So, let's address each of these, one by one.
As for BitTorrent and its associated low-moral-fiber activities, I think we can all pretty much agree that ISPs are doing more or less the right thing by limiting the bandwidth associated with this stuff. I know, I know; you totally misplaced your copy of that game that just came out two days ago and you really need to download it, totally legally, from BitTorrent, and it's super unfair that you have to wait like 15 hours when somebody can download it off Steam in five, but you're going to have to suck it up. As gamers, we need to recognize that piracy is a fixture in our culture, but that doesn't mean we have to condone it. The FCC blocking ISPs from throttling BitTorrent is kind of like the FBI blocking local police forces from having guns: It only helps the bad guys. Even from a practical perspective, it makes sense. Making it harder (or at least less convenient) to pirate games benefits legit gamers by (at least in theory) reducing the cost to us, as game companies won't need to pass on the losses in piracy as significantly. It should also reduce the annoying need for copy protection, and it might even reduce the instances of griefers in your favorite games. Again, I'm not here to preach to you; if you think BitTorrent is a legitimate way to use your Internet, and you think the federal government should be protecting your right to use BitTorrent just as fast as the kid next door, fair enough.
ISPs think they can help reduce this kind of thing by throttling the uploaders. Throttling their speed, that is.
More significant might be the ability of ISPs to give preferential treatment to certain MMOs or online games over others. This, the gamer proponents of net neutrality often say, could lead to a dampening of innovation in the industry, because upstart game companies would have to compete with the big boys to get the maximum output speed for their servers. When you think about paying off all the many ISPs at once, too (since, without some pre-existing rules forcing people to use a particular ISP, you'd never know which one they're going to come through), you can see the thing can become cost-prohibitive very quickly. If you're a fan of indie (or even less-popular studio) games that have a multiplayer component, you might not like it that ISPs can regulate the speed of your favorite games relative to other titles.
On the other hand, keep in mind that we still have a more-or-less free market -- if gamers really want to have fast games no matter what, perhaps in the absence of net neutrality, new gamer-friendly ISPs will come along, guaranteeing equally fast Internet for all your favorite games. Or, conversely, perhaps some ISPs will partner with certain game companies ("Comcast and Activision come together for the ultimate Call of Duty experience!"), allowing you to choose your ISP by that criterion as well. At least, those are the theories of net neutrality opponents. I'm just here to give you both sides of the coin, after all.
And finally, let's not forget the possibility that ISPs could use their preferential treatment to direct potential casual gamers to certain gaming sites over others. While this is related to the previous idea, it's worth noting that casual gamers are a different, usually less technically clued-in breed of folks (and I mean that in the least insulting way possible). This means they're much less likely to even understand what's going on with regard to the back-end of their favorite pastime. But, should FarmVille slow down, I think we can rest assured that all hell would break loose at Comcast's offices.
Watch out, FarmVille fans!
Conclusion
As it stands right now, the net neutrality movement is decidedly on the defensive. While the FCC appealed the ruling in this case, and has petitioned Congress to grant explicit authority to regulate the Internet, just about everyone -- from ISPs, to TV networks, to Google -- has promised to vigorously oppose this. Net neutrality groups, on the other hand, are lobbying hard to get legislation passed that would force ISPs to give equal output performance to all services on their networks, regardless of type, money paid, etc. Some prominent people are lined up with both sides of this debate, so at this point, it looks like the pendulum could swing either way.
When we'll actually know how it's swung is, of course, another matter entirely. Given the way that Congress usually handles things (i.e., back-burnering them until we're all 85 years old), it could be a while. While this FCC case is in appeal, other cases are currently being brought around the country, both in state and federal court. Canada, too, is seeing some interesting legal action that seems to indicate an anti-net neutrality bent among its courts, as well. The fact is, no one can say if, when, or exactly how net neutrality will be implemented. However it is, though, you can bet it will affect the way most gamers approach online gaming... even if they don't know that it is.
And as for this Comcast vs. FCC case, what do I think? Was the District Court's ruling ultimately good for gamers? Is net neutrality a good or a bad thing for us? I know it's usually my specialty to give you my opinion, and have you flame me in the comments, but this time you're SOL, friends. As I said at the top -- no conclusion in this installment of Objection!. You're just gonna have to draw one for yourself.
Years ago, Eric Neigher went into law school, and started writing about games on the side. These days, he splits his time between pwning noobs on the Internet and pwning noobs in the justice system. His column, Objection!, was the 2010 recipient of the Neigher award for his own works.
