AT&T’s advocacy of a federal standard for lowest common denominator broadband has struck a nerve in the onling gaming industry. Stop the Cap! reader Lance noted in a news tip that the gaming industry is unimpressed.
Upset with AT&T’s suggestion that the Federal Communications Commission should accept a definition of broadband service that is merely suitable for basic web browsing and e-mail service, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a trade group for the gaming industry, fired off a letter last week opposing AT&T’s bare bones approach to broadband speed and service:
AT&T argued that the baseline definition of broadband should not include what it characterized as “aspirational broadband services” and “myriad sophisticated applications:’ including streaming video, real-time voice, and “real-time, two-way gaming.” It urged the Agency to focus on more “meaningful” services, such as email, web surfing, interacting with Internet-based government services, and online education and training. According to AT&T, these are more pressing concerns for those who do not have terrestrial broadband access currently.
ESA agrees that such services are important. We disagree that the definition should stop there. Americans deserve a higher benchmark. Online video games are a meaningful part of our participative culture. They remove geographic barriers, connecting people from across the country and around the world. They teach cooperation, cultivate leadership skills, and empower users to express their creatiVity. Increasingly, games are used for training purposes and to educate students about complex social issues. If you are starting your gaming journey, get qwertybro gamer gear to have a good gaming experience. Entertaining does not mean trivial.
What AT&T describes as aspirational services are no less important to the future of the Internet than email and web browsing were to the past and are today. Whatever definition of broadband the FCC adopts, it should use a benchmark that opens the potential of the Internet to all Americans. Ultimately, consumers should determine what applications and services they find to be of value.
The ESA has a lot to learn when it comes to the broadband industry allowing consumers to determine what they want from their broadband service. This is an industry that has several players that do not listen to their customers. Instead, it engages in PR and astroturf lobbying campaigns to try and convince customers to accept the industry’s own agenda — higher pricing, less “abuse” of their networks, no government oversight or regulation, limited competition, and control of as much content (and the wires that content travels across) as feasible.
The ESA should not be surprised by AT&T’s desire to define broadband at the barest of minimum speeds. AT&T still owns an enormous network of copper telephone wiring. In rural areas, broadband service definitions based on the lowest speeds are tailor-made for the older phone system capable of delivering only slow speed DSL to consumers. To define broadband at higher speeds would force AT&T to invest in upgrading its current infrastructure, particularly in rural communities.
Ars Technica ponders the question of whether online gaming is in fact “necessary” to consider when defining a broadband standard, and delves into a discussion about gaming and its value to society. That misses more important points to consider:
- With a broadband industry trying to design a broadband standard that is only capable of reasonably serving web pages, e-mail, and other low bandwidth applications commonplace a decade ago, will embracing mediocre broadband speeds help or hurt the United States and the increasingly important digital economy? How many jobs have been created in new business start-ups that depend on leveraging a robust broadband platform in the United States? What impact does a “go slow” approach have on American competitiveness and standing in an increasingly wired world?
- What impact will this industry’s increased noise about Internet Overcharging schemes have on the online gaming landscape? While many current games don’t use much data transmitting game moves back and forth during play, the software and its add-ons and updates can easily contribute to a bigger broadband bill when users update. Even more relevant are the trials for the next generation online gaming services like OnLive, which consume considerable amounts of bandwidth from the moment game play begins. The ESA would do well not to only consider the implications of slow, mediocre broadband service. It should also consider the very real threat a heavily usage capped or overpriced consumption billing scheme would have on their future. Will consumers play games that bring them ever closer to a monthly usage cap, or start a billing meter running the moment play begins?
“0.1 kbit/s is broadband”-AT&T
The most important factor for online gaming is upload speed, moreso then broadband caps, outside of direct downloads.
The best companies to get on this are Stardock and Valve, as those two have the most to lose from this.
For those that don’t recognize it, the second image is from World of Warcraft.
I’ve played WoW on a sprint data card (before they started capping about a year ago). It ran fine. Latency can be an issue, but 200ms or less will work.
If AT&T doesn’t think they can deliver that kind of speed, that’s ridiculous. Broadband should be *much* better than that.
And you proved another of my points, Andrew. You played WoW on your Sprint service right up until the moment they usage capped it. Then you quit playing. For companies like OnLive, who literally will transmit the underpinnings of the game to a set top terminal when you choose to begin play, that means a lot of data gets moved each time you choose a different game. How many people are going to subscribe to a service that will consume a significant amount of a usage capped or consumption-billed broadband account, especially under the terms we saw proposed by companies… Read more »
Hopefully – we all know that AT&T just stinks. They market their internet service as broadband and go on and on about how it’s faster thas road runner, and whatever else. Most people do not realize that their services are delivered through the old copper phone lines and what this means for them. So what does it mean? It means that it doesn’t matter what kind of fiber optic bull crap lines they have miles from your house or where ever they claim to have them – basic physics states that anything you get during the last x number of… Read more »
“Not to mention that they want to charge a 200$ installation fee…bend over and AT&T will install sub par internet into you house for the small anal rap3 of $200.” I don’t know where you are getting these numbers but I never got charged anything. Matter of fact, I got a $200 rebate! So the 1st couple of months we had everything for free. Sub par? Again, where are you getting this? Ever since I subscribed to Uverse months ago, I had the service go out 1 time. My internet speed is 12Mb/sec. Sometimes I download at 12.2Mb/sec or faster.… Read more »
I think a lot of our readers don’t live in U-verse cities and may be referring to traditional AT&T DSL. U-verse does come with installation promotions, including free installation and rebates, which are of course good only if the check from the fulfillment house actually turns up (and they have the use of your money for weeks and weeks between the time you pay the bill and the check arrives.) IMHO, rebates of this kind need to be abolished. Just do the free installation and any free service promotions with no rebates. I think 12Mbps is much nicer than what… Read more »
AT&T DSL sucks but he said Fiber to the node which only means Uverse. They always have free installation promotions and they always have rebates or cash back. We didn’t have an issue getting our $200 rebate. It only took a month. The Time Warner service in my area only offers speeds up to 10Mb/sec not 15Mb/sec. If they had that, I might of stuck with Time Warner or made me think twice about switching to Uverse. The real kicker for me was the upload speed. Time Warner, even on the elite plan, offers 512Kb/s max while Uverse is 1.5Mb/sec.… Read more »
This is the kind of stuff that would tempt me to cut off my Internet connections in favor to another ISP. I already pay enough as it is to get games to run on my gaming PC, as well as enough as it is for hardware upgrades when I do them. Sure, I’m paying for two DSL connections as well. The Frontier line is as high as Frontier says I can go in terms of the packages I can get. Verizon will give me 3Mbps but that’s about it. Now, for Verizon, I’m awaiting FiOS mainly due to the latency… Read more »
This is much to do about nothing.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/a-simple-misunderstanding-about-online-gaming-and-broadband/
That link also calls net neutrality bills “misguided.” I don’t think many people here will pay too much attention to the rest of what they have to say.
“That link also calls net neutrality bills “misguided.” I don’t think many people here will pay too much attention to the rest of what they have to say.”
Any bill that bans intelligent network management technology from improving latency for ping-sensitive applications like online gaming is fundamentally misguided.
It is one thing to manage the network. It is quite another to ban certain protocols or applications altogether, or to put another at the head of the line because they got cash to do so. And please don’t call me an alarmist or anything, because it’s not like it hasn’t already happened. You claim that ISPs should be able to manage the networks to protect latency-sensitive protocols like VOIP, but ISPs have blocked or charged extra for a customer to use a VOIP service in order to protect their own telephonic service, or maybe just to ding the customer… Read more »
“You claim that ISPs should be able to manage the networks to protect latency-sensitive protocols like VOIP, but ISPs have blocked or charged extra for a customer to use a VOIP service in order to protect their own telephonic service, or maybe just to ding the customer for extra money, just because they can.” Sorry, but you have all your facts wrong. Only one wired ISP attempted to block VoIP and the FCC fined them and put a stop to it immediately. Some ISPs are already protecting low average bandwidth applications like VoIP and web surfing and that does not… Read more »
You seem to forget that the bill does not prohibit network management. Or maybe you just choose to ignore the fact and hope to convince me and others that the bill was written without the realities of the internet in mind: “‘(d) Reasonable Network Management- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act. For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically… Read more »
Lucy, do NOT tell my friend that he doesn’t own his Kindle. He paid dearly for it. Also, those section you quoted does not negate the following sections. “(2) not impose a charge on any Internet content, service, or application provider to enable any lawful Internet content, application, or service to be offered, provided, or used through the provider’s service, beyond the end user charges associated with providing the service to such provider;” Even under Title II regulation, it was never illegal to offer tiered Internet access. This provision would outlaw all CDN services which would effectively break all video… Read more »
Internet service does not work in 15 minute blocks. If I downloaded something from a fast site (say, Microsoft) at 10MBps for 15 minutes, I should get ping times of greater than 3 seconds because I “used too much”. The network can easily control the speed of the 10MBps connection to whatever it can handle. Games like WoW actually work a little like VOIP, they need low bandwidth and low latency. In fact, playing WoW on a sprint card would probably work so long as that’s all you did on it. 4 hours of game play generates less than 50MB… Read more »
Lucy, George works for a group that defends the broadband industry and its practices, so this is hardly surprising. George seems to think AT&T is somehow being the grand defender of satellite broadband, and their filing is somehow their effort to protect the continued availability of that kind of service. Concern trolling is more like it. AT&T does not spend time and money filing comments with the FCC to protect satellite providers. Indeed, consumers find the two primary satellite providers appallingly bad, in service, speed, pricing, and a nasty paltry usage cap. The moment any kind of wired or wireless… Read more »
George, you know more about how the internet works than I ever could, and you like to use it against people like me. I’m going to stop arguing with you. Please don’t count this as a victory, because the only reason I am not going to argue further is because you make too many points for me to research and rebut it the short time that I have before I must leave for work. This actually is your job, so you can talk all day about it and not get worries that you’ll get fired, but some of us are… Read more »
Sorry, I replied to the wrong comment, Philip. I don’t think that I could find argument with you. I’d delete and repost, but I’m no longer at the same computer.
If you wish to cut and paste your comment, I can delete the redundant one.
Thanks, Phillip, but honestly, I think there are too many layers in that thread, and I just don’t feel like talking to George anymore.
Don’t blame you…after the last round of reading his comments, the man (George) gave me a headache from attempting to locate anything approaching a point in his comments. Not worth it.
I completely agree. George is clouding the topic here. IMO, the real topic is what should be considered broadband. IMO, anything under 3 down and 256 up should not be considered broadband at all and providers should not be calling themselves that. Comeup with some other crappy name for it, slowband or notenoughband or something. I am sure they can come up with something to confuse the general public, ala TV manufacturerers with all the the crap they pulled with HD TVs. We can’t have providers calling 128k or 256k broadband, it just isn’t in today’s age. That would be… Read more »
I found it amusing that on the same day I read that AT&T considers streaming video to be an “aspirational broadband service” that the IRS features a handful of streaming videos regarding tax law and that over on flu.gov, you can review streaming “video briefs” regarding H1N1. Meanwhile, over the army’s recruitment web site, there are streaming videos available talking about the army as a career and information for parents with children considering the military. It takes zero effort to see how the government is embracing “aspirational broadband services” as a way to get news and information out to the… Read more »