Forums » General
So. Is VO screwed fer us wifis?
I was literally about to sub,then I saw a newspost..is this anytime soon? Am I fucked?
No.. this is a long-term issue. We're standing in solidarity with a lot of other internet sites (like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) about the critical importance of Network Neutrality, but this is not going to happen overnight.
It has nothing to do with our game specifically, either. It would impact every game you play.
It also has nothing to do with wifi, it would impact the entire consumer internet in the US.
It has nothing to do with our game specifically, either. It would impact every game you play.
It also has nothing to do with wifi, it would impact the entire consumer internet in the US.
I'm subbing then... Damn FCC. So basically all tech/WiFi would be fucced from what it is now. Oh well. >: |
It is funny you mention Facebook in all of this, as it has already kicked off in some parts of the world with that sod of a company. A good example is being able to access 0facebook.com via my mobile for free (no data costs, not counted towards my quota). So yeah, Facebook are NOT standing FOR this.
Yoda, I'm not really following what you're talking about? This issue isn't against regional colocation, CDNs or peering agreements. If Facebook is free for your carrier, that just means they have a local network agreement, and probably an on-net CDN. That isn't necessarily bad (and may be free to them, actually).
Keep in mind, VO has around 15 regional update servers now, and we've been pre-loaded on some mobile devices too. Nearby update servers makes things better for our players.
This is more about the rest of the Internet remaining flat, and providers not being allowed to selectively block services or upcharge for them, like my Facetime example from the newspost.
Keep in mind, VO has around 15 regional update servers now, and we've been pre-loaded on some mobile devices too. Nearby update servers makes things better for our players.
This is more about the rest of the Internet remaining flat, and providers not being allowed to selectively block services or upcharge for them, like my Facetime example from the newspost.
VO comes preloaded on devices? I want one!
Mostly historical.. we were on a lot of Lenovo and Acer tablets. There might be some future possibilities too, but uncertain at this time, and not something I'd be able to share until they ship anyway.
I don't trust the US Federal Government.
Guess who appointed the FCC chairman Ajit Pai who is opposed to Net Neturality. GASP!!!!!
Our god emperor of course! He's doing exactly what we wanted him to do, shifting the power from the government to the market.
Sorry, it is exactly this that I am talking about, I suppose I just expect people to know, but then I remember that the UK is just a drop of poop in the sea :) If it was just that I got Facebook, and Spotify access for free, that would have been cool - but as it turns out - not only are these services being provided by Operators that sign up but the Operators are also prioritising traffic to these few services. Basically things like google+ and Deezer run like crap when using the evil network, which I think is the kind of thing that is/will be happening in the US now?
Yoda, what you're describing is a bit more complicated. Basically, the practice of co-locating infrastructure within the network of a major operator, to serve your product to their customers better, is something that goes back decades. It isn't necessarily bad, the practice generally works well, although it can be abused in certain ways (which I won't go into, and they're usually corporate-to-corporate).
What the newspost is about is when the "general" internet is allowed to specifically prioritize traffic, to hosts that are not local on the network, and up-charge for different kinds of content at whatever random manner that prefer.
If a carrier allows Spotify and Facebook to co-locate locally, but the carrier's upstream connectivity is saturated and poor, that isn't necessarily an example of them being evil. It's unclear if they're even making money on Spotify and Facebook being there (many of those co-locations, historically, were done for free, because they benefit the hosting network as much as the service).
It also isn't Facebook's fault of the carrier has an over-subscribed upstream connection. They're probably just happy they have some gear locally that can make things less-bad for their users.
So, the propensity for "evil" is not quite so strong as, say, if your carrier suddenly decided it was going to demand a special expensive Internet package before you could connect to Amazon.com, or WoW. That's the greater concern here, that like AT&T forcing Facetime users to pay more (even "unlimited data" subscribers), that carriers and networks can start arbitrarily doing that for any kind of service.
What the newspost is about is when the "general" internet is allowed to specifically prioritize traffic, to hosts that are not local on the network, and up-charge for different kinds of content at whatever random manner that prefer.
If a carrier allows Spotify and Facebook to co-locate locally, but the carrier's upstream connectivity is saturated and poor, that isn't necessarily an example of them being evil. It's unclear if they're even making money on Spotify and Facebook being there (many of those co-locations, historically, were done for free, because they benefit the hosting network as much as the service).
It also isn't Facebook's fault of the carrier has an over-subscribed upstream connection. They're probably just happy they have some gear locally that can make things less-bad for their users.
So, the propensity for "evil" is not quite so strong as, say, if your carrier suddenly decided it was going to demand a special expensive Internet package before you could connect to Amazon.com, or WoW. That's the greater concern here, that like AT&T forcing Facetime users to pay more (even "unlimited data" subscribers), that carriers and networks can start arbitrarily doing that for any kind of service.
I think the subject of net neutrality means different things to different people and that is the problem.
It's got some qualities on one hand while on the other hand diminishes liberty on another hand.
I'ts littered with politics and some oppose the portions that force equal access and time even opposing views are required to be allowed even on things such as religion, political views and/or education etc.
While most don't think there should be a requirement to allow opposing views for their viewers while others want to force the issue having nothing to do with access to speed, download volumes and/or access that is directly related to surfing, gaming and enjoying the web.
I literally heard people promoting it in order to get their political faces in front of people who would not otherwise tune in to watch or hear them.
They basically littered the net neutrality with politics to force others to hear their opinions on shows that would normally have a particular viewership and would care NOT to see or hear them.
I think this is the main parts that are opposed and for good reason. Hopefully they can sort out that part from the part that is important to the rest of us. Which is high speed gaming. However don't get me wrong I understand a need for Netflix to provide the highest bandwidth and speed for it's millions of users. I certainly don't want my speed to be so slow that I can't even access their site and definitely don't want their costs to be so expensive that no one can afford to use Netflix.
There has to be some common sense to all this and of course the government should not force individuals or companies to provide a service at a cost they deem appropriate either.
Equally the government should not force VO to provide a particular cost if they deem the costs too high for some or that it somehow didn't provide satisfactory service to it's users.
They could very well do the same thing with every single company and this is a problem.
If enough politicians have some people demanding so called affordable gaming from VO that is all it could take then the government could say well you can't charge that much for this game because there is a lot of free games out there so we need neutrality to provide free games and all must have a free access with upcharges for in game content.
Stupid I know, but politicians are that stupid and power hungry they will do it if they have enough complainers out there and believe it will get them votes.
So soon all games, media, movies content may have to be free in the name of net neutrality. This is because some may not be able to afford to pay for games and politicians feed on the poor to get votes and tell them how they are going to create "programs" to help equal the playing field. LOL
It's really a HUGE mess and everyone is quit sick of these political freaks telling everyone how to live their lives.
It's sort of like saying that if I drive 100 miles to work I should pay the same amount in fuel charges as the guy who drive only 25 miles.
I still have to get to work and need equal access to the road and to get to work. The gas companies should give me the same price to get me to work.
It's the same thing mostly, except it's for use and you pay more tax on more fuel, and more tax on more money for that matter.
I have no idea how they justify net neutrality in lieu of the fact that every other thing they do isn't neutral at all.
Tangled mixed up politicians trying to please everyone for everything at all times.
It's got some qualities on one hand while on the other hand diminishes liberty on another hand.
I'ts littered with politics and some oppose the portions that force equal access and time even opposing views are required to be allowed even on things such as religion, political views and/or education etc.
While most don't think there should be a requirement to allow opposing views for their viewers while others want to force the issue having nothing to do with access to speed, download volumes and/or access that is directly related to surfing, gaming and enjoying the web.
I literally heard people promoting it in order to get their political faces in front of people who would not otherwise tune in to watch or hear them.
They basically littered the net neutrality with politics to force others to hear their opinions on shows that would normally have a particular viewership and would care NOT to see or hear them.
I think this is the main parts that are opposed and for good reason. Hopefully they can sort out that part from the part that is important to the rest of us. Which is high speed gaming. However don't get me wrong I understand a need for Netflix to provide the highest bandwidth and speed for it's millions of users. I certainly don't want my speed to be so slow that I can't even access their site and definitely don't want their costs to be so expensive that no one can afford to use Netflix.
There has to be some common sense to all this and of course the government should not force individuals or companies to provide a service at a cost they deem appropriate either.
Equally the government should not force VO to provide a particular cost if they deem the costs too high for some or that it somehow didn't provide satisfactory service to it's users.
They could very well do the same thing with every single company and this is a problem.
If enough politicians have some people demanding so called affordable gaming from VO that is all it could take then the government could say well you can't charge that much for this game because there is a lot of free games out there so we need neutrality to provide free games and all must have a free access with upcharges for in game content.
Stupid I know, but politicians are that stupid and power hungry they will do it if they have enough complainers out there and believe it will get them votes.
So soon all games, media, movies content may have to be free in the name of net neutrality. This is because some may not be able to afford to pay for games and politicians feed on the poor to get votes and tell them how they are going to create "programs" to help equal the playing field. LOL
It's really a HUGE mess and everyone is quit sick of these political freaks telling everyone how to live their lives.
It's sort of like saying that if I drive 100 miles to work I should pay the same amount in fuel charges as the guy who drive only 25 miles.
I still have to get to work and need equal access to the road and to get to work. The gas companies should give me the same price to get me to work.
It's the same thing mostly, except it's for use and you pay more tax on more fuel, and more tax on more money for that matter.
I have no idea how they justify net neutrality in lieu of the fact that every other thing they do isn't neutral at all.
Tangled mixed up politicians trying to please everyone for everything at all times.
You have some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.
Happy blogging!
Happy blogging!
Net Neutrality is not about forcing websites to permit opposing views. At all. Period. If anyone is telling you otherwise, they are either ignorant, lying, or both.
Net Neutrality is only about forcing ISPs to not discriminate between different websites and different kinds of traffic. That's it. I pay my ISP a monthly bill for a certain amount of data to cross their network. It's none of their business what that data is or which website it came from. All they should care about is how much data I'm sending or receiving across their network.
That's all Net Neutrality is. It has nothing to do with regulating the prices or biases of individual websites or anything like that. There are people upset about biased websites, certainly, but that's not a matter of Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is only about forcing ISPs to not discriminate between different websites and different kinds of traffic. That's it. I pay my ISP a monthly bill for a certain amount of data to cross their network. It's none of their business what that data is or which website it came from. All they should care about is how much data I'm sending or receiving across their network.
That's all Net Neutrality is. It has nothing to do with regulating the prices or biases of individual websites or anything like that. There are people upset about biased websites, certainly, but that's not a matter of Net Neutrality.
What's all this I hear about "violins on television"?
@Pizzasgood
It's true that the intent of the Net Neutrality doesn't have the purpose that I expressed previously but the poorly word rules of Title II and the like are and have already been used/referenced as precedent to push the fairness doctrine which is in part a concern for their referencing and using the net neutrality rules to support their causes on this note. They believe it does indeed say and do as I've outlined and they further want it clarified with a fairness doctrine.
The rules are here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/258494173/FCC-15-24A1#fullscreen&from_embed
Even within it's introduction statement you can see line item 4 says:
today we adopt carefully-tailored rules that would prevent specific practices we know are harmful to Internet openness— blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—as well as a strong standard of conduct designed to prevent the deployment of new practices that would harm Internet openness
This is just one example of these types of loose words within net neutrality which are referenced by some as precedent to support the fairness doctrine.
Others simply don't like net neutrality as a matter of more government control which many believe have ruined education, healthcare, student loans, higher education and more already.
Whether you agree with it or not the concern is there and is real and as I mentioned most may have a bigger concern over those things then the actual intent or purpose of the net neutrality rule itself.
The question is if there is a way to rid the rule of the loose words, and to get government out of controlling your internet while also preserving the intent of the rule.
This dude has a decent argument to make:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#5c6376c070d5
I don't know if I agree with it all but it's some of the things people are concerned with.
It's true that the intent of the Net Neutrality doesn't have the purpose that I expressed previously but the poorly word rules of Title II and the like are and have already been used/referenced as precedent to push the fairness doctrine which is in part a concern for their referencing and using the net neutrality rules to support their causes on this note. They believe it does indeed say and do as I've outlined and they further want it clarified with a fairness doctrine.
The rules are here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/258494173/FCC-15-24A1#fullscreen&from_embed
Even within it's introduction statement you can see line item 4 says:
today we adopt carefully-tailored rules that would prevent specific practices we know are harmful to Internet openness— blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—as well as a strong standard of conduct designed to prevent the deployment of new practices that would harm Internet openness
This is just one example of these types of loose words within net neutrality which are referenced by some as precedent to support the fairness doctrine.
Others simply don't like net neutrality as a matter of more government control which many believe have ruined education, healthcare, student loans, higher education and more already.
Whether you agree with it or not the concern is there and is real and as I mentioned most may have a bigger concern over those things then the actual intent or purpose of the net neutrality rule itself.
The question is if there is a way to rid the rule of the loose words, and to get government out of controlling your internet while also preserving the intent of the rule.
This dude has a decent argument to make:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#5c6376c070d5
I don't know if I agree with it all but it's some of the things people are concerned with.
Captain, kindly leave the statutory/regulatory interpretation to the actual lawyers. I lost several dozen IQ points just reading that drivel. TYIA.