4 ms·

Nah. Real time gaming only transfers a minimal amount of bytes over the line so in reality your several hours of FPS fragging is only like 30 megabytes over the

Nah. Real time gaming only transfers a minimal amount of bytes over the line so in reality your several hours of FPS fragging is only like 30 megabytes over the line. It's less than 1% of typical household internet usage. When the pipes are as thick as they are these days there's no excuse not put those gaming packets at the beginning of whatever throughput priorities there are. The bittorrent traffic doesn't care about waiting an extra 30 ms and the Netflix traffic is buffered so even a 2000 ms lag won't change the experiance in anyway. Amusingly all day of gaming (minus any updates) would be less than 10% of one episode of a show in 4K quality. Gamers have no idea what they are talking about. They will blame the ISP, the gaming company, the "servers", the "net code", or anything other than themselves. They will tie up your support lines until you just give them this little win so you're not wasting all your money listening to them complain.

NoPicklez 3y ago
I agree with this, it is a bit more than 30MB but we're splitting hairs at this point. For gaming traffic, it should absolutely be prioritised because reduced lag provides the best experience. Having said that, given there is such a small amount of traffic produced from gaming, why not just make it prioritised already?
- Vvector 3y ago
  "Why give something away for free if you could charge for it?"
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    Exhibit A for why ISPs should be classified as utilities.
  - NoPicklez 3y ago
    I think as another person pointed out I don't mind so much if I can pay for improved latency, but if the standard service provided is purposefully degraded to justify it then that's when it's iffy There would also need to be some serious data to support an actual benefit compared to the standard latency
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      Cool, since gaming is not important they are going to charge 200$/month for it. How do you feel now? Because that's what's happening with datacaps, they are charging hundreds of dollars per month because there is no unlimited data on gigabit connections. Meanwhile, in Italy you at 5€/month for 50gb of phone internet. And that's sticker price!
tedunangst 3y ago
Sure, but what happens when linksys sells the megaspeed router that adds the qos bit to every packet?
- sylware 3y ago
  Yep, client abuse of the IP QOS is an issue, the idea would be to split the traffic on 2 lanes: 1 - high priority, but very and really small bandwidth (usually depending on the line tech: xDSL, cable or fiber). Usually enough bandwidth for an handful of audio calls/game traffic streams. The client is in charge of that QOS on its domestic network though. 2 - the best effort lane. Namely, the ISP would have to enforce that QOS at the modem, or line collect, namely as close to the client as possible. IPv[46] has the TOS field for that with diffserv (other?). IPv6 could tell the ISP fine grained traffic requirements with pre-defined standard IPv6 labels. There is no reasonable reasons the ISP would charge for the "fast lane". It should be default and neutral to as many ISPs as possible and ISP transits/peerings should keep the priority of the fast lane. Since the bandwidth would be limited early the network hierarchy and omega shmol, this means little to no incentive to cheat on it. That would unlock "for almost sure" high quality audio communications (with the encrypted audio stream protocol chosen by the user software/hardware) and ultra fast gaming on domestic line internet.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    This actually makes sense. Sadly I think my Roku TV would find a way to hog all of my low-latency QoS quota for data collection and advertisement purposes. But I really love the proposed paradigm a lot where everyone gets the same x% of their data as "fast-lane" and can use it for whatever they want. It's still "neutral" within the rationale of net neutrality, because the ISP isn't enforcing what lanes get used for what, the customer has total control.
    - supertrope 3y ago
      This is why Windows resets all DSCP bits to zero. Unless the PC is domain joined or you’ve manually set Group Policy. Otherwise every program would mark EF or CS7, kind of like how every smartphone app abuses notifications and wakelocks.
Sayrus 3y ago
Depending on the game, it can definitely eat a Mbps on average with spikes higher and lower, especially for competitive games with 64 or 128 refreshes per second (Or more with opportunistic updates). Recommended bandwidth for Counter Strike is 1.5Mbps, Overwatch is 3 Mbps. It's not much in comparison to watching 4K footages, but it's an order of magnitude higher than 30megabytes.

NoPicklez 3y ago

I agree with this, it is a bit more than 30MB but we're splitting hairs at this point. For gaming traffic, it should absolutely be prioritised because reduced lag provides the best experience. Having said that, given there is such a small amount of traffic produced from gaming, why not just make it prioritised already?

Vvector 3y ago
"Why give something away for free if you could charge for it?"
- hparadiz 3y ago
  Exhibit A for why ISPs should be classified as utilities.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  I think as another person pointed out I don't mind so much if I can pay for improved latency, but if the standard service provided is purposefully degraded to justify it then that's when it's iffy There would also need to be some serious data to support an actual benefit compared to the standard latency
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    Cool, since gaming is not important they are going to charge 200$/month for it. How do you feel now? Because that's what's happening with datacaps, they are charging hundreds of dollars per month because there is no unlimited data on gigabit connections. Meanwhile, in Italy you at 5€/month for 50gb of phone internet. And that's sticker price!

tedunangst 3y ago

Sure, but what happens when linksys sells the megaspeed router that adds the qos bit to every packet?

sylware 3y ago
Yep, client abuse of the IP QOS is an issue, the idea would be to split the traffic on 2 lanes: 1 - high priority, but very and really small bandwidth (usually depending on the line tech: xDSL, cable or fiber). Usually enough bandwidth for an handful of audio calls/game traffic streams. The client is in charge of that QOS on its domestic network though. 2 - the best effort lane. Namely, the ISP would have to enforce that QOS at the modem, or line collect, namely as close to the client as possible. IPv[46] has the TOS field for that with diffserv (other?). IPv6 could tell the ISP fine grained traffic requirements with pre-defined standard IPv6 labels. There is no reasonable reasons the ISP would charge for the "fast lane". It should be default and neutral to as many ISPs as possible and ISP transits/peerings should keep the priority of the fast lane. Since the bandwidth would be limited early the network hierarchy and omega shmol, this means little to no incentive to cheat on it. That would unlock "for almost sure" high quality audio communications (with the encrypted audio stream protocol chosen by the user software/hardware) and ultra fast gaming on domestic line internet.
- reaperman 3y ago
  This actually makes sense. Sadly I think my Roku TV would find a way to hog all of my low-latency QoS quota for data collection and advertisement purposes. But I really love the proposed paradigm a lot where everyone gets the same x% of their data as "fast-lane" and can use it for whatever they want. It's still "neutral" within the rationale of net neutrality, because the ISP isn't enforcing what lanes get used for what, the customer has total control.
  - supertrope 3y ago
    This is why Windows resets all DSCP bits to zero. Unless the PC is domain joined or you’ve manually set Group Policy. Otherwise every program would mark EF or CS7, kind of like how every smartphone app abuses notifications and wakelocks.

Sayrus 3y ago

Depending on the game, it can definitely eat a Mbps on average with spikes higher and lower, especially for competitive games with 64 or 128 refreshes per second (Or more with opportunistic updates). Recommended bandwidth for Counter Strike is 1.5Mbps, Overwatch is 3 Mbps. It's not much in comparison to watching 4K footages, but it's an order of magnitude higher than 30megabytes.