Open Access to the Internet is a Right

I apologize that my posts have already started to come few and far between. The truth of the matter is, I do not intend to write a new article every day or even every other day. Because I want to get these posts well researched and written, and I have VERY little time to work on this of late, I cannot promise a regular schedule at this time. I just hope that you will enjoy my posts when I do get them up.

I want to talk today about an issue that affects a very large group of people, and has a very strong potential to determine what the future will look like. I want to be very clear here: I am not being sarcastic here.

The issue is Internet Neutrality, more commonly known as Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is the concept that all types of data over the Internet should be allowed to flow freely, that every bit of data is treated equally by my Internet Service Provider (ISP). What this means is that, if I go to a popular site, like say the New York Times, and a more obscure site, like my blog (does not get much more obscure than that), the pages should load with the same speed, all other things being equal. This also applies to things like video sites such as Hulu or Youtube, or download protocols like FTP or Bittorrent.

This issue spiked a bit in recent weeks because of two separate issues. Not as directly related, but still important, is the Digital Economy Bill that was recently passed in England. Not being British, I don't feel I have a good grasp of the intricacies of this bill, but I will point to an article and an opinion piece over at the Guardian newspaper that talks about it (that I found via RockPaperShotgun). If anyone from England is reading this, I hope that your Liberal Democrats party can grab some seats and hopefully do something to fix that abhorrent bill. Please vote!

The second issue that I will comment on is a recent decision in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. To summarize the issue, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had fined Comcast for slowing down, or "throttling," the Bittorrent protocol that passed over their service. Comcast took the FCC to court, saying that it did not have the authority to impose this fine. The court agreed with Comcast, and said that the FCC did not have the right to regulate the Internet in this way.

What this means is that Comcast now has the right within the law to slow down connections to various websites or other services if they want to, with no legal recourse available. Now, some of you may say that Comcast will not do that, because it runs the risk of them losing customers. The problem with that idea is that, in many places, there is only one provider for high-speed broadband Internet.

There are basically four tiers of Internet connections for residential use. Dial-up is the lowest, which is transmitted over an open phone line. Next would be DSL, which also travels over a phone line, but at a faster speed than dial-up. DSL is measurably slower than the third tier, cable Internet. The fourth tier would be a fiber optic, or fios, connection.

Comcast is a provider in the third tier, a cable Internet connection. Should Comcast decide to slow down connections, my choices are to stay with them, or to move down to another, slower tier of service. Fios is not an option for many, as they do not offer service in many parts of the country, my town included. It gets even more complicated for some who live in a housing development or apartment complex, as these areas often have a mandated ISP. If that ISP chooses to throttle their connections, the customers have zero recourse.

Those that do not use something like Bittorrent would be far from immune from these changes. To keep using Comcast as an example, Comcast is currently trying to purchase NBC. Should this deal go through, Comcast would have the power to slow down connections to competing network's websites (like ABC or CBS), in order to drive more traffic to the network they own.

As things stand right now, the only way the FCC could gain the authority (without Congress passing a new law) is to reclassify Internet access as a telecommunications service. The FCC has the authority to regulate telecoms, due in large part because of the regional monopoly levels that telecoms enjoy, the same way that ISPs have regional monopolies.

I hear a lot of people talk about how Capitalism works based on choice. If you do something your customer does not like, they will go to your competitor. This is broken when it comes to ISPs. I have not even discussed things like pricing where there is no competition. As our society becomes even more dependent on the Internet to function, it should not be within the power of one company to control the access of such a large percent of the population to information.

Congress should either give the power to the FCC to ensure that Net Neutrality is a legally protected reality, or the FCC should take the initiative to reclassify the ISPs as telecoms, so that they have the ability to regulate these companies.

Being a Good Team Member

Since PAX East is still pretty fresh in my mind, I wanted to do another post related to something that I saw while I was there. As I said in my very first post, I plan to do things that are not always related to gaming/geek issues, and I have a great idea for a post that I am researching a bit now.

I went to a panel called "MMO Gamer Behavior 101" while at PAX. I'll be honest, I did not find it incredibly enticing. I must not have been alone in this, because it was the only panel I was at that by the end of it, the room had a lot of empty seats.

Regardless, it can serve as a good jumping off point to talk about online gamer behavior in a few different types of games. While I am sure I could do a whole post about Xbox Live kiddies and their wonderful grasp of the English language, that's not my plan.

Instead, I am afraid I need to pick on one of my friends who I was there with again, yes the same one I got into the DRM debate with. As we are all WoW players, but play the game very, very differently, we obviously come at it with different views. Still, I was surprised at an attitude he took in regards to one of my pet-peeves, sub-optimal play.

The WoW community is a big one. Within that community, there are many different types of players. Some love to play the auction house, some are collectors, some do a lot of PvP (Player vs. Player), and some focus on PvE (Player vs. Environment, or AI controlled opponents). Because within the game there are so many different stats and modifiers to your character, sometimes it takes quite a lot of effort to be able to identify things such as the right gear, stats, or talent specializations to go for. The good news is, there are some VERY smart people who take the time to figure out how to best balance all of these aspects (the best of which are over at Elitist Jerks). They put all the data up on the net, where others examine it for accuracy. In other words, 99% of the player base have no need to figure this out, because they have easy-access to peer-reviewed information about how to be the best at their classes.

Which is why I get so frustrated when I am in a group with someone that is clearly not paying attention to this data, so that their character is far below optimal levels. Totalbiscuit on a recent Blue Plz! episode covered this - in his normal hilarious manner - in relation to Frost-specced mages, which are so far below any other spec it is absurd. Now, the normal response I get to this position is something along the lines of "It's just a game, I am playing how I want to play and how I enjoy it!" (usually without the level of grammar I just used). This is the wrong attitude to have.

When you join a group of other players, you have a responsibility to play as a good team mate. Just because you can do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do, no matter the levels of personal enjoyment you get out of it. If you are playing soccer, you CAN take the ball and put it in your own goal, but that does not mean you SHOULD. That would make you a bad teammate. Just because you CAN spec something, despite it measurably slowing down a group, does not mean you SHOULD. See what I mean?

No one is asking you to do original research here or reinvent the wheel. As I said earlier, the data and information is all out there. Yet even when pointed in the direction of that information, all too often they say they don't even want it, because "it is their $15 a month, and they will play the way they want too." Sure, if they were doing nothing but solo content, that would absolutely be a legitimate position. But the truth is, when you are playing with 4/9/24 other players, your personal enjoyment goes out the window, and it is your responsibility to perform in the best way for the team.

Just remember the old phrase: "There is no 'I' in 'team.'"

-Nova