Boards›[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

New Infrastructure and Net Neutrality

AttilatheStun·8/27/2015, 8:47:19 PM·2 votes·642 views

First, a bit of background for those who haven't been paying attention to these issues:

Net neutrality is the principle that ISPs are legally required to treat all legal internet traffic equally. So Netflix can't pay Time Warner to give their content priority and make it faster and Time Warner can't threaten to slow down Netflix's content unless they pay up, and no ISP can just refuse to carry certain content. As it currently stands, net neutrality is required by U.S. law.

As part of their efforts to improve service, Riot recently set up direct lines to their servers' new locations in Chicago with jump-on points in several major cities. Furthermore, in order to make better use of these lines, they have entered into agreements with numerous ISPs to allow League games to be efficiently routed to these jump-on points.

For those looking for more information on what exactly Riot is up to with regards to direct lines and routing agreements with ISPs, look here: https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/204246204-NA-Server-Roadmap#h2q2

My question is, do these direct lines and agreements with ISPs potentially violate net neutrality rules?

The first potential violation I see is with Riot negotiating with ISPs to efficiently route traffic from users' computers to the jump-on points to their network. By making these agreements, isn't Riot effectively negotiating to get faster service from ISPs, thus violating net neutrality rules?

The second potential violation I can see is with the direct lines Riot has set up from various major cities to their servers in Chicago. By setting up these direct lines, isn't Riot effectively acting as an ISP for only their own traffic? Wouldn't they have to allow general internet traffic onto their direct lines in order to be fully compliant with Net Neutrality regulations?

Please note, this is not intended to comment on whether the new set-up is feasible, or whether it's a good idea, only on its legality.

What do you guys think? Could this be a problem for Riot's new set-up? Or are they compliant? Input from those who have more intimate knowledge of either the infrastructure of the internet or the finer points of net neutrality regulation (or both) would be greatly appreciated!

2 Comments

Jubbinaut8/27/2015, 9:14:07 PM2 votes

{quoted}

The first potential violation I see is with Riot negotiating with ISPs to efficiently route traffic from users' computers to the jump-on points to their network. By making these agreements, isn't Riot effectively negotiating to get faster service from ISPs, thus violating net neutrality rules?

There's an argument to be made, here, depending on how it's configured. If they're paying the ISPs to offer them better connections (in the form of bandwidth) with their clients and/or give their competitors worse connections with their clients, it's definitely a violation.

However, given Riot's method (working to improve the general routing to their servers), I don't think that particularly applies. Especially since a great deal of that work is in setting up their own routers to build their own network. Which, I think, segues nicely into your second question.

The second potential violation I can see is with the direct lines Riot has set up from various major cities to their servers in Chicago. By setting up these direct lines, isn't Riot effectively acting as an ISP for only their own traffic? Wouldn't they have to allow general internet traffic onto their direct lines in order to be fully compliant with Net Neutrality regulations?

They would if they were offering any form of general traffic. In a very real sense, they're doing nothing more than setting up their own WAN. It runs concurrent with existing ISP hardware, and occasionally utilizes that hardware, but it's still a privately-owned network used for private communications.

Because they aren't actually offering internet access, their network isn't bound by the same strictures as those that are.

It's definitely a valid concern - and one I'm sure they've spent no small amount of time researching and verifying on their own - but to the best of my knowledge, they aren't even in a position to violate any Net Neutrality laws.

Loli no Chikan8/27/2015, 9:06:31 PM1 votes

As far as I know, there's no problem. The way ISPs where going to use this is by charging their customers more money if they want to have faster access to popular websites or services like Netflix. Sort of like a two-tier system, where the "base" package is what we have now, and "premium" would get you faster access. Although, it's pretty clear the "base" package would be so slow compared to what they offer now, that most people would be compelled to buy the "premium" package.

Riot is using their money to guarantee faster access to their own service without customers having to pay added costs.