Gamer political activism turns up in the most amazing places these days - like the United States Congress, where elected officials and their staffs have been checking out Halo 2 video blog site This Spartan Life.
Like many others, TSL is concerned that some elected officials in Congress are working with the wealthy telecommunications industry to introduce new laws which threaten so-called "net neutrality."
In a nutshell, net neutrality might be considered the First Amendment of the Internet - it prevents companies from giving preference to larger sites with more traffic so that all sites are treated equally and in a non-biased manner. Translation? Your friend's MegaMan fan page takes just as long to load as GamePolitics, GameSpot, your bank's website, or your web-based e-mail.
Currently under consideration in the House is HR5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE). The bill is sponsored by Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) along with Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Rep. Charles Pickering (R-MS.) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL).
Gamers may recall Rep. Upton as the driving force behind last summer's Congressional resolution calling for the Federal Trade Comission to investigate Take-Two's marketing practices in relation to the Hot Coffee scandal. That investigation is ongoing.
The current version of COPE includes diluted net neutrality provisions. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment which would have put some teeth into net neutrality protection. Markey's amendment, however, failed in committee thanks to an intense industry lobbying effort.
If the telecomms have their way, they would be able to regulate traffic to sites according to their own, arbitrary decision making process. The preferred tier of web sites would have faster service and, nturally, higher fees. Blue collar sites would see slower service, perhaps even gaps in service. It's likely that COPE will be voted on by the House as early as next week. It remains to be seen whether protections for net neutrality will be considered.
This Spartan Life, essentially a talk show which director Chris Burke creates within the online Halo 2 game space, recently issued a video blog episode, Can't Buy Me Web that takes a humorous, yet direct look at what might happen if the more restrictive version of COPE is passed. The TSL vlog also urges viewers to take action and steers them to sites like Save the Internet and Democratic Media for more information.
TSL's video is so effective that certain members of Congress are taking a closer look. The crew over at TSL writes, "To our great surprise, our new video blog about net neutrality seems to have made it's way into certain congressional offices. No kidding. We are told that it is being passed around to galvanize the coalition fighting to get net neutrality written into law. We are, of course, honored to be part of the discourse."
TSL takes the same stance that most, if not all, internet content providers do. That is, if telecommunication companies are permitted to prioritize and subject website owners to different levels of service and pricing, the consumer's choice and activity on the Internet will greatly reduced. In turn, the telcomms argue that by charging fees, they would have the ability to provide new services for their clients and perform network upgrades. They also argue that by dictating traffic, consumers would enjoy a higher speed Internet than they have in the past.
How would this legislation affect the average GamePolitics reader? Imagine not being able to visit your favorite MMO because the website and server fees got so high the developer couldn't afford to pay them. Think about some telcomm bureaucrat sitting behind a desk telling you he doesn't care if your personal website doesn't load because you don't get enough traffic for him to bother with you. Or worse, you're told that you can enjoy the same access and speed that you have today, you just have to cough up more dough. These are just a few of the scenarios that keep content providers awake at night. Sooner or later, users would gravitate to the higher-tiered sites because in the world of the Internet, slow means dead.
MV: I was so moved on this issue that I wrote to U.S. Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis). Sen. Kohl wrote back, mentioning that several legislative proposals are currently being addressed by the Senate Commerce Committee which directly relate to the net neutrality issue. Additionally, the Senate Judiciary Committee will soon be considering net neutrality as part of a larger discussion on competition within the telecommunications industry.
-Reporting from Wisconsin, GP correspondent Monica Valentinelli
Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...
June 2 2006, 12:24:15 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 12:55:01 UTC 5 years ago
hands of my internet TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
June 2 2006, 13:03:39 UTC 5 years ago
I hate this whole anti-net nutrality thing...It pisses me off...I hope there are not any plans in europe for similar ideas...
(I am now going to watch all of TSL archives...now that I know where it is.)
June 2 2006, 14:11:03 UTC 5 years ago
Rock and a Hard Place.
In this case, we have to deside _which_ big, powerfull group we trust to screw us over less.While I am not usually a fan of congress, I actually think some fair-practice laws in this case could have huge benifits down the road.
That, and a minimally regulated backbone that in many ways our civilization depends on to function is enough to make anyone neverous. Right now the marketplace keeps the Tier One ISPs at least somewhat in line, but how long will that last?
June 2 2006, 14:42:00 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 14:52:52 UTC 5 years ago
wtf
This doesn't even make proactical sense: google was a low traffic search engine at one point. MAddox didn't own from the very beginning. There are so many good popular sites that start out small, but grew. If this happened then new sites would be so screwed it wouldn't make sense to even start them.5 years ago
5 years ago
June 2 2006, 12:54:28 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 13:09:43 UTC 5 years ago
If this passes, I'll be finally convinced that our society has sold its soul, and will lose the last shred of faith I have in humanity.
June 2 2006, 15:54:52 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 13:20:16 UTC 5 years ago
Do you know how much this could hurt free web hosts? How many sites like GamePolitics it could push into having subscription fees?
June 2 2006, 13:21:56 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 13:30:05 UTC 5 years ago
A double standard?
dictating traffic, consumers would enjoy a higher speed Internet than they have in the past.Wait, that doesn't make any sence. How would we be enjoying a faster internet, when faster service is being used near exclusivly for top-tired sites?
As far as I can tell, what we'd be looking at is a situation in which you have to pay more to "upgrade" to serivce you'd already have before any tiers fell in place. I honestly don't see where the good in this is, all it does is skew the internet then say "pay up!"
June 2 2006, 14:15:52 UTC 5 years ago
the most annoying thing
about this whole net neutrality debate is that it's a law being decided in America, which could effect the entire WWW and yet the rest of the world has no say...i blame capitalism... so many big multi-nationals are based in america that's it's got too much economic pull, still
or something
June 2 2006, 14:15:54 UTC 5 years ago
God, I hope they don't pass the bill.
Sheesh...how stupid do they think we are. Even an idiot could see that the only people who would gain anything from this bill are the massive communication corporations. This is essentially the computer version of the television broadcast flag bill that was defeated a while back.GP faithful, it's time to stand up for net neutrality. Don't let the Internet turn into a privilege for the wealthy elite. There is a list of the bill's cosponsors on the link to the bill. If one of the representatives on the list is in your state, please write them. I don't think I would be able to COPE (pun intended) with the bill's passing.
June 2 2006, 15:21:10 UTC 5 years ago
Crap.
I'm reading the actual text, and my stomach is curdling. They've been pushing for communication companies to provide 911 service to broadband users (and cell phones). THAT's in there too, and will probably be used to push this bill through.I mean, the TITLE is misleading, "Title: To promote the deployment of broadband networks and services." Promote the deployment? How about "pad the pockets of communication monopolies? How about "restrict the internet to only the rich and priviledged?"
However, most people are not going to read the entirety of the bill. "Promote the internet? Promote broadband? SURE I'll sign on, it'll make my younger tech-savvy constituents love me!"
June 2 2006, 15:47:08 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Crap.
Upon further inspection, I needed to add that this bill also includes legislation on child pornography, which is one of the hot topics right now. So we have emergency 911, anti-child porn and pro-big business/rich folks. Oh yeah, I see this bill being voted down in Congress(depressed...)."`(5) CHILD PORNOGRAPHY- A cable operator authorized under this section to provide cable service in a franchise area shall comply with the regulations on child pornography promulgated pursuant to subsection (i)."
5 years ago
June 2 2006, 15:59:58 UTC 5 years ago
Scary stuff.
June 2 2006, 16:19:37 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 16:43:51 UTC 5 years ago
I discussed this very topic earlier....
SaveTheInternet.com is a great place to support Net Neutrality, but what bothers me is the tactics that the opponents of Net Neutrality are trying.http://metavid.ucsc.edu/blog/?p=27
Check this out for more info. You'd be disturbed.
June 2 2006, 19:17:48 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 21:02:17 UTC 5 years ago
June 2 2006, 22:06:10 UTC 5 years ago
So...
Communist Internet? Anyone can see what is wrong with that.June 3 2006, 01:09:31 UTC 5 years ago
Re: So...
In Soviet Russia, the Web surfs you!5 years ago
June 6 2006, 07:11:11 UTC 5 years ago
Relax, people.
The plan that the businesses have will never work. Even if they got through congress, and America 'allows' them to do whatever the hell they please, the rest of the world will tear them apart. The internet doesn't really have any hierarchy, current exceptions being the Domain Name System and the domain naming rules managed by ICANN. And no one country controls it, either.The big businesses, as far as I see, can never control the internet. If they succeeded to do what they are trying to do in America, their plan would backfire, and they'd get the opposite of what they are trying to gain. They'll be up against the entire world, a battle they would never win, and they'll be crushed like ants under a shoe.
June 6 2006, 14:40:08 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Relax, people.
But us consumers would suffer greatly during and after the crushing.