How does Net Nutrality affect SE/XIV?

[Urthdigger]

You thought you complained about bad ping before, just wait until you need to spend $50 a month just for access to gaming content, then another $100 to use it at the "fast" speeds (read: Current speed). On top of your existing internet bill cost.

[Claviusnex]

If things go like they were before the end user ISPs will start giving their own services preferential treatment and shakedown their content competition to get equal treatment. It is why the previous FCC board reclassified ISPs as common carriers. To be honest that would not have happened had Verizon not taken the FCC to court for less strenuous rules to limit an ISPs ability to treat their on content better than their competitors and won. The result really ticked off the other big end user ISPs at Verizon.

Personally I think it needs to be treated as a common carrier just as the phones are. We also need to get the cable company sponsored bills in many states that do not allow local governments to build their own systems reversed. These laws were introduced as a few municipalities have create their own fiber based services for citizens at lower subscription rates and higher speeds than the local cable company. The fact is the current end user ISPs in the US do not want to compete nor invest in their systems and want to keep their poorly run network monopoly.

[Roth_Trailfinder]

Individual states are suing because the FCC has said that the federal government does not have the right to regulate ISPs, but has ALSO said that it is not something that a state may regulate, either.

This is blatantly unconstitutional, because all powers not explicitly granted to the government are reserved for the states (10th Amendment.)

So either the FCC is wrong about the federal government having no authority to regulate ISPs, or they are wrong about states having no authority to regulate ISPs. The authority has to rest in at least one of them.

Unfortunately, precedent suggests it will be with the Federal, not a State, government. The 10th Amendment is ignored in so many cases, it is effectively treated as non-existent and meaningless. Don’t get me wrong - I think that it should be applied far more often than it is (which is easy enough, if it was applied ONCE it would be applied more often than it is). But things like Obamacare (impossible to do with the 10th Amendment, though Massachusetts’ Romneycare was perfectly legit) and the blatant misuse of the Interstate Commerce clause indicate that its not going to be up to the States.

Some places are suing to take power from the federal government (cities and states do not have the constitutional authority to rewrite American immigration policy, yet cities sued to stop any kind of Federal defunding for their Sanctuary City policies) and in many cases the Federal government has blatantly usurped power that belongs to the States, or to no Government at all (the saving of General Motors comes to mind here). In all of these, I see the 10th Amendment being blatantly ignored and trampled upon.

We never should have ratified the Amendment that gave individuals direct voting rights for their Senators. That was a tipping point against States Rights (though it was not the starting point against States Rights).

[Roth_Trailfinder]

You thought you complained about bad ping before, just wait until you need to spend $50 a month just for access to gaming content, then another $100 to use it at the "fast" speeds (read: Current speed). On top of your existing internet bill cost.

Do you really believe that you’re getting the best Internet speeds right now?

Or is it more likely that companies are already throttling everyone equally and considerably, to save on operating costs?

Allowing an “Internet Lexus lane” where you pay more for a faster than what we currently get now speed would not be a bad thing, depending upon the increases in speed and price.

[ElazulHP]

This never should have happened. There are many people on both sides who don't want this. Though, it's not over yet. This issue is years away from being resolved. It's going to go to court as people are already talking about suing the FCC and it will likely end up in the Supreme Court as a result. Then of course our Congress could always get off their collective asses and actually do something to help us out by taking up the issue themselves. Not likely to happen with the current people in office, but you never know.

[Claire_Pendragon]

Your ISP already gives you options of "speeds" to pay for as is. why would they suddenly offer an even FASTER option for more after NN is removed? (It's going to be the same speed, but at a higher price)

[Reinha]

This game company charges extra for inventory space they themselves are keeping intentionally limited. And people pay it. If ISPs can do the same with bandwidth I bet they will.

[Freyt]

Short answer: it won't affect XIV/SE at all.

Why would they beg

Pro-tip: They didn't.

[Lazaruz]

Do you really believe that you’re getting the best Internet speeds right now?

Or is it more likely that companies are already throttling everyone equally and considerably, to save on operating costs?

You do realise that is the point of Net Neutrality, right? That even if a ISP is throttling the connection, they are doing it to everyone, as all internet traffic is to be considered equal.

• Without it, they're free to block sites with content/views the ISP doesnt agree with
• Without it they're allowed to throttle or block your connection just because you want to acess, lets say a competitor to the ISP's own streaming service.
• Without it they're allowed to throttle specific sites just because they dont happen to be on a paid for "fast lane"
• And without it they're allowed to throttle your connection unless you pay for that same "fast lane" (i.e current speed). And just imagine the potential for money grabbing here for a second, because if you think it's just gonna be "a extra $50 and you're done" then you're deluding yourself. Same with the "slow lane" if you really think it's gonna be anything but a damn near unusably slow and bumpy connection

And if we're gonna go there to begin with and argue that ISP's are already running with slower connections then they should, who's to say that you'll even get acceptable speed to begin with if you pay for the "fast lane"

No matter what way you spin it, over all, this is a terrible thing for consumers, as you're being forced to fork over at this point god knows how much more money, plus could have specific sites outright blocked from you, no matter what you pay. Alot of people are ranting about "Fake news". Now imagine if those "fake news" were honest to god your only source avaliable for information about the world

[Gumbercules]

what we will see happen is more than likely something akin to a "forced" VPN. The question is if it comes at a per "category" basis or by company/game. For example you might need a bnet package then a SE package. One major misconception is that those that were ok with thsi repeal tend to fall on "well the internet was ok before NN!" the problem with that is NN has been a part of the infrastructure in the USA since 1996, predatory practices by the likes of Comcast are what prompted their reclassification to title 2 ... that is it, literally all that happened in 2014.

Ajit pie, pretty much gutted the department he was put in charge of, passing the puck to the FTC .... which his bosses and fellow lobbyist cronies are, as we speak, trying to gut in a case by ATT. It will get worse than it is right now, I honestly do not know how much worse though and if this 2 prong attack succeeds the sky is the limit. (also keep in mind that as a foreign company SE might be subject to further taxation that could potentially lead to increases in sub costs/removal of services)