Internet Neutrality after Dec 14 and its impact

[Sako.7609]

Hi. Anyone wanna talk about game called "Guild Wars 2"?

Oh, no?

Okay then.

[Feanor.2358]

> @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> i cant believe people on here are in favour of removing net neutrality. kitten are you thinking. Regulation is in place for a reason. Its because the industry failed to regulate itself.

> https://i.imgur.com/mEWBrnZ.jpg HERE is why we CANT let net neutrality die. These companies have been trying to get away with scummy behavior for years and years not only limited to censoring information and blocking access illegally.

> Source: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

>

> You really think they are paying billions and billions of dollars in lobbying so they can act responsibly and honor their promises to not throttle competitor websites? Then you are naive.

> 

>

>

> Weirdly, after making a deal with comcast, netflix speed with comcast rises and netflix admits to throttling data for Verizon and AT&T subscribers. Every single company will do this.

>

> To the people suggesting to change providor, thats not possible for many people in USA and other countries where there is literally only 1 provider in their area. This is ALSO due to company corruption where they make deals with other providers to ensure each provider has a regional monopoly, and can thereore act in any way they please, including charging for additional 'data packages' like online gaming, video streaming, social media and even kitten.

>

> Examples

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/16/tennessee_kills_muni_expansion/

> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/22/net-neutrality-internet-why-americans-so-worried-about-it-being-scrapped

>

 

Now this is how you make a case. Unfortunately there isn't much to do for those of us outside of the US.

[ShiningSquirrel.3751]

> @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

 

Well I DO pay more for my bandwidth already. I like most others purchase a package from my ISP that gives me X amount of bandwidth. If I need more, I have to upgrade to the next tier and pay more. I should not have to pay more for certain sites/content which WAS planned by several ISPs but stopped short when the regulations where enacted.

[Cuddy.6247]

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> >

> > Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

>

> Monopolies certainly do milk the public without regulations to stop them. A free market keeps competitive companies in check against price gouging so vast regulations aren’t so necessary. Look at US cell carriers. Constant competition between Sprint and T-Mobile have driven prices down for consumers to the point that even Verizon and AT&T had to respond by offering cheaper (though not competitively cheap) rates due to churn (subscriber flux). The market controls itself. If Sprint and TMO went ahead with the merger, the lack of competition would have given them room to raise rates again and everyone would have gotten more expensive. Thankfully that's not gonna happen now.

>

> If you have more than one ISP in your area, you have the option to switch and pay someone else for internet service that doesn’t block or throttle the service(s) you want. The best way to keep companies in check is to let them know you’re paying their competition instead. They’ll wise up and change because no CEO wants to lose his fat paycheck.

 

Given that almost every major telecommunications company is looking to merge and have been mostly unsuccessful thanks to net neutrality debates, I'd say keeping net neutrality alive is a good thing. It played a major role in killing the Comcast/Time Warner merger. Can also play a vital role in deciding the outcome of the DoJ's protection from the AT&T/Time Warner merger.

 

What free market exists when your only options trace back to AT&T, Time Warner or Comcast and they've merged? Free market works if there's competition. Competition in America is well and truly dead.

[kharmin.7683]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

 

> The answer to every question you asked is *change ISP!* That is literally how capitalism works, you choose what you want and the market punishes/rewards behaviour.

 

Yeah, that's not an option for everyone. I only have one ISP in my area because of how rural it is.

 

[Genesis.5169]

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > @"Coulter.2315"

> > > > Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

> > >

> > > OK, let me handle the rest of your post.

> > > You remember video games which aren't 10 hours long and don't cost $60. Fine. But you should also remember their great production values. The glorious pre-HD resolutions. The limited color palettes, if you're old enough. The lack of in-game cinematics, voice acted dialogs... shall I continue? The standards for the video games are constantly going up, because of combination of hardware development and competition. And getting your title up to that standard doesn't come free. Every new feature has to be implemented. All the new high-res textures, detailed animations, voice lines, need to be produced. And it only gets worse when we're talking about gigantic projects like MMOs. Selling DLCs and lootboxes are just mechanisms to cope with the higher costs of production, because users want all the new shinies, all the new tech, all around better games, but they are strangely reluctant to pay for them.

> > >

> > > Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying pulling back the regulations on the ISPs is something good. I'm only saying your argument on the flaws of the free market is weak. When pondering about the market, you *always* need to consider both sides. You're only thinking from the PoV of a customer. It's understandable, but it makes you jump to invalid conclusions.

> >

> > Cost of production in videos didn't skyrocket, because video-game gens move when they are affordable, its the marketing is whats causing those bloated budgets, i really get tired of people talking about things they know nothing about, just because you read things on the internet doesn't mean its true. and people can still whip out 50 hour games if they wanted to but they can't be bothered to pay for it. Not to say there weren't any increases for the cost to development but to the degree of which 95% of games can be beaten in 1 sitting no, it doesn't warrant it.

> >

> > Games like the witcher 1 2 3. TES. countless other games had lower budgets then the new mass effect BY LARGE MARGINS and are longer and better without those budgets, and they are better games. Its the marketing that causes what you speak of, its very possible to make good games if producers decide to do it but instead what they do is sell you half a game then sell the other half in parts, place micro transactions in it to create new revenue streams so they don't have to worry about making quality products or making new IPs.

> >

> > Man this is tiring.

>

> Mate, I spent the last 14 years in the industry. Please tell me more about how it works.

>

> It's just business. The publishers aren't interested in making great games, they are interested in making money. They won't pay more unless they're convinced they can get better ROI from that. They basically want what sells better. Want better games? Then buy them. But you don't. You buy the next triple A because it looks better and then you complain games aren't like they used to be. Yeah, they aren't. They are what the market made them. Not the evil corporations, the users.

 

Uh huh, yep you know nothing at all..more people are playing games then ever. Companies are litterally taking advantage of all the new comers who werent around during the snes and psx or even the ps2.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_industry

 

There's a little wiki on how much gaming has grown since its inception and that shows a more lucrative industry then the one that you are peddling, also don't pose as a game dev if you literally dont know what your talking about. And to the subject at hand there was a post who explained there is no reason at all for a consumer to want this there will be no improvement of service no reduction in prices so to lobby on there behalf and not being a shareholder of said company is voting against your personal interest of which i assume you love to do if still defending this after being wrong so many times.

 

[Generator Gawl.5142]

> @YoukiNeko.6047 said:

> > @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

> > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > > Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

> > > >

> > > > No internet is now a public utility do you believe people should pay extra for electricity if your using it to use your pc, instead of your refrigerator? Do you really thing compartmentalizing the internet is a good thing? I swear to god ever time i hear thing it annoys me please look past 2 steps before you make assumptions because electrical utilities and phone companies were doing this before we rained them in.

> > > >

> > > > Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

> > >

> > > Guess what, people that use more electricity pay more for it. That's why people in Arizona have larger electric bills in the summer than in the winter. If you use too much water you pay a premium for the extra water.

> > > Please don't swear to god. It's blasphemous and offensive.

> > >

> > > We reigned in phone companies? Have you seen your cell phone bill lately?

> >

> > OK, it's not a good analogy. Paying your utilities is a necessity and it's determined by your local (as you point out) and how much you use at a nominal or no-profit. The internet is a thing that provides access to stuff around the globe. If you use a little, you're paying extra to be able to have access to that stuff. I'd say it's more akin to a library. Like only reading Stephen King? You want to pay a lower price to only read Stephen King stuff? K. Pay this small amount. Wait, you want to read horror by some other guy? Can't. Pay some more. OK. Want to read some fantasy fiction now by Robin Hobb? Sorry, we don't agree with some of her works, so we're only going to let you read one page a day to discourage you from reading her stuff.

> >

> > Currently, anyone who doesn't use the internet much is subsidizing the people who use it a lot. That makes the internet pretty cheap. Getting rid of net neutrality is a ploy in order to get people to pay more for stuff they already are using. I haven't looked for a while, but I get non-pay cable HD bundled with high speed internet for about **$110/month**. I think the cable alone is $90. Of course, I'm getting a "bundle" but that's pretty kitten cheap. You're on crack if any of you think you're gonna be paying for internet as cheap as that paying a la carte. And if someone doesn't want to pay for high speed internet, uh, cause they don't need it, well, they can pay even less.

> >

> > And to the argument that ISPs kitten about their infrastructure costs, well, raise the price by $5 bucks or whatever. Currently, I don't see their profits taking any dip, so, that's a load or horse crap too.

>

> It's off topic but are you really playing $110/month for couple of HD channles and internet access?

>

> Here is the cheapest bundle from a random company in my country `55 Mbps download / 18 Mbps upload, 100 channels, 30 HD channels - $12.13/month`.

>

> How does your compare to it?

 

Right now I pay $70 a month alone for just internet. Time warner tried to jack up my internet/cable to $175 per month. I called to work out a deal because I can't afford that. Not only would they not budge, they were very rude about it. So i ditched cable TV. That's about the cheapest high speed internet is for me in my area. If I could find a cheaper comparable option I would switch. I have zero love for time warner.

[YoukiNeko.6047]

> @"Generator Gawl.5142" said:

> > @YoukiNeko.6047 said:

> > > @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

> > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > > > Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

> > > > >

> > > > > No internet is now a public utility do you believe people should pay extra for electricity if your using it to use your pc, instead of your refrigerator? Do you really thing compartmentalizing the internet is a good thing? I swear to god ever time i hear thing it annoys me please look past 2 steps before you make assumptions because electrical utilities and phone companies were doing this before we rained them in.

> > > > >

> > > > > Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

> > > >

> > > > Guess what, people that use more electricity pay more for it. That's why people in Arizona have larger electric bills in the summer than in the winter. If you use too much water you pay a premium for the extra water.

> > > > Please don't swear to god. It's blasphemous and offensive.

> > > >

> > > > We reigned in phone companies? Have you seen your cell phone bill lately?

> > >

> > > OK, it's not a good analogy. Paying your utilities is a necessity and it's determined by your local (as you point out) and how much you use at a nominal or no-profit. The internet is a thing that provides access to stuff around the globe. If you use a little, you're paying extra to be able to have access to that stuff. I'd say it's more akin to a library. Like only reading Stephen King? You want to pay a lower price to only read Stephen King stuff? K. Pay this small amount. Wait, you want to read horror by some other guy? Can't. Pay some more. OK. Want to read some fantasy fiction now by Robin Hobb? Sorry, we don't agree with some of her works, so we're only going to let you read one page a day to discourage you from reading her stuff.

> > >

> > > Currently, anyone who doesn't use the internet much is subsidizing the people who use it a lot. That makes the internet pretty cheap. Getting rid of net neutrality is a ploy in order to get people to pay more for stuff they already are using. I haven't looked for a while, but I get non-pay cable HD bundled with high speed internet for about **$110/month**. I think the cable alone is $90. Of course, I'm getting a "bundle" but that's pretty kitten cheap. You're on crack if any of you think you're gonna be paying for internet as cheap as that paying a la carte. And if someone doesn't want to pay for high speed internet, uh, cause they don't need it, well, they can pay even less.

> > >

> > > And to the argument that ISPs kitten about their infrastructure costs, well, raise the price by $5 bucks or whatever. Currently, I don't see their profits taking any dip, so, that's a load or horse crap too.

> >

> > It's off topic but are you really playing $110/month for couple of HD channles and internet access?

> >

> > Here is the cheapest bundle from a random company in my country `55 Mbps download / 18 Mbps upload, 100 channels, 30 HD channels - $12.13/month`.

> >

> > How does your compare to it?

>

> Right now I pay $70 a month alone for just internet. Time warner tried to jack up my internet/cable to $175 per month. I called to work out a deal because I can't afford that. Not only would they not budge, they were very rude about it. So i ditched cable TV. That's about the cheapest high speed internet is for me in my area. If I could find a cheaper comparable option I would switch. I have zero love for time warner.

 

$175/month O_o that's really bad.

[Feanor.2358]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > > @"Coulter.2315"

> > > > > Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

> > > >

> > > > OK, let me handle the rest of your post.

> > > > You remember video games which aren't 10 hours long and don't cost $60. Fine. But you should also remember their great production values. The glorious pre-HD resolutions. The limited color palettes, if you're old enough. The lack of in-game cinematics, voice acted dialogs... shall I continue? The standards for the video games are constantly going up, because of combination of hardware development and competition. And getting your title up to that standard doesn't come free. Every new feature has to be implemented. All the new high-res textures, detailed animations, voice lines, need to be produced. And it only gets worse when we're talking about gigantic projects like MMOs. Selling DLCs and lootboxes are just mechanisms to cope with the higher costs of production, because users want all the new shinies, all the new tech, all around better games, but they are strangely reluctant to pay for them.

> > > >

> > > > Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying pulling back the regulations on the ISPs is something good. I'm only saying your argument on the flaws of the free market is weak. When pondering about the market, you *always* need to consider both sides. You're only thinking from the PoV of a customer. It's understandable, but it makes you jump to invalid conclusions.

> > >

> > > Cost of production in videos didn't skyrocket, because video-game gens move when they are affordable, its the marketing is whats causing those bloated budgets, i really get tired of people talking about things they know nothing about, just because you read things on the internet doesn't mean its true. and people can still whip out 50 hour games if they wanted to but they can't be bothered to pay for it. Not to say there weren't any increases for the cost to development but to the degree of which 95% of games can be beaten in 1 sitting no, it doesn't warrant it.

> > >

> > > Games like the witcher 1 2 3. TES. countless other games had lower budgets then the new mass effect BY LARGE MARGINS and are longer and better without those budgets, and they are better games. Its the marketing that causes what you speak of, its very possible to make good games if producers decide to do it but instead what they do is sell you half a game then sell the other half in parts, place micro transactions in it to create new revenue streams so they don't have to worry about making quality products or making new IPs.

> > >

> > > Man this is tiring.

> >

> > Mate, I spent the last 14 years in the industry. Please tell me more about how it works.

> >

> > It's just business. The publishers aren't interested in making great games, they are interested in making money. They won't pay more unless they're convinced they can get better ROI from that. They basically want what sells better. Want better games? Then buy them. But you don't. You buy the next triple A because it looks better and then you complain games aren't like they used to be. Yeah, they aren't. They are what the market made them. Not the evil corporations, the users.

>

> Uh huh, yep you know nothing at all..more people are playing games then ever. Companies are litterally taking advantage of all the new comers who werent around during the snes and psx or even the ps2.

>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_industry

>

> There's a little wiki on how much gaming has grown since its inception and that shows a more lucrative industry then the one that you are peddling, also don't pose as a game dev if you literally dont know what your talking about. And to the subject at hand there was a post who explained there is no reason at all for a consumer to want this there will be no improvement of service no reduction in prices so to lobby on there behalf and not being a shareholder of said company is voting against your personal interest of which i assume you love to do if still defending this after being wrong so many times.

>

 

The growth you see is largely due to the expansion into the mobile market. But I don't know what I'm talking about, right? Believe what you like. Evil corporations, secret organizations, alien, whatever floats your boat.

[phys.7689]

> @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

 

because we are already paying them for unlimited access. It doesnt matter if netflix is using 25% of their traffic if thats what the people who pay them 40-80 dollars a month want to use the bandwith they paid for to do. Its equivalent to your phone company charging you more to call dominoes because a lot of people call dominoes.

 

And they can charge more for faster/better internet already. The entire purpose is for them to make more money for less service. Also it gives the horizontal monopolies an extra advantage.

 

Also, the laws were passed in 2015 because isps were starting to break the "gentlemens agreements" and were throttling sites. While there may have been few cases, the ones who were doing it, comcast, verizon, att make up the largest amount of users. And if they werent limited, it would have continued

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

> @YoukiNeko.6047 said:

> > @"Generator Gawl.5142" said:

> > > @YoukiNeko.6047 said

> > >

> > > It's off topic but are you really playing $110/month for couple of HD channles and internet access?

> > >

> > > Here is the cheapest bundle from a random company in my country `55 Mbps download / 18 Mbps upload, 100 channels, 30 HD channels - $12.13/month`.

> > >

> > > How does your compare to it?

> >

> > Right now I pay $70 a month alone for just internet. Time warner tried to jack up my internet/cable to $175 per month. I called to work out a deal because I can't afford that. Not only would they not budge, they were very rude about it. So i ditched cable TV. That's about the cheapest high speed internet is for me in my area. If I could find a cheaper comparable option I would switch. I have zero love for time warner.

>

> $175/month O_o that's really bad.

 

I pay $51 a month for 1.5 Mbps download / 384 Kbps upload with a 150GB download cap monthly (which didn't exist when I first set up the service, but is a part of the plan now. And they don't tell you up front, but it's in the fine print) . That is _all_ that is available in my area for DSL or Broadband. And by all, I mean no other providers, no other speeds, and if I ever cancel my service I can never have it reinstalled because I am no longer in the provider's 'serviceable' area. The only reason I retain my service is because I was grandfathered in. I average about 70GB a month, although there have been a few months where I've hit my cap (not many). In the 9 years I've had this service, it's gone up in cost twice, while it's consistency and reliability have decreased. (And trying to get any type of service tech is a nightmare.)

 

I have the option of Satellite internet; however, it's still not the best for gaming. It's also 3 times more expensive (and that's if I bundle it with my tv service), and the largest available package has a 10GB download limit.

 

_frustrated sigh_

[phys.7689]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

>

> I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

 

providing broadband access is mostly a big game. 51% of people in US have only one option for high speed internet. Companies block/buy competition, and abandon low profit markets.

 

 

it is a fallacy that less regulation increases competition. It entirely depends on what type of regulations.

[phys.7689]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> >

> > > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > > An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

> >

> > It goes beyond charging more for more bandwidth. They will have the power to block or slow down sites or services which they disagree with politically, or because the site/service in question doesn't pay them kickbacks, or because they are supporting a competitor of the site, or because they feel like it. For example, what if your ISP contracts with Google, and slows down or blocks services from Google competitors? What if your ISP is run by the same corporation that owns Hulu, and they decide to slow down Netflix? What if your ISP is run by a CEO or organization with strong religious leanings, and blocks any content that conflicts with their religious beliefs? What if the ISP is run by political right- or left-wingers who will block news websites whose coverage leans the 'wrong' way?

> >

> > And, yeah, you can sit there and say it's not going to happen, but if it isn't going to happen, why legalize it? Why spend millions lobbying Congress to legalize it?

> >

>

> And yet websites like google, facebook and youtube are already black balling contributors for content that they don't agree with politically. What's the difference?

 

a website is not an isp. Your mother may not allow you to curse when you call her, but Verizon notbletting you curse is an entirely different subject.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

>

> I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

 

I dont have much choice in providers. I dont know how it is in the rest of the country, but here, if you want broadband, you get one choice.

[Sky.7610]

Hello,

 

Apologies for the long post but the following is a major US event that can affect and influence not just the US but all parts of the internet, worldwide, Guild Wars 2 included. It is very important and I hope the team at Anet will allow it's discussion within the context of how it will affect the players of GW2.

 

As many of you may be aware of, The Federal Communications Commission **(FCC) of the United States announced a vote to kill net neutrality commencing on December 14, 2017.** While the FCC is mandated to protect the consumer, **the chairman of the FCC, an ex-ISP lawyer, has repeatedly demonstrated he does not care about the consumers and will do everything in his power to bring more revenue and power to the ISP, even at the expense of all users of the internet.** Unfortunately, the chairman and many members of Congress received a lot of "Donation fund"/legal bribe from the major Internet service providers (ISPs), so **it would take an extreme public outcry and enormous amount of individuals contacting their congress representative to tell them to vote AGAINST killing net neutrality for net neutrality to stand any chance.**

 

> **What is net neutrality? Why does it matter?**

>

> Net neutrality is the principle that Internet providers like Comcast & Verizon should not control what we see and do online. In 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The rules prohibit Internet providers from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—"fast lanes" for sites that pay, and slow lanes for everyone else.

>

 

**If net neutrality is killed, the ISPs can and will have nearly absolute power on the internet to nickel and dime businesses and users**. They can charge business or consumers for "service fee" to have normal speed internet, and if the small businesses or consumers can't afford it, they will put you on a slow lane which lags the user/site and result in higher ping and load times. Smaller business will not be able to compete with multi-national companies like Google and Facebook, thereby reducing competition in all industries, reducing choice and raising prices for consumers. In other words,**the ISPs can charge it's US players of GW2 $10/month (or any amount) to play GW2 and any other games or the player will have deprioritized internet. They can also charge/blackmail any businesses like Anet/NCsoft who operates within US borders** (so any service you use that is hosted in the US will be affected) for its players to be unaffected. This will raise the operational expense for Anet, kills smaller competition, and the consumers pay the price.

 

**If Net Neutrality is allowed to be killed in the US, other ISPs in NA, EU, Asia will take note that it is acceptable and will soon follow suit to maximize their profit.**

 

Here is a real-life example of what happens after net neutrality was killed in Portugal: https://i.imgur.com/kKvWsFy.jpg

Here is an example of what will occur if net neutrality is killed in the US: https://i.imgur.com/buyMY6x.jpg

 

**What can I do about it?**

 

**If you are a US resident, Please join the battle and contact your congress to express your disapproval of killing net neutrality** and that it's a major issue in deciding whether or not you will vote for him. Please visit https://www.battleforthenet.com/ to be connected to your representative.

 

**If you are not a US resident (such as myself), please spread this message to friends, family, and social media.**

 

`OUR internet is the greatest innovation and progress of humanity, it is one of the only remaining even-playfield where the small guys can compete with the big guys, Net Neutrality is a right that you should be entitled to, don't surrender it for yourself or your future generations! Take action or it will be too late!`

[Zok.4956]

> @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > @Zok.4956 said:

> > > @"Korgan Dunblane.4907" said:

> > > Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)

> >

> > The FCC does not regulate the Internet, only the US.

> As of the reclassification of ISP's as utilities under Title 2 in 2015, the FCC does, in fact, regulate the internet.

> Or were you trying to say they only regulate it in the US?

 

The Internet is the whole, worldwide Internet. The FCC does not regulate the Internet, only a small part of the Internet.

 

>This is true, but Arena Net is an American company and thus bound first and foremost by US law and policy

 

Tell me, how will this change of the FCC policy affect the A-Net servers that are hosted in the Frankfurt-datacenter and that are bound to German and EU law and that are using local ISPs that are bound first and foremost by German and EU law?

 

 

[Danikat.8537]

There's already a long topic about this: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/17903/internet-neutrality-after-dec-14-and-its-impact/p1

[Sky.7610]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> There's already a long topic about this: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/17903/internet-neutrality-after-dec-14-and-its-impact/p1

 

Thank you for pointing it out, I did not see it. I do believe this post is a little more comprehensive on the issue, its effect, and the solution so hopefully others are better informed and armed to take action.

 

Also, this issue is so important, we need all the attention we can get!

[Sojourner.4621]

> @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > @"Endless Soul.5178" said:

> > > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > > > @"Korgan Dunblane.4907" said:

> > > > Hey All,

> > > > Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)

> > > > If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

> > > >

> > > > As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

> > > >

> > > > This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

> > > >

> > > > Any other info out there?

> > > Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

> > >

> > > Look guy - there is nothing that says we'll have to pay more to play games. Individual ISPs haven't said whether that's their policy. Some, like Comcast, said they have no intention of doing that. I think part of what we're seeing here is a big scare campaign to make everyone think the internet is going to die. It's not. It's pulling back regulation which isn't always a bad thing.

> > >

> > > If companies start doing some of the stuff you guys are saying WILL happen, then I think you should argue it then. Right now that's not the world we have so stop screaming that the sky is falling.

> >

> > So, not a problem to you then?

> No, I'm not really concerned about it right now. It's pulling back regulation to pre-2015 levels of regulation. All the talk about ISPs slowing speeds, blocking websites and slicing up the internet into various access channels isn't concerning because that wasn't a thing in 2015. Could it happen now? Sure, I guess. But did it happen then? Not really... just a few cases in the history of the internet in the USA.

 

Comcast specifically, right before the net neutrality laws were passed, admitted to throttling certain streaming sites and in fact specifically took a large payout from Netflix to NOT throttle their service. Netflix speeds increased by 65% after the payments were made.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > @"Korgan Dunblane.4907" said:

> > Hey All,

> > Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)

> > If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

> >

> > As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

> >

> > This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

> >

> > Any other info out there?

> Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

>

> Look guy - there is nothing that says we'll have to pay more to play games. Individual ISPs haven't said whether that's their policy. Some, like Comcast, said they have no intention of doing that. I think part of what we're seeing here is a big scare campaign to make everyone think the internet is going to die. It's not. It's pulling back regulation which isn't always a bad thing.

>

> If companies start doing some of the stuff you guys are saying WILL happen, then I think you should argue it then. Right now that's not the world we have so stop screaming that the sky is falling.

 

Apparently your recollections of 2015 are different than most people and for that matter content providers, you know, the YouTubes and Googles of the world, because back in 2015 the ISP did try to charge different content providers different prices for varying speeds. That is what the regulations were designed to prevent and that is what they did, I can almost guarantee you that the big 3 remaining service providers(that almost have monopolies in various locations of the U.S.) will indeed return to those content providers and demand they pay more money for the best service...and then guess what, your costs go up as those content providers need to recoup the money they have to pay the ISP's. You believe Comcast/Xfinity won't charge YouTube extra money for providing the bandwidth needed for streaming...then you're living in a fantasy world. The only way they would be kept in check is if Google decides to continue expanding their fibre service into major cities and keeping the network open to everyone at the same cost.

[Sojourner.4621]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> >

> > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

>

> I dont have much choice in providers. I dont know how it is in the rest of the country, but here, if you want broadband, you get one choice.

 

The free market often refuses to service certain people based on geographical location because upgrading their old lines would cost them money, and the free market also allows larger companies to buy out the smaller local providers. Note: These things still already happen... Net neutrality has had zero impact on this at all. What it DOES prevent is legal racketeering, i.e. charging companies for protection via "pay us to gain full bandwidth rights" schemes. People forget that right before the Net neutrality laws were signed in to place THIS WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. A big news story and a large part of the push for Net neutrality in the first place was Netflix being forced in to giving Comcast a large sum of money in order to not have their streaming service throttled to their customers. Do we think it's a coincidence that Netflix prices are going up again on December 25th?

 

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

[Sojourner.4621]

People forget so quickly:

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

[Genesis.5169]

There a thread about it and we need your help been spending 2days trying to convert the people who are for removing net neutrality, maybe you can succeed where i failed because these folks are throwing objectivity out the window in favor of and ideology that isn't in there best interest.

[Ayrilana.1396]

Also, based on what I have read, a great deal of those against the bill are using scare tactics and misinformation. It’s only undoing the regulation that started two years ago. I don’t recall having encountered any of the concerns people have during the 20 years before that.

[Sky.7610]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> There a thread about it and we need your help been spending 2days trying to convert the people who are for removing net neutrality, maybe you can succeed where i failed because these folks are throwing objectivity out the window in favor of and ideology that isn't in there best interest.

 

What ideology can possibly justify this? Free market? That would be a good argument... if it was actually a free market and regulations weren't rigged to prevent any new startups.