Thursday, April 5th 2018

Entertainment Software Association Puts Its Hat in Court Against Net Neutrality Repeal

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has gone to court to fight against the FCC's plan at averting net neutrality. This is a deep, important issue that's seen rivers of ink flow already; but this take from the association that represents companies such as Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Bethesda, Capcom, Disney, EA, Epic Games, Konami, Magic Leap, Nvidia, Ubisoft, Square Enix, and Warner Bros. comes out to show the impacts that the end of net neutrality could bring about for gamers.

The concerns put forward stand at various levels: one, internet speed throttling could end up giving players negative experiences in connected gaming scenarios (and most games nowadays employ - or try to employ - some sort of online portion as it is). Two, online gaming, by its very nature, sees what could be some solutions to the problem that can be used by other services (such as buffering) unavailable to it. Moreover, the ESA refers the court to troubles in digital game distribution (as ISPs could throttle time and data-consuming digital game downloads.

On their brief, filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the ESA says that "The FCC's Order eliminates the rules that prevent broadband providers from blocking, throttling, and otherwise interfering with consumers' access to content online. Absent these protections, ESA and its member companies will have no effective legal recourse against broadband provider conduct that impairs consumers' online video game experiences. In particular, broadband providers are now permitted to engage in practices that degrade consumers' traffic. That, in turn, could have significant consequences for the enjoyment of multiplayer online games and cloud-based game play services, both of which require low-latency connections to support rapid and continuous interactivity."
Source: ArsTechnica
Add your own comment

15 Comments on Entertainment Software Association Puts Its Hat in Court Against Net Neutrality Repeal

#1
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
In other words, How are payers players going to open their loot boxes and make use of other much needed/desired/addictedto microtransactions in realtime if their player base as poopie internet connections.

Get the hell out of here ESA
Posted on Reply
#2
hat
Enthusiast
I doubt any throttling of games, though unfair, would even be detected by anybody. Online games don't really require that much bandwidth, unless you are hosting a server. That said, it's no reason to let them get away with unfair practices.

In this case I suppose they're doing the right thing by fighting for net neutrality, so there's that. A lot of us have a bad opinion of them, but we could all benefit from this.
Posted on Reply
#3
toilet pepper
All is fair and dandy until nobody wants to buy your 155Gb game because it will exceed the alloted limit of your plan. How about this 20Gb DLC update that you didnt buy but need to install just to play?
Posted on Reply
#4
Brusfantomet
Doing right, for the wrong reasons.
toilet pepper
All is fair and dandy until nobody wants to buy your 155Gb game because it will exceed the alloted limit of your plan. How about this 20Gb DLC update that you didnt buy but need to install just to play?
a 155 Gb game is 19,4 GB but i guess you were meaning 155 GB, not that a 20 GB game is small.
Posted on Reply
#5
Xzibit
hat
I doubt any throttling of games, though unfair, would even be detected by anybody. Online games don't really require that much bandwidth, unless you are hosting a server. That said, it's no reason to let them get away with unfair practices.
Most online gamers are probably more affected by the Meltdown & Specter patches. Blizzard said in a statement that with the new patches it was too taxing for packets to be time stamped.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vayra86
FreedomEclipse
In other words, How are payers players going to open their loot boxes and make use of other much needed/desired/addictedto microtransactions in realtime if their player base as poopie internet connections.

Get the hell out of here ESA
What? This is a legitimate concern. While I agree ESA is far from neutral, the goal they have here is very transparent and you should consider it important too for yourself. Compare it to a power grid, because essentially the internet today is virtually as essential to us as water, gas and electric - imagine if only the big spenders would decide how much kWh you'd be limited to per day, or if they just cut off your (gaming/mining) rig because it takes over 800W and 'we can't have that!'...

Or take another very practical example in mobile network coverage, which is fully into the hands of commercial parties who decide for you 'what is fair use' and even 'where coverage is important and where it is not' - resulting in less populated areas that still live in the stone age in terms of connectivity.

This is literally about open and equal access to a basic and fundamental communications line and making it more commercial only plays out against us and into the pockets of the top 3%.
Posted on Reply
#7
Tsukiyomi91
Defending what's important is something everyone should do, not just letting the governments & its agencies controlling us on what we should use, read, consume etc. No one here wanted to get limited or restricted access to all the available resources, like the Internet. It's stupid. Letting the higher ups do whatever they please means we're giving them free reign.
Posted on Reply
#8
_JP_
I think the default content delivery these days is video/audio, so Netflix, Amazon and the likes should get on their toes over this.
The gaming industry...not really. Unless for MOBAs and games like PUBG where there are constant updates.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vayra86
_JP_
I think the default content delivery these days is video/audio, so Netflix, Amazon and the likes should get on their toes over this.
The gaming industry...not really. Unless for MOBAs and games like PUBG where there are constant updates.
You seem to forget an early example of streamed gaming such as Quantum Break. Also think of episodic content, on-demand game streaming, etcetera. High bandwidth usage for gaming is definitely in the cards and already happening, and as the mainstream connections get better, that will only increase further.
Posted on Reply
#10
Ahhzz
Brusfantomet
Doing right, for the wrong reasons.

.....
I'll take that....
Posted on Reply
#11
evernessince
Brusfantomet
Doing right, for the wrong reasons.



a 155 Gb game is 19,4 GB but i guess you were meaning 155 GB, not that a 20 GB game is small.
Doesn't matter, they are on the side of good for now. A wise general never turns down soldiers now that might one day be his enemies otherwise.
Posted on Reply
#12
Totally
I don't know much about networking but it artificially limiting speeds would be counterintuitive from and a financial and operational perspective. People, their customers are going to adapt by just sitting on the networks longer instead of getting what they need and going offline resulting in greater network congestion therefore more stress on the provider's network therefore higher maintenance costs. It just seems like a great way to shoot themselves in the foot. If I can see this internet companies can see this too.
Posted on Reply
#13
evernessince
Totally
I don't know much about networking but it artificially limiting speeds would be counterintuitive from and a financial and operational perspective. People, their customers are going to adapt by just sitting on the networks longer instead of getting what they need and going offline resulting in greater network congestion therefore more stress on the provider's network therefore higher maintenance costs. It just seems like a great way to shoot themselves in the foot. If I can see this internet companies can see this too.
Yes it would cause more network congestion but that doesn't really matter because American citizens are no longer gauranteed decent service since Net Neutrality was repealed.

Also, just a quick tip, more stress on the network does not create more maintenance. The majority of ISP maintenance is from weather and seasonal damage. That's even assuming the network in your area is being stressed. Where I live Spectrum keeps people at lower speeds artificially and refuses to upgrade anyone to any of the advertised speeds. Only new customers are entitled to the speeds you see on their website or in an ad. Otherwise they say you are still on a time warner plan and require you to pay $40 extra to get the advertised speed.
Posted on Reply
#14
Totally
Don't network switches burn out after being pushed for too long
Posted on Reply
#15
hat
Enthusiast
Not that I've ever seen, at least if they're properly maintained. Anything can burn out, including a piece of network equipment that might be overheating due to insufficient cooling or something... stuff needs to be taken care of, that's how things last.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment