With net neutrality gone. What impact will this have on gaming?

@BenjaminBanklin: because those providers provide the infrastructure to get that internet into people's businesses and residences. Those networks take constant mantainence and upgrading. Most people complain about their TV service and internet because Spectrum/Bright House/Comcast/Time Warner etc have literally taken over networks that where designed with enough signal to provide homes with 2-4 TVs max. Now we have modems sometimes multiple, 2-8 tvs people want in their homes. They don't want there service to suffer, there are peak times. Large streaming sites are taking up the bulk of this usage. People that wear XXL sized cloths pay more for their shirt than the L peeps.

I'm no saint and I've done sketchy shit on the internet and have seen or go free stuff. But Cable providers have a right to protect their business, even if you think they are evil and shady.

@PurpleMan5000: true story, AT&T has already attempted to block Facetime/IMessages

Your analogy doesn't work. People already pay more for the internet depending on what they want, the same as a fat guy might pay more for an XXL shirt. Want a better download speed? Or you might be after better up load speed, data caps or unlimited data etc. The ISPs don't own the internet and they shouldn't be aloud to dictate what people use their bandwidth on provided they're not breaking any laws.

Do you think an electricity company should tell you how to use the power that you pay for?

@xxyetixx: Internet providers absolutely should have the right to charge heavy users more than light users. That has nothing to do with net neutrality, though.

@micky4889: he was asking why should a Netflix pay more that's where the ananlogy refers to. Different ISPs offer different choices now. I have basic Spectrum internet like 60 down no data cap all's well.

I don't where you live but the electric company will most def tell you what you can do with your electricity if you are doing illegal shit.

I love how people are acting like this is the end of the internet as you know it. Look at works you'll see a extra cost in your internet bill but I highly doubt things are about to go draconian level of bad like people predict. First off there are too many ISPs for them to all just start QoS each other to make their product look better. And even if they did you wouldn't know the difference because all the other services would be moving just as slow. As far as the impact on gaming from a MS prospective little to none. MS owns data centers and leased line of fiber so they would be fine. Sony well I'm not to sure about them so best of luck there and the same can be said about Nintendo. PC online gaming should be fine as well they practically fall under the MS branch anyway.

I have to laugh when an ISP dares to complain about bandwidth. How many billions did they get to improve infrastructure? Around 200 billions dollars I hear. Bandwidth is not an issue, if they've done their job at all. And if they haven't done their job they shouldn't complain to the consumer who provided the means. They should finish the job before they point their finger at the consumer. Don't give in to data caps or some such nonsense. Don't believe a word they say.

Or I suppose 400 billion for the whole thing.

For now, the EU is protecting net neutrality in the UK. But after Brexit happens, there's a real possibility of net neutrality being under risk here.

The Democrats were pro-net-neutrality and the Republicans were anti-net-neutrality. Americans voted Republicans, so they're just getting what they voted for.

I find the words used misleading a little bit ... because at first I thought it was about freedom of expression ... and just block some website and control what USA will be able to watch like it is the case in China.

As it turn out each internet provider will have exclusivity ... otherwise you'll pay. Or charge more for this or that. Oh you like to watch this ... hum no.

Brexit has bugger all to do with the U.S. putting Trump in power. The many reasons behind it have nothing to with putting a clown in charge of the most powerful country in the world (still it's better than the warmonger alternative)

"warmonger alternative"... as if threatening to nuke an entire nation isn't warmongering. Okay.

Are their really that many different options for people? People in rural areas usually only have one choice, and in some areas, different providers are contracted through a major service provider. Their are already enough sites out there running by the skin of their teeth so starting this pay-to-play crap just to get a leg up with the major sites is bullshit. If anything, this is going to slim the market more.

There are so many people here that think prices will be cheaper once they can shakedown websites, which is bullshit. The whole point of this is to make more money, when have these providers ever passed on the spoils of their wealth to the customer? Absolutely fucking never. But, this is America, it never ceases to shock me how eager people are to **** themselves over to stand with their political team over any dumb issue they champion.

So, Brexit and Trump clearly weren't signs of the rise of the far/alt-right in the western world, hell, totalitarian leaders in general (Phillipines and Duterte)? Granted, France kind of crippled that, but okay then.

Oh, and "warmonger alternative?" Yeah *points to North Korea*...

Yeah, because Trump didn't totally issue a MOAB to kill a small group of enemy combatants or something.

I suppose this essentially is the death knell of p2p clients?

Brexit hasn't put a far right totalitarian leader in power in the UK, hell it's come close to putting a far left socialist, near communist in power. (not that Trump is anywhere close to being a totalitarian dictator). Brexit is about taking control of our own country back from a corrupt and unelected bureaucracy. Far better to have our own elected corrupt MP's setting the table than a bunch of bureaucrats who don't even have their own country's best interests at heart let alone a foreign one. What you need to understand is that MEP's are toothless figure heads on a gravy train, all decisions made by the EU are done in the back rooms and MEP's are then told what to vote for. It's really nothing but Germany's third attempt at creating a European super state with them at the centre, the difference is this time they have used the pen rather than the sword.

Had you guys elected Clinton she'd have started a war with Russia by shooting down their aircraft in Syria and they are far more dangerous and have a hell of a lot more nukes than North Korea. As for Trump's rhetoric with Kim/North Korea, you've been a member of this site since 2007 and can't spot a troll? He's using the exact same language that N.K. have always directed at the U.S. That's what happens when you get an idiot and a clown arguing with each other.

Anyway I think this is wrong forum for this discussion.

France is extremely progressive. An American would think they are in the USSR when they see the kinds of rights workers have over there.

I am 1000% with you!

Exactly! We need to realize this system is broken and try something different.

We need a new America!

@BenjaminBanklin: And you are right I forget that in rural areas of the country unlike say an Atlanta which is densely populated there is a way bigger selection of ISP choices. The point I'm trying to make is that while the removal of net neutrality could be disastrous I don't see it going the way people fearing it to go. To be honest and I'm kinda not surprised ISP didn't do this, but treat all usage the same and charge by the gigabyte per usage and speed while dropping the data cap. So for instance you pay 10 cents per gigabyte of usage at a speed of 1 gigabyte download. Now if a person uses 600 gigabytes that person pays 60 dollars that month. I mean ISPs already monitor you data already and could easily switch over to this system. And effectively this could, which is why I think they have the cap in the first, make people watch how much data they consume.

In the age of Trump (did you happen to catch the most recent debacle of limiting words the CDC could use in it's budget?) I wouldn't put it past them.

Those who believe "neutrality" had anything to do with this are gullible McFly's. lol The last thing you should want is more Gov regs, especially the internet. With govs so corrupted with swamp rats and the deep state types... GTFO. :P

Net neutrality isn't all bad, and it isn't all good either. The best way for it to be handled, would be something like this...

1. Pass a law that prohibits "fast lanes" and throttling.

2. Repeal everything else regarding net neutrality including it's title 2 classification.

Adopting net neutrality may have had the intention of helping the consumer, but it really hurt network infrastructure and innovation.

I love how some people think net neutrality is the reason for the shit internet infrastructure in the US

Here's a map of the world showing countries with some form of net neutrality in blue

https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org

Notice how all the countries with the fastest speeds and best infrastructure have net neutrality. Maybe because these ISPs can't nickel and dime everyone with fast lanes ect. So they actually have to invest in their services to get people's custom.

Haha and look at that club with no net neutrality in yellow.. Russia, China and the USA. That has to be the winning team, amirite?

@micky4889: Your post is wrong on just about every point.

Russia for instance, does have net neutrality. The map in your link is either outdated by a few years, or is just flat out wrong. Japan on the other hand, has a largely hands off approach to how they handle the internet. In fact... Chile was the first country to adopt full on net neutrality.

Anyone could make an argument like yours, point, and say "Look, net neutrality is good for infrastructure". When you know how the system works though, you'll find that it really doesn't work that way.

Like I said before. Get rid of the throttling, and fast lanes. That makes sense. Ditch everything else about NN though, as it kills infrastructure improvements. ISP's like Clear, and Google fiber didn't stall, get suspended, or cancelled right after NN was adopted for no reason.

Telling people to "Google it" will cost money.

I'll leave this here.

I get that people have a natural repulsion against government involvement. That makes sense. But be mindful, mega corporations especially in the USA have accumulated so much power that they may be at the same level or even worse than the government. You don't think a mega corporate dangling a couple mill in front of your president's eyes will make him sign? Maybe. Sure, removing NN has gotten rid of some government influence by setting rates, but it has given mega corporations way more power than they had before. More power than before 2015, when the tech wasn't as advanced.

And do keep in mind that the first companies to sell their souls to the government without hesitation were the telecom companies shipping all your data. And this is a guess I'm making but I wouldn't be surprised if all of the big ISP's in the USA are/were the very same telecom companies. If that is the case then your ISP's are practically extensions of the government. They're not going to say no to a request the government makes.

I don't think some people realize the government doesn't regulate the internet, they regulate the ISPs that regulate the internet. Major difference right there. You aren't getting more freedom, the ISPs are.

The GOP prey on the ignorant.

Good thing I don’t live in America. Don’t even have free healthcare or paid medical leaves heh.

America is one of the world's most capitalist nations, after all.

@clefdefa: It's making the step to government censorship much smaller. If half the US population already cannot access a site, then who is going to stand up if they collectively ban it? The idea of an internet with information that everyone can access is then shot to pieces already.

@babyjoker1221: For all intends and purposes those bits of NN is what everyone means when they say NN, including the proof ISP's have to deliver of complying with it.

In the UK we never had net neutrality, nothing seems majorly fucked up.

Companies that engage in bad practises will kill themselves, competition is a great thing. People are acting like the government will force service providers to do bad things, it makes no business sense.

I would be more pissed off by ISP's having download limits, in the UK it's not really a thing. I think what people should be asking for is breaking up the monopolies.

The UK has net neutrality. Net neutrality is protected under the EU.

@uninspiredcup: It actually it is the world- We have the biggest economy and when our economy is in the dumps so is the rest of the world. We also have the best military so.... yeah. Everything we do affects other countries in some way, shape or form. I know I am coming off a bit ignorant, but its true.

Now on the whole net neutrality thing, here is my stance. I don't think any ISP should ever block content, that is a clear war on free speech. That being said, if certain ISPs decide to do this (which it hasn't even been proven that they will) then that is where the free market will come in. If an ISP blocks my content, or slows my speeds, I am just going to go with another ISP that doesn't. This narrative that the ISPs are all out to get the consumer and that they are going to cripple and change the internet forever is a bit misleading. I think it is mostly fear-mongering; I honestly do not think a lot is going to change and I eventually think that the net neutrality changes will ultimately be reverted since it has stirred up such a shit storm.