3 ms·

Games require very low bandwidth. They just require stability. So what are the ISPs even going to do? Just worsen the experience intentionally if you don’t pay

Games require very low bandwidth. They just require stability. So what are the ISPs even going to do? Just worsen the experience intentionally if you don’t pay more? This is late stage capitalism garbage.

Avamander 3y ago
They'll deprioritise/QoS its traffic to hell by default. I'd suspect many do so for streaming services already. Which is relatively fair (for those gaming for example) but QoS is such a double-edged sword.
- Madmallard 3y ago
  QoS?
  - Avamander 2y ago
    Quality of Service
- mminer237 2y ago
  1. That exact behavior is what the criticized draft order does ban. 2. Unless the cell tower is already overloaded, that wouldn't even matter, would it? 3. Even if it is overloaded, if everyone is deprioritized, nobody would be. Even if they prioritized gaming, that's not going to noticeably affect anyone else. The way I see it, even if cellular companies found a way to implement this, it would only affect people to the extent they're not already giving QoS priority to gamers. And gaming is pretty indistinguishable from a voice call anyway, so they would have to break that at the same time.
mminer237 3y ago
They aren't even allowed to make things worse, only better. This seems like pointless fear-mongering. Even if they don't care what people think, I can't imagine a practical way for this to affect anything.
- orbisvicis 3y ago
  They could stop maintaining a large percentage of their equipment... it's happened for telephone networks.
- Madmallard 3y ago
  Is that true? Can you put to the sources for that?
  - mminer237 2y ago
    It's the entire point of the draft order Ars is criticizing: > With the no-throttling rule, we ban conduct that is not outright blocking, but inhibits the delivery of particular content, applications, or services, or particular classes of content, applications, or services. Likewise, we prohibit conduct that impairs or degrades lawful traffic to a non-harmful device or class of devices. We interpret this prohibition to include, for example, any conduct by a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider that impairs, degrades, slows down, or renders effectively unusable particular content, services, applications, or devices, that is not reasonable network management. Our interpretation of "throttling" encompasses a wide variety of conduct that could impair or degrade an end user's ability to access content of their choosing; thus, we decline commenters' request to modify the rule to explicitly include positive and negative discrimination of content.

Avamander 3y ago

They'll deprioritise/QoS its traffic to hell by default. I'd suspect many do so for streaming services already. Which is relatively fair (for those gaming for example) but QoS is such a double-edged sword.

Madmallard 3y ago
QoS?
- Avamander 2y ago
  Quality of Service
mminer237 2y ago
1. That exact behavior is what the criticized draft order does ban. 2. Unless the cell tower is already overloaded, that wouldn't even matter, would it? 3. Even if it is overloaded, if everyone is deprioritized, nobody would be. Even if they prioritized gaming, that's not going to noticeably affect anyone else. The way I see it, even if cellular companies found a way to implement this, it would only affect people to the extent they're not already giving QoS priority to gamers. And gaming is pretty indistinguishable from a voice call anyway, so they would have to break that at the same time.

mminer237 3y ago

They aren't even allowed to make things worse, only better. This seems like pointless fear-mongering. Even if they don't care what people think, I can't imagine a practical way for this to affect anything.

orbisvicis 3y ago
They could stop maintaining a large percentage of their equipment... it's happened for telephone networks.
Madmallard 3y ago
Is that true? Can you put to the sources for that?
- mminer237 2y ago
  It's the entire point of the draft order Ars is criticizing: > With the no-throttling rule, we ban conduct that is not outright blocking, but inhibits the delivery of particular content, applications, or services, or particular classes of content, applications, or services. Likewise, we prohibit conduct that impairs or degrades lawful traffic to a non-harmful device or class of devices. We interpret this prohibition to include, for example, any conduct by a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider that impairs, degrades, slows down, or renders effectively unusable particular content, services, applications, or devices, that is not reasonable network management. Our interpretation of "throttling" encompasses a wide variety of conduct that could impair or degrade an end user's ability to access content of their choosing; thus, we decline commenters' request to modify the rule to explicitly include positive and negative discrimination of content.