56 replies to this topic

[NighthawK1337]

Ok General real world discussion,

With the looming new administration in the US, Net Neutrality is threatened and will probably increase the pings of the NA servers, and will probably affect the rest as well. Personally I'm not from the US and I frequent the Oceanic server but I feel like this is something big that will affect everyone since a significant part of the MWO community is in the US.

It could be nothing, but it could also be something that changes the internet forever and not just MWO. Pings be damned.

We doing anything about this? Thoughts?

I won't go to the Trump vs Clinton debate since personally I dislike them both and talking about them is liable to spark a political flame war, please lets keep this civil.



My thoughts is that we won't see immediate effect but will make it harder for PGI in the long run to maintain their servers. Which could lead to higher cost mechs, etc. Worst case scenario shutting down MWO, but that's a stretch.

I wish we can see the same fervor in defending the internet back when SOPA and PIPA was about to get passed.

Any Devs reading this? Does PGI have plans to protest for Net Neutrality?

Edited by NighthawK1337, 19 January 2017 - 05:45 PM.

[Cassa Nova]

Wrong sub forum I think.

[SpectreHD]

How would the new administration affect net neutrality? Are they reducing the FCC's abilities?

[Bombast]

SpectreHD, on 19 January 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

How would the new administration affect net neutrality? Are they reducing the FCC's abilities?

Pretty much. The guy that's been holding onto the last shreds of Net Neutrality is leaving, and if the rest of Trump's appointees are any indication, the guy who replaces him is going to be a) a prior head of a telecom, c) heavily invested in telecoms, and d) is going to go through regulations like a chainsaw.

Edited by Bombast, 19 January 2017 - 05:23 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

Cassa Nova, on 19 January 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

Wrong sub forum I think.

I would've posted it in the Off-Topic subforum but it's pretty much a desert.
Besides this could very well affect PGI's servers.

[SpectreHD]

Bombast, on 19 January 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

Pretty much. The guy that's been holding onto the last shreds of Net Neutrality is leaving, and if the rest of Trump's appointees are any indication, the guy who replaces him is going to be a) a prior head of a telecom, c) heavily invested in telecoms, and d) is going to go through regulations like a chainsaw.

Ugh. I see. It probably won't affect games unless ISPs starts making their on online games. But who knows really.

[Bud Crue]

WTF!

That thin haired oompa loompa can start world war III for all I care, but make my crappy rural internet any worse than it already is and its REVOLUTION!

Edit: (full disclosure: but for a socialistic federally subsidized program to bring the internet to rural America I would still be on satellite internet and not able to play at all).

Edited by Bud Crue, 19 January 2017 - 05:41 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Bombast, on 19 January 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

Pretty much. The guy that's been holding onto the last shreds of Net Neutrality is leaving, and if the rest of Trump's appointees are any indication, the guy who replaces him is going to be a) a prior head of a telecom, c) heavily invested in telecoms, and d) is going to go through regulations like a chainsaw.

Those all sound AMAZING... "Net Neutrality" is absolute garbage. You can tell just by the name... "Afforable Care Act"/"Patriot Act", whatever the name of something it does the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. Net Neutrality was written by big telecomm to cement Federal protection of their buisness models... the whole country would have Google Fiber that they tried to do for a decade before finally giving up explicitly because of those "regulations" which the ISPs paid of Federal, State, & Municipals to enact to prevent competition. Always remember people, the most terrifying 11 words in the English language... "We are from the government and we are here to help."

[Bombast]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 19 January 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Those all sound AMAZING... "Net Neutrality" is absolute garbage. You can tell just by the name... "Afforable Care Act"/"Patriot Act", whatever the name of something it does the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. Net Neutrality was written by big telecomm to cement Federal protection of their buisness models... the whole country would have Google Fiber that they tried to do for a decade before finally giving up explicitly because of those "regulations" which the ISPs paid of Federal, State, & Municipals to enact to prevent competition. Always remember people, the most terrifying 11 words in the English language... "We are from the government and we are here to help."

Please. Tell me how Net Nuetrality killed Google Fiber.

I am dying to know. I've heard this claim a dozen times, and yet whenever I ask for how that's possible, I always get the 'You're too much of a sheep to understand' line.

Lay it on me.

Edited by Bombast, 19 January 2017 - 06:14 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 19 January 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Those all sound AMAZING... "Net Neutrality" is absolute garbage. You can tell just by the name... "Afforable Care Act"/"Patriot Act", whatever the name of something it does the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. Net Neutrality was written by big telecomm to cement Federal protection of their buisness models... the whole country would have Google Fiber that they tried to do for a decade before finally giving up explicitly because of those "regulations" which the ISPs paid of Federal, State, & Municipals to enact to prevent competition. Always remember people, the most terrifying 11 words in the English language... "We are from the government and we are here to help."

There may be conflict of interest though.

Last I heard Comcast and AT&T were pushing Net Neutrality because Google Fiber were cutting it's revenue in other US states.

Net Neutrality is not a law in itself but a principle that all web traffic is to be treated equally. I don't see how it contributed to Google pausing it's Fiber service expansion, and the service is still ongoing to states with Fiber. Google stated that the company restructuring to Alphabet has more to do with it.

Fiber had problems with the individual state legislations but not the FCC regulations.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 19 January 2017 - 06:28 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Bombast, on 19 January 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

Please. Tell me how Net Nuetrality killed Google Fiber.

I am dying to know. I've heard this claim a dozen times, and yet whenever I ask for how that's possible, I always get the 'You're too much of a sheep to understand' line.

Lay it on me.

Net Neutrality did not do anything really... it was just the final nail in the coffin that made Google realize they were never going to squeeze water out of that rock. The biggest culprit of the death of Google Fiber was really Municipalities regulations... much easier and cheaper to fund city council campaigns for the ISPs, to make it so grinding and tedious to get Permits that eventually Google would give up. Which of course Google did once "Net Neutrality" went into effect cause then they were not even be able to ever get help from the Federal level. Hey the "Patriot Act" sounds amazing too... until you realize that it throws the 1st, 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendments out the window, the "Afforable Care Act" sounds like the best thing the human race has ever done... until you realize the same amount of people still do not have health insurance, those same lower income people had their wage hours cut, and insurance premiums are higher then they have ever been.

So while the concept sounds all warm and fluffy... it practical application it is going to be horrendous and it will actually make lots of services worse. Netflix uses such a huge percentage of total internet use, that companies were able to get Netflix in investing in upgrading bandwidth support... but now Netflix traffic gets the same priority as all other traffic meaning that Netflix has already drastically scaled back in their infrastructure support since they will no longer be receiving priority on the infrastructure they helped pay for. So Netflix streaming will suffer... but further down the line growth they would have paid to use will no longer even be created, a side effect commonly referred to as the "Unseen Conquesences" by economists. That which can not be measured because the investment of capital went elsewhere.

hope that helps explain some things a little better that no one else had previously been able to do for you.

[Bombast]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 19 January 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

SNIP

Not really, but I'll give it to you for giving it a go.

I'll forgo further arguments for the time being, as it's late and, ultimately, this really isn't the place for it.

Edited by Bombast, 19 January 2017 - 06:45 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Bombast, on 19 January 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

Not really, but I'll give it to you for giving it a go.

I'll forgo further arguments for the time being, as it's late and, ultimately, this really isn't the place for it.

actually 100% really... but make whatever excuses you need to to prevent the cognitive dissonance.

[Bombast]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 19 January 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

actually 100% really...

You really think you've 100% proved Net Neutrality is bad. In two paragraphs. When the first sentence in your post was an admission that your initial claim was bull ****.

Ok.

[Clownwarlord]

Actually you are late to the party. Obama already released control of the net to some one else. It apparently is a third party group or organization that has the input of many countries now instead of just under control of the US government.

Mind you the US government created the internet with funding the project on the west coast for data sharing in mind as well as communications between the different universities.

http://www.zdnet.com...der-un-purview/

Here is the article stating it happened back in October when the US government handed it off, but while the US sorta still controls it but there are checks in place to prevent a take over??? Its confusing why there would be a take over of the country that had control of it in the first place when they gave it to ICANN.

Edited by Clownwarlord, 19 January 2017 - 07:01 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Bombast, on 19 January 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

You really think you've 100% proved Net Neutrality is bad. In two paragraphs. When the first sentence in your post was an admission that your initial claim was bull ****.

Ok.

No it was a clarification... Net Neutrality did kill Google Fiber but it was a mercy killing at that point. It was what made Google realize that the government was just way too corrupt to every allow them to lay fiber nationwide... so while it did nothing itself, its presence was enough to doom all hope. Pretty pathetic attempt to strawman the argument though... I expect better

[RestosIII]

I ain't talkin' about RL stuff like this on the MW:O forums, especially in GD. That's equivalent to a suicide by cop.

[Y E O N N E]

Bombast, on 19 January 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

Pretty much. The guy that's been holding onto the last shreds of Net Neutrality is leaving, and if the rest of Trump's appointees are any indication, the guy who replaces him is going to be a) a prior head of a telecom, c) heavily invested in telecoms, and d) is going to go through regulations like a chainsaw.

I just want to point out that everybody also thought Wheeler would be terrible because he was also an industry insider. I have less faith in the new guy than I do Wheeler, but we could all be pleasantly surprised.

[InspectorG]

Likely, so called 'Net Neutrality' wont affect online gaming one way or the other unless we get WW3.

Online gaming is a decent chunk of the economy and an avenue for investment because VR is at our doorstep as well as other developing forms of entertainment.

The Banking Masters likely wont want to miss that opportunity even if they get guvment to spy on everything you do.

And besides, Matters very little who is President of the US, he has no real power other than being a face for the system.


I only see WW3 affecting MWO and that would be cutting off any Russian/BRICS players. That would suck bad but not likely cripple PGI.

[NighthawK1337]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 January 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

I just want to point out that everybody also thought Wheeler would be terrible because he was also an industry insider. I have less faith in the new guy than I do Wheeler, but we could all be pleasantly surprised.

Well I'd give the guy a chance but I'll keep an ear out in case of trouble.

InspectorG, on 19 January 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

Likely, so called 'Net Neutrality' wont affect online gaming one way or the other unless we get WW3.

Online gaming is a decent chunk of the economy and an avenue for investment because VR is at our doorstep as well as other developing forms of entertainment.

The Banking Masters likely wont want to miss that opportunity even if they get guvment to spy on everything you do.

And besides, Matters very little who is President of the US, he has no real power other than being a face for the system.


I only see WW3 affecting MWO and that would be cutting off any Russian/BRICS players. That would suck bad but not likely cripple PGI.

I agree, I'd consider WW3 one of the worst case.
I guess the definition of sucking would be getting more server discos. Oceanic seems to get the bad end more often than the other 2 and I think the New year sudden downtime is enough to conclude that PGI is already having problems with servers.

RestosIII, on 19 January 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

I ain't talkin' about RL stuff like this on the MW:O forums, especially in GD. That's equivalent to a suicide by cop.

Still waiting for a Mod to move this to another sub, I think it was relevant due to the server snafus but if gets moved, I won't complain.

Yep, also avoiding the Trump and Clinton thing since it's GD is not a place for politics.