Well, there is a reason the United States is slipping out of the top 10 in internet speeds... the same reason we slip out of the top 10 in anything, companies wanting to pass laws that keep the status quo and prevent innovation.
Thanks AT&T for still being the lumbering beast that had to be killed in the 80s.
@Tuor_of_Gondolin: the issue at hand is congress defining a standard for what is broadband. They are taking into account what is needed and will output an edict declaring "in the US to be called broadband a connection must be X upload and Y download". The providers are trying to provide evidence so the legal definition is much lower and they can keep providing crappy service relative to other countries and not spend bank actually renovating their networks.
Nothing is obfuscated, this is just the means to how the end is described.
@Tuor_of_Gondolin: Unfortunately, until we get a law passed that actually ensures network neutrality, these sorts of clarifications will be necessary. Otherwise, traffic on ports other than 80 will be treated like shit -- packets dropped at the first bit of congestion.
Don't fool yourself; if most telecoms could get away with only providing web browsing and nothing else, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The more a service actually uses bandwidth, the less they like it, and that extends directly to the people using it.
yeah and it would be AT&T that said this. hey arent they the EXACT SAME company that the government broke up as a monoply in the early 80's and have remerged back into AT&T (with the exception being Qwest out here in the Pacific Northwest?)? makes you wonder, hmmm?
way to go once again Bush administration for letting this bully back on the block.
but all of that being said basic email and websurfing overall are prolly more important to the general public than gaming but gaming should be right behind these "basics" as it still is (and will only get bigger) a major reason a LOT of people get high speed internet and a lot of people work in the gaming industry (like myself) and use it for work related functions, which just so happen to be gaming and testing.
That Kenneth L Doroshow had a great response and i feel the same way Greed is what is keeping America way behind the upload and download speeds in North Korea that are far superior at least 10 times faster than anything in America, America is greed... plain and simple and that is what is holding us back
@Kyle Horne: That, or the logistical issues in getting all of the required lines and repeaters out to hillbilly subsistence dwellers in the middle of nowhere. That's what this is about, getting non-dialup service to people who don't live in what anyone would consider to be a population center. If you're being sarcastic, my apologies.
@Anemone: Upgrading and installing a high capacity fiber optics network is more economical than maintaining the vast copper line networks. Kyle Horne is right its all about greed. American business is all about greed and nothing else.
@-itis: Let's back it up a bit. Why do they want to define broadband? I mean... there must be a reason for it. That's right. It's the national broadband plan. The thing that's allocating the money. [arstechnica.com] That silly thingie. I'll save you some time to get to the guts of what it's trying to do.
"The Commission must send to Congress its National Broadband Plan—a set of recommendations for making sure that everybody in the United States has access to broadband."
Here is the thing... your greedy, world destroying, puppy raping businesses already have access to broadband. It's not about how we will manage to get an STM-256x line installed in every walmart, but how to get serviceable internet on par with the rest of the world to people who aren't currently able to access the service. So, without dragging on, they're basically trying to figure out what's the lowest amount of service we can give some family living in a trailer in the Ozarks and still mange to say "we gave them broadband access."
Yes it is about greed in part since they are trying to do it as cheaply as possible, but that's not the point of what's going on. Seven Billion dollars may seem like a lot, but when it comes down to it that's a great deal of work in upgrading or replacing the infrastructure, and the US is a large country with exceptionally low population density throughout basically the middle 2/3 of the country. That $7bn isn't going to stretch very far once all is said and done if you're trying to lay an OC3 to every person in Montana.
I like games as much as the next Kotaku reader, but even I'll admit that AT&T has a point. C'mon people, its really hard to argue that games should be given the same attention as basic internet needs like e-mail and messaging and basic web use. Those things are far more important to the general public and to the economy than whether or not we can play Team Fortress online.
@jcb231: the flipside of this argument is equally true: e-mail, instant messaging, and basic web surfing are not activities that require broadband speed. it is disingenuous at best for AT&T to imply that such services are the hallmarks of actual broadband, when just ten years ago, we were all doing those things over 56k modem.
no, what the FCC really should be looking at is the US's competitiveness compared to other online nations. South Korea (ZERG RUSH KEKEKE) and a good portion of Japan are now beating the pants off of any US broadband provider. if the US wishes to maintain economic competitiveness in *anything* internet related, the FCC must not listen to the empty braying of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the like, who all would prefer to take federal dollars without having to actually develop their own infrastructures. at lease Verizon is making some sort of effort with FiOS, but it's not enough.
@jcb231: We're talking broadband though. Do you really need Broadband for email and messaging? Basic web use maybe, video conferencing definitely but I made it through college with dialup. When it comes down to it, isn't most internet use, (especially broadband use,) more a source of entertainment then NEED? If I somehow offended God and was smited with dial up again, gaming and video would be the two things that would be missed the most.
I think people are missing the part where ISPs would have to overhaul their infrastructure to better support gaming. For instance the way things are setup now, you get really shitty ping times. This would have to be improved, another area that needs improvement is upload speeds. ISPs love to advertise large downloads and skimp out on the upload. For instance my download is advertised as 30Mbps, but the upload is only 1-2Mbps, and I have the top tier that has been upgraded like three times.
Xbox Live constitutes the majority of my internet usage at home. I plan on buying Modern Warfare 2 this holiday, and it's not because I'm interested in playing the story mode.
Lately, using Netflix through 360 has become regular in my house. How would AT&T define this? Gaming? I'm sure they aren't happy with me watching movies so cheaply instead of charging me for On Demand movies.
"For Americans who today have no terrestrial broadband service at all, the pressing concern is not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet's resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools that most of the country has come to expect as a given."
I'd say thats a pretty damn accurate statement. But then, it is the ESA kicking up a fuss and they are a bunch of nutters after all.
@Mancomb Seepgood: The thing is, you dont need broadband to do that. Dialup works fine(albiet slowly) for normal browsing. ATT(and the other companies) are trying to get out of upgrading their networks by having congress give a low requirement for broadband.
@trunkenmath: Not at all. Dial-up simply isn't good enough anymore because the vast majority of websites have been designed with Broadband in mind. They're flash and java heavy and dial-up just crawls.
Gamers are just pissy because their hobby isn't quite mainstream enough. QQ.
the significance is basically what Archaotic said above, AT&T are looking for another way to tier their internet offerings. Since they are trying to define online gaming as "nice-to-have" feature, not necessary for what the deem as "basic" or "core" functionality of internet service such as email, web browsing, etc.
Pretty much just another way for the communications companies to nickel and dime their customers by offering packages like basic or premium instead of the current transfer speed model of 5mb/10mb/15mb etc.
Unfortunately video games will run (maybe not well) over pretty much any connection (dreamcast had a 56k modem) they would have to filter the traffic based on protocols or just QOS gaming traffic to the bottom of the barrel. The only way for them to limit use would be to actively block the traffic, theres nothing else that would prevent online gaming from working over even the slowest broadband connection. A packet is a packet, unless they are shaping the traffic, applying QOS, or filtering based on protocol.
@BambiLumpa: you can do traffic shaping without blocking anything. example: comcast's "speed boost" -- which is nothing more than traffic shaping lowering your speed after the first meg or so. they're not BOOSTING you for the first million bytes, they're breaking the equivalent of your tcp legs once you exceed a certain amount of traffic per session. then, once you're crippled you're free to "crawl" wherever you want.
also, unless things have changed in the last few years most games use UDP. another easy target? non port-53 (usually DNS) based UDP. protect a few other low hanging fruit and gimp the rest.
it would probably be easy to just nail anything not on port 80, 443, 25, 53, etc. what do they care if your ssh sessions go to 800ms latencies? i'm exaggerating a bit here, but having worked on similar technology there is far more room for evil than good when you start trying to prioritize network traffic.
While yes, I'm sure it's a statement motivated by profits, I'm not so ready to disagree completely. They're not exactly wrong in saying that those without broadband aren't waiting for the minute when they can finally connect to XBL with a decent connection.
This is just AT&T weaseling out of the proposed infrastructure changes that the new administration is pushing hard for. Funny how AT&T can clamor that bandwidth's at a premium, but one of the major components of broadband usage is not even given a comparable spot in the "broadband" experience.
Why they're doing this is beyond me, because you know the government is going to pony up some serious scratch for AT&T (and others) to expand and enhance broadband service (if even just a little, so a nation as big as the US doesn't look like its being left behind the rest of the western world with cheap/powerful broadband.)
@Doctor Jest: Because that's how the "broadband" industry in the US has been for years -- ISPs will lobby hard for subsidies for upgrades.... and then never upgrade their infrastructure.
Frankly, the lack of meaningful competition in internet connectivity (I'm sorry, choosing between slow DSL, shoddy cable, and overpriced laggy satellite is not competition) is one of the major areas where the US is falling behind the rest of the civilized world.
@Doctor Jest: Hit the nail on the head right there. AT&T just doesn't want to bother competing with infrastructures like the one Japan, using the laughable "meh, we dun need it" excuse.
The fact of the matter is, we do. Broadband at this point serves perfectly well for e-mail and regular surfing, but goes little beyond that. AT&T doesn't have to get off their asses to keep the infrastructure as it is, but they won't.
Jeez with communications companies in the US. All of them charge premium prices for sub-par service.
Comcast feels very similarly. They told me I couldn't connect my ps3 to their internet because they "Didn't approve of gaming as a valid internet activity."
I connected it anyway, with the help of another CS rep who told me that it is crap and how he did it.
@Demonbird: Don't listen to those Comcast idiots on the phone. 99% of them are idiots with no real computer skills. You could connect any device to your internet.
When I first got PSO for Dreamcast I had a hell of a time setting it up. I needed information to input into the DC browser and they wouldn't give it to me when I told them it was for a Dreamcast. I called again and didn't explain why I needed it and they have me everything I needed.
I think they just hear the word "video games " and automatically deny you because they are idiot reps that don't know better.
@Ronin_Sixshooter: It just would not let me naturally connect to their net. Wireless or hard line. Made me pretty damn mad that they are the only internet option in the area above 1 mb/s
Yeah. My entire neighborhood has shitty connections routinely because of Comcast's crappy service. Neither my own nor my neighbors' connections are anywhere near what I would call acceptable. I know because after my internet connection just stopped working and Comcast claimed nothing could possibly be wrong for about a month, I asked for my neighbor's permission to piggyback his. I'm still paying for my internet, but my neighbor's router somehow hasn't eaten shit and died yet.
Similarly, my father had a local cable company (Delphi, I believe it was called) from which he got basic cable and internet for $13 per month. Comcast then bought out Delphi and made their standard $99 offer for cable/phone/internet. My father told them to go fuck themselves. I still don't know how he lives without internet, but I'm glad he doesn't support their bullshit.
My mother plans on canceling our cable and getting Netflix in its place. I'm pretty damn excited about the idea of that.
In other words, they want to charge us extra on top of the already-exorbitant subscription fees just to have gaming-quality bandwidth. Ah, businesses fucking over the public. Don't you just LOVE capitalism?
@Archaotic: Yes, I do love it. Because I can at least choose to not have the service because it's not the government trying to make me use and pay for the service, a la other forms of economics.
@I_Hate_This_Place: There's gotta be a better way. Like wiring all corporate executives to a giant machine that infuses them with knowledge of human rights and good business practices.
@Archaotic: Broadband in the United States isn't free-market capitalist. In almost all areas it's dominated by a (sometimes legally binding) monopoly by one company. It's no different economically than if the government ran the Internet.
If there was real competition to provide broadband and companies had to worry about marketing (as they do here in Korea) they wouldn't be able to pull crap like this.
@Ben Applegate: Yeah, this is exactly how it is where I live. I have Time Warner Cable, but if they screw up, I can always turn to ... Time Warner Cable. Luckily, I can also get my broadband internet from Time Warner Cable, and if I really feel like sticking it to the man, I can go with Time Warner Cable.
It was exactly the same where I used to live, except replace all instances of Time Warner Cable with Comporium. Really, the only choice you have is to pay the exorbitant fees, move to a different town, or go without.
@I_Hate_This_Place: See, the wonderful thing about capitalism is the illusion of "choice". You can CHOOSE to not have internet at all, but that's not much of a choice.
Adding the "nothing" choice to "shitty service for terrible price" isn't that much better than just having the latter choice. Capitalism at its finest.
@RockyRan: Or, a company who wants a piece of the pie will emerge and undercut the other bastards. Hence, why I love capitalism. It's not an illusion of choice, because the free market allows anyone to start a company and offer choice.
09/14/09
Thanks AT&T for still being the lumbering beast that had to be killed in the 80s.
09/15/09
09/14/09
You define broadband by download speed, upload speed, and latency, amongst other things.
Both parties are obfuscating matters by addressing this issue in terms of services.
09/14/09
Nothing is obfuscated, this is just the means to how the end is described.
09/14/09
I wish, then, that the article would provide what sort of UL/DL speeds AT&T considers to be "broadband". But maybe AT&T didn't go into that.
09/14/09
Don't fool yourself; if most telecoms could get away with only providing web browsing and nothing else, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The more a service actually uses bandwidth, the less they like it, and that extends directly to the people using it.
And gaming eats up a lot of bandwidth.
09/14/09
way to go once again Bush administration for letting this bully back on the block.
but all of that being said basic email and websurfing overall are prolly more important to the general public than gaming but gaming should be right behind these "basics" as it still is (and will only get bigger) a major reason a LOT of people get high speed internet and a lot of people work in the gaming industry (like myself) and use it for work related functions, which just so happen to be gaming and testing.
09/14/09
Americans love monopolies now. I blame the board game.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
"The Commission must send to Congress its National Broadband Plan—a set of recommendations for making sure that everybody in the United States has access to broadband."
Here is the thing... your greedy, world destroying, puppy raping businesses already have access to broadband. It's not about how we will manage to get an STM-256x line installed in every walmart, but how to get serviceable internet on par with the rest of the world to people who aren't currently able to access the service. So, without dragging on, they're basically trying to figure out what's the lowest amount of service we can give some family living in a trailer in the Ozarks and still mange to say "we gave them broadband access."
Yes it is about greed in part since they are trying to do it as cheaply as possible, but that's not the point of what's going on. Seven Billion dollars may seem like a lot, but when it comes down to it that's a great deal of work in upgrading or replacing the infrastructure, and the US is a large country with exceptionally low population density throughout basically the middle 2/3 of the country. That $7bn isn't going to stretch very far once all is said and done if you're trying to lay an OC3 to every person in Montana.
09/14/09
09/14/09
no, what the FCC really should be looking at is the US's competitiveness compared to other online nations. South Korea (ZERG RUSH KEKEKE) and a good portion of Japan are now beating the pants off of any US broadband provider. if the US wishes to maintain economic competitiveness in *anything* internet related, the FCC must not listen to the empty braying of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the like, who all would prefer to take federal dollars without having to actually develop their own infrastructures. at lease Verizon is making some sort of effort with FiOS, but it's not enough.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
Lately, using Netflix through 360 has become regular in my house. How would AT&T define this? Gaming? I'm sure they aren't happy with me watching movies so cheaply instead of charging me for On Demand movies.
09/14/09
Well neither is DSL. So get to work lazies.
09/14/09
09/14/09
I'd say thats a pretty damn accurate statement. But then, it is the ESA kicking up a fuss and they are a bunch of nutters after all.
09/14/09
09/15/09
Gamers are just pissy because their hobby isn't quite mainstream enough. QQ.
09/14/09
Pretty much just another way for the communications companies to nickel and dime their customers by offering packages like basic or premium instead of the current transfer speed model of 5mb/10mb/15mb etc.
Unfortunately video games will run (maybe not well) over pretty much any connection (dreamcast had a 56k modem) they would have to filter the traffic based on protocols or just QOS gaming traffic to the bottom of the barrel. The only way for them to limit use would be to actively block the traffic, theres nothing else that would prevent online gaming from working over even the slowest broadband connection. A packet is a packet, unless they are shaping the traffic, applying QOS, or filtering based on protocol.
To sum it up, they are gonna fuck us.
09/14/09
also, unless things have changed in the last few years most games use UDP. another easy target? non port-53 (usually DNS) based UDP. protect a few other low hanging fruit and gimp the rest.
it would probably be easy to just nail anything not on port 80, 443, 25, 53, etc. what do they care if your ssh sessions go to 800ms latencies? i'm exaggerating a bit here, but having worked on similar technology there is far more room for evil than good when you start trying to prioritize network traffic.
09/14/09
HOORAY! Finally a Shining Force MMO!!
I'm gonna have like 10 werewolves and like 10 hawkmen and kick all your asses!!
(You know... when it's my turn to position my characters)
09/14/09
09/14/09
Why they're doing this is beyond me, because you know the government is going to pony up some serious scratch for AT&T (and others) to expand and enhance broadband service (if even just a little, so a nation as big as the US doesn't look like its being left behind the rest of the western world with cheap/powerful broadband.)
09/14/09
Frankly, the lack of meaningful competition in internet connectivity (I'm sorry, choosing between slow DSL, shoddy cable, and overpriced laggy satellite is not competition) is one of the major areas where the US is falling behind the rest of the civilized world.
09/14/09
The fact of the matter is, we do. Broadband at this point serves perfectly well for e-mail and regular surfing, but goes little beyond that. AT&T doesn't have to get off their asses to keep the infrastructure as it is, but they won't.
Jeez with communications companies in the US. All of them charge premium prices for sub-par service.
09/14/09
I connected it anyway, with the help of another CS rep who told me that it is crap and how he did it.
09/14/09
When I first got PSO for Dreamcast I had a hell of a time setting it up. I needed information to input into the DC browser and they wouldn't give it to me when I told them it was for a Dreamcast. I called again and didn't explain why I needed it and they have me everything I needed.
I think they just hear the word "video games " and automatically deny you because they are idiot reps that don't know better.
09/14/09
09/14/09
Yeah. My entire neighborhood has shitty connections routinely because of Comcast's crappy service. Neither my own nor my neighbors' connections are anywhere near what I would call acceptable. I know because after my internet connection just stopped working and Comcast claimed nothing could possibly be wrong for about a month, I asked for my neighbor's permission to piggyback his. I'm still paying for my internet, but my neighbor's router somehow hasn't eaten shit and died yet.
Similarly, my father had a local cable company (Delphi, I believe it was called) from which he got basic cable and internet for $13 per month. Comcast then bought out Delphi and made their standard $99 offer for cable/phone/internet. My father told them to go fuck themselves. I still don't know how he lives without internet, but I'm glad he doesn't support their bullshit.
My mother plans on canceling our cable and getting Netflix in its place. I'm pretty damn excited about the idea of that.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
Corporate CEOs are scum. All of them.
09/14/09
If there was real competition to provide broadband and companies had to worry about marketing (as they do here in Korea) they wouldn't be able to pull crap like this.
09/14/09
It was exactly the same where I used to live, except replace all instances of Time Warner Cable with Comporium. Really, the only choice you have is to pay the exorbitant fees, move to a different town, or go without.
09/14/09
Adding the "nothing" choice to "shitty service for terrible price" isn't that much better than just having the latter choice. Capitalism at its finest.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
You're not very familiar with how big businesses (best example, Wal-Mart) handle small business competition, are you?