ECA Announces New Joint Initiative: Gamers For Net Neutrality
ECA Announces New Joint Initiative: Gamers For Net Neutrality
April 1, 2008
Net Neutrality.With this important issue in mind, the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) has, this morning, launched a new web-based initiative in beta.Gamers for Net Neutrality is a joint undertaking of the ECA, SavetheInternet.com and Games for Change. An ECA press release reports that the new site:
...will be a destination for gamers of all sorts to visit and become more engaged in the fight for Net Neutrality. If this principle is not protected, it could potentially alter the way consumers use and view the internet - including slowdowns and site blocks, as well as applying fees and instituting other unnecessary obstructions...
Gamers for Net Neutrality’s mission is to engage video game players in the real world fight to protect a free and open internet, and the ECA plans to roll out specific activities addressing this issue in the coming months.
Said Jennifer Mercurio, ECA Director of Government Affairs:
Gamers make up a large percentage of Internet users, so our goal with the launch of Gamers for Net Neutrality is to raise awareness and increase advocacy within this space. Today’s rollout is the culmination of a tremendous amount of collaboration and good will between the ECA, SavetheInternet.org, Games for Change, and other leading non-profit voices working together to protect consumer rights and keep the internet unbiased and unchanged. We’re extremely proud of this initiative, and look forward to its continued growth and progress.
Suzanne Seggerman, President and Co-founder of Games for Change, added:
Net Neutrality is the single biggest public policy issue facing our communities today - as educators, non-profits, small businesses and the arts, we all deserve open and equal access to the Internet. Why let the telecom giants dictate what speed we play our games, view our video, or listen to music? Gamers, as one of the largest audiences on the internet, need to act now - before it's too late.
The new web-based initiative is up and running, offering general information, an advocacy campaign, and even a machinima from This Spartan Life. Going forward, the project will provide net neutrality resources.
Full Disclosure Dept: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of GamePolitics.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 08/27/08 at 04:05pm
SimonBob: HB: I actually voted for the old Green party, back before the treehuggers took over from the small-c conservatives.
SimonBob: HB: I actually voted for the old Green party, back before the treehuggers took over from the small-c conservatives.
Posted 08/27/08 at 02:57pm
ZippyDSMlee: So bascily the 2 aprty setup is soemthign that has not evolved any....
ZippyDSMlee: So bascily the 2 aprty setup is soemthign that has not evolved any....
Posted 08/27/08 at 02:04pm
Dark Sovereign: @Joel: Their entitled to their bull like the rest of us are.
Dark Sovereign: @Joel: Their entitled to their bull like the rest of us are.
Posted 08/27/08 at 02:02pm
HarmlessBunny: Awww Jack is calling the Florida Bar: "The Florida Gay Bar". How mature! :D
HarmlessBunny: Awww Jack is calling the Florida Bar: "The Florida Gay Bar". How mature! :D
Posted 08/27/08 at 01:54pm
JoelWhy: Wow, I am so tired of these Hillary-worshippers who can't get over the fact that she lost. Dems keep finding new ways to lose.'
JoelWhy: Wow, I am so tired of these Hillary-worshippers who can't get over the fact that she lost. Dems keep finding new ways to lose.'
Posted 08/27/08 at 01:41pm
Dark Sovereign: @Harmlessbunny: We in America have something like forty of those parties. We have 5 parties that actually produce prez candies
Dark Sovereign: @Harmlessbunny: We in America have something like forty of those parties. We have 5 parties that actually produce prez candies
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:53pm
sortableturnip: JT needs help from the ACLU here: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/08/27/the-name-game.aspx
sortableturnip: JT needs help from the ACLU here: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/08/27/the-name-game.aspx
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:51pm
GryphonOsiris: However this is limited to five years.
GryphonOsiris: However this is limited to five years.
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:50pm
GryphonOsiris: @Chuma, actually, sarin kept in a binary form for things like self mixing shells can extend the life of the chemical.
GryphonOsiris: @Chuma, actually, sarin kept in a binary form for things like self mixing shells can extend the life of the chemical.
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:45pm
DarkTetsuya: @questionmark1987 I'm guessing they're waiting till his licensectomy this September... should be fun to watch ^^;
DarkTetsuya: @questionmark1987 I'm guessing they're waiting till his licensectomy this September... should be fun to watch ^^;
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:35pm
questionmark1987: SO at what point can webmasters start filing suit against Thompson for harrassment?
questionmark1987: SO at what point can webmasters start filing suit against Thompson for harrassment?
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:23pm
HarmlessBunny: OH OH OH http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/08/26/whos-backing-who.aspx?pg=2&view=linear#Comment Jack gets priceless in here!
HarmlessBunny: OH OH OH http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/08/26/whos-backing-who.aspx?pg=2&view=linear#Comment Jack gets priceless in here!
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:18pm
HarmlessBunny: For EZK: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/08/26/whos-backing-who.aspx#comment-1316308
HarmlessBunny: For EZK: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/08/26/whos-backing-who.aspx#comment-1316308
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:10pm
E. Zachary Knight: link please
E. Zachary Knight: link please
Posted 08/27/08 at 12:03pm
sortableturnip: JT is threatening the webmaster at JAABlog, saying he changed a word in his post so that it was mispelled HA HA HA!
sortableturnip: JT is threatening the webmaster at JAABlog, saying he changed a word in his post so that it was mispelled HA HA HA!
Posted 08/27/08 at 11:35am
HarmlessBunny: Well we in Canada to have the joke parties, like Bloc Quebecois and NDP (New Democrat Party) OH and the new "Green Party" :)
HarmlessBunny: Well we in Canada to have the joke parties, like Bloc Quebecois and NDP (New Democrat Party) OH and the new "Green Party" :)
Posted 08/27/08 at 11:07am
Talouin: @Azhrarn: It's the same in Canada. Only two parties to form a federal gov't are Liberals and Conservatives.
Talouin: @Azhrarn: It's the same in Canada. Only two parties to form a federal gov't are Liberals and Conservatives.
Posted 08/27/08 at 10:42am
Zevorick: Yeah, but you can find a lot of things in Texas that don't count. I should know, i've lived here all my life.
Zevorick: Yeah, but you can find a lot of things in Texas that don't count. I should know, i've lived here all my life.
Posted 08/27/08 at 09:04am
sqlrob: wehrgeist - there have been more WMDs found in Tyler , Texas than Iraq
sqlrob: wehrgeist - there have been more WMDs found in Tyler , Texas than Iraq
Posted 08/27/08 at 08:16am
Azhrarn: So they have been effectively 2-party for a century now. (not counting coalitions of all parties)
Azhrarn: So they have been effectively 2-party for a century now. (not counting coalitions of all parties)
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Still, I suppose I can't quibble with the good intentions. Certainly not AGAINST net neutrality. Nor is it a bad idea for a gamer PAC to support it.
In the net balance I'd say this is probably a good idea/worthwhile. I wish you luck.
http://www.theeca.com/gamers_net_neutrality/
(that's where it ultimately redirects)
Lag is a killer, in twitch games, RTS, and even MMOs... and the potential for ISPs to determine which games or servers get priority is a troubling one.
I'm sure it could go in a positive direction, but some worst case scenarios come to mind. Microsoft could sign some deal and screw over people going online with PS3 or Wii. Comcast could start charging double rates for 'performance' service targeted at gamers. Imagine what kind of crap EA could come up with to screw us all over.
Lettings ISPs prioritize traffic based on how much money they stand to make just worries me. It also opens the door to more internet censorship in ways that make me cringe. Perhaps it's paranoia, but I'm glad the ECA is addressing the issue.
I wonder if the broken link was a hint at what things might be like without Net Neutrality... "Oops! We can't find that page that's critical of our policies as a service provider. Perhaps you'd like to look at these fine products and services offered by our e-store partners instead!"
On topic: wonderful initiative and i will be keeping an eye on it. :)
I see the potential problem, and agree that net neutrality would solve it. I'm just a little worried that there would be additional unintended consequences. And I'm not even certain that the problem is anything more than potential.
I'd far prefer to see some sort of competition encouraged. If it could be arranged that everyone had a choice of dozens of ISPs no matter where they were, and the costs involved in changing were small, we'd end up with a much more balanced solution. If people could choose between a crippled ISP and a decent one then it wouldn't really matter that one of them is crippled.
Of course, this is easier said than done.
It can and will bar companies from completely blocking something purposefully.
So, let's keep our expectations set appropriately. Net neutrality won't end lag.
Net Neutrality isn't about ending lag, it is about preventing ISPs from basically making it worse.
Selectively making it worse.
This sounds great, how many local ISP are there? How many are there in your area and how many are just reselling? You could have 20 guys selling broadband, but if they're just reselling for 2 companies, that doesn't leave much choice. What happens if backbone providers are the one controlling bandwidth?
Even if you get 20 separate ISP's to choose from, most likely they won't all offer the same "access". Some companies/website have the money to pay for higher privileges across multiple ISP', but smaller companies won't. So now you have to pick the guy that isn't going to destroy where you spend most of your internet time at. What if you habbits change. Oh....new games come out, but darn you can only get good access through [insert ISP]. Time to switch providers. Time to schedule a tech visit to setup your new modem.
Doesn't sound like fun to me.
1) What Comcast has done with essentially giving their own customers denial of service attacks is a bad thing.
2) What the FCC would do with a foothold on the internet gives me nightmares.
3) I would much rather see this resolved from within the industry. "THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR MMO's" is a ridiculous end-of-the-world scenario. However, for the ESA, it's a good slogan for gamers to rally behind and get donations.
4) This is not a freedom of speech issue. If the FCC (or any government body) were to get involved, we would start having REAL freedom of speech issues.
5) You only need to look at China to see what a government would do with unlimited control of information flow. *cough* Tibet videos *cough*
We only need to look at public television to see what would become of the internet. I'm talking about censorship and "public decency." Video gamers are constantly under fire for feeding this "ocean of filth," so I would have hoped that gamers would see the connection here. Right now video games are on the front lines. I would hate to see the front extended to the internet.
Comcast screwed up big time with their attempt at fighting Bit Torrent traffic. However, we will be foolish to hand the reigns over to the FCC. Because of the flame that Comcast is under, they will self-regulate and institute their own "fair service" policy to avoid government intervention.
On one hand we have telcom giants. On the other, the FCC. I don't like either, but I'm going to err on the side of no government.
Yes, that is a simplification of what I am trying to convey to Gameclucks, but kurisu has hit slightly closer to the mark. It really is about removing service, and not about traffic engineering.
I forgot the convention of placing an @-sign to convey direction of my remark, sorry to confuse.
@no-one
One might argue that it is technically impossible to bar access to parts of the Internet selectively (or not) without disconnecting yourself entirely from the Internet; there is always an "out" (IP over DNS, IP over HTTP, ... IP over whatever it is you do allow). This could be said to be one of IP's framers' intentional design criterion, so the quote goes: "IP over everything, everything over IP."
China (famously) and many others slowly learn this lesson, the hardest way possible.
So: The outcome of the Network Neutrality movement is inevitable _even if it fails_. Meanwhile, as Muninn points out, it is impossible to know if any legislation on this issue shall become an albatross about our necks. It is for these reasons that I personally am not time-invested in this endeavor, but I am gladdened to see those who are.
If we point the legislation bazooka at a nascent market solution, we could end up with a lot of collateral damage. What if an ISP wants to offer a gaming service with very low ping and low bandwidth to people who otherwise use higher latency services like EVDO for their other internet needs? I, for one, would have ditched my primary landline internet for my laptop's wireless access years ago if not for the poor game performance.
I have to say boo to this effort. The ECA should stick to championing issues that are of less debatable utility to the gaming public.
Well, there are a variety of ways that they could actually bar access to "parts" of the internet selectively. It all depends on what you mean by "parts".
The easiest is to put a traffic filter in place that blocks all traffic going to or coming from a particular port number (generally associated with a specific type of traffic). Certain things can get around this, such as bittorrent applications which can alter the port number they are using without any real problem. Other types of traffic are a bit more static, and cannot change. HTTP requests always go to port 80, and nothing would change that except for a massive change in IP industry standards. Of course, any ISP blocking port 80 would have a lot of questions to answer, but onwards...
The other main way to block things would be blocking by destination, not traffic type. Say AOL didn't want anyone to use any search engines but their own. They could query a dns server to find all the IP addresses of competitors search engines (like google), and then drop any packet going to one of those addresses. Now, the way around it is IP proxies, but if any of the reflected traffic goes across an AOL machine again, it gets dropped again, so this is not entirely bulletproof, and depends on how high up the machines are that are doing the filtering. Also, the ISP might take offense to people using IP proxies at all, and block those, too. And if Google tries to get another address, then it can be found and added to the filter as easy as any user could find it (DNS query).
Now, I apologize for reiterating any of that that you already know, but I am sure that there is someone who is interested in this who doesn't know it already, so I feel justified in saying it.
I see why you feel that it would be a losing battle for them, though, but it is one I would rather not be fought, as it would be long and painful all around.
Additionally, your comments about "IP over DNS, IP over HTTP" don't make sense to me, as IP is an OSI layer three protocol, and DNS and HTTP are higher than that on the stack, meaning that HTTP or DNS queries are sent encapsulated in an IP packet. There is no such thing as a "DNS network" or an "HTTP network". Only IP networks that have DNS and HTTP traffic on them.
Net Neutrality basically means not prioritizing or throttling any traffic. Giving all net traffic the same treatment regardless of if it's the latest linux ISO over bit torrent or you chatting with your friends over VOIP.
The reason I see them doing this, is the major ISPs didn't upgrade their networks early enough, so now that people are actually using the bandwidth they paid for (shock horror), they're trying to restrict what people can use that bandwidth for (see Comcast's throttling of bit torrent traffic).
Other side of argument for all interested parties
I'll take a free market over government intervention any day.
No for Net Neutrality.
Short stories short (sorry if it sounds rude):
@Muninn:
Yup, good appraisal of potential ISP tactics. IP over DNS is real, google it. It's actually really controversial because it bypasses "walled gardens" (any wireless network that wants you to pay before permitting access to the Internet - they usually let DNS through to do this but intercept http!), and it is a considerable strain on the DNS system as a whole. IP isn't and never was an ISO layer, and there's actually quite a lot of IETF pride invested in this. The phrase "IP over everything, everything over IP," is one that generally connotes that this is by design. If someone can lock you into a layer, they control you, so this is a degree of freedom IP's framers had in mind from the getgo.
The point is; no matter who filters you, if they permit some service, you can most assuredly find a way to tunnel IP over it. So the only way to block access to any part of the Internet with absolute certainty is to disconnect from the Internet entirely.
The outcome of Net Neutrality is a foregone conclusion. The worst any ISP can ever do, with or without legislation, is irritate you.
@Evangel:
Again, Net Neutrality can't and won't do anything about prioritizing network traffic. Its attempt is to do something about complete censures of network traffic, such as resetting torrents.
I never said it would do anything about prioritizing traffic, I said it would stop ISPs prioritizing or throttling traffic, as in, the data isn't affected by anything other than the speed of the network, no artificial slowing down.
Yes, precisely, Network Neutrality will never do anything about that. Networks are free to sign SLA's that say they have to maintain bandwidth X or RTT Y between points A and B for some customer. I don't see the FCC every killing MPLS.
Outright blocking can have something done about it, but prioritizing or throttling traffic is never going away.
So the network (usually through MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) configuration) has to start dropping packets relating to SLAs that are "better than conforming" in order to keep other SLAs from "not conforming."
Does that make better sense?
Traffic engineering is not traffic censuring; Net Neutrality can potentially do something about traffic censuring, but not about traffic engineering. This also explains why Comcast is so keen to redefine their censures as traffic engineering: if they can convince people they're just trying to enforce SLAs (which usually have some monetary punitive damage for non-conformance), then there really isn't any basis to complain.
4c66377d7cf30d9bd30a...
Post new comment