PDA

View Full Version : Could MMOs be the Latest Victims of Corporate Greed?


Dillgaar
06-06-2006, 11:48 AM
With the branches of the US government now looking over requests and legislation dealing with Network Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) the next big question for all of us gamers is "how will it effect us?".

Gamespy takes a look at how MMOs, subscription fees in particular, and how they will be effected by this ominous development.

You can see the full article here (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/711/711331p1.html).

Dorfeater
06-06-2006, 12:13 PM
If this happens, telecom companies will just be adding fuel to the fire and creating even more possible Timothy McVeigh's.

I know I feel like I want to blow up some of those greedy corporations already.

:twisted:

Razorwire
06-06-2006, 12:18 PM
It's not good. The corps should not have the power to decide who gets to what content.

Azzerhoden
06-06-2006, 12:58 PM
If this happens, telecom companies will just be adding fuel to the fire and creating even more possible Timothy McVeigh's.

I know I feel like I want to blow up some of those greedy corporations already.

:twisted:

Oh?? Going to run around blowing up buildings with children in them?

Extremely poor taste.

Cailette
06-06-2006, 05:01 PM
I really hope that Congress spends some money on a few studies about how this will effect our economy. We are pretty much a service based society now and much of our services involves internet technology in one aspect or another. I wonder how many small businesses will be effected adversely by such regulation if it goes into effect. If the telecom companies are loosing market share to various different VOIP products available these days (was a concern when I worked at one), then they need to create and market their own VOIP product. Most people use VOIP products due to their more competitive pricing.

elihup
06-06-2006, 06:42 PM
I dont know how big of a deal this would actually be if it passed. There is a large portion of people out there who would want to have the good ole non-prioritized internet access that we are used to, so companies would still offer this, the price just might go up a little. I imagine that for the people who wanted the internet access that gave higher priority to paying websites, thier internet bill could go down since the companies are helping to foot the bill.

Dillgaar
06-06-2006, 06:50 PM
I dont know how big of a deal this would actually be if it passed. There is a large portion of people out there who would want to have the good ole non-prioritized internet access that we are used to, so companies would still offer this, the price just might go up a little. I imagine that for the people who wanted the internet access that gave higher priority to paying websites, thier internet bill could go down since the companies are helping to foot the bill.

No likely lowering of fees. Everything that would happen would be at an additional cost to the consumer. And with no regulations on what they could charge they really would be free to charge anything they would like.

And what happens down the road when they decide that he who pays most gets the traffic? Then the only sites you will ever be able to get to are the ones that pay exorbitant amounts of money to do business... where does that leave competition? It doesn't because by this time competition will not exist

Eshu
06-07-2006, 01:44 AM
I dont know how big of a deal this would actually be if it passed. There is a large portion of people out there who would want to have the good ole non-prioritized internet access that we are used to, so companies would still offer this, the price just might go up a little. I imagine that for the people who wanted the internet access that gave higher priority to paying websites, thier internet bill could go down since the companies are helping to foot the bill.
The various companies already pay for "footing the bill" in colocation fees and their sites usage metrics. Many hosting companies offer packages with a set amount of storage, bandwidth, and monthly activity quotas and assess a surcharge when these are exceeded. I doubt the backbone providers failed to include such things in their contracts with the hosts.

Personally, I'm rather surprised at all the telecom mergers that have been going on. The baby bells are slowly reforming back into several regional powerhouses and will ultimately force competition out again. Tinfoil hat paranoia? Maybe, but it's a valid concern I think.

Sorengard
06-07-2006, 08:57 AM
If this happens, telecom companies will just be adding fuel to the fire and creating even more possible Timothy McVeigh's.

I know I feel like I want to blow up some of those greedy corporations already.

:twisted:

You need to watch what you say. You never know who is monitering and reading this. They might not see your statement as a joke.

reefus88
06-07-2006, 03:49 PM
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6052239.html

AT&T will not block or degrade traffic, period," he said. "And we won't change (our position) no matter what sky-is-falling rhetoric you hear. Markets work best when consumers have choices."

Alikan
06-09-2006, 06:22 AM
You need to watch what you say. You never know who is monitering and reading this. They might not see your statement as a joke.

Politically correct version: If this happens, telecom companies will just be adding fuel to the fire and creating even more possible Guy Foxx's. You won't be as offended, as it was many years ago and he never got around to killing anyone. He was simply making a reference to anti-corporation/government and other anarchy views, bringing up Timothy McVeigh was supposed to make you remember his "reasons" for doing what he did, not what he did.

Sorengard
06-10-2006, 01:07 AM
Politically correct version: If this happens, telecom companies will just be adding fuel to the fire and creating even more possible Guy Foxx's. You won't be as offended, as it was many years ago and he never got around to killing anyone. He was simply making a reference to anti-corporation/government and other anarchy views, bringing up Timothy McVeigh was supposed to make you remember his "reasons" for doing what he did, not what he did.

Never was offended, just believed it was not thought out before it was typed.