Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-02 05:39:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:congress, fred upton, gamer activism, herb kohl, legislation, net neutrality, this spartan life, tsl

Halo 2 Video Blog Makes the Rounds on Capitol Hill

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...




(Post a new comment)


[info]chenry
2006-06-02 12:24 pm UTC (link)
HANDS OFF MY INTERNET, CONGRESS.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]eightbitguy
2006-06-02 12:55 pm UTC (link)
noooooooooooooooo

hands of my internet TELEPHONE COMPANIES.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]shadedspriter
2006-06-02 01:03 pm UTC (link)
"Arm yourself" *pulls out rocket launcher* "With knowledge" "aww...man."

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.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Rock and a Hard Place.
[info]jythie
2006-06-02 02:11 pm UTC (link)
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?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]the1jeffy
2006-06-02 02:42 pm UTC (link)
Word Chenry. "Premium Service" Fees? That's why I don't watch cable TV anymore. The only reason I have cable is to get the internet at a discount. Fuck you AOL TIME WARNER etc, for trying to tell me what sites I can use/access quickly. Corporate Payoloa has no place on the 'net.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

wtf
[info]03_kakashi
2006-06-02 02:52 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: wtf
[info]elricbrother3
2006-06-02 07:23 pm UTC (link)
like ebaumsworld

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Well, yeah, except..
[info]kittenseffy
2006-06-03 08:45 pm UTC (link)
Google and Maddox don't use illegal malicious code, or steal 90+% of their material from other websites to display as their own. Likewise, Maddox keeps his site ad-free, as he doesn't want to get rich off of his website; and Google's ads make them money for providing a legitimate service -- not, y'know, copyright infringement (i.e. eBaums).

www.ebaumsworldsucks.com Off-topic, but I'm just sayin'.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]xenosphobatic
2006-06-02 12:54 pm UTC (link)
Sullies my mouth and shits in my coffee, this does.

(Reply to this)


[info]aniki21
2006-06-02 01:09 pm UTC (link)
What I'm really concerned about is that this will affect not only access in the United States, but could have serious impacts on the internet access worldwide.

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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sabin_blitz
2006-06-02 03:54 pm UTC (link)
I'm way past that point. I lost faith in humanity a long time ago.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]viridiscervus
2006-06-02 01:20 pm UTC (link)
NO, I DO NOT WANNA PAY MORE JUST TO MAKE SURE MY SITE WORKS.

Do you know how much this could hurt free web hosts? How many sites like GamePolitics it could push into having subscription fees?

(Reply to this)


[info]viridiscervus
2006-06-02 01:21 pm UTC (link)
Also, with high-tier sites being the only ones who can afford being fast, websites might soon become monopolies...

(Reply to this)

A double standard?
[info]kharne83
2006-06-02 01:30 pm UTC (link)
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!"

(Reply to this)

the most annoying thing
[info]azron
2006-06-02 02:15 pm UTC (link)
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

(Reply to this)

God, I hope they don't pass the bill.
[info]terminator44
2006-06-02 02:15 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)

Crap.
[info]typhoid
2006-06-02 03:21 pm UTC (link)
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!"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Crap.
[info]typhoid
2006-06-02 03:47 pm UTC (link)
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)."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Crap.
[info]jythie
2006-06-02 04:33 pm UTC (link)
Good eyes.

Ah.. the time honored technique of raising the spector of kiddy porn to pass whatever agenda you have.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dustin1986
2006-06-02 03:59 pm UTC (link)
Oohh Noooess!@!! TeH Internets!!!@!11!1

Scary stuff.

(Reply to this)


[info]reallife2010
2006-06-02 04:19 pm UTC (link)
Ha, this will force all major interneting firms, and comunicative electronics to move outside of american juristiction (They would probably put all their servers in canada). In a sence this would isolate america and make it worse off technologicaly than before. This won't promote, it will demote.

(Reply to this)

I discussed this very topic earlier....
[info]jaimas
2006-06-02 04:43 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)


[info]elricbrother3
2006-06-02 07:17 pm UTC (link)
GTFO MAH INTERNETS CONGRESS!!!!

(Reply to this)


[info]gatz111085
2006-06-02 09:02 pm UTC (link)
isn't that almost similar to allowing web based companies to get monopolies because no one will want to deal with the smaller sites?

(Reply to this)

So...
[info]theonereason
2006-06-02 10:06 pm UTC (link)
Communist Internet? Anyone can see what is wrong with that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: So...
[info]terminator44
2006-06-03 01:09 am UTC (link)
In Soviet Russia, the Web surfs you!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: So...
[info]terminator44
2006-06-03 03:12 am UTC (link)
On a more serious note, the bill wouldn't make the Internet Communist. Quite the opposite, as it would mean that the rich and privileged would enjoy the best service while us schmoes get left out. Sounds more like a bourgeois Internet to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Relax, people.
[info]cronosonic
2006-06-06 07:11 am UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Relax, people.
[info]brianj012
2006-06-06 02:40 pm UTC (link)
But us consumers would suffer greatly during and after the crushing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…