<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_22_0726227</id>
	<title>Game Developers Note Net Neutrality Concerns To FCC</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264188900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"A list of <a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020380907">notes from game developers</a> (PDF) was sent in a letter to the FCC which represented a net neutrality discussion between the developers and FCC representatives.  Game Politics <a href="http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/01/20/game-developers-weigh-open-internet-fcc">sums it up nicely</a>, but the surprise is that developers are concerned with latency, not bandwidth, unlike the members of many other net neutrality discussions.  One concern is that each and every game developer will need to negotiate with each and every ISP to ensure their traffic achieves acceptable levels of latency for users. 'Mr. Dyl of Turbine stated that ISPs sometimes block traffic from online gaming providers, for reasons that are not clear, but they do not necessarily continue those blocks if they are contacted. He recalled Turbine having to call ISPs that had detected the high UDP traffic from Turbine, and had apparently decided to block the traffic and wait to see who complained.'  It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem &mdash; Netflix, YouTube and P2P &mdash; while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed: latency in online games."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " A list of notes from game developers ( PDF ) was sent in a letter to the FCC which represented a net neutrality discussion between the developers and FCC representatives .
Game Politics sums it up nicely , but the surprise is that developers are concerned with latency , not bandwidth , unlike the members of many other net neutrality discussions .
One concern is that each and every game developer will need to negotiate with each and every ISP to ensure their traffic achieves acceptable levels of latency for users .
'Mr. Dyl of Turbine stated that ISPs sometimes block traffic from online gaming providers , for reasons that are not clear , but they do not necessarily continue those blocks if they are contacted .
He recalled Turbine having to call ISPs that had detected the high UDP traffic from Turbine , and had apparently decided to block the traffic and wait to see who complained .
' It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem    Netflix , YouTube and P2P    while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed : latency in online games .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "A list of notes from game developers (PDF) was sent in a letter to the FCC which represented a net neutrality discussion between the developers and FCC representatives.
Game Politics sums it up nicely, but the surprise is that developers are concerned with latency, not bandwidth, unlike the members of many other net neutrality discussions.
One concern is that each and every game developer will need to negotiate with each and every ISP to ensure their traffic achieves acceptable levels of latency for users.
'Mr. Dyl of Turbine stated that ISPs sometimes block traffic from online gaming providers, for reasons that are not clear, but they do not necessarily continue those blocks if they are contacted.
He recalled Turbine having to call ISPs that had detected the high UDP traffic from Turbine, and had apparently decided to block the traffic and wait to see who complained.
'  It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem — Netflix, YouTube and P2P — while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed: latency in online games.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30863988</id>
	<title>Re:but the users wouldn't tolerate it, anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264157280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I modded you down because for some reason you think that you deserve a special font.  You do not.  Let your posts stand out on their own, not because your feel the need to change the font.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I modded you down because for some reason you think that you deserve a special font .
You do not .
Let your posts stand out on their own , not because your feel the need to change the font .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I modded you down because for some reason you think that you deserve a special font.
You do not.
Let your posts stand out on their own, not because your feel the need to change the font.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857378</id>
	<title>Not any surprise</title>
	<author>enriquevagu</author>
	<datestamp>1264152780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>the surprise is that developers are concerned with latency, not bandwidth, unlike the members of many other net neutrality discussions</i>
<p>
Actually, this is no surprise at all. Maybe most people only focus on the raw speed - i.e., throughput. However, for many applications, the latency - and the lack of sudden latency variations - is more important. These apps are called "inelastic", because they don't tolerate changes in the latency. For example: In a real-time VoIP application, sudden changes in latency make delayed packets useless and the voice gets cut. Yep, you can use a buffer, but that will add an anoying delay in your conversation, so in general the application is highly sensitive to latency changes.
</p><p>
The same happens with games. If you are playing against sb else, your latency can determine if you live or die. AND, the main problem is that the only solution comes from QoS mechanisms that tag, segregate and priorize different flows of traffic. What, I believe, is somehow against net neutrality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the surprise is that developers are concerned with latency , not bandwidth , unlike the members of many other net neutrality discussions Actually , this is no surprise at all .
Maybe most people only focus on the raw speed - i.e. , throughput .
However , for many applications , the latency - and the lack of sudden latency variations - is more important .
These apps are called " inelastic " , because they do n't tolerate changes in the latency .
For example : In a real-time VoIP application , sudden changes in latency make delayed packets useless and the voice gets cut .
Yep , you can use a buffer , but that will add an anoying delay in your conversation , so in general the application is highly sensitive to latency changes .
The same happens with games .
If you are playing against sb else , your latency can determine if you live or die .
AND , the main problem is that the only solution comes from QoS mechanisms that tag , segregate and priorize different flows of traffic .
What , I believe , is somehow against net neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the surprise is that developers are concerned with latency, not bandwidth, unlike the members of many other net neutrality discussions

Actually, this is no surprise at all.
Maybe most people only focus on the raw speed - i.e., throughput.
However, for many applications, the latency - and the lack of sudden latency variations - is more important.
These apps are called "inelastic", because they don't tolerate changes in the latency.
For example: In a real-time VoIP application, sudden changes in latency make delayed packets useless and the voice gets cut.
Yep, you can use a buffer, but that will add an anoying delay in your conversation, so in general the application is highly sensitive to latency changes.
The same happens with games.
If you are playing against sb else, your latency can determine if you live or die.
AND, the main problem is that the only solution comes from QoS mechanisms that tag, segregate and priorize different flows of traffic.
What, I believe, is somehow against net neutrality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857722</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>sahonen</author>
	<datestamp>1264158540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that this requires simultaneous cooperation from everybody at once, and you're also relying on application developers to not give themselves more priority than they really need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that this requires simultaneous cooperation from everybody at once , and you 're also relying on application developers to not give themselves more priority than they really need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that this requires simultaneous cooperation from everybody at once, and you're also relying on application developers to not give themselves more priority than they really need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857458</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1264153980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no surprise at all that latency matters more for games. I'd rather have a 10ms/1mbps connection to a server than a 100ms/10mbps connection, rather than a 600ms/60mbps connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no surprise at all that latency matters more for games .
I 'd rather have a 10ms/1mbps connection to a server than a 100ms/10mbps connection , rather than a 600ms/60mbps connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no surprise at all that latency matters more for games.
I'd rather have a 10ms/1mbps connection to a server than a 100ms/10mbps connection, rather than a 600ms/60mbps connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857662</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1264157520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency wouldn't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting.</p></div><p>The hard part is implementing the ability to do that kind of prioritization internet-wide.  I'm too lazy to go dig it up, but there was an analysis published a few years back that suggested any possible benefit of building 'smarts' into the network could be achieved simply by increasing the available bandwidth by roughly 30\%. And that it was far cheaper to keep the network dumb, as it has been since pretty much the beginning of the internet, and just add capacity than it would be to add all the computative and buffering functionality required to make it smart enough to do prioritization reliably.  (Its cheap and easy to do it unreliably, but if it ain't going be reliable, what's the point?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency would n't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting.The hard part is implementing the ability to do that kind of prioritization internet-wide .
I 'm too lazy to go dig it up , but there was an analysis published a few years back that suggested any possible benefit of building 'smarts ' into the network could be achieved simply by increasing the available bandwidth by roughly 30 \ % .
And that it was far cheaper to keep the network dumb , as it has been since pretty much the beginning of the internet , and just add capacity than it would be to add all the computative and buffering functionality required to make it smart enough to do prioritization reliably .
( Its cheap and easy to do it unreliably , but if it ai n't going be reliable , what 's the point ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency wouldn't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting.The hard part is implementing the ability to do that kind of prioritization internet-wide.
I'm too lazy to go dig it up, but there was an analysis published a few years back that suggested any possible benefit of building 'smarts' into the network could be achieved simply by increasing the available bandwidth by roughly 30\%.
And that it was far cheaper to keep the network dumb, as it has been since pretty much the beginning of the internet, and just add capacity than it would be to add all the computative and buffering functionality required to make it smart enough to do prioritization reliably.
(Its cheap and easy to do it unreliably, but if it ain't going be reliable, what's the point?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857730</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1264158660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyone downloading GBs of data at high priorities by hacking the default settings could be noticed quickly sanctioned appropriately for being a**holes.</p></div></blockquote><p>Some of us live in countries where video conferencing at high-end blu-ray quality is entirely feasible (54 Mb/s).</p><p>This will gobble down gigabytes of data at high priorities, and if we're using software that isn't widely available or even custom built, you're saying "fuck off, you're being an asshole".</p><p>A teleconference at those bandwidths would take up more than 20 GB/hour, and you said it yourself, Skype (and similar) require low latency</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone downloading GBs of data at high priorities by hacking the default settings could be noticed quickly sanctioned appropriately for being a * * holes.Some of us live in countries where video conferencing at high-end blu-ray quality is entirely feasible ( 54 Mb/s ) .This will gobble down gigabytes of data at high priorities , and if we 're using software that is n't widely available or even custom built , you 're saying " fuck off , you 're being an asshole " .A teleconference at those bandwidths would take up more than 20 GB/hour , and you said it yourself , Skype ( and similar ) require low latency</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone downloading GBs of data at high priorities by hacking the default settings could be noticed quickly sanctioned appropriately for being a**holes.Some of us live in countries where video conferencing at high-end blu-ray quality is entirely feasible (54 Mb/s).This will gobble down gigabytes of data at high priorities, and if we're using software that isn't widely available or even custom built, you're saying "fuck off, you're being an asshole".A teleconference at those bandwidths would take up more than 20 GB/hour, and you said it yourself, Skype (and similar) require low latency
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857466</id>
	<title>not only games...</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1264154100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>latency is also important for voice-over-IP...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>latency is also important for voice-over-IP.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>latency is also important for voice-over-IP...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30860078</id>
	<title>Would Somebody Please Explain This ...</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1264179120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... to conservatives? The seem to think that "Network Neutrality" is some form of "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet.</p><p>I'm a conservative who is 100\% in favor of ISPs not being able to limit my access to YouTube or Google. I'm having a hard time explaining this to Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh listeners, though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to conservatives ?
The seem to think that " Network Neutrality " is some form of " Fairness Doctrine " for the Internet.I 'm a conservative who is 100 \ % in favor of ISPs not being able to limit my access to YouTube or Google .
I 'm having a hard time explaining this to Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh listeners , though .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to conservatives?
The seem to think that "Network Neutrality" is some form of "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet.I'm a conservative who is 100\% in favor of ISPs not being able to limit my access to YouTube or Google.
I'm having a hard time explaining this to Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh listeners, though.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857352</id>
	<title>What about Private Servers?</title>
	<author>Entropy98</author>
	<datestamp>1264152240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One concern is that each and every game developer will need to negotiate with each and every ISP to ensure their traffic achieves acceptable levels of latency for users.</p></div><p>Or in the case of private servers (where they still exist), every private server (or private server hosting company) would have to negotiate separate deals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One concern is that each and every game developer will need to negotiate with each and every ISP to ensure their traffic achieves acceptable levels of latency for users.Or in the case of private servers ( where they still exist ) , every private server ( or private server hosting company ) would have to negotiate separate deals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One concern is that each and every game developer will need to negotiate with each and every ISP to ensure their traffic achieves acceptable levels of latency for users.Or in the case of private servers (where they still exist), every private server (or private server hosting company) would have to negotiate separate deals.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858200</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264164540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not really what Net Neutrality is about.</p><p>Net Neutrality prevents them from charging $0.25 for a 200MB video, but $0.00 for a 200MB download. All data has equal value, even if it has different priorities.</p><p>Your ISP is free to QOS shape all those things you listed, but they have to apply it to all their customers, and all the servers on the other end. If they offer a Gamer plan, it has to compete by offering more bandwidth, higher caps, etc.</p><p>Net Neutrality also prevents content blocking. Ex: A company wants to push its $15/mo IPTV on its customers, so it blocks Youtube unless it's paid $3/mo for access to it, or you have their TV plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really what Net Neutrality is about.Net Neutrality prevents them from charging $ 0.25 for a 200MB video , but $ 0.00 for a 200MB download .
All data has equal value , even if it has different priorities.Your ISP is free to QOS shape all those things you listed , but they have to apply it to all their customers , and all the servers on the other end .
If they offer a Gamer plan , it has to compete by offering more bandwidth , higher caps , etc.Net Neutrality also prevents content blocking .
Ex : A company wants to push its $ 15/mo IPTV on its customers , so it blocks Youtube unless it 's paid $ 3/mo for access to it , or you have their TV plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really what Net Neutrality is about.Net Neutrality prevents them from charging $0.25 for a 200MB video, but $0.00 for a 200MB download.
All data has equal value, even if it has different priorities.Your ISP is free to QOS shape all those things you listed, but they have to apply it to all their customers, and all the servers on the other end.
If they offer a Gamer plan, it has to compete by offering more bandwidth, higher caps, etc.Net Neutrality also prevents content blocking.
Ex: A company wants to push its $15/mo IPTV on its customers, so it blocks Youtube unless it's paid $3/mo for access to it, or you have their TV plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30864964</id>
	<title>GPU Inadequacy</title>
	<author>Lodragandraoidh</author>
	<datestamp>1264163040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most latency is caused by GPU inadequacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most latency is caused by GPU inadequacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most latency is caused by GPU inadequacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857398</id>
	<title>I wanted to reply to the /. thread...</title>
	<author>app13b0y</author>
	<datestamp>1264153080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but my ISP keeps injecting TCP RE[NO CARRIER]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but my ISP keeps injecting TCP RE [ NO CARRIER ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but my ISP keeps injecting TCP RE[NO CARRIER]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857212</id>
	<title>It's also important to slashdot posters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264192860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is somehow delay in getting the comment to post, so many first posters will no longer be first anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is somehow delay in getting the comment to post , so many first posters will no longer be first anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is somehow delay in getting the comment to post, so many first posters will no longer be first anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857350</id>
	<title>Other end of the spectrum</title>
	<author>JorDan Clock</author>
	<datestamp>1264152120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This really is the opposite end of the bandwidth-latency spectrum from the prominent players in net neutrality. Most MMORPGs will use about 5KB/s downstream and about 1KB/s upstream, even during particularly high activity events. That is not the kind of traffic that net neutrality discussions usually bring up. But even with that small amount of traffic, a player's game experience can be extremely hindered by latency. Different games will have different red lines, but I've found 500ms to be around the point most players will notice a negative affect on gameplay.<br> <br>And this is definitely not a PC issue alone. I don't imagine Microsoft would be happy with a major ISP putting Xbox Live traffic at the bottom of the their priorities, or worse, charging customers additional fees to keep their Live latency at a reasonable level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This really is the opposite end of the bandwidth-latency spectrum from the prominent players in net neutrality .
Most MMORPGs will use about 5KB/s downstream and about 1KB/s upstream , even during particularly high activity events .
That is not the kind of traffic that net neutrality discussions usually bring up .
But even with that small amount of traffic , a player 's game experience can be extremely hindered by latency .
Different games will have different red lines , but I 've found 500ms to be around the point most players will notice a negative affect on gameplay .
And this is definitely not a PC issue alone .
I do n't imagine Microsoft would be happy with a major ISP putting Xbox Live traffic at the bottom of the their priorities , or worse , charging customers additional fees to keep their Live latency at a reasonable level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really is the opposite end of the bandwidth-latency spectrum from the prominent players in net neutrality.
Most MMORPGs will use about 5KB/s downstream and about 1KB/s upstream, even during particularly high activity events.
That is not the kind of traffic that net neutrality discussions usually bring up.
But even with that small amount of traffic, a player's game experience can be extremely hindered by latency.
Different games will have different red lines, but I've found 500ms to be around the point most players will notice a negative affect on gameplay.
And this is definitely not a PC issue alone.
I don't imagine Microsoft would be happy with a major ISP putting Xbox Live traffic at the bottom of the their priorities, or worse, charging customers additional fees to keep their Live latency at a reasonable level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858596</id>
	<title>Wait why no cap worries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264170480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe these guys are out of touch, they worry about latency.  Okay fine, I can see that.  What about those of you in the US that are now getting tasty with download caps?  Like other parts of the world get.  The more bandwidth that's become available to the average consumer, the more games have been using it to their advantage.  These are also the same companies/people pushing for digital downloads.  Sad thing to say if I decide I want to download something, I need to plan ahead usually about 8-10 days before the end of the month.  With 3 people here, 60GB doesn't go far enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe these guys are out of touch , they worry about latency .
Okay fine , I can see that .
What about those of you in the US that are now getting tasty with download caps ?
Like other parts of the world get .
The more bandwidth that 's become available to the average consumer , the more games have been using it to their advantage .
These are also the same companies/people pushing for digital downloads .
Sad thing to say if I decide I want to download something , I need to plan ahead usually about 8-10 days before the end of the month .
With 3 people here , 60GB does n't go far enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe these guys are out of touch, they worry about latency.
Okay fine, I can see that.
What about those of you in the US that are now getting tasty with download caps?
Like other parts of the world get.
The more bandwidth that's become available to the average consumer, the more games have been using it to their advantage.
These are also the same companies/people pushing for digital downloads.
Sad thing to say if I decide I want to download something, I need to plan ahead usually about 8-10 days before the end of the month.
With 3 people here, 60GB doesn't go far enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857620</id>
	<title>Re:Doh!</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1264156860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as connectivity providers are also application providers, any application they don't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems.</p></div><p>As long as ISPs face potential competition, any connectivity problem is a potential candidate for "losing-customers" problems.</p><p>Of course, that depends on ISPs not being entrenched in their crony capitalist markets through special licensing, franchises, and subsidies - as bequeathed by your bipartisan fascist overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as connectivity providers are also application providers , any application they do n't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems.As long as ISPs face potential competition , any connectivity problem is a potential candidate for " losing-customers " problems.Of course , that depends on ISPs not being entrenched in their crony capitalist markets through special licensing , franchises , and subsidies - as bequeathed by your bipartisan fascist overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as connectivity providers are also application providers, any application they don't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems.As long as ISPs face potential competition, any connectivity problem is a potential candidate for "losing-customers" problems.Of course, that depends on ISPs not being entrenched in their crony capitalist markets through special licensing, franchises, and subsidies - as bequeathed by your bipartisan fascist overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30869188</id>
	<title>Greedy Corporations: the cause of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264257540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been fighting this battle for years.  Here are some salient facts:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Only the last mile matters.  The backbone is so fast that QoS is not needed there.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; No last mile ISP offers any sort of QoS.  Benign neglect (of QoS on their networks) favors their own phone service offerings.  Hopefully, you gamers are finally waking up to the fact that the lack of QoS also degrades your gaming experience.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The cost of doing QoS on the last mile is nil, both in terms of equipment (all real routers can easily do it) and administrative costs.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Doing QoS for VoIP and gaming would have minimal effect on other users.  100 kbps is more than enough bandwidth for VoIP and way more than enough for gaming.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is little or no competition on the last mile.  The phone companies are truly evil monopolies and the cable companies are no better.  And they both offer phone service that would be threatened by a viable (with decent QoS) VoIP phone service.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; We are all the victims of greedy corporations and stupid or corrupt government officials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been fighting this battle for years .
Here are some salient facts :       Only the last mile matters .
The backbone is so fast that QoS is not needed there .
      No last mile ISP offers any sort of QoS .
Benign neglect ( of QoS on their networks ) favors their own phone service offerings .
Hopefully , you gamers are finally waking up to the fact that the lack of QoS also degrades your gaming experience .
      The cost of doing QoS on the last mile is nil , both in terms of equipment ( all real routers can easily do it ) and administrative costs .
      Doing QoS for VoIP and gaming would have minimal effect on other users .
100 kbps is more than enough bandwidth for VoIP and way more than enough for gaming .
      There is little or no competition on the last mile .
The phone companies are truly evil monopolies and the cable companies are no better .
And they both offer phone service that would be threatened by a viable ( with decent QoS ) VoIP phone service .
      We are all the victims of greedy corporations and stupid or corrupt government officials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been fighting this battle for years.
Here are some salient facts:
      Only the last mile matters.
The backbone is so fast that QoS is not needed there.
      No last mile ISP offers any sort of QoS.
Benign neglect (of QoS on their networks) favors their own phone service offerings.
Hopefully, you gamers are finally waking up to the fact that the lack of QoS also degrades your gaming experience.
      The cost of doing QoS on the last mile is nil, both in terms of equipment (all real routers can easily do it) and administrative costs.
      Doing QoS for VoIP and gaming would have minimal effect on other users.
100 kbps is more than enough bandwidth for VoIP and way more than enough for gaming.
      There is little or no competition on the last mile.
The phone companies are truly evil monopolies and the cable companies are no better.
And they both offer phone service that would be threatened by a viable (with decent QoS) VoIP phone service.
      We are all the victims of greedy corporations and stupid or corrupt government officials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857210</id>
	<title>Doh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264192860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem -- Netflix, YouTube and P2P -- while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed: latency in online games."</p></div><p>The issue isn't specific to ANY type of usage - net neutrality, or rather the lack of it, impacts all uses of the network.<br>As long as connectivity providers are also application providers, any application they don't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem -- Netflix , YouTube and P2P -- while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed : latency in online games .
" The issue is n't specific to ANY type of usage - net neutrality , or rather the lack of it , impacts all uses of the network.As long as connectivity providers are also application providers , any application they do n't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem -- Netflix, YouTube and P2P -- while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed: latency in online games.
"The issue isn't specific to ANY type of usage - net neutrality, or rather the lack of it, impacts all uses of the network.As long as connectivity providers are also application providers, any application they don't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858084</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264163400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a station wagon full of hard drives, great bandwidth, horrible latency, not so good for games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a station wagon full of hard drives , great bandwidth , horrible latency , not so good for games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a station wagon full of hard drives, great bandwidth, horrible latency, not so good for games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30864574</id>
	<title>Why does mainland America get shitty bandwidth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in Hawaii... in the sparsely populated countryside.  There are 40,000 people in my town.  For $35/mo DSL, I get 11mbit down, 1mbit up.  It's great for hosting video game servers.<br> <br>

My friend lives in Oregon in a town of 120+ thousand people.  The best he can get is 256mbit down, 256mbit up for $35/month.  3mbit cable is $60/mo.

Why is this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Hawaii... in the sparsely populated countryside .
There are 40,000 people in my town .
For $ 35/mo DSL , I get 11mbit down , 1mbit up .
It 's great for hosting video game servers .
My friend lives in Oregon in a town of 120 + thousand people .
The best he can get is 256mbit down , 256mbit up for $ 35/month .
3mbit cable is $ 60/mo .
Why is this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Hawaii... in the sparsely populated countryside.
There are 40,000 people in my town.
For $35/mo DSL, I get 11mbit down, 1mbit up.
It's great for hosting video game servers.
My friend lives in Oregon in a town of 120+ thousand people.
The best he can get is 256mbit down, 256mbit up for $35/month.
3mbit cable is $60/mo.
Why is this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859224</id>
	<title>Updates</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1264174860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most MMORPGs will use about 5KB/s downstream and about 1KB/s upstream, even during particularly high activity events. </i> </p><p>I think this depends on the MMO, but whatever the in-game speed require issue, and issue is updates.</p><p>Say for example a new patch comes out for WOW, and your ISP's filter sniffs the traffic then goes "OH NO, evil torrents, must throttle", causing it to go from 1500mbps down to about dialup speed, and your update takes about a day or more instead of less than an hour at THE SPEEDS YOU PAID FOR.</p><p>I've been using a lot of DLC myself these days, games from steam - for example - or CD-keys bought through online etailers and then used on the online-download version of games. At lot of these updates do use torrent-like connections, which malicious ISP's love to filter.</p><p>Heck, where I used to live, I had a third-party ISP used part of the last-mile infrastructure laid down by Bell (and Bell being legally required to share). My ISP was great<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,Bell sucked. When I used to SSH to home from work or vise-versa, my connection would slow to a crawl as their shittily configured filters would assume I was trying to hide some high-bandwidth downloading. With a simple outgoing SSH connection, one could notice that other services would suddenly crawl until SSH finished (and no, it wasn't my equipment, everything worked fine when I before/after I moved and had a non-Bell-neutered ISP).</p><p>ISP's would love to be able to restrict speeds/access/etc unfettered, because that means that they could continue to advertise speeds they wouldn't realistically have to provide, or artificially restrict various accounts while charging an arm+leg for super-duper-premium access. While a little QOS isn't a bad thing, excess filtering IS, and I don't think that anyone would really except those ISP's to get off the gravy-train of sell-wayyyy-more-than-you-can-provide if they can avoid doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most MMORPGs will use about 5KB/s downstream and about 1KB/s upstream , even during particularly high activity events .
I think this depends on the MMO , but whatever the in-game speed require issue , and issue is updates.Say for example a new patch comes out for WOW , and your ISP 's filter sniffs the traffic then goes " OH NO , evil torrents , must throttle " , causing it to go from 1500mbps down to about dialup speed , and your update takes about a day or more instead of less than an hour at THE SPEEDS YOU PAID FOR.I 've been using a lot of DLC myself these days , games from steam - for example - or CD-keys bought through online etailers and then used on the online-download version of games .
At lot of these updates do use torrent-like connections , which malicious ISP 's love to filter.Heck , where I used to live , I had a third-party ISP used part of the last-mile infrastructure laid down by Bell ( and Bell being legally required to share ) .
My ISP was great ,Bell sucked .
When I used to SSH to home from work or vise-versa , my connection would slow to a crawl as their shittily configured filters would assume I was trying to hide some high-bandwidth downloading .
With a simple outgoing SSH connection , one could notice that other services would suddenly crawl until SSH finished ( and no , it was n't my equipment , everything worked fine when I before/after I moved and had a non-Bell-neutered ISP ) .ISP 's would love to be able to restrict speeds/access/etc unfettered , because that means that they could continue to advertise speeds they would n't realistically have to provide , or artificially restrict various accounts while charging an arm + leg for super-duper-premium access .
While a little QOS is n't a bad thing , excess filtering IS , and I do n't think that anyone would really except those ISP 's to get off the gravy-train of sell-wayyyy-more-than-you-can-provide if they can avoid doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most MMORPGs will use about 5KB/s downstream and about 1KB/s upstream, even during particularly high activity events.
I think this depends on the MMO, but whatever the in-game speed require issue, and issue is updates.Say for example a new patch comes out for WOW, and your ISP's filter sniffs the traffic then goes "OH NO, evil torrents, must throttle", causing it to go from 1500mbps down to about dialup speed, and your update takes about a day or more instead of less than an hour at THE SPEEDS YOU PAID FOR.I've been using a lot of DLC myself these days, games from steam - for example - or CD-keys bought through online etailers and then used on the online-download version of games.
At lot of these updates do use torrent-like connections, which malicious ISP's love to filter.Heck, where I used to live, I had a third-party ISP used part of the last-mile infrastructure laid down by Bell (and Bell being legally required to share).
My ISP was great ,Bell sucked.
When I used to SSH to home from work or vise-versa, my connection would slow to a crawl as their shittily configured filters would assume I was trying to hide some high-bandwidth downloading.
With a simple outgoing SSH connection, one could notice that other services would suddenly crawl until SSH finished (and no, it wasn't my equipment, everything worked fine when I before/after I moved and had a non-Bell-neutered ISP).ISP's would love to be able to restrict speeds/access/etc unfettered, because that means that they could continue to advertise speeds they wouldn't realistically have to provide, or artificially restrict various accounts while charging an arm+leg for super-duper-premium access.
While a little QOS isn't a bad thing, excess filtering IS, and I don't think that anyone would really except those ISP's to get off the gravy-train of sell-wayyyy-more-than-you-can-provide if they can avoid doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859102</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1264174200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those would fall under QoS manipulations. Streaming video, audio, and game packets require low latency. File transfer in the form of torrents, FTP, or HTTP are not latency sensitive. By acknowledging this and working within the bounds, most traffic congestion could be cleared up without negatively affecting anyone's service.
</p><p>The problem, as shown by several posts, is that some people will try to force all of their packets to low latency QoS because 'fuck the system, me first' even if it hampers rather than enhances their actual service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those would fall under QoS manipulations .
Streaming video , audio , and game packets require low latency .
File transfer in the form of torrents , FTP , or HTTP are not latency sensitive .
By acknowledging this and working within the bounds , most traffic congestion could be cleared up without negatively affecting anyone 's service .
The problem , as shown by several posts , is that some people will try to force all of their packets to low latency QoS because 'fuck the system , me first ' even if it hampers rather than enhances their actual service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those would fall under QoS manipulations.
Streaming video, audio, and game packets require low latency.
File transfer in the form of torrents, FTP, or HTTP are not latency sensitive.
By acknowledging this and working within the bounds, most traffic congestion could be cleared up without negatively affecting anyone's service.
The problem, as shown by several posts, is that some people will try to force all of their packets to low latency QoS because 'fuck the system, me first' even if it hampers rather than enhances their actual service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857546</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1264155480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt it would be feasible, since it relies on somebody honestly telling them that certain packets deserve prioritization over other packets.  It won't take long before everybody marks their packets "highest priority".<br> <br>

Besides, ideally, at some point most packets will be encrypted by default.  You wouldn't WANT to be able to distinguish types of packets from each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it would be feasible , since it relies on somebody honestly telling them that certain packets deserve prioritization over other packets .
It wo n't take long before everybody marks their packets " highest priority " .
Besides , ideally , at some point most packets will be encrypted by default .
You would n't WANT to be able to distinguish types of packets from each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it would be feasible, since it relies on somebody honestly telling them that certain packets deserve prioritization over other packets.
It won't take long before everybody marks their packets "highest priority".
Besides, ideally, at some point most packets will be encrypted by default.
You wouldn't WANT to be able to distinguish types of packets from each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</id>
	<title>What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1264153800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I question whether the net should be truly neutral. Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency wouldn't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting. It seems to me that integrating a packet priority request into the TCP/IP protocol could work. Games and Skype could be given a high priority, browsing medium and torrents low. People who browse and torrent at the same time (or for some reason game and torrent) would have good reason not to override the default priorities. Anyone downloading GBs of data at high priorities by hacking the default settings could be noticed quickly sanctioned appropriately for being a**holes. It would relieve ISPs of excuses for throttling (or at least make the throttling more transparent and remove the need for privacy-invading deep packet inspection).</p><p>The key would be to integrate it into an open standard. I imagine the idea has already been put forth before, but it strikes me that it will be increasing important to have some priority control as the number of latency critical applications as well as streaming content size increases. It would essentially be an open implementation of the "power boost" that some ISPs offer but rely on user-side requests to sort out priorities. Of course, I have no real knowledge of the TCP/IP protocol so I have no idea if it's feasible or even if it's already implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I question whether the net should be truly neutral .
Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency would n't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting .
It seems to me that integrating a packet priority request into the TCP/IP protocol could work .
Games and Skype could be given a high priority , browsing medium and torrents low .
People who browse and torrent at the same time ( or for some reason game and torrent ) would have good reason not to override the default priorities .
Anyone downloading GBs of data at high priorities by hacking the default settings could be noticed quickly sanctioned appropriately for being a * * holes .
It would relieve ISPs of excuses for throttling ( or at least make the throttling more transparent and remove the need for privacy-invading deep packet inspection ) .The key would be to integrate it into an open standard .
I imagine the idea has already been put forth before , but it strikes me that it will be increasing important to have some priority control as the number of latency critical applications as well as streaming content size increases .
It would essentially be an open implementation of the " power boost " that some ISPs offer but rely on user-side requests to sort out priorities .
Of course , I have no real knowledge of the TCP/IP protocol so I have no idea if it 's feasible or even if it 's already implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I question whether the net should be truly neutral.
Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency wouldn't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting.
It seems to me that integrating a packet priority request into the TCP/IP protocol could work.
Games and Skype could be given a high priority, browsing medium and torrents low.
People who browse and torrent at the same time (or for some reason game and torrent) would have good reason not to override the default priorities.
Anyone downloading GBs of data at high priorities by hacking the default settings could be noticed quickly sanctioned appropriately for being a**holes.
It would relieve ISPs of excuses for throttling (or at least make the throttling more transparent and remove the need for privacy-invading deep packet inspection).The key would be to integrate it into an open standard.
I imagine the idea has already been put forth before, but it strikes me that it will be increasing important to have some priority control as the number of latency critical applications as well as streaming content size increases.
It would essentially be an open implementation of the "power boost" that some ISPs offer but rely on user-side requests to sort out priorities.
Of course, I have no real knowledge of the TCP/IP protocol so I have no idea if it's feasible or even if it's already implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857626</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're looking for Quality of Service (QoS). Been part of IP for a while now.</p><p>It supports a set of flags that can be on or off: Bulk (latency is unimportant but bandwidth is), low-latency (latency is important, bandwidth is not), low-price (packet should be delivered using the cheapest service possible) and I think there were one or two more but I can't remember them currently.</p><p>I'm not sure how many routers actually honor these flags, not many I think. Any way, abuse of the low-latency flag fails because on most network admin sites I've read, they strongly recommend filtering rules that only permit 100KiB of low-latency per minute per user, anything higher than that will get converted to Bulk or standard traffic instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're looking for Quality of Service ( QoS ) .
Been part of IP for a while now.It supports a set of flags that can be on or off : Bulk ( latency is unimportant but bandwidth is ) , low-latency ( latency is important , bandwidth is not ) , low-price ( packet should be delivered using the cheapest service possible ) and I think there were one or two more but I ca n't remember them currently.I 'm not sure how many routers actually honor these flags , not many I think .
Any way , abuse of the low-latency flag fails because on most network admin sites I 've read , they strongly recommend filtering rules that only permit 100KiB of low-latency per minute per user , anything higher than that will get converted to Bulk or standard traffic instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're looking for Quality of Service (QoS).
Been part of IP for a while now.It supports a set of flags that can be on or off: Bulk (latency is unimportant but bandwidth is), low-latency (latency is important, bandwidth is not), low-price (packet should be delivered using the cheapest service possible) and I think there were one or two more but I can't remember them currently.I'm not sure how many routers actually honor these flags, not many I think.
Any way, abuse of the low-latency flag fails because on most network admin sites I've read, they strongly recommend filtering rules that only permit 100KiB of low-latency per minute per user, anything higher than that will get converted to Bulk or standard traffic instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859980</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1264178700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets clarify the meaning of the word neutral:</p><p>Prioritizing Skype traffic would not be neutral.  Prioritizing all real-time voice/video services would be neutral.  This is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality\_of\_service" title="wikipedia.org">QOS (Quality of Service)</a> [wikipedia.org] which is where applications that require low-latency get low-latency.  And things like email or downloads get higher latency.  That is totally fine, fair, and neutral.</p><p>The problem with QOS is administering it.  Who can be trusted to do this?  The ISP doesn't actually know what a packet is for.  Deep packet inspection is expensive and inaccurate.  In theory, the client software knows and can mark packets for prioritization.  But then some jerk will mark all their packets as high-priority and screw-up the system.  The IP protocol actually has QOS bits built-in to the header, but it is rarely used.</p><p>As a network neutrality supporter, my concern is ISPs making back-door deals to prioritize, delay, or filter traffic.  Maybe Comcast makes Google searches faster than Bing! searches.  Or perhaps EA games get higher priority than games from smaller studios.  Worse yet -- what about filtering?  What if negative stories about my ISP don't show in my search results!  Or perhaps a pharmaceutical company pays my ISP to filter negative publicity about them, or block PACs who campaign against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets clarify the meaning of the word neutral : Prioritizing Skype traffic would not be neutral .
Prioritizing all real-time voice/video services would be neutral .
This is called QOS ( Quality of Service ) [ wikipedia.org ] which is where applications that require low-latency get low-latency .
And things like email or downloads get higher latency .
That is totally fine , fair , and neutral.The problem with QOS is administering it .
Who can be trusted to do this ?
The ISP does n't actually know what a packet is for .
Deep packet inspection is expensive and inaccurate .
In theory , the client software knows and can mark packets for prioritization .
But then some jerk will mark all their packets as high-priority and screw-up the system .
The IP protocol actually has QOS bits built-in to the header , but it is rarely used.As a network neutrality supporter , my concern is ISPs making back-door deals to prioritize , delay , or filter traffic .
Maybe Comcast makes Google searches faster than Bing !
searches. Or perhaps EA games get higher priority than games from smaller studios .
Worse yet -- what about filtering ?
What if negative stories about my ISP do n't show in my search results !
Or perhaps a pharmaceutical company pays my ISP to filter negative publicity about them , or block PACs who campaign against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets clarify the meaning of the word neutral:Prioritizing Skype traffic would not be neutral.
Prioritizing all real-time voice/video services would be neutral.
This is called QOS (Quality of Service) [wikipedia.org] which is where applications that require low-latency get low-latency.
And things like email or downloads get higher latency.
That is totally fine, fair, and neutral.The problem with QOS is administering it.
Who can be trusted to do this?
The ISP doesn't actually know what a packet is for.
Deep packet inspection is expensive and inaccurate.
In theory, the client software knows and can mark packets for prioritization.
But then some jerk will mark all their packets as high-priority and screw-up the system.
The IP protocol actually has QOS bits built-in to the header, but it is rarely used.As a network neutrality supporter, my concern is ISPs making back-door deals to prioritize, delay, or filter traffic.
Maybe Comcast makes Google searches faster than Bing!
searches.  Or perhaps EA games get higher priority than games from smaller studios.
Worse yet -- what about filtering?
What if negative stories about my ISP don't show in my search results!
Or perhaps a pharmaceutical company pays my ISP to filter negative publicity about them, or block PACs who campaign against them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30864596</id>
	<title>Re:Wait why no cap worries?</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264160160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Maybe these guys are out of touch, they worry about latency.</p><p>There's nothing 'out of touch' about concerns over latency.</p><p>My cox cable internet service can download big files really fast but it has terrible latency.<br>As an avid Unreal Tournament player I would happily trade half of my massive bandwitdth for a few milliseconds less latency to get an overall increase in gaming performance. UT doesn't generate much traffic at all but it is very time sensitive.</p><p>IT seems ISPs have a blind spot about gaming, their whole campaign is always about how fast you can download giant media files, which doesn't really bother me at all. I can't tell you how annoying it is though to be killed in-game by another player who has time to run up and shoot you before they even appear on your screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Maybe these guys are out of touch , they worry about latency.There 's nothing 'out of touch ' about concerns over latency.My cox cable internet service can download big files really fast but it has terrible latency.As an avid Unreal Tournament player I would happily trade half of my massive bandwitdth for a few milliseconds less latency to get an overall increase in gaming performance .
UT does n't generate much traffic at all but it is very time sensitive.IT seems ISPs have a blind spot about gaming , their whole campaign is always about how fast you can download giant media files , which does n't really bother me at all .
I ca n't tell you how annoying it is though to be killed in-game by another player who has time to run up and shoot you before they even appear on your screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Maybe these guys are out of touch, they worry about latency.There's nothing 'out of touch' about concerns over latency.My cox cable internet service can download big files really fast but it has terrible latency.As an avid Unreal Tournament player I would happily trade half of my massive bandwitdth for a few milliseconds less latency to get an overall increase in gaming performance.
UT doesn't generate much traffic at all but it is very time sensitive.IT seems ISPs have a blind spot about gaming, their whole campaign is always about how fast you can download giant media files, which doesn't really bother me at all.
I can't tell you how annoying it is though to be killed in-game by another player who has time to run up and shoot you before they even appear on your screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858140</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264163940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the problem becomes "Who gets to decide what traffic has high priority?"<br>Sorry if this is what you seriously think, but torrents are used for more than just piracy.  Games, and this is coming from an avid gamer, really aren't more important than, well, almost anything.  If we presuppose the net is going to be throttled, scientific traffic should have top priority.</p><p>But then again, it's a terrible idea to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the problem becomes " Who gets to decide what traffic has high priority ?
" Sorry if this is what you seriously think , but torrents are used for more than just piracy .
Games , and this is coming from an avid gamer , really are n't more important than , well , almost anything .
If we presuppose the net is going to be throttled , scientific traffic should have top priority.But then again , it 's a terrible idea to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the problem becomes "Who gets to decide what traffic has high priority?
"Sorry if this is what you seriously think, but torrents are used for more than just piracy.
Games, and this is coming from an avid gamer, really aren't more important than, well, almost anything.
If we presuppose the net is going to be throttled, scientific traffic should have top priority.But then again, it's a terrible idea to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857666</id>
	<title>but the users wouldn't tolerate it, anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264157520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I hope I'm not naive to think that even if Net Neutrality goes by the wayside, that it probably wouldn't matter, anyway.&nbsp; Users will flock to ISP's that don't play the game, and thus render any shenannigans pointless.<br><br>Of course, this would not be helped by the essentially monopoly or duopoly status of most ISP's these days.&nbsp; So I'll take net neutrality if I can get it!</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope I 'm not naive to think that even if Net Neutrality goes by the wayside , that it probably would n't matter , anyway.   Users will flock to ISP 's that do n't play the game , and thus render any shenannigans pointless.Of course , this would not be helped by the essentially monopoly or duopoly status of most ISP 's these days.   So I 'll take net neutrality if I can get it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope I'm not naive to think that even if Net Neutrality goes by the wayside, that it probably wouldn't matter, anyway.  Users will flock to ISP's that don't play the game, and thus render any shenannigans pointless.Of course, this would not be helped by the essentially monopoly or duopoly status of most ISP's these days.  So I'll take net neutrality if I can get it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858460</id>
	<title>Re:What about an open standard for TCP priorities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264168860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm paying for a 2 MB/sec data rate (vs connection speed), I expect to get 2 MB/sec.  Regardless of traffic type.  That means 2 MB/sec downloads (presuming the source can fill the pipe that quickly), or torrents, or whatever, in the middle of the day.  This is no different than going to a gas station, paying for 10 gallons of gas, and expecting to get \_ALL\_ 10 gallons of gas pumped into my car's tank.  Not 8 gallons "because we're really busy today".</p><p>I refute any cries of "You're a bad netizen, you greedy daytime up/downloader, you!" thusly: if my traffic negatively impacts other users, it's because the ISPs are defrauding myself and those other users, by selling more bandwidth than they provide.</p><p>Note also, if I pay for a 2 MB/sec data rate, and I have a 10 MB/sec connection, that does NOT mean I'm entitled to 10 MB/sec, and I'd have no complaint if my ISP limited my data rate to 2MB/sec.</p><p>QOS?  I don't care what happens on the \_customer's\_ side of the demarc; if the customer is a business (or whatever), and they want to use QOS on their side of the demarc to more effectively use the bandwidth they are paying for, that's fine.</p><p>But to be "fair", all apps and transmission modes should be treated equally, both in data rate and latency, from demarc-to-demarc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm paying for a 2 MB/sec data rate ( vs connection speed ) , I expect to get 2 MB/sec .
Regardless of traffic type .
That means 2 MB/sec downloads ( presuming the source can fill the pipe that quickly ) , or torrents , or whatever , in the middle of the day .
This is no different than going to a gas station , paying for 10 gallons of gas , and expecting to get \ _ALL \ _ 10 gallons of gas pumped into my car 's tank .
Not 8 gallons " because we 're really busy today " .I refute any cries of " You 're a bad netizen , you greedy daytime up/downloader , you !
" thusly : if my traffic negatively impacts other users , it 's because the ISPs are defrauding myself and those other users , by selling more bandwidth than they provide.Note also , if I pay for a 2 MB/sec data rate , and I have a 10 MB/sec connection , that does NOT mean I 'm entitled to 10 MB/sec , and I 'd have no complaint if my ISP limited my data rate to 2MB/sec.QOS ?
I do n't care what happens on the \ _customer 's \ _ side of the demarc ; if the customer is a business ( or whatever ) , and they want to use QOS on their side of the demarc to more effectively use the bandwidth they are paying for , that 's fine.But to be " fair " , all apps and transmission modes should be treated equally , both in data rate and latency , from demarc-to-demarc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm paying for a 2 MB/sec data rate (vs connection speed), I expect to get 2 MB/sec.
Regardless of traffic type.
That means 2 MB/sec downloads (presuming the source can fill the pipe that quickly), or torrents, or whatever, in the middle of the day.
This is no different than going to a gas station, paying for 10 gallons of gas, and expecting to get \_ALL\_ 10 gallons of gas pumped into my car's tank.
Not 8 gallons "because we're really busy today".I refute any cries of "You're a bad netizen, you greedy daytime up/downloader, you!
" thusly: if my traffic negatively impacts other users, it's because the ISPs are defrauding myself and those other users, by selling more bandwidth than they provide.Note also, if I pay for a 2 MB/sec data rate, and I have a 10 MB/sec connection, that does NOT mean I'm entitled to 10 MB/sec, and I'd have no complaint if my ISP limited my data rate to 2MB/sec.QOS?
I don't care what happens on the \_customer's\_ side of the demarc; if the customer is a business (or whatever), and they want to use QOS on their side of the demarc to more effectively use the bandwidth they are paying for, that's fine.But to be "fair", all apps and transmission modes should be treated equally, both in data rate and latency, from demarc-to-demarc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30864596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30863988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30860078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0726227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30860078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30859224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30858596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30864596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30863988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0726227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0726227.30857212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
