Net neutrality 101 for gamers

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."

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.