The Lawbringer: Letters to Rogers, letters to Congress
by Mathew McCurley 
Jul 15th 2011 at 2:00PM
We've got two stories to talk about on The Lawbringer today, both interestingly involving letters. That's right -- letters. To you from me, that sort of thing. These letters, however, are instruments of change in a world where we as consumers seem not to have much control or ability to change the big picture concepts that dot our path to consistent entertainment. The amount of energy that we have to put into just getting in a decent WoW session is staggering at times.
The first story revolves around Rogers, one of the largest Canadian internet service providers, famous for its lame bandwidth caps and my old Canadian guildmates shouting "Rogers sucks!" as much as they could on Mumble. Yes, it is another chapter in the Mathew McCurley Guide to Awful Bandwidth Throttling -- but hopefully, this new information and story chapter will get us on the path to better WoW experiences in the face of the immense throttling of WoW data as peer-to-peer traffic.
The second story is all about letters that you will want to send. Last week, I wrote The Lawbringer about Senate Bill S.978, colloquially being referred to as the anti-streaming bill. While not directly prohibiting video game streaming or even mentioning video games anywhere in the proposed legislation, video games are nonetheless obliterated in the crossfire of the entertainment industry and would-be illegal streamers making millions off of pirated entertainment, movies, music, and more. The Entertainment Consumers Association has begun a letter-writing campaign to inform and implore Congress to not pass a bill with such broad and language lacking description.
Peer-to-peer problems continue
For months, I had worked with ISP technicians, Blizzard blues, and anyone willing to lend a helping hand to figure out why World of Warcraft was being throttled on some ISPs here on the east coast (and potentially other areas). Even in the presence of a multitude of threads on the official technical support forums, people denied any type of throttling, and even players who worked for many ISPs came out and fought the notion that throttling existed anywhere. Over time, it became apparent that the change to the peer-to-peer sharing mechanisms behind the WoW launcher and update process were tripping off something at big ISPs. WoW traffic looked like file sharing traffic and was being artificially slowed down, resulting in high ping times at peak hours and an unplayable game for thousands of customers.
Then, the most interesting thing happened. In February 2011, a Canadian WoW player on the Rogers network, one of Canada's largest ISPs, was upset at the terrible service and slow speeds at which WoW was running on the network. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission demanded that Rogers look into the issue, and sure enough, Rogers admitted to throttling WoW traffic in the exact manner that peer-to-peer traffic was being handled. However, Rogers said that WoW data was being throttled by accident, due to the nature of their throttling infrastructure. Sounds eerily familiar to what was happening in the United States, except without the admission of throttling in the first place.
Rogers was instructed by the Commission to give an update on May 10, 2011, as to whether the issue of accidental throttling was being taken care of or if the issue had finally been resolved for so many paying customers just trying to play their game (not share files, legal or otherwise). On May 31, Rogers replied to the commission that there was a plan in the works and roll-out would happen as soon as it was ready. It didn't work, and in some cases, made the throttling and lag problems worse.
This is when the back-and-forth began. Rogers disagreed with the notion that things were worse and that its fixes to the system had been successful, as it did not receive any calls during the months of May and June about the issue or concerning problems with World of Warcraft traffic. The commission was not persuaded by Rogers' reply.
The commission then sent this July 13, 2011 letter to Ken Thompson, director and counsel for Rogers, demanding a full accounting and results of software tests that shows that WoW traffic is not experiencing lag problems or traffic packet inspection that would cause players these horrible instances of game play. Rogers has until July 25 to respond, and if it fails to reply, the commission could start a public proceeding to investigate the matter on its own.
The continuing fight against bandwidth throttling
Many of us are inconvenienced by bandwidth throttling issues, and one day, when ISPs realize that tiered speed and not amount of data is the way to go, we will all live in perfect harmony. Until then, we fight for the right to play our game in the most efficient way possible.
Blizzard has been working with ISPs since this whole debacle started, when the peer-to-peer nature of the new launcher first began. Many ISPs stepped up to the plate and worked with Blizzard to change much of how the game's traffic was handled. AT&T and Time Warner still have problems with deep packet inspection of WoW data at the level3 bridge, and after months of frustration and never getting solid or coherent answers, I left my server entirely for one that never gave me lag issues, since I never passed through those troubled areas. Chicago data center, I do hope you've been getting better over time.
We are at the heart of this change. We as gamers have a right to demand fair treatment from internet service providers. Of course, illegal peer-to-peer traffic should be throttled and punished -- no one is making the case that we shouldn't punish criminals or network hogs. But in the process of blanket, sweeping policies, low bandwidth caps, and shoddy service, we are disrespected and ignored. WoW players wrote these letters to Rogers and the commission. WoW players got the government involved. We are slowly making progress.
Before I sign off for this week, I wanted to let you all know about the Entertainment Consumer Association's newest letter-writing campaign to Congress that aims to inform and sway congressional votes away from the over-inclusive amendments to copyright law. I spoke about bill S.978 last week on The Lawbringer, and I personally think it is a pretty good read on what the bill is actually aiming to add jail time to. It is quite clear that video games are not the heart of the bill but could be significantly affected by the broad language the bill adds in punishments for streaming unauthorized content.
You can access the ECA's letter-writing campaign website, which has a simple form you can fill out that gives you a prewritten statement to send to your senators. I urge everyone to do so. Laws are meant to give us clarity and understanding of what is right and wrong and prescribe clear consequences to specific issues. S.978 is nothing but broad language that only clouds up already murky water in the copyright world with respect to video games.
Also, check out the ECA's Facebook group Gamers for Digital Rights, which aims to inform gamers of their rights online. I think that's a pretty worthy thing to think about and promote.
If you've got a topic that you'd like me to discuss on The Lawbringer, email me at mat@wowinsider.com. I'd like to do a few mailbag columns in the near future, so get those questions rolling in and we can see what cool topics land in my email. See you guys next week.
This column is for entertainment only; if you need legal advice, contact a lawyer. For comments or general questions about law or for The Lawbringer, contact Mat at mat@wowinsider.com.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Duco Jul 15th 2011 2:14PM
Another worthwhile thing to do is join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org). They've been lobbying against this sort of abuse since way before most of us even knew the problems existed.
Monato Jul 15th 2011 2:23PM
Why bother? When the Tea Party gets done there will be no FCC and we'll all be at the tender mercies of our Galtian ISP masters of the universe.
totemdeath Jul 15th 2011 2:40PM
That may not be a bad thing. If an ISP starts allowing gaming data to stream at full speed through their network, then it won't be long until thousands of us leave out old craptastic ISP for greener pastures. Gamers are an important part of the internet, and if we vote with our dollars (or euros, yuan, etc) then the the ISP's throttling gaming data will take notice. What we need is for all ISP's to be allowed to compete in all markets.
Daedalus Jul 15th 2011 3:14PM
@totemdeath:
I think that's an overly optimistic appraisal. You only have to look at the cell phone industry, or compare north american internet providers to european and asian ones to see that what happens most often is the better providers lower their standards to the ones used by the craptastic providers, and consumers are left with the mere illusion of choice.
The sad truth is, most consumers are uneducated about tech stuff, and their eyes glaze over when you start talking about things like upstream and downstream bits per second. Most of them are more comfortable with easy ideas like comcast's turtles and largely meaningless marketing terms. "Of course 4g is better than 3g; it's a full G more!" (and while I know there actually are technical standards behind 3g and 4g, the fact is, studies and tests have shown those standards are largely ignored by a lot of providers.)
So, if your average consumer A.) Doesn't know what they're paying for and B.) Doesn't care, what incentive is there for companies to actually improve their service?
It's a lot easier to just rely on a flashy marketing that says you're faster than everyone else than actually spend the money to make it so.
Tirrimas Jul 15th 2011 3:37PM
The article itself demonstrates that one voice can, indeed, make a difference. If we collectively sit back and let "whatever" happen, it most certainly will.
Demand better, or you won't get it.
Angus Jul 15th 2011 3:42PM
Greener pastures?
Where? I am LUCKY there is a ISP besides Mediacom in my area. And that alternative is not even that great, but it beats nothing.
Most consumers have no oprions for Internet. So until actual competition shows up (which they don't allow) we are stuck in the US with the powers that be. Powers that are best described as greedy, stingy little jerks. They won't pay to upgrade their systems but they will do anything they can to limit your usage and shove their version of things in your face.
Jordan Jul 15th 2011 4:43PM
@totemdeath
I agree with your sentiment, but I don't know how free of a market the internet really is.
mem0ryburn Jul 15th 2011 6:45PM
As a Canadian who has dealt with them, and worked for them, I can say that Rogers is terrible. Their customer service is among the worst I've ever dealt with, their service, especially cell phone service, is terrible also and factually I hesitate to refer to it as 'service' even.
I also used to work for Comcast in the US and have grown to view them as the Rogers of the US. I've never had their service though so I can't speak for that.
PapAlliance Jul 15th 2011 2:37PM
Very interesting and informative article!
Ydrisselle Jul 15th 2011 2:58PM
Sometimes it's good to live in Europe, without traffic throttling...
Maxilimus Jul 15th 2011 3:12PM
hehehe you're funny
mgsaintz Jul 15th 2011 3:06PM
That is if you have another ISP to change to, the simple fact is that many people don't have a choice on who they do business with for internet service. It's either with Telephone companies DSL or with a cable company and if you're lucky there's an option for fiber and even with some choice the providers tend to collaborate their prices and caps to match each other so you still spend a lot and still get capped the same.
mgsaintz Jul 15th 2011 3:07PM
meant to reply to totemdeath's comment above.
Monato Jul 15th 2011 3:19PM
@totemdeath, Yeah, that's probably why we in the USA are thrilled to pay $80/month for unlimited texting while the rest of the world understands that texting is the lowest and least expensive use of bandwidth and either pays nothing or so little that it feels like nothing. It's because the ISPs are all scrambling to lower their rates and improve their services.
BTW, since the DoJ's fraud division will also be going away thanks to the Tea Party, would you like to buy a bridge?
thawedtheorc Jul 16th 2011 12:38AM
Who pays $80 a month for texting? Competition stamped that out about 5 years ago. Lack of competition causes all the headaces.
thawedtheorc Jul 16th 2011 7:09AM
Also.. there are no plans to do away with 'fraud divisions' of the DoJ. I will say that smaller goverrnment means that government goes back to it's basic responsibility of protecting our rights (that can only be taken via force and fraud). Stop sounding like a hack.
roosterfish Jul 15th 2011 3:47PM
This was in the comments of the first Rogers link:
At least the government in Canada actually cares that it happens. In the US, the ISP would probably sue the complainer for libel and slander. A court run by a judge who was once a lawyer for the ISP's would rule that the case had merit and that the complainer must pay the ISP's legal fees in advance of the case "to be fair." In the run up to the case, the ISP's larger corporate owner would have its news organizations begin to portray the user as a pirate, a bigot, a racist sympathizer, Pro-Choice, a gluttonous nazi, and a jew-loving/hating (depending on which network) mosque-building Christ-hater. By the time the case began, entire mobs of protesters would be outside the court building, demanding his head.
Justice would be served and the guy who just wanted to play WoW at reasonable latency would be sentenced to pay the ISP a reasonable fine, $2 million. Only a few journalists would even question the amount and most would remark on the sense of humor of the judge who in her remarks, the judge would have added, "Let this be a lesson to you that committing libel against anyone, even and especially a corporation, in this country is like committing a hate crime. And you should be ashamed of yourself. May God (TM pending) have mercy on your soul."
It's sad cuz it's true...
roosterfish Jul 15th 2011 3:49PM
Argh, the "Sad but true" comment was mine. The other two paragraphs were the from the Rogers commenter.
Xsinthis Jul 16th 2011 1:04PM
The Canadian government actually does not care about these things at all. This is pretty much the only case I have ever heard of the CRTC siding against the ISPs
Jordan Jul 15th 2011 4:37PM
When you have a mixed economy, markets often don't function in a healthy way, i.e. responding to a consumer's discriminating choice by being competitive and offering the best product for the best price.
Part of the problem is that the population density of the USA is much lower compared to other countries, and in many regions there simply are no choices for internet, and hence no market competition at all.
The problem isn't the "free market" though. If the free market was bad, then Blizzard wouldn't be both very profitable and very good at making quality video games.
The Tea Party has no interest in allowing corporations to be so powerful that they can bend the legal system. Heck, the point of Capitalism is that the legal system is supposed to be rigid in its protection of individual rights. It's only in the mixed economy, where lobbying is big bucks for politicians and companies, where $$$ from companies can buy the kind of laws and legal system they want.
All the Tea Party wants is a government that doesn't financially try to do the equivalent of eat more cake than it has. Our spending far exceeds tax revenues to such an extent that extra tax revenues could not bridge the gap unless taxes were raised enormously.