Internet Neutrality after Dec 14 and its impact

Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?

Anet will in no way see any money from extra charges ISPs will tack on. If anything, both us as players, and ANet will be charged extra by ISPs. Don't be mistaken, if this vote goes through and the Congress does nothing to stop it in some fashion then it will be worse for everyone involved.

@Korgan Dunblane.4907 said:Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

Look guy - there is nothing that says we'll have to pay more to play games. Individual ISPs haven't said whether that's their policy. Some, like Comcast, said they have no intention of doing that. I think part of what we're seeing here is a big scare campaign to make everyone think the internet is going to die. It's not. It's pulling back regulation which isn't always a bad thing.

If companies start doing some of the stuff you guys are saying WILL happen, then I think you should argue it then. Right now that's not the world we have so stop screaming that the sky is falling.

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

@Korgan Dunblane.4907 said:Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

So, not a problem to you then?

@Endless Soul.5178 said:

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

@Korgan Dunblane.4907 said:Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

@Chickenooble.5014 saidNo, I'm not really concerned about it right now. It's pulling back regulation to pre-2015 levels of regulation. All the talk about ISPs slowing speeds, blocking websites and slicing up the internet into various access channels isn't concerning because that wasn't a thing in 2015. Could it happen now? Sure, I guess. But did it happen then? Not really... just a few cases in the history of the internet in the USA.

Just because they didn't means jack-all. If they get legistlation to back them up in their endeavors, ISPs will abuse the hell out of whatever they can to make a quick buck. ISPs in America are absurdly predatory and try their hardest to nickel and dime consumers before actually improving on their services to make money.

@Cuon Alpinus.7645 said:

@Chickenooble.5014 saidNo, I'm not really concerned about it right now. It's pulling back regulation to pre-2015 levels of regulation. All the talk about ISPs slowing speeds, blocking websites and slicing up the internet into various access channels isn't concerning because that wasn't a thing in 2015. Could it happen now? Sure, I guess. But did it happen then? Not really... just a few cases in the history of the internet in the USA.

Only one of us here seems to have knowledge of how the internet was pre-2015 Net Neutrality regulations. It wasn't as bad as you say it will be if the regulation is pulled back. How come?

Edit: How do you "improve services to make money" when the FCC is saying you can't charge people more if they use more of the internet bandwidth? I see the repeal of these regulations as a way for the ISPs to actually get more money from the people who use more internet bandwidth. Phone companies do it, right?

The end of net neutrality, which is inevitable given the impending 3-2 vote, is a strike against consumer protection. Given the political party that is in total control of the US federal government this move is not a surprise. That's the bad news. The good news is that you have several opportunities to start the ball rolling the other way in 2018 and again in 2020. Remember December 14th when you go to the polls.

The concept of net neutrality is great and its basically what we have had even before 'net neutrality" regulations.So why would the establishment be so pro net neutrality? That's what I'd like to know. You research that and you come to find that it federalizes it, potentially making it easier through law to spy and other non essential government interventions.

For instance, in the future, what if ___ (insert your cause, race, philosophy, or religion) is considered hate speech? If the internet is more under control of the government, then the government will have a much easier time censoring free speech.

Net neutrality is awesome, but we better be careful in how it is ensured.

Why the fuck is net neutrality an why do I have to pay for it?

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

@Korgan Dunblane.4907 said:Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

Arguing something after the fact is synonymous to putting up a traffic light at an intersection after someone's killed crossing the street. So, net neutrality is only 2 years old, okay. Before 2015, ISPs didn't charge extra or whatever except in minor cases as you said. Okay. Maybe in the 2 years, Comcast (said we won't, but does not mean they WON'T) and others, realized they had their hands tied and want the cuffs removed so that someday they COULD charge more and create tier packages to charge more for the likes of streaming youtube over their own channel. Those defending Net-Neutrality see what could happen.. and want to fight it now.

Example: if I end up having to dish out more money per month to play GW2. GW2 gets deleted. Period. Anet should know that I am not the only one who would.

People are concerned. IS it valid or paranoia, December 15th will tell. In the meantime, I am hoping that what We HAVE, stays.

C

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

If companies start doing some of the stuff you guys are saying WILL happen, then I think you should argue it then. Right now that's not the world we have so stop screaming that the sky is falling.

They were starting to. That's why regulation were created.

@Chickenooble.5014 said:No, I'm not really concerned about it right now. It's pulling back regulation to pre-2015 levels of regulation. All the talk about ISPs slowing speeds, blocking websites and slicing up the internet into various access channels isn't concerning because that wasn't a thing in 2015. Could it happen now? Sure, I guess. But did it happen then? Not really... just a few cases in the history of the internet in the USA.

Tampering happened, and the current head of the FCC fought tooth and nail to let it happen for his then employer Verizon.

Don't kid yourself, if you don't regulate a system like this it's only a matter of time before a corporation will attempt to take advantage of it.

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

@Cuon Alpinus.7645 said:

@Chickenooble.5014 saidNo, I'm not really concerned about it right now. It's pulling back regulation to pre-2015 levels of regulation. All the talk about ISPs slowing speeds, blocking websites and slicing up the internet into various access channels isn't concerning because that wasn't a thing in 2015. Could it happen now? Sure, I guess. But did it happen then? Not really... just a few cases in the history of the internet in the USA.

Woah now, slow down there. They were extremely abusive! But to step back from that, I wouldn't trust Ajit Pai to tell me the time of day, nevermind make a decision on behalf of the FCC or corporate America. Public utilities are just that - public utilities. Opening doors for more mergers and monopolization is bad, regardless of whether or not you think it will effect the consumer (warning: as competition goes down, it would). The FCC spin is new and innovative options to ~~provide tailored internet plans ~~ buyback stocks for shareholders.

I don't necessarily agree with Net Neutrality, but the "pre-2015 regulations" weren't very...regulatory. We definitely need to be able to define what on the internet constitutes a utility and what (like Netflix) is serviceable rather than throwing it all in one basket at the leisure of companies that already bleed consumers for as much as they can.

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

@Korgan Dunblane.4907 said:Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

You do not give the Fox the key to the hen house and expect it not to use it. The idea is that all content on the internet is held at the mercy of ISPs to speed it or slow it down is beyond stupid. Anyone thinks this will work otherwise, well.. I guess now it makes sense we have stupid and/or clearly corrupt politicians elected.

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

@Korgan Dunblane.4907 said:Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

Actually, the big ISPs said they'd do exactly that. They want to charge extra for high speed access to things that take up a lot of bandwidth, like Netflix. Not all games are the same, and I'm sure things like Steam, Xbox Live, and others will be affected. GW2 is an internet hog. Not as much as video streaming, but a lot. It's very possible GW2 may be effected. They are suggesting to completely unleash the regulations on ISPs so why wouldn't they do whatever they wanted, especially to those who have no choice in providers. This is nothing but a bad thing.

An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

@Chickenooble.5014 said:An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

You must be one of the people that also supports RNG loot boxes

@Chickenooble.5014 said:An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

You seem to have conveniently forgotten or ignored the instances in the past where ISPs have actually throttled data from services/websites they didn't like. Similarly, you have either forgotten or are ignoring the fact that multiple ISPs were paid BILLIONS of USD by the federal government a few decades ago to upgrade their infrastructure, and then just pocketed the money. After that fiasco you can no longer use this argument in defense of them, because they were literally handed money and didn't use it to improve their infrastructure.

@Chickenooble.5014 said:An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

You already pay more if you use more bandwidth. It's not what Network Neutrality is about.What ISP and plan are you using?

@Chickenooble.5014 said:An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

It goes beyond charging more for more bandwidth. They will have the power to block or slow down sites or services which they disagree with politically, or because the site/service in question doesn't pay them kickbacks, or because they are supporting a competitor of the site, or because they feel like it. For example, what if your ISP contracts with Google, and slows down or blocks services from Google competitors? What if your ISP is run by the same corporation that owns Hulu, and they decide to slow down Netflix? What if your ISP is run by a CEO or organization with strong religious leanings, and blocks any content that conflicts with their religious beliefs? What if the ISP is run by political right- or left-wingers who will block news websites whose coverage leans the 'wrong' way?

And, yeah, you can sit there and say it's not going to happen, but if it isn't going to happen, why legalize it? Why spend millions lobbying Congress to legalize it?

@Chickenooble.5014 said:

@Korgan Dunblane.4907 said:Hey All,Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

Any other info out there?Oh, look, another thread on the internet where everyone comes in here acting like they're experts on internet and communication policy while forgetting what the internet was like pre-2015 and how all the terrible things people say will happen really didn't happen except in a few small cases. Go on, internet professionals. Tell us all how the world is going to fall apart if we have to go back to pre-2015 levels of regulation... because pre-2015 was the absolute worst, right?

I've read on the internet that GW2 will be a dead game in 6 months also. On this very forum. 4 years ago.

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@Chickenooble.5014 said:An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

And yet websites like google, facebook and youtube are already black balling contributors for content that they don't agree with politically. What's the difference?

@Zero Day.2594 said:

@Chickenooble.5014 said:An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

You say that like it's a bad thing. I support RNG loot boxes. I support freedom.

Well if we look back to what Comcast did to Netflix, then we'll see a lot more of it. Anet won't have any real say in what happens when this goes through. Sorry if you're holding out for Trump and GOP to grow a brain, but they don't need bipartisan support to pass it and it does everything they want by minimizing oversight at expense of the taxpayer. Small companies are going to bullied out of the market and that's where we're headed. And the worst part is for those unfamiliar with cable business practice, there is no competition. Dish isn't better as both Direct TV and Dish Network are owned by the same parent company. We're looking at a monopoly on all fronts pretending to be different entities and the GOP has no intention of stopping that, their tax plan is to give them a 15% break.

Sorry this response is completely political, but there may not be a future for much in the small business industry. The best we can hope for is that Comcast and others will ignore Anet and exploit other large name platforms for their financial gain.

I'll might as well nip this in the bud. No I don't think a completely Democrat government would fix it. We need political balance where no party has unchecked power, it's so far the only way to keep them somewhat honest. Seriously who though the Supreme Court, House, Senate, and President in one party control was going to turn out better?