Google’s agreement with Verizon to speed certain Internet content to users opens the door to the complete sterilization of the world wide web as a force for political change. Under Google’s takeover plan, the Internet will closely resemble cable TV, independent voices will be silenced and the entire Internet will be bought up by transnational media giants.

http://www.infowars.com/googles-plans-to-take-over-the-internet-exposed/

people can live with out the internet

just another way for big corparations to force thier believes and products on to use

Sounds unfair to me. Anyway, I pay for internet access. Internet's not free.

Me to...lol

bullshit.. their plan basically says net neutrality is 100% OK, but carriers are allowed to limit/promote bandwidth on mobile devices (i.e. verizon can have their vcast videos stream on a top tier network for best performance, while accessing youtube and other websites goes over the "normal" network)

From what i understand, the problem would be if all the main carriers teamed up to "price fix" their high and low preformance streams. Then only content that they approve of would be easily avialable ?

Last edited by eazyas 15 years ago

I found another interesting article concerning net nutraility on gamespy, here it is :

Introduction

Have you heard the term "net neutrality?" Do you know what it means? Chances are, you've got a vague idea; maybe an activist buddy or a passing piece of forum spam has piqued your interest. But -- if you're like most gamers -- you probably don't know exactly what it's all about. Heck, as a gamer, you may be all, "What do I even care about net neutrality?" Well, maybe you should know a bit more about the situation before you jump to conclusions, Mr. Jump-to-Conclusions-Man! So, I'm going to break it down for you, from a gamer's perspective.

Now, just a word of warning: I'm aware that (as with every political issue) some people hold very strong views on net neutrality. I'm not here to convince you to share my or anybody else's point of view on it, only to lay out the facts and help you understand the issue as it relates to gaming. That way, you can formulate your own opinion. Novel concept, right?

OK, so what is this thing called net neutrality? Here's the deal: The companies that provide Internet access for all of us -- our Internet Service Providers -- own and control the infrastructure (cables, servers, nodes, etc.) that allows the Internet to exist. However, this infrastructure and its concomitant ability to transfer data are limited resources: A given piece of cable can only push so much data through at a given time. As a result, traditionally, ISPs have charged consumers more money for faster connections. Now, however, as the amount of data transference continues to grow faster than the rate at which ISPs are able to build infrastructure, they're looking for other ways to spread costs and limit usage.

Their plan, in brief, is for ISPs to begin throttling the output speed of certain IP addresses and websites in order to save more bandwidth for the websites and web services that are in a given ISP's good graces, for whatever reason. So what gets you out of that ISP's good graces? Two things, primarily: One, your web service is associated with some less-than-on-the-up-and-up activity; and two, you didn't pay the ISP the premium service fees to get the really fast output.

Net neutrality, then, is the idea that ISPs should not be allowed to favor certain types of content, Internet throughput, etc., over others that they don't like -- but should instead be compelled by law to give every service the same bandwidth. Kinda like communism, but without the cool submarine movies. Anyway, the U.S. District Court for Washington, DC recently ruled that it's OK for ISPs to throttle or not throttle their bandwidth any way they want to. Well, OK, no -- they actually ruled that the FCC doesn't have the power to force ISPs to implement net neutrality. Practically speaking, then -- whether we believe in net neutrality or not -- without a regulatory body to force them, ISPs are going to do what they want with their own property.

Facts

So, what happened in this case was that Comcast -- the big ol' TV/phone/Internet provider, in a bid to save money, improve network stability, and generally crack down on illicit activity -- put a slowdown on anybody sharing files via peer-to-peer clients (specifically BitTorrent) over its network. People who weren't sharing files via peer-to-peer (those who were, say, downloading them from Amazon.com, or emailing them to a buddy via Gmail) were unaffected. Some dudes calling themselves Free Press, and some other dudes calling themselves Public Knowledge, tried to get the FCC to put a stop to Comcast's preferential treatment. When the FCC actually did try to put regulations in place, though, Comcast (after initially complying with the FCC's orders, just to cover its ass) sued the FCC, arguing that it didn't have jurisdiction over ISPs. Comcast argued some other stuff, too... but the District Court only considered the jurisdictional argument, as that was enough to kill the FCC's authority

Why the Court agreed is, I think, probably outside the scope of this particular article... but feel free to check out the full text of the opinion. The long and short of it is, the Court didn't feel that the FCC had what's called "subject matter jurisdiction" over the case at hand. In other words, the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate stuff that goes on over the Internet -- it's out of their domain. Get it? Domain. Frickin' funny. Anyway, since nobody else could conceivably oversee that kind of regulation (outside of Congress itself), that means -- should everything stay status quo -- that ISPs will be able to throttle bandwidth as they see fit. Hey, it's their property, right?

Now, all of this is interesting to know in a general sense, but how does it relate, specifically to gamers? Well, if you're just a guy who plays store-bought games on your perfectly legal PlayStation 3, and you never play anything but the single-player and don't download any third-party content of any kind, it probably doesn't affect you all that much. Hell, if you're that guy, living in 1990 probably doesn't affect you all that much. But every other gamer could probably conceive of three primary ways in which this type of throttling by ISPs could change the way they do things.

The first would be, of course, piracy -- this could seriously threaten the efficiency of that. The second would be massively multiplayer online games; in theory, ISPs could privilege bandwidth by really popular MMOs (like World of Warcraft) or other online games (like Halo: Reach's multiplayer) if the companies that ran those games were willing to cough up a little extra dough. Finally, speed throttling could be used to drive people to (and from) certain casual games that are played in a browser -- or, alternatively, on a portable device.

Analysis

So, let's address each of these, one by one.

As for BitTorrent and its associated low-moral-fiber activities, I think we can all pretty much agree that ISPs are doing more or less the right thing by limiting the bandwidth associated with this stuff. I know, I know; you totally misplaced your copy of that game that just came out two days ago and you really need to download it, totally legally, from BitTorrent, and it's super unfair that you have to wait like 15 hours when somebody can download it off Steam in five, but you're going to have to suck it up. As gamers, we need to recognize that piracy is a fixture in our culture, but that doesn't mean we have to condone it. The FCC blocking ISPs from throttling BitTorrent is kind of like the FBI blocking local police forces from having guns: It only helps the bad guys. Even from a practical perspective, it makes sense. Making it harder (or at least less convenient) to pirate games benefits legit gamers by (at least in theory) reducing the cost to us, as game companies won't need to pass on the losses in piracy as significantly. It should also reduce the annoying need for copy protection, and it might even reduce the instances of griefers in your favorite games. Again, I'm not here to preach to you; if you think BitTorrent is a legitimate way to use your Internet, and you think the federal government should be protecting your right to use BitTorrent just as fast as the kid next door, fair enough.

More significant might be the ability of ISPs to give preferential treatment to certain MMOs or online games over others. This, the gamer proponents of net neutrality often say, could lead to a dampening of innovation in the industry, because upstart game companies would have to compete with the big boys to get the maximum output speed for their servers. When you think about paying off all the many ISPs at once, too (since, without some pre-existing rules forcing people to use a particular ISP, you'd never know which one they're going to come through), you can see the thing can become cost-prohibitive very quickly. If you're a fan of indie (or even less-popular studio) games that have a multiplayer component, you might not like it that ISPs can regulate the speed of your favorite games relative to other titles.

On the other hand, keep in mind that we still have a more-or-less free market -- if gamers really want to have fast games no matter what, perhaps in the absence of net neutrality, new gamer-friendly ISPs will come along, guaranteeing equally fast Internet for all your favorite games. Or, conversely, perhaps some ISPs will partner with certain game companies ("Comcast and Activision come together for the ultimate Call of Duty experience!"), allowing you to choose your ISP by that criterion as well. At least, those are the theories of net neutrality opponents. I'm just here to give you both sides of the coin, after all.

And finally, let's not forget the possibility that ISPs could use their preferential treatment to direct potential casual gamers to certain gaming sites over others. While this is related to the previous idea, it's worth noting that casual gamers are a different, usually less technically clued-in breed of folks (and I mean that in the least insulting way possible). This means they're much less likely to even understand what's going on with regard to the back-end of their favorite pastime. But, should FarmVille slow down, I think we can rest assured that all hell would break loose at Comcast's offices.

Conclusion

As it stands right now, the net neutrality movement is decidedly on the defensive. While the FCC appealed the ruling in this case, and has petitioned Congress to grant explicit authority to regulate the Internet, just about everyone -- from ISPs, to TV networks, to Google -- has promised to vigorously oppose this. Net neutrality groups, on the other hand, are lobbying hard to get legislation passed that would force ISPs to give equal output performance to all services on their networks, regardless of type, money paid, etc. Some prominent people are lined up with both sides of this debate, so at this point, it looks like the pendulum could swing either way.

When we'll actually know how it's swung is, of course, another matter entirely. Given the way that Congress usually handles things (i.e., back-burnering them until we're all 85 years old), it could be a while. While this FCC case is in appeal, other cases are currently being brought around the country, both in state and federal court. Canada, too, is seeing some interesting legal action that seems to indicate an anti-net neutrality bent among its courts, as well. The fact is, no one can say if, when, or exactly how net neutrality will be implemented. However it is, though, you can bet it will affect the way most gamers approach online gaming... even if they don't know that it is.

And as for this Comcast vs. FCC case, what do I think? Was the District Court's ruling ultimately good for gamers? Is net neutrality a good or a bad thing for us? I know it's usually my specialty to give you my opinion, and have you flame me in the comments, but this time you're SOL, friends. As I said at the top -- no conclusion in this installment of Objection!. You're just gonna have to draw one for yourself.

Messed up In the future we wont be able to blink without being noticed...

damn man. i doubt this will happen to me as i get phenomenal speeds no matter what and virgin like their top paying customers but that sounds shitty as hell