ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

August 5, 2009 -

The Entertainment Consumers Association is urging gamers to stand up and be counted for Net Neutrality.

In an e-mail circulated yesterday, the ECA issued a call to action:

Now is the time for you to stand up for your rights and join millions of Americans of every political persuasion in the fight for Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is the principle that ensures that gamers are free to go where they want, do what they like, and connect with whom they choose onlin. Congressmen Ed Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) have introduced H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009.

Take action now and tell Congress to make Net Neutrality the law of the land. Without Net Neutrality, your Internet Service Provider is free to: charge you extra for playing World of Warcraft, to interfere with Xbox Live, or to completely shut off your ability to access for favorite web sites. Net Neutrality effects your entire online experience...

This is our best chance yet in making sure that Net Neutrality is passed by Congress. The head of the FCC supports it, the President of the United States supports it, and we're asking you to make sure to tell Congress you support it. Take a moment to send them the message to make Net Neutrality the law.

A suggested letter to Congressional representatives is available from the ECA website.

GP: Gamers, this issue may not inflame passions in the same way that the censorship debate does, but it's just as important in the long run.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.


Comments

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Brett,

No offense, but you're a paid "advocacy manager" for the ECA.  You are paid to advocate the positions of the ECA. It's not a surprise that you want Net Neutrality.  So I'm sorta surprised as to why the fingers are being pointed at me as being a shill.

As far as "who told me that"? I don't need to be told. I'm a published author on the subject at hand, and a policy analyst for the telecom industry with contributions on broadband expansion and a grant reviewer for the NTIA. The current legislation in Congress will hamper Internet innovation faster than I could say, "I told you so."

And as gamepolitics likes to do: Full disclosure department...I have never taken a dime from any telecom company.  In fact the only major player on this policy that I have received anything from is Google, who is in full support of Net Neutrality.

 

www.thelobbyist.net

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

"Gamers, this issue may not inflame passions in the same way that the censorship debate does, but it's just as important in the long run."

It should, because thats exactly what it amounts to.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

 

Im for Net Neutrality

Never underestimate the power of idiots in large amounts.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

If your american, call your senators, congresmen, governors, and tell them you wont vote for them unless they too are for net neutrality.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Be sure to point out that without Net Neutrality, their opponents can pay ISP's to sabotage acces to their campaign sites....no wait don't they might like that idea.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

There are some problems with wording in some parts of the bill that leave room for abuse.   The word "lawful" is used a lot in the statements regarding what an ISP can not do regarding blocking or interfering with "lawful" service or transmissions.   This kind of translates into an invitation for ISPs to go ahead and let loose on transmissions and sites that they might see as unlawful [or even perhaps choose to see that way until proven lawful].

IMO that leaves an important concern open to interpretation with out due process.  Whether or not a internet service or transmission is lawful needs to be in the hands of a judge before any action is taken against it not after and certainly not in the hands of the ISP.

 

Its a great idea but I feel that a bit of power may be handed to ISP providers as a trade off and that power may later on grow into something we do not want.

 

Subjective statements or terms should never be written into the law but often are.

 

 

 

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

I still remember how Comcast paid a bunch of ringers to fill up a net neutrality hearing to prevent the other side from getting a word in, which shows they have no case if they feel they have to shut their critics up.

If Net Neutrality were done away with, I'm fairly certain politicians and activist groups who hate games and gamers, and certain content, would bully and threaten ISPs into blocking content they dislike.

And since we are talking to politicians here, during election season, political opponents would be paying ISPs to clock traffic to opponent's sites. If it were done away with years ago, we would likely have Sarah "it's ok to hunt from a helicopter" Palin in the vice president seat right now.

And, since ISPs were given money to upgrade their netsworks to keep up, if they had done that, AS THEY SHOULD HAVE, instead of buying their execs new SUVs, they networks wouldn't be in such a mess in the first place.

If an ISP comes along that doesn't try to throttle bandwidth and actually has their shit together, then the major ISPs right now will be scratching their heads as to why they start losing cusomers.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Say you have Comcast.  They decide to require MMOs to pay a fee to get bandwidth priority.  Blizzard is able to pay the fee, and WoW players get the best speeds.  Funcom, on the other hand, cannot meet the fee as is, and either AoC players get slower speeds, or Funcom must raise the monthly subscription.

Say you have TimeWarner.  TimeWarner is in competition with News Corp., which is affiliated with Fox.  Without NN, it is perfectly plausable for TimeWarner to block their customers from viewing websites assocciated with Fox.  No more watching House reruns online.

You can extend that last one to News websites that are affiliated with each of the major ISPs.  Imagine only being allowed to view newsites that your providers says you're allowed to view.  Or maybe they could block blogs they find offensive to their business interests.

Actually, many don't remember this, but TimeWarner once blocked an email chain from their customers because it was badmouthing the company.  Net Neutrality would have made this a non-issue.

These are, of course, the "doomsday" extremes of what it means if Net Neutrality isn't protected.  But I think corporate and economic censorship is just as insidious as government censorship, and we shouldn't let businesses get thier foot in the door.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Comcast is actually the greatest example as they were publicly censured for actively engaging in anti-Network Neutrality actions.

----
Papa Midnight
http://www.thesupersoldiers.com

----
Papa Midnight

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

I dont see what is wrong with the way thigns are now.  I get around just fine online.  I honestly dont want more govt interuption. 

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Your exactly right, there's nothing wrong with the way things are right now, except that lobbyists for comcast, At&T, and other major operations want it to change.

I'm sure companies like blizzard would LOVE to pay comcast to slow down other MMO's, and make WOW more popular. (this is just an example, dont hate blizzard). But we dont want that to happen.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

This piece of legislation would make sure what you have now, remains so in the future.  It would enshrine the principle of Net Neutrality, which is generally what occurs now, but there are folks want to change that.

Brett Schenker

Online Advocacy Manager

the ECA

www.theeca.com

Brett Schenker
Online Advocacy Director
the ECA
www.theeca.com

 

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Right now we have a more or less neutral net. Google and Microsoft and Fox News and whoever else aren't bribing your ISP to make their sites work faster than the competition. That's a good thing, because that means that your ISP is serving you, the paying customer, and not some random corporations on the net who subsidise your bandwidth in exchange for distorting your experience of the net for their benefit.

If you want to keep things the way they are, I suggest you support net neutrality as the article says.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Let me tell you what can happen with net neutrality.  The government can prevent Lime Wire networks from prioritizing your Xbox Live traffic. Lime Wire who runs all of Xbox's Live content and prioritizes delivery so that it will be super speedy until it hits your last mile will no longer be able to do so.  Meaning that your downloading of games, dlc, music, and movies and your initial searches for online games will slow down.

I still have no clue as to why ECA desires this for gamers.  It only hurts our community, it does nothing to help it.

www.thelobbyist.net

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

"I still have no clue..."

Well at least you were honest about one thing.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

As stated above, not sure who told you that, but I assure you Net Neutrality means nothing about the Government prioritizing traffic.  SeanB above points out correctly what a non-neutral internet would be like.

Brett Schenker

Online Advocacy Manager

the ECA

www.theeca.com

Brett Schenker
Online Advocacy Director
the ECA
www.theeca.com

 

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Wow, how much did Comcast pay you to coem say that?

If Net Neutrality were done away with, advocacy groups, such as the PTC, would begin threatning ISPs into hampering or entirely blocking traffic to MMOS, Xbox Live, whatever they don't like.

If the ISPs has spent the money they were given to upgrade their networks and lay new lines as they should have, instead of the execs treating themselves to it, there wouldn't be so many problems now.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Who the hell told you that?

----
Papa Midnight
http://www.thesupersoldiers.com

----
Papa Midnight

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

I'm gonna give some examples of how your world might look without net nutrality

Your ISP Could disrupt Xbox live because Sony paid them to, or vice versa

Your ISP could disrupt you Vonage, because a competitor paid them to, or vice versa

Your ISP could block your access to google, because Microhoo paid them too, or vice versa

These are real world examples of things that could legally happen, without net neutrality.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

wait just americans? isnt Net Neutrality something we all should get?.

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Yes, but this particular legislation is just in the US.

Brett Schenker

Online Advocacy Manager

the ECA

www.theeca.com

Brett Schenker
Online Advocacy Director
the ECA
www.theeca.com

 

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

As long as you want american politcaions telling you what to do. ^^

 


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

http://www.dontregulate.org/

Edit: From www.handsoff.org:

 

'On the final day before Congress adjourned for its August recess, Representatives Ed Markey and Anna Eschoo introduced legislation that would impose neutrality regulations over the Internet. Their bill, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, is similar to the net neutrality bill that Congress voted down in 2006 by a wide margin.

Parts of the bill aren’t that unreasonable, though they’re probably unnecessary. For example, the bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to codify the FCC’s four Internet openness guidelines.

But this seems unnecessary since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Brand X opinion explicitly stated that current law “give[s] the Commission the authority to promulgate binding legal rules [and] impose additional regulatory obligations [on Internet Service Providers] to regulate interstate and foreign communications…”

The real problem, as usual, involves the costs this bill would impose on next-gen network deployment. The bill says that “to the extent feasible” consumers should have enough bandwidth to “enable the provision of content, applications or services” that “require high bandwidth communications to and from the end user.”

Fair enough. But the bill then turns around and makes this bandwidth needlessly expensive by allowing smart network technologies only in cases where “it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available.”

Loose translation: The best new technologies designed to meet America’s growing demand for online content will be held hostage to the whims of Congress, federal regulators, and ultimately judges who must referee the inevitable lawsuits.

In the late 1990s, Japan tried the “just build it” bandwidth strategy. It failed because even their 100 MB/second pipes couldn’t handle the crushing load of video and other content without smart technology.

The Markey-Eschoo would unfortunately take America in that direction, resulting in delays and needlessly expensive broadband for everyone.'

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

I dare say this fear-mongering misses the point. As far as I saw, no part of the bill bars ISPs from engaging in REASONABLE network management, but it does say that ISPs cannot discriminate against one single protocol as has been seen with Comcast, who just happens to be a monopoly in 33% of America.

"But the bill then turns around and makes this bandwidth needlessly expensive by allowing smart network technologies only in cases where “it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available.”

Loose translation: The best new technologies designed to meet America’s growing demand for online content will be held hostage to the whims of Congress, federal regulators, and ultimately judges who must referee the inevitable lawsuits."

That is one hell of a RIDICOULSLY loose translation. Far as I can see, it translates to mean nothing more than reasonable network management.

"But this seems unnecessary since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Brand X opinion explicitly stated that current law “give[s] the Commission the authority to promulgate binding legal rules [and] impose additional regulatory obligations [on Internet Service Providers] to regulate interstate and foreign communications…”"

Wasn't it Comcast who has claimed that the FCC has no standing to implement policy? So much for that...

Additionally, the so called "Just build it" strategy could work if implemented properly and proper action was taken in upgrading network trunks, last-mile line upgrades were made, not sticking 500 (literal) units on a single node (I'm looking at you, Comcast), Proper tier 1 connectivity, expansion of infrastructure, etc.

It can be done, but why bother? Corporations like the status quo as is. Possibly change that and lose profits? Blasphemy (see: Health Care debate).

Edit: A thought just occured to me: How many of those so-called "Consumer groups" that promote a lack of network neutrality are actually real groups or haven't popped up in the last week as has been seen before from the telecommunications and cable industry? What's actually funny is I remember when the last go round of Net Neutrality bills went before congress, no less than a dozen "advocacy groups" magically sprung up - all connected to the industry - and less than a week after, effectively died. Some are still up today and haven't seen a single post since 2006 or 2007. Nothing like some good ol' Astroturfing.

----
Papa Midnight
http://www.thesupersoldiers.com

----
Papa Midnight

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

Did you watch the video in the first link. Funny stuff.

I like the part where they claim that Companies like Google and Yahoo that offer high levels of streaming video will be able to do so for free.

Last I checked, the costs for the 10s of thousands of gigabits of upstream bandwidth needed for all that video were nowhere near free.

So they are paying.

But acording to groups like this, they should be paying every ISP in the world to have their content streamed to all their worldwide customers.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: ECA Urges Gamer Action on Net Neutrality

As long as they can still charge you for bandwith consumpsion I am for it :P

 

 


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleeIf publishers didn't play the region lock game then it would not be an issue.Tho I have seen more russian/chec games than asia ones on ebay.If they do not like it then mabye lower thier region prices to make alitte vrs none.09/22/2014 - 9:54am
MaskedPixelantehttp://hexus.net/gaming/news/industry/74981-pc-game-code-stripping-widespread-says-report/ Thievery, or perhaps the very idea of capitalism? You decide!09/22/2014 - 9:47am
MaskedPixelantehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDPCmmZifE8 John Oliver exposes Miss America.09/22/2014 - 9:00am
james_fudgeI reiterate now - not one email to-date.09/22/2014 - 8:37am
james_fudgeAnd this: https://archive.today/uIjwE09/22/2014 - 8:37am
james_fudgeLet me put this here: https://archive.today/hbtQJ09/22/2014 - 8:35am
InfophileRelevant to this site: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015984.html#015984 - Apparently allowing comments to be downvoted leads to worse behaviour09/22/2014 - 6:18am
Andrew EisenMP - I love that game but damn my squadmates are bozos.09/21/2014 - 10:05pm
MaskedPixelanteSWAT teams should be banned until they; 1. Learn not to walk into enemy fire, 2. Learn to throw the flashbang INTO the doorway, not the frame and 3. Stop complaining that I'm in their way.09/21/2014 - 9:53pm
Craig R.I'm getting of the opinion that SWAT teams nationwide should be banned. This probably isn't even the most absurd situation in which they've been used.09/21/2014 - 9:26pm
Andrew EisenAnd, predictably, it encouraged more parody accounts, having the exact opposite effect than what was intended.09/21/2014 - 7:07pm
E. Zachary KnightThis is called a police state people. When public officials can send SWAT raids after anyone for any offense, we are no longer free.09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
E. Zachary KnightJudge rules SWAT raid tageting parody Twitter account was justified. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/illinois-judge-swat-raid-parody-twitter-peoria-mayor09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
MechaTama31quik: But even if it did break, at worst it is only as bad as the powder. Even that is assuming that it is dangerous through skin contact, which is not a given if its delivery vehicle is a syringe.09/21/2014 - 4:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/20/isis-uses-gta-5-in-new-teen-recruitment-video/09/21/2014 - 4:25pm
quiknkoldSyringes can break. And in a transcontinental delivery, the glass could've broken when crushed. I work in a mail center. Shit like this is super serious09/21/2014 - 3:25pm
E. Zachary KnightIt doesn't matter what is inside the needle. As long as it requires him to take the step of purposefully injecting himself, the threat of the substance is as close to zero as you can get.09/21/2014 - 1:27pm
quiknkoldEzach: I'm not talking about the needle. I'm talking about what's inside. Geeze. Depending on what it is, the sender could be guilty of bioterrorism.09/21/2014 - 12:51pm
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, No. That syringe is not worse than white powder or a bomb. The syringe requires the recipient to actually inject themselves. Not true for other mail threats.09/21/2014 - 12:49pm
Andrew EisenThe closest to a threat I ever received was a handwritten note slipped under my door that read "I KNOW it was you." Still no idea what that was about. I think the author must have got the wrong apartment.09/21/2014 - 12:28pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician