Back in January I wrote a post titled “‘Gamers For Lag’ Weighs In On Net Neutrality“.  The post argued the pro-net neutrality position adopted by the Electronic Consumers Association (an organization of which I am a member) would actually be detrimental to gamers.

They didn’t reply directly to the post, but we wanted to be fair to ECA.  They do some very good work on freedom issues related to legislation that would prevent people from buying games.  They have also taken consistent positions favoring voluntary game rating systems that would educate consumers.  We could not understand why their positions on this issue were so far removed from their clear advocacy on behalf of gamers.

We asked, nearly two months ago, if we could submit some questions on the topic and have them address our concerns over their network neutrality position.  The questions were pretty straightforward, but get straight to the heart of our concerns.

• You mention online games requiring high bandwidth. Most online games require fairly low bandwidth, less than 0.1 Mbps to be precise. The problem is latency (ping) which you mention later in the paragraph. This paragraph talks about latency ruining games for 56 million Americans in a $5 billion business. With the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality NPRM, time sensitive packet traffic like video games cannot be prioritized and therefore creates more annoyances for gamers. Net Neutrality ensures latency for gamers by preventing prioritization. Your testimony supports Net Neutrality, but it actually reads like you are in favor of intelligent network management. Could you comment on this further?

• This is a two part question. In both your testimony and your recent SaveTheInternet article you refer to the iPhone App Store and wireless providers. The ability to download straight to the device is simply a medium just like connecting the device to the computer and transferring the files. Additionally, the device is Apple’s, and Apple is within their rights to determine what software can be placed on their device just as it if were a Mac. Even with Net Neutrality regulation, Apple would not be forced to open their phone and allow any application to be placed on it. In this case how would Net Neutrality affect the business model of Apple/AT&T deciding which game applications they will allow to be used on their phones? Additionally, the wireless Internet is a completely different beast than wired ISP service. Latency is astronomically high because there is only one route the connection between the device and the tower can take, which means traffic is always extremely high. Most online games on the iPhone for instance require a WiFi connection and cannot be played over 3G because of the latency issues. Net Neutrality will ensure that prioritization of time sensitive traffic will never happen, and online gaming on the phone will never improve. In this case, how do gamers benefit from the ECA supporting Net Neutrality?

• You mention consumption based billing and describe what it is and that the ECA fought against it. But you do not explain why consumption based billing is bad for gamers? Is the ECA comfortable with the current model of consumption based billing on cell phones for cell phone gamers? If a gamer determined that they only use 10-gig a month and a consumption based plan allowed them to get Internet service for $20 a month rather than paying for a one-size-fits-all $60 plan, why is this bad? How does the ECA see consumption based billing correlating with Net Neutrality?

• Finally, one of the popular games you mention in your testimony is World of Warcraft. TeliaSonera is a company that works with Blizzard to provide prioritized service for WoW gaming packets. Here’s a link to their press release. TeliaSonera provides a service that allows WoW players to receive a prioritized connection to the game so that their connection is not disrupted with latency by having to compete with non-time sensitive traffic. Services like these for gamers would be unavailable under the proposed NPRM. What is ECA’s position on these services being unavailable to gamers and preventing gamers from having the choice to obtain services that improve their gaming experience?

After almost two months without a reply, we reached out again regarding these questions.  ECA finally gave us a response – though only to say that they would not be providing us with answers.

ECA’s reluctance to answer these questions leads me to believe they are fully aware that their support of net neutrality is anti-gamer.  However, they seem to be taking a political position on this issue to stay in favor with the coalition of free culture groups with whom they have aligned.

That is unfortunate.  When groups put the interests of their members second to the political games in Washington, they face serious potential repercussions.  We have seen in the health care debate the very real membership impact as AARP has been losing members in droves over the organization’s position on that issue.

It would be sad to see ECA’s membership in open revolt because the association has thrown gamers under the bus on net neutrality.

——–

Related Content: George Ou analysis on game developers demanding ban to premium peering.