts do. This is going to take a long time. Perhaps even long enough for there to be a new president and new appointments. -
12-16-2017, 07:43 PMGalgarionNo, the argument doesn't make sense. The analogy of the internet being like terrestrial traffic is complete nonsense thanks to the speeds provided by fiberoptic cable. The true fact of the matter is that data is cheap to generate, and all the associated pricing is completely arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by uvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweugwemu
https://broadbandnow.com/report/much...lly-cost-isps/
We're already paying far more than our fair share in the U.S., compared to Europe and Asia. With the subsidies that we citizens have already paid into the telecommunications industry, we are absolutely owed fast and affordable internet service as our due right. These companies are liars and thieves, flat out. Anything they claim to the contrary is a demonstrable falsehood, and scheming to have net neutrality repealed is among the greatest acts of corporate greed that have ever occurred, right up there with the housing collapse of '09. -
12-16-2017, 08:00 PMuvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweugwemuYou're confusing speed with data. If a sports car is really cheap and everyone has one, what does your road look like? The speed or any technology doesn't matter without the limits put on the road. The -true- fact is people want their sports car to anywhere instant, it's not even related to the -real- problem is the single destination everyone took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galgarion
-
12-16-2017, 10:01 PMDelilyNo, federal judge appointments are lifetime, and they can only be removed by impeachment. This the legacy of the Republican's hold on the federal government, which is to fill the judiciary with their shills so when they do lose power and people start to fight and repeal the laws they've put into place, the courts will be there to stop them. Elections have consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobs
Many people have stated they hope that if and when the Dem retake the government, they would remove all federal appointments done by the GOP, but that would set a dangerous precedent (one that the Republicans would decry and then use once they got power).