Virgin Media CEO threatens to put UK net traffic in the "bus lane"
by Mike Schramm 
Apr 14th 2008 at 3:00PM
We've heard before about lots of trouble with WoW players in the UK experiencing lags, disconnects, and high latency (though the problem seems to be all over lately), and reader Hugh sent us this possible reason: Virgin Media, which is a large internet service provider in the UK, has had their CEO spouting off about net neutrality lately, calling it a "load of bollocks," and claiming that if content providers (like Blizzard) don't pay up, he'll be happy to stick them in the "bus lane."Not quite cool. The latest tactic of ISPs everywhere to make more money is to charge not customers, but content providers for their traffic -- i.e. if YouTube wants their site to work fast on your ISP, they need to pay the ISP a certain amount, and then everyone on that network will experience the site quickly. So in this case, Virgin would be asking Blizzard, responsible for all the World of Warcraft traffic, to pay a premium price for customers to receive it quickly. And anyone who knows Blizzard knows they probably aren't too excited about paying such a price -- they'd likely call Virgin Media out for slowing the connection down before paying protection money for their data.
At any rate, it seems like there's a battle coming, and your character's information may be caught in the middle of it. As always, you've got to fight with your wallet -- if Virgin or any other ISP threatens to hold data hostage like this, it's time to find a different ISP to pay your money to every month.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Blizzard
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
shuddertrix Apr 14th 2008 3:03PM
The italics tag isn't closed.
Metaphor Apr 14th 2008 3:04PM
'Bus Lanes' tend to be empty of any traffic whatsoever including buses (but don't get me started on taxis) so I think he should of picked a more appropriate metaphor......
guesswho? Apr 14th 2008 3:04PM
oh snap
makishima Apr 14th 2008 3:09PM
Man and here I am thinking Comcast was one of the worst IS.....*Were sorry, this user has exceeded his monthly bandwidth limit even though we make him pay for a supposedly "Unlimited" service. Please fork over more cash so we can do it again to you next month*
Dunwich Apr 14th 2008 3:11PM
If he tries it, I daresay he'll find he doesn't have many happy customers. Or any customers at all. For one I'll be taking my old broadband modem and finding a way to insert it into a part of his anatomy.
The only people who would win in a situation where we didn't have net neutrality are big companies. I can't think how it makes life better for anyone except those whose lives are already pretty sweet, what with the stupidly high salaries, bonuses and all the trappings of those with money.
arcady0 Apr 14th 2008 3:15PM
A random troll in Orgrimmar:
I be needing more lawyers.
Milktub Apr 14th 2008 3:15PM
Sounds to me like Payola 2.0.
Old Payola: Want your song played for the people? Pay up.
New Payola: Want your content to reach the people? Pay up.
Jesse Apr 14th 2008 3:16PM
I hate to burst the bubble on this one, but the CEO is not exactly an engineer, his characterization of the ISP's intentions (dastardly though they may be) is pretty inept.
The real idea is this:
Say you pay for a 3m down, 512k up connection over a cable modem. Now say Google pony's up for fast lane service from ISP's.
ISP's are contractually obligated (best effort, of course) to provide you with as much of the bandwidth you're paying for as reasonably possible, so they can't cut the amount of data they pass to you from non google sources. Therefore, the only way they can speed up google is to give you MORE bandwidth than you're contracted for.
The plan is basically this, a non google site can feed you at most 3m of traffic per second (your normally rate limited circuit). Google pays for the privilege of uploading you, say, up to 5m of traffic per second, bursting 2m above what you normally get, on googles dime. The idea is that if you get 3 meg while streaming yahoo videos, or 5 meg streaming google/youtube videos, you'll go to google/youtube instead of yahoo.
The hitch is this story is that bandwidth has almost no effect on latency, which is the real killer in a game like wow, and wow already uses such a small amount of bandwidth, it wouldn't benefit much from more bandwidth. I know people who raid just fine over dialup (with some pretty fugly lag, albeit)
I find it unlikely that virgin trying to gouge net services sites would be impacting wow traffic in a sizeable way. More likely, EU realms are experiencing the same inept routing Blizzard has been pinched by in the US (it seems they need an iBGP nerd. (I'm available, Blizz, call me!)
Farrell Apr 14th 2008 3:38PM
"ISP's are contractually obligated (best effort, of course) to provide you with as much of the bandwidth you're paying for as reasonably possible, so they can't cut the amount of data they pass to you from non google sources. Therefore, the only way they can speed up google is to give you MORE bandwidth than you're contracted for."
Sorry, but traffic shaping exists in the UK. There are ISPs that do it - for example: Pipex.
matt Apr 14th 2008 5:36PM
Thanks for the writeup. I'd never actually heard the specifics before.
darian Apr 14th 2008 6:03PM
Sadly, I don't see it working this way.
Firstly, ISPs don't give you all the bandwidth you pay them for. Almost all of the contracts specify the quoted numbers as "peak" or "optimal" or some other semantic nightmare that basically enables them to write off anything less as normal and still charge you. So you may be paying for a fast connection, but unless you're lucky you won't be getting what they claim to give.
Secondly, bandwidth isn't a something they can just flip a switch and create more of. Like water, electricity, and delivery pizza it has to come from somewhere. Given that most ISPs already oversell it's unlikely they have oodles of bandwidth available (especially at peak hours). So either they have to install new lines, or something's got to give.
Now, I don't see many ISPs clamoring to do expensive linework in order to charge google money for a premium service. It's much cheaper to throttle the most frequently used sites and charge them money for what they enjoyed previously.
It's ultimately a money grab. It makes the asinine assumption that the traffic these websites and services generate isn't paid for, when the users are paying monthly for it.
thain Apr 14th 2008 3:16PM
This sort of thing is really silly, I mean data is going to travel SEVERAL networks to get to the final user, is a content provider expected to pay EVERY owner of ANY switch thier data traverses? Heck I have a router in my home, and dang content providers are wasting its bandwidth! Where's my check?
ISPs don't seem to realize that the content is the REASON people are on the internet. If there was no news, no youtube, no blizzard, people would not even bother buying broadband. They could dial up once a day to check their email then log off.
Epiny Apr 14th 2008 3:17PM
No bandwith is unlimited. All the contracts have very fine print that if you go over a certain amount we reserve the right to cancel your service. This only effects .05% of the population so no one complains.
This seems like extortion. Pay us more money or we will make your customers run slow? It feels unethical and border line illegal. Would Virgin really does this and possibly alienate 10 million potential customers, WoW's player base.
Not to mention other MMO and online games joining the fight to protect there future investments.
arcady0 Apr 14th 2008 3:18PM
Oh, to add a serious note. Does Virgin have a monopoly in the UK?
Anti-monopoly laws in the US are designed to prevent problems like this, but under the modern political climate they've been largely ignored for media-mergers...
I expect it won't be long before major US ISPs can get away with pulling stunts like this as well. Blizzard in turn will be forced to pass the increased cost on to... guess who?
The end users - us gamers.
Which would be fair if these costs were covering the costs of operating the bandwidth, rather than just private jets for the CEOs of major media firms.
Nick S Apr 14th 2008 3:57PM
my ISP is a monopoly here. in the previous place i lived, there was a different monopoly. both ISPs abuse their position exactly as you'd fear.
i, like many americans, cannot vote with my wallet. it's what i've got or dial-up.
Pappagallo Apr 14th 2008 9:37PM
They have a monopoly on cable internet, not xDSL.
Theserene Apr 15th 2008 12:52PM
There are no anti-monopoly laws in the UK. I work for a monopoly...
Badger Apr 14th 2008 3:21PM
I love your word choice toward the article's conclusion. 'Protection money.' That's *exactly* what this is: racketeering, mafia-style.
You'd better watch out, though. If you start being too vocal with your dissent, Neil Berkett might send his 'problem solvers' and have you 'whacked.'
Netherscourge Apr 14th 2008 3:29PM
Thank GAWD that guy doesn't run any American IP traffic centers!
Candina@WH Apr 14th 2008 3:45PM
You couldn't be more wrong.
The same idea has been floated by Comcast, AT&T (Bell South), and Qwest (I believe).
They want content providers to pony up for the additional bandwidth their bandwidth intensive applications use. The ISPs are nervous about the additional infrastructure they will have to invest in to transit streaming HD video, etc.
They are nervous because they wrote all these 'unlimited' volume subscriber contracts and know they can't squeeze the end user because we, the end user, WILL simply jump ship to the next provider. That is the problem with providing a commodity product. When all you can compete on is price, eventually the price point will put companies(small companies and poorly run big companies) out of business. Look at the mobile telephone market.