Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Net neutrality 101 for gamers

PAX 2010: Public Knowledge's Michael Weinberg and Mehan Jayasuriya discuss why the game-playing crowd should be behind preserving the Internet status quo.

Who was there: Washington DC-based nonprofit advocacy group Public Knowledge staff attorney Michael Weinberg and director of outreach and new media Mehan Jayasuriya.

What they talked about: Legislation and public policy probably aren't what's on most gamers' minds at 9 p.m. on a Saturday night, but that was just the topic during Public Knowledge's "primetime" 2010 Penny Arcade Expo. Specifically, Weinberg and Jayasuriya were on hand to discuss freedom of the Internet in a panel titled "Game Over: Why the Future of Gaming Depends on Net Neutrality."

Are we headed toward tiered Internet access?

Are we headed toward tiered Internet access?

Jayasuriya kicked off the panel by giving a broad overview of what, exactly, the phrase net neutrality refers to. Saying that late Alaskan former senator Ted Stevens wasn't too far off with his "series of tubes" analogy, Jayasuriya noted that the Internet was founded on the "end-to-end" principle. Under it, a consumer on one end of the "tube" is served information by a provider on the other end equally on a first-come, first-served basis.

Between the creators and consumers reside the telecommunications companies, such as Comcast, whose job it is as Internet Service Providers to move the content. Net neutrality, then, is the concept that the telecoms merely continue to maintain the status quo of simply passing information between the consumer and the provider and not slowing or filtering that information in a way it sees fit. According to Jayasuriya, net neutrality is basically saying "you can't block, degrade, or molest traffic."

So what happens without net neutrality? According to Weinberg, "we open up the possibility of looking at where traffic is coming from or where it's going and then altering it." The absence of net neutrality also opens up the possibility of having ISPs charging different amounts for the different sites that consumers want to go to, much like cable TV companies--many of whom are also ISPs--that charge for various channel packages.

He demonstrated this principle using a chart titled "Tiered Internet." For the low, low price of $29.99, consumers would have access to sites that passively deliver information, such as MSN or AOL. The second level, hypothetically priced at $39.99, would offer a wider range of sites that allow for greater interactivity, such as Wikipedia or Google. The top tier, could cost $49.99 and open up ways to actually contribute to the Internet, through sites like YouTube.

Weinberg's hypothetical chart illustrated the concept of what ISPs are calling "managed services," which essentially introduce a fast lane and a slow lane for the Internet, he said. Distilling this principle down, Weinberg said that ISPs are currently advocating dividing up the Internet into prioritized and non-prioritized lanes, where consumers can pay for such so-called "far future" technology as telecommuting and online gaming.

According to Weinberg and Jayasuriya, ISPs are in a tight spot because when the Internet is operating by design, these companies' sole function is to carry content, a service that naturally becomes cheaper as technology improves. As such, these companies have an incentive to carve up the Internet so that they can create new revenue streams for themselves.

Framing the discussion in relation to gamers, the pair noted that the absence of net neutrality has two ways of biting gamers in the wallet. First, ISPs could offer gamers the "option" of a managed service targeting online play, for which they will have to pay extra.

On the flip side, ISPs can go to online providers, such as Xbox Live or the PlayStation Network, and sell Microsoft or Sony on the idea that their content will be delivered faster if they subscribe to a managed service channel. In turn, the gaming companies could pass this increased cost of delivering content on to gamers.

According to Weinberg and Jayasuriya, ISP's notion that these managed services are necessary is fundamentally flawed because functionality like online gaming is already readily available. Further, these companies have been claiming it wouldn't be possible to deliver these so-called future technologies for years now, the pair claimed, saying that ISPs said innovations like voice over IP or online video would not work on the Internet as we know it, an assertion that has been proven false.

Weinberg and Jayasuriya went on to note that the absence of net neutrality would impact gamers in a variety of other ways, as well. Namely, it would further segment the online gaming crowd, as those who for whatever reason opt into the online gaming managed service would not want to play with those who don't. As such, it would be just one more way in which the pool of people available to play with online would shrink.

Plus, it could have a detrimental effect on the indie and do-it-yourself community, as they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to providing innovative new products. This is because the managed services channels will likely be limited, so providing the fastest network will only be available to the large, established companies who can offer the highest bid to access these networks.

Innovation will be further frozen because the more interesting or different a product is, the more likely an ISP will insist on creating a managed service for it. As such, additional barriers to entry would be erected because in addition to having to pay an additional fee to try a new product, gamers would have to have the managed service line activated.

The conversation then turned to what Public Knowledge is doing to prevent the loss of net neutrality. "We believe the Internet has become too important at this point to trust these companies to not screw around with it," Weinberg said. As such, he and his organization have been heavily pushing their agenda with the Federal Communications Commission, who is experiencing an "existential crisis" at the moment over whether it even has the right to oversee the Internet.

The duo ended its panel with a call to action of sorts, directing gamers interested in preserving net neutrality to Public Knowledge's Web site. They also urged gamers to sign up for the organization's mailing list if they want to receive updates on when Public Knowledge needs people to write to congress to remind them that the vast majority of the country supports net neutrality.

Quote: "Why wouldn't it work over the Internet we have now, even though everything else already works?"-- Michael Weinberg, on the so-called fallacy of managed services.

Takeaway: According to Weinberg and Jayasuriya, net neutrality is all about keeping things the way they are on the Internet, as far as the interaction among consumers, providers, and ISPs goes. Codifying this concept as law is important, they claim, because to not have net neutrality means that ISPs have the power to interfere with the flow of traffic in whatever way they see fit.

101 Comments

  • Jebril

    Posted Sep 11, 2010 9:07 pm GMT

    The final frontier for the NWO is a network of knowledge collected from human minds found in what is known as a 'series of tube'.

    Resist.

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 11, 2010 2:12 am GMT

    Fo128 (and anyone else calling internet access a necessity): As far as considering internet access a basic utility that is a necessity rather than a luxury, how do you reconcile that with the fact that within North America we have approximately 20-25% of households with no internet access?

    The figures vary a bit depending on where you look (which is not uncommon), but typical figures show between 75-80% of North American households having internet access. And North America is at the top of the list as far as that percentage goes, and by quite a good margin. The next closest continent is in the low 60s, and it goes down from there. Worldwide, the number is under 30% of the population.

    Also, less than 20 years ago, internet access was a completely foreign concept to most people. People got along just fine back then, and apparently 70% of the world still gets along just fine without it.

    With that in mind, does it really seem logical to suggest that 70% of the world's population is living without a vital necessity rather than a luxury that people have simply become far too dependent on?

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 10, 2010 4:56 pm GMT

    LrReviews: The internet is not a necessity. Period. I would not enjoy living without it, but it is not a requirement. I could survive just fine without internet access, and so could you and anyone else. There simply is NO argument at all that access to the internet is a necessity.

  • LtReviews

    Posted Sep 10, 2010 2:00 pm GMT

    The internet is a necesity, and it needs to be protected. We need the internet so badly- it would f* things up to give anything or anyone power over the transfer of information via the internet. Of course gamers are going to be massively behind net neutrality (apart, of course, from people who don't understand what they are talking about) because the internet is now a major component of gaming- steam, dlc, etc.

    I'm most concerned about the indie-game industry (almost all of which uses digital distribution). ISP's don't give a dam about companies they aren't making much money off of.

  • Fo128

    Posted Sep 10, 2010 1:20 am GMT

    HayateNightElf:

    Necessities are not only primal, i.e. the need to survive (eat, drink).
    In today's society, basic services / utilities are necessity (not luxury), and should be priced accordingly.
    Running potable water in your home is a necessity, where dining at pricey restaurants or buying a sports car is a choice. Please excuse me if I misunderstood you, but I cannot agree with your Disneyland example as i deem it unsuitable for the purpose you used it for. To do what ever you like at the park or the concert would be illegal. We are not trying to do that. My point is - it is your basic right to use all the rides offered in the park, after you've paid the fee, or see the whole concert, without cutting any corners by the organizer / performer.
    And yes, it is natural for prices of services or goods to be adjusted as you have indicated in the restaurant case, being it inflation, import duties, Gov regulations, the list is endless. However, this is normally marginal, and any healthy minded person would understand that. The issue at hand, (as I see it) is the liberty taken by corporations when having exclusive control over certain basic services (yes I do consider the Internet and telephone as basic).

    Thank you for expressing your opinion and the time you took to respond.

  • Fo128

    Posted Sep 10, 2010 1:16 am GMT

    HayateNightElf: (Due to said character limitation, I will be forced to post twice!)
    I am sorry if this is starting to drag into an endless debate, by exchanging examples in terms of right or wrong to overcharge the customer. There is a reason the consumer protection organizations exist. I agree with you on the business rights of the service providers to price their products, and the customer choice to purchase or not, depending on ability or need of the latter.
    This is the fundamental principal of economics, but not in the case where monopolistic corporations exploit their power over you and me as customers.
    The way I see it, in the case of the Internet, we have the Net Neutrality group to counter this opportunism by these people.

  • HappyApryl

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 3:38 pm GMT

    I don't think this would be a good idea losing neutrality. I'm thankful that the prices are what they are right now because much higher and I wouldn't be able to afford at least 90% of what I use the internet for if they teired it somehow.

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 2:38 pm GMT

    lorenzo: I don't disagree with your point, and I'm not terribly upset by ISPs telling people that they are going to raise the rent because the mall has gotten extremely popular these days thanks to the mall's efforts and the stores are making massive amounts of money because of that. Again, simple economics and common sense. If you have a product that has dramatically increased in value (as the internet has due to increased consumer base) it makes sense for it to become more expensive (for businesses that profit heavily from web-based ventures).

    My arguments here are more in response to the hysteria and dramatic "They have no right to [insert random business decision here]" and just an overall lack of understanding of basic economics. I have two major pet peeves with people in general these days. The first is the complete inability to distinguish between a "right" or "necessity" and something you want but are not inherently entitled to. The second is the use of the word "racist" to describe anything and everything to do with race (which has, unfortunately, come with associating the definition of "racism" to anything to do with race as well), but that is a completely different story.

  • lorenzoa88

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 1:01 pm GMT

    Fo 128 and Haytenightelf: I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. The ISPs are not targeting consumers to jest get more money from consumers. Actually their main motivation for getting rid of net neutrality is to access the enourmous profits internet and tech companies are making. Think about it. They are watching Google just make crazy money, but without their infrastructure is there no Google so they want some of their money. Think of it more like businesses renting space from a mall operator. They usually charge them a flat rent plus a percentage of their gross sales since without their mall retailers can't sell anything. That is more what is going on then ISPs trying to stick it to consumers.

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 12:02 pm GMT

    Fo128: You also said that ISPs have no right to tell us how we can use our bandwidth. The ISP is the one who pays the cost of maintaining the network that you connect to and providing you with the service. Of course they have that right. It is their network. That'd be like saying that once you've paid your admission to Disneyland, the park staff has no right to tell you you can't cut in front of people in line, get off the cart in the middle of a ride and wander around, etc. Or that once you've paid for admission to a concert that security has no right to tell you you can't just climb on stage.

    If they sell a service that says that you can access X types of sites for $40 a month, or X and Y types of sites for $50 a month, or X, Y, and Z types of sites for $60 a month, they're telling you up front what you're paying for. If you don't like it, don't buy their service.

    Again, I'm not debating good business practice here (though I don't think tiered service with higher cost to heavier users is a bad thing). I'm simply talking about rights of the business and consumer. The business has the right to charge what they want for what they want to provide. Consumers have the right to pay the price or not to buy. Pretty simple. The market, WITHOUT government intervention, will take care of the rest.

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 11:54 am GMT

    Fo128: Two other things from your post (though this will probably be in two parts because of the character restrictions here). First, you say that people are paying higher prices because they don't have a choice. I think I need to remind you again that internet access or cable television are not necessities. I currently pay $55 a month for my internet connection because it is worth that amount to me. If they raised their prices to $200 a month, I'd probably stop subscribing and look into a cell phone with internet capabilities or just start heading to the library more frequently.

    So, with internet access not being a necessity, you are missing the most obvious choice people have, which is to choose not to have access to the internet because the prices are too high. Again, if you determine that the cost is worth the good or service, the price is not too high. It is only when people decide that the cost is not worth the good or service and quit paying for it that the price can be said to be too high.

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 11:50 am GMT

    Fo128: As for the car analogy, it would piss me off if I purchased a car and was told specifically that it was 440 HP and they changed that figure without telling me. That would warrant legal action because that would be false advertising.

    However, if I was leasing the car and one of the terms in the contract for me leasing it was for me to bring it in for service every six months and that they reserved the right to make such adjustments, they would be within their rights. It might not make me happy, and I would probably consider that fact when deciding whether to lease another car from them, but I certainly wouldn't demand government intervention.

    What if you owned a restaurant and when you opened the price of beef was reasonable, so you charged $15 for a T-bone steak. However, some major issue occurs that drives the price of beef up to triple the price from when you started. You would probably raise the price of your T-bone accordingly, correct? Or what if suddenly the government had a huge number of new regulations that made getting beef a giant pain in the rear. You would be within your rights to stop serving beef dishes so you could save yourself the headache. Would you say that you, as a restaurant owner, have an obligation to continue serving beef because you don't have the right to tell people that they can't eat beef at your restaurant?

  • Fo128

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 11:13 am GMT

    HayateNightElf:
    I agree with you with regard to the Gov's in-efficiency.
    When I mentioned the Gov, I was referring to such institutions, regardless if independent or created by the Gov, which you may turn to for help as a consumer (consumer protection), or if you are suspicious of unfair trade by the opposition.
    The reason people are paying the price sometimes (knowingly that it is just ridiculously high), is not because they are happy, but because they have no choice. And yes, I am confident by saying, that this is probably the case in many rural areas, even in the developed first world countries.
    This takes the topic a little away from the main theme, however.

    The intention of my post, was to show that in the case of Net Neutrality acting as a consumer protection, the service providers (incl. the tele comp.) have no right to decide how we should use the Internet bandwidth we just paid for.

    You will be furious, when you find out that the Mustang you just bought, has been down-tuned for some or other reason by the manufacturer, and instead of the rightful 440 BHP (this is a fictional figure for the sake of the example), you may only use 350BHP.

    Now wouldn't that piss you off?

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 1:42 am GMT

    Fo128: And one other thing I nearly missed. You said internet companies are overcharging, but I question your choice of words. How can they be overcharging when they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of customers that pay that fee monthly? When you pay for something at an agreed upon price for agreed upon goods or services, by definition you cannot be overcharged.

    If internet access currently costs $40 a month, as an example, and you contact your local provider and agree to pay them that much per month for whatever service they provide (filtered or not), you are not being overcharged. Likewise, if the internet service is $200 a month for the same service, and you willingly sign up, you are not being overcharged.

    When you determine that the money that is being asked is an acceptable trade for the good or service being sold, it cannot be said that they are overcharging. Regardless of the price or product, if the customer base is willing to pay for it the price is correct.

    Granted, there are things to consider when pricing, like finding the perfect balance between lowering prices or increasing the quality of good or service in order to obtain the greatest number of customers, and some businesses may make the mistake of charging more than their product is perceived to be worth, but the market corrects those mistakes.

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 1:35 am GMT

    Fo128: Why is the amount of profit an issue? If you had a product that cost you $0.10 per piece to produce and you could sell them to people who were perfectly happy to purchase them at $20.00 each, would you willingly cut your price by 50%? Or 75%? Just so you were being fair and not making TOO much profit? That's absurd.

    I'm not sure what government people are envisioning when they say that the government should create a fair and efficient...anything. Time and again, in countless places and countless times, governments have proven to be inept, dishonest, malicious, oppressive, or some combination of those things. And yet people still think the government is the best solution to everything. How many times to people need to be burned to realize what's causing the problems?

    And as for South Africa's issue with only having one private TV station, from what I can tell from minimal research the issue there is that the government started out with an iron grip on that market and only relatively recently allowed a private station to exist. Even then, from what I was able to find, it looks like others have tried and been denied by your friend, the government. Yet again, the problems with the big bad corporations exist thanks to the government.

  • Fo128

    Posted Sep 9, 2010 12:34 am GMT

    HayateNightElf:
    The argument is not about making profit (the whole monetary trade system is based on this idea), but rather how much.
    This is where the gov should come in, to help control over monopolistic behavior by the corporations.
    In South Africa (where I live) we have only one private TV station (DSTV). Do you know that we pay app USD 85.00 a month for their satelite service, and only because of the FIFA 2010 they were forced to finaly bring HD broadcast (which is actually 750p and not 1080p). The new decoder has various connection interfaces (USB, Network, etc), all of which are disabled. I expect sometime in future, they will ask for extra to enable them, in order to make full use of the equipment.
    The bottom line is - the Internet or access to it, is not free, but to overcharge and then filter / block certain protocols is outrageous.

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 8:49 pm GMT

    @Hkshinfug: You do, of course, realize that that internet and access to it is not a right, correct? It is a service, much like cable television or telephone service. As convenient and useful as it is, access to the internet is not a necessity.

    Furthermore, these "scumbags" that are "attempting to use that as a profit to line their own pockets" are spending their own money to provide said service to those willing to buy it. They have no obligation to provide services in a way that lowers their profit to the bare minimum (or less) so that more people can afford the service. They are a business like any other.

    Making a profit is not evil. Every person that has a job in this country makes a profit in their exchange of money for their services. You trade however many hours of your week to your employer for your wages. You are making a profit, because to you the wages are worth more than your time or you would not keep that job. So would you be evil for asking for a raise each year while not offering to increase your output? Or for accepting additional vacation days each year without offering to increase your output? You are attempting to profit more than you were before without taking on additional costs. This is normal, expected, and perfectly acceptable in your case, and the same is true in the case of a small business or corporation.

  • Hkshinfug

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 7:03 pm GMT

    I'm usually not one to get extremely fired up or upset, but this makes my stomach turn! Technology is advancing at a more rapid pace than ever, extending mankind's limits and capabilities, and now these scumbags are attempting to use that as a profit to line their own pockets. Not only do I see this as morally wrong and greedy, but it will have a huge effect on and greatly hinder technological advancement. People shouldn't receive "deluxe internet" because they have a bigger fortune and more money, nor should the less fortunate be punished for their lack of income. The thought of these idiots milking this entire country and choking technological advancement for money makes disgusts me, more people need to be told! Thank you Weinburg and Jayasuria for spreading knowledge of this and fighting the good fight, I'll be 100% behind you until the idea of 'tiered internet access' is torn apart, destroyed, and buried for eternity!

  • atopp399

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 10:14 am GMT

    So all three tiers are cheaper than the Comcast internet I pay for now? Hmm... I think ISP's would lose money this way because more people would cheap out and go for the lower tiers. The way it is now even people who use the internet 1 hour a month are paying the same as people who use it continuously.

    Also, other than actually downloading a game most online games don't use all that much bandwidth. At least they didn't a few years ago. I know this because I used to play World of Warcraft, Everquest and Everquest 2 on dialup so there wasn't much bandwidth to begin with.

  • e1shw

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 8:55 am GMT

    I think this is a really bad idea and it will cause a lot of problems. As well as cause people to revolt against ISP's and not even order their service anymore. A boycott of sorts, I know I would. Being limited on the internet is just plain stupidity. I mean, how many rights and freedoms are they going to take away from us....

  • blackmage0_15

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 8:46 am GMT

    ITS NOT JUST AMERICANS. ITS THE WHOLE WORLD. I'm canadian, and i too will be affected by a different countries decision regarding a GLOBAL service. I M O the internet should be out of everyone's jurisdiction because there is no ONE country that should be able to make any kind of decision that affects the global market as a whole. When I connect to sites like google or youtube, it doesn't care if I'm just north or just south of the border, it'll give me the same damn connection as everyone else, whether i'm in Fargo, or Winnipeg.
    *EDIT* - Just look what happened to short-wave radioes and other radio stations when they became useful, the government quickly closed the frequencies and SHUT DOWN indie operators instantly.

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 5:03 am GMT

    I believe ISPs would have already thought of this; they had been around a long time, and I have little doubt that they would have thought of such a plan if only to obtain more moolah.

    After all, ISPs already have service packages that determines the maximum Internet connection bandwidth that customers may have. Of course, there's an allegedly strong argument for that concerning limitations of servicing facilities, but how transparent is this argument?

    All I hope for is the technological limitations that prevent tiered services stay unsolved. That's progress that I do not want to see achieved.

  • Wedge_55

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 4:53 am GMT

    I want to be able to say that this speech was merely alarmist propaganda. However the telecommunications industry are experts at forming monopolies, price fixing, and doing it all so gradually that the customer doesn't even notice when suddenly they're paying $100/mo for a cell phone, data service, and texting. I hadn't been cell service shopping in years and I was aghast at what consumers actually tolerate now, I was outright fuming.

    However they will back down if the customer won't take it anymore. I gave the saleswoman a piece of my mind, had a couple true stories ready about AT&T support horror stories my friends had been through, and got another 8% cut permanently from my already grandfathered monthly bill. People don't seem to realize the art of haggling is not dead. They can't afford to alienate you and they will back down. Stop rolling over and paying whatever they ask for. They can't force these "managed services" on us if we fight back.

  • Fo128

    Posted Sep 8, 2010 1:51 am GMT

    There should be bandwith packages allocated by the ISP / telecom, based on the speed rather than protocol type (P2P, HTTP, video streaming, online gaming etc.).
    For a faster connection you should pay more, regardless which protocol you decide to use.

    I have not read comprehensively and thoroughly about the Net Neutrality, but in in my opinion - partially, the gist of the story or aim of this organization should be (or is), to remove the filtering or sometimes even blocking of certain transfer protocols by ISP's, Gov, Telecompanies or any other party.

    Why do I have to pay for an extra proxy bypass service, in order to be able to make use of other Internet protocols - Online Gaming, VOIP, P2P etc.?
    I have paid for my 2Mb bandwith, so I want it working at full speed with all the protocols, regardless what data transfer protocol I make use of.

    When used for advertising to conduct bussiness, or to sell a product, your advertising level on the Net depends on how much you want to spend, in order to reach a wider audience.
    If you want streaming video feeds on your site, you will have to buy the necessary bandwith.
    This is no different than newspaper advertising - If you want your add on the front page (your opposition will have to take the second page) - you will have to pay the price for the service.

  • Dazza102

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 8:22 pm GMT

    Zloth2 that doesn't make sense, YouTube is a user based community, GameTrailers is a corporate review site- YouTube would in fact empower GameTrailers to reach a better audience all without having to use their own resources, why because its an open user based community. Google doesn't support this system anyway, they love the idea of a freedom based internet- unlike AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo who want it filtered so they can charge for exclusivity. Whilst I get why they'd want to segregate the internet, I think this is the worst way to go about it because it punishes users for having freedom of access.

  • Zloth2

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 7:10 pm GMT

    Definitely need net neutrality in a pretty bad way. Without it, big companies like YouTube will be able to afford to push their megabytes over the net while little places like GameTrailers will be stuck with horrible service. If the companies can't handle that then we can always switch the internet backbone over to a utility style company, though I'm betting they can handle it just fine.

  • jovipman

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 6:47 pm GMT

    at least you have the right to object
    in my country Bahrain a gcc country they issued a law out of there arse called the fair use law
    essentially what it dose is it limits the amount you can download
    i pay the equivalent of 70$ for a speed of 1 mbps for 15 gb
    and then it goes unlimited on a speed of 256 kbps
    now that is fair
    damn governments

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 6:43 pm GMT

    @BrianGyrofire: I never said corporations are struggling for profits or anything like it. As for mark-ups, service contracts, fine print, etc, that's all in the open and up to you to make the decision to buy or not buy. No one is forcing your hand. If you don't like something, don't buy it. If corporations (or small businesses, for that matter) can make something available at a highly profitable price and people are willing to pay for it, what is the problem?

    That aside, you just illustrated my point. The vast majority of the problems with corporations exist because of the fact that they can pay off politicians and get laws passed that favor them and harm small businesses. Maybe if there weren't minimum wage laws, benefits requirements, excessive payroll taxes, massive amounts of permits and licenses to pay for, huge amounts of insurance to buy to prevent legal issues for countless potential issues, countless regulations to observe, etc, small businesses would have a better chance at taking off.

    I've watched people start up and run small businesses and get totally shafted largely because of government regulations that made it nearly impossible to succeed.

    You need to open your eyes. Even your reasoning for hating corporations explicitly cites government involvement as the cause of the problems and more government involvement as the means of continuing the problems.

  • aVeryAngryDuck

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 6:42 pm GMT

    @ user_93475765

    Really guy? I'm pretty sure all the medicine being created by pharmaceutical corporations are good for them and for us, pal.

  • S2333

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 6:02 pm GMT

    I'm worrying about a net filter in Australia but this is really serious. I would hate for the internet to become segmented like a cable company subscription.

  • GetDaved

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 5:48 pm GMT

    I'm shocked how divisive this issue is. To the naysayers against Net Neutrality or people who think allowing the private sector to regulate this is a step forward: consider the insane growth the internet has had, and the extreme positive impact it has had (yes, some bad things came along with it, but it pales compared to the good).

    The internet has succeeded because it is the most free thing in existence right now. It is accessible, it promotes growth, it promotes communication, it allows us to research, it fosters virtual communities, it lets us play video games with people who aren't physically there. This is all good. The other important thing is that within this framework the internet creates its own innovation. The rationale that we have to change it to allow it to evolve is absurd, because right now it does this itself.

    You do not want governments screwing with it, you do not want corporations with it, you do not want *anyone* screwing with it. It is free, and it is thriving in ways that go far beyond what is capable in the public or private sectors. So we do not want it to be forced into *either* of those frameworks because they do not work as well as the internet.

    Unfortunately legislation around this is inevitable so we should push for net neutrality now so we can keep it safe from as much meddling from the government and the private sector. The best law that the internet can have is the law that leaves it be.

  • BrianGyrofire

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 5:28 pm GMT

    @HayateNightElf: What book did you read that out of, seriously? Or are you one of those naive college kids in the first year of his business major? Or did you just get your daily intake of the Fox News Channel?

    People like you live in a fantasy land where corporations are barely struggling to make profit with their 2,000% retail markups, packaged service contracts, and fine-letter print. If anyone has a reason to blame the government, it's for deregulating and removing the limits the public has had against big business. Seeing as how just about every congressman has corporate ties, that doesn't look like it's about to change. Gee, how wonderful it must be to blame such a small group of people, and not the directors of companies like Comcast or Microsoft. It's those people who want to privatize and monopolize on every single freedom the current consumer has. You say capitalism provides competition, and you're right. Unfortunately, the only real competition we're seeing these days is how the average consumer has to battle against the ever-growing, infringing power of big business, and the proposed legislation that offers to give them even more of it.

  • Arcterran

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 5:24 pm GMT

    I hate getting into politics but I have ONE thought....

    Its not like the government is the ultimate paragon of all things (to steal the Fox news motto [say what you will]) "Fair and Balanced"

  • user_93475765

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 5:20 pm GMT

    There's just one simple rule of thumb that everyone really needs to understand:

    If it's good for a corporation, it's bad for you.

    Seriously, if corporate fatcats are spending millions lobbying (i.e., bribing) congressmen to pass a law, why on earth would you think that law would EVER be for the common good? These execs are just looking to further line their own pockets at your expense, and they don't give a **** what damage it causes.

  • tehepicpwnzor

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 4:56 pm GMT

    The government needs to be kept as far away from the internet as possible. If Verizon screws me over, I'll switch to Comcast. Simple as that. I don't want the government to have any say in the internet. I payed for sales tax when I got my laptop. The government should be happy.

  • Slagar

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 4:13 pm GMT

    Nice article, and very interesting. It's true too, take a look at China.

  • LightRebellion

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 3:54 pm GMT

    A fine example of how the American government needs to be drastically restructured. Immigrants and big companies get everything, but American-born citizens always get screwed.

  • chibi-acer

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 3:53 pm GMT

    I think it's bogus how ISP can charge $40+/month for X/Mbps bandwidth, and then block/slow/charge extra when you start using that bandwidth for certain services. Seems like false advertising to me.

    Net neutrality laws are designed to help stop service providers from regulating consumer usage (among other things).

  • HayateNightElf

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 3:09 pm GMT

    @somberfox: How does "corporations driven by pure greed" sound any different than the government to you? And again, how many things has the government gotten its hand into that it hasn't screwed up? You do realize that the economic disaster our country faces right now is 100% caused by various government policies and actions supposedly designed to help our economy, right?

    Who do you think is going to care more about this portion of the economy? The government, who can just tax the crap out of us for just about everything, can print its own money or borrow excessively and further ruin our economy to fix its mistakes, or a privately- or corporate-owned ISP that needs to actually make money to stay in business? The answer should be extraordinarily obvious, but unfortunately the majority of Americans don't seem to think so.

    Capitalism, by definition, means that there is always the possibility of competition. Government involvement in the market is where competition dies. I can't think of a single market in the US that lacks competition that isn't directly caused by some sort of law that interferes with the free market. If such a market exists, I can almost guarantee you that the reason for the lack of competition is the lack of demand for competition, which is not a bad thing.

  • 1357900

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 3:08 pm GMT

    The government is just trying to find more ways to get my money, rather than spend their time fixing actual problems of our nation. How typical...

  • chano880

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 3:04 pm GMT

    While it may sound alarming, I don't see this happening that easily , mind you if they do go forth with this it will affect many more companies that get their revenue from some kind of online service (or advertising in their websites for that matter).

  • Nob_Atrivan

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 3:00 pm GMT

    Extremely misleading speech. There's no way to know what these company will choose to do, or how the market will react. Furthermore, saying "we like it this way, let's not mess with it" isn't helpful to growth. There's nothing substantive in this speech, it's only "well this might happen" and trying to scare people into believing it will. Messing with market principles by forcing government intervention will only screw things up. How will these IPs react if they can't get their revenue this way? Nobody thinks about those implications.

  • boarwar

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 2:56 pm GMT

    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF this ish

    jesus, what next...supermarket nuetrality? gotta pay select fees to view magazines at stores without buying them? book store nuetrality? LIBRARY NUETRALITY? the internet is successfull in that...anyone can do it, and profit, anyone.........I could start a business online and be a multi million success story.

    you remove that RIGHT....then your basically telling the rest of the world to go Fk themselves.

    *******This is a secret plan to filter the net to catch pirates i swear to god and my mothers dead body******

  • lorenzoa88

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 2:38 pm GMT

    I had to chuckle a bit at this article. For a while now developers have been running as fast as they can towards digital downloads only for video games. The reason to go digital is cut out the retailer new or used. Retailers typically take 20% of the profit from a sale of a new game. They use that money to pay for stuff like the rent, electric bill, employees etc. Well the developers want that money, so they can cut out the retailer and sell it directly to the consumer online. Perfect idea. The only problem is that the game still have to be delivered to the consumer over broadband and the developers do not own the broadband lines. So while the developers think they are going to be making more money from digital only the ISPs are sitting on the sidelines saying, "hey I want some of your milk money developer." Without us there is no digital future and unless EA stumbles into a trillion dollars to replicate the broadband infrastructure owned by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, etc then they are going to have to pay them for the right to access their systems - at least at an acceptable pace. Government regulation of the broadband network will be difficult since the backbone of the internet is all privately owned and funded. So the developers thought they had found a "free" delivery method for the product. Yet they forgot mircoeconomics 101 - there is no such thing as a free lunch.

  • colt_a

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 2:31 pm GMT

    @voidshadow people like you are the reason why the government is allowed to do stupid crap constantly, like allowing ISPs to kill the internet.

    If you stand for nothing at all, whats the point of you life?

  • parrot_of_adun

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 2:18 pm GMT

    Net neutrality ftw.

    Only those who stand to profit from it's absence would disagree.

  • Toysoldier34

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 2:15 pm GMT

    You would think youtube would be fighting this since they know they would only get half their activity if people had to pay 50 a month to go there.

  • dkdk999

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 2:09 pm GMT

    when the hell does the government ever make good decisions? yes i imagine an agency full of people who have right to initiate force at will is going to be full of angels. Not psycopaths who like to use violence against people.

  • green_dominator

    Posted Sep 7, 2010 2:01 pm GMT

    If what they are talking about comes to pass as they describe gaming and the net will be dead. Well gaming in and of itself won't but the online portion of it will. How does this kind of crap even get considered? are we that foolish??

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!