9 ms·

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality

366 points by hvs 13y ago

wmf 13y ago
IMO this headline is a little inflammatory; the (mostly unenforced) ban on servers is a pretty small carve-out. Also note that the NN people haven't been complaining much that every consumer broadband plan also bans servers.
- flagnog 13y ago
  every other consumer broadband plan has been against them from the start. Google, on the other hand is the only company to start off saying do whatever, then change their tune once they started offering broadband.
- Wilya 13y ago
  I just read the TOS of my provider, and servers aren't banned anywhere. Reselling is prohibited, any kind of "professional use" is prohibited, but they don't say anything about servers. Besides, the reason nobody hosts servers on personal connections is that the upload speed is terrible, not any sort of legal/contractual thing.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    I think running home-servers falls under "professional use", but if I'm wrong please correct me.
    - kevingadd 13y ago
      The OP itself points out non-professional uses of home servers (Minecraft)...
      - wmf 13y ago
        In general, ISPs don't mind non-professional servers; they're really banning commercial hosting.
        rosser 13y ago
        [citation needed]
        wmf 13y ago
        The millions of people who have been kicked off their ISPs for gaming, using Skype, running a little server, etc. Oh wait, that didn't happen.
        md224 13y ago
        Yep, and in this case Google is "really" banning all servers for non-business accounts, according to the original article.
    - stonemetal 13y ago
      If I run an email server for my family, or a web server to host my personal blog what is "professional use" about that?
- Terretta 13y ago
  That's not a "small carveout". That's a muzzle. It's asymmetric power, that you're only allowed to consume, not to publish. What's more, from a technical standpoint, it's different for a fiber provider than for a cable company. Coax cable capacity is asymmetric. It can carry only a given amount of data and they can carve it up to give you more down and less up, equal amounts, or more up and less down. Obviously most users want fast downloads and aren't as concerned about uploads. By contrast, fiber is symmetric, offering full capacities up and down at once. So while cable has a technical justification for "service levels" to offer a server, fiber providers do not. Google Fiber is 1000/1000 Mbit/s symmetrical. Forcing the consumer to not use the idle uplink is against consumer generated content and consumer ownership of their own content, for the sake of a "differentiated business plan". It's against the democratization of consumer created content that consumers can control themselves. (Google has dogs in that hunt too, you "should" host your content on G+ or YouTube, and host your email on Gmail, rather than drop in a Mac Mini Server or "host any type of server" at home.) FWIW, my $50/mo residential plan doesn't ban servers, even though the company offers business plans from $200/mo up. I can host a mail server and a web server, with dynamic DNS and open ports 25 and 80. Ports >1024 are open for all classes of service, even their lowest. Finally, I think the point here is that other consumer broadband providers weren't lobbying for network neutrality. Telcos weren't, cable wasn't. Google was. It feels a bit icky when "don't be evil" turns out to mean "for now ... until we have an offering in that area that enough people adopt and this practice we used to actively call evil turns out could make us more money and is actually good ... for us". Mind you, being magnanimous until they own enough customers is an excellent strategy. They just need a different slogan and to quit with the flip flopping.
  - jauer 13y ago
    > By contrast, fiber is symmetric, offering full capacities up and down at once. So while cable has a technical justification for "service levels" to offer a server, fiber providers do not. Google Fiber is 1000/1000 Mbit/s symmetrical. Link symmetry is a property of the datalink protocol and service provisioning, not the physical media. Many, if not most, FTTH deployments use PON which delivers asymmetric bandwidth that is shared among a number of users. GPON delivers 2.488Gbps down and 1.244Gbps up and is typically shared between 16 and 64 users.
- benologist 13y ago
  "No servers" means entire classes of consumer products that could leverage a very fast home connection are preemptively banned out of existence for another decade. You could replace a lot of stuff with plug-in-and-forget devices on a very fast connection - dropbox, email provider, personal web hosting, etc.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Also note that the NN people haven't been complaining much that every consumer broadband plan also bans servers Yes, they have. In fact, the bans imposed by other broadband providers were the key motivation for NN folks. (Including the FCC commissioners that included the neutrality provisions in the Open Internet report and order.) Right now, many NN advocates are yelling louder about Google because Google was on their side until very recently, and now is taking the exact opposite position.
- Lozzer 13y ago
  Admittedly in the UK, but the ISP I use don't have a problem with people running servers: http://www.aa.net.uk/ http://www.aa.net.uk/
Zikes 13y ago
This is pretty disappointing to me, I was looking forward to being able to use my internet however I please on the off chance Google Fiber ever came to my area.
nathas 13y ago
Eh, I don't see a huge problem with Google saying "You can't run enterprise-level servers off of our consumer-level lines" even if they have ridiculous speeds. "Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests" I'd consider small-time server software to be within a "reasonable use". If you're hosting a web server with 10 simultaneous requests, you're outside of reasonable use. Any other ISP would have turned your pipe off.
- Zikes 13y ago
  Reasonable use shouldn't make a distinction between incoming and outgoing. If I'm making 10 req/sec to a server in the cloud, how is that any different than someone making 10 req/sec to a server in my living room?
- axus 13y ago
  The problem is they don't spell out what reasonable use is, or mention "enterprise-level". They simply have a blanket ban on an entire class of applications; anything that listens for and accepts connections is a server.
- josephlord 13y ago
  "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection, use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, or use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties (including, but not limited to, selling Internet access to third parties)." That is an "or" so no servers at all without written permission. This text is referenced from the TOS as examples of what you shouldn't do but the wording isn't actually in the TOS.
- nosage 13y ago
  What if I am hosting a Quake match with 10 simultaneous requests, is that outside of reasonable use?
  - codereflection 13y ago
kevingadd 13y ago
I seem to remember lots of people talking about the exciting potential Google Fiber would create for internet startups and small businesses. Too bad Google doesn't feel the same way.
- Shooti 13y ago
  Same article: "Google wants to ban the use of servers because it plans to offer a business class offering in the future."
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    So end users who want to make use of new and exciting internet software, peer to peer applications, media streaming and other tools need a business class connection?
    - mmanfrin 13y ago
      So end users who want to make use of new and exciting internet software, peer to peer applications, media streaming and other tools need a business class connection? Because having terms against running a server off consumer pipes stops you from using 'exciting internet software', streaming, or using 'other tools'?
      - icebraining 13y ago
        They do if they use P2P technology. Like, say, Spotify.
        ChuckMcM 13y ago
        Or World of Warcraft downloading patches.
      - kevingadd 13y ago
        Yes, it does. Most modern internet multiplayer games use some sort of P2P functionality at this point, whether for voice chat or hosting or matchmaking. Software/game updaters tend to use P2P to download large patches. Media players might use P2P to accelerate downloads. Gaming consoles like the PS3 allow 'remote play' by acting as a server for remote connections. People turn their home machine into a server to connect using remote access software. Etc, etc.
RyanZAG 13y ago
I think by now most people have learned never to trust Google (or Oracle or Microsoft, etc). This certainly doesn't come as a surprise to me, and I fully expect them to pull as many anti competitive stunts on Chrome and Android in the future as they possibly can. The question is: what can we do to mitigate this? And no, choosing not to use Google products is about as useful as choosing not to use MS Windows was 10 years ago. We need to try and find solutions now before this becomes a serious problem.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  > I think by now most people have learned never to trust Google (or Oracle or Microsoft, etc). I haven't, and I think you're wrong to make that conclusion. It's a business, and I trust it to act like a business. It operates in multiple countries, and I trust it to follow the laws it has to. I use their services, and I trust them to act as professionally with my data as I'd expect any of my best friends to do, if they were running Google. I've been disappointed with some of Google's decisions, but that's a completely different animal from revoking my TRUST in them.
  - RyanZAG 13y ago
    Let me rephrase what I said to be more specific: Five or ten years ago, I trusted Google to act in the best interests of the web and humanity in general. This is the specific trust that I and many others have now lost. It can now be assumed that Google will act in their own corporate bests interests whenever possible. This is not terribly surprising, as it is the basic mode of operation for companies such as Microsoft and Oracle, but it is a change for Google. I now trust Google to wiretap my communications in any and all countries with surveillance programs. I now trust Google to terminate any projects that are beneficial to the market but not to Google. I expect Google to modify public-friendly projects such as Chrome and Android to be public-hostile and Google-friendly. I'm very sure I am not alone here. I'm talking to the people here on HN who feel the same way that I do: How are we going to make this work? Should we fork Chrome and Android and try to get community backing for forks that we can control before it becomes too late? If we act now, we may be able to do something before we end up with the kind of stagnation we had from IE6.
chiph 13y ago
If they had said only 256 or 128 mb/sec of your 1024 mb/sec is allowed for home server traffic, I'd be ok with that. Yeah, it's a residential connection, so the TOS would surely be different. But as it stands, I now have no compelling reason to choose them over the competition (who will also be offering fast transfer speeds once Google Fiber comes to Austin)
- ajross 13y ago
  The competition will have the same terms. None of the broadband providers in the US offer restriction-free upstream traffic on their consumer lines. You have to pay more for a different kind of account for that. This is called price discrimination, and it's a good thing for the consumer as it reduces prices. No one could afford to offer 1Gbps for $70/mo or whatever it costs given a typical service provision load of ~50% utilization. Now, I will agree that as written the terms are inflexible and would appear to apply to things like an inbound ssh port or personal web server, which are certainly things many technical readers would want to use and which clearly won't impact the network. Also: since when is this about "network neutrality", which has always been about backbone traffic. Consumer lines have always been subject to price discrimination like this.
  - chiph 13y ago
    Ultimately, it may come down to how they enforce this. I know that TimeWarner will start rotating your IP address as soon as they detect a responsive port 80 on your connection.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Also: since when is this about "network neutrality" The reason that this is even in the news is that this is Google's response to a complaint to the FCC that Google is violating the neutrality provisions of the FCC Open Internet Report and Order. So, its an issue precisely because its about net neutrality. > which has always been about backbone traffic. No, net neutrality has not always been (at least, not exclusively) about backbone traffic.
- gonzo 13y ago
justina1 13y ago
If everybody maxes out a 1 Gbps line, no one will get a 1 Gbps line. The implication is that the broad terminology will prohibit computers doing common consumer things in addition to servers. Except that hasn't happened. The complaint was filed by a potential customer, not someone who ran in to the restriction. In fact, it sounds as though Google Fiber keeps making exceptions for even less consumer-like things (Gaming servers in this case).
- teddyh 13y ago
  No, if everybody maxes out a 1 Gbps line, the ISPs will invest in faster networks.
neura 13y ago
I love the use of "should" in "you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection". For a legal document, that's a pretty muddy word. It could be just a suggestion or it could be interpreted as "shall", basically making it a demand.
smtddr 13y ago
IMHO, this headline & article is sensational and almost a straw-man argument. I'm not sure anyone should expect to be able to run a substantial business off their home internet connection without buying a business-class connection - nor does this decision by Google somehow imply they've "flip-flopped" on net-neutrality. I run a little game-server from my RaspberryPi at home. Technically, I'm not allowed to do this. While my Comcast IP is supposedly dynamic, it only changes once every 18 months or so. But I really think the law is there for people who go overboard sending terabytes-per-hour with some crazy successful business. At its peak, my site only gets only about 5,000+ hits per month or so(because it reports real-time data and people hit refresh all the time). Like Comcast, even if Google says no, just go ahead and do it anyway. They'll probably not bother you unless you're rolling your own Netflix-clone or something, in which case you really should upgrade to business-class or get on those cloud providers.
- Scaevolus 13y ago
  Enforcement is currently aimed at users consuming the most bandwidth, but I'd rather not have to hope that the selective enforcement doesn't apply to my rule violations. "Everyone's a felon" and "everyone's violating the contract" is a terrible state of affairs.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    This is what retroactive restrictions based on "generally accepted understanding of what things means" feels like: Its "Unlimited Internet!", oh wait, if you are in the top 1% of bandwidth users we reserve the right to throttle you. Oh wait, we really don't want you to use more than 5GB a month. Ok fine, if you use more than 2GB we'll start throttling you and at 5GB your network connection will become unusable.
- perlgeek 13y ago
  > I'm not sure anyone should expect to be able to run a substantial business off their home internet connection without buying a business-class connection Right, because you usually don't have SLAs for connection. But apart from that -- why ever not?
sumit_psp 13y ago
Not surprised, it's a business and like every other business it is trying to protect its interests. The good news is now we know Google's stance, so it's upto you if you still want to get to Fiber.
codereflection 13y ago
The thing that concerns me the most if how unresponsive Google has proven to be when someone files a complaint about being wrongly chosen for having their account suspended. Just look to the recent example of Gary Bernhardt trying to get his email turned back on. https://twitter.com/garybernhardt‎ https://twitter.com/garybernhardt‎ What's going to happen when someone's kid starts up a Minecraft server to play with his friends and Google suspends their Fiber account due to it. Most likely - they won't respond. I hate to see them turn into the next Comcast.
- nathanb 13y ago
  To me, this is one of the most serious concerns about Google Fiber. Google's legendarily bad customer support (motto: make a product that keeps 85% of your customers happy and ignore the unhappy minority) combined with something as important as a home Internet connection? No thanks.
rayiner 13y ago
In other words, now that Google is an ISP, all the concerns that ISP's have about traffic management suddenly make sense.
spankalee 13y ago
Disclaimer: Google employee here, though nothing to do with Fiber. I don't really like the no "server" policy, mainly because it's impossible to define what a server is, but I understand it from a business perspective. If a business likely to use a significant portion of their upstream bandwidth, it's reasonable to charge more than a consumer who doesn't. At the same time you want to be nice to power users who aren't running a business, but who use more upstream than average and might recommend the service to others. Personally, I think this is all a consequence of not having metered billing. It would be more fair if your bill was a function of max bandwidth, actual data transferred, and service levels (support, QoS, etc.), though I would pay more than most of my neighbors. The headline and net-neutrality tie in are just wrong though. This has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a service level / market segmentation issue.
- Zikes 13y ago
  If net neutrality is not the practice of the ISP being neutral to the data being sent over its network, then what is it? If they want to make it an issue of maximum bandwidth, so be it. Give us a cap and draw the line, but ambiguity is not going to do anyone any good.
  - lightcatcher 13y ago
    When I hear people talk about net neutrality, I think of ISPs inspecting and/or rate-limiting (or blocking) certain types of packets. I don't think that a simple declaration of rules (ie no servers) is as serious of a problem as silently blocking/throttling certain types of traffic.
    - Zikes 13y ago
      An incoming request to port 80 vs an outgoing request to port 80 is a certain type of traffic, if you ask me.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > When I hear people talk about net neutrality, I think of ISPs inspecting and/or rate-limiting (or blocking) certain types of packets. That's one way of violating net neutrality, but that's not the boundary of net neutrality. > I don't think that a simple declaration of rules (ie no servers) is as serious of a problem as silently blocking/throttling certain types of traffic. Well, no, silently blocking is both a neutrality problem and a transparency problem, the latter of which compounds the former by obscuring the nature and scope of it from the customer. Of course, Google's policy (which states a blanket "no servers" but is, per the statements of Google employees that some servers are okay, doesn't really mean that) also seems to have transparency problems on top of its neutrality problems.
adam_lowe 13y ago
The key will be how they actually enforce this. Siting servers is the wrong thing to tack on to. Because there are perfectly legitimate personal servers as outlined in comments above for personal use that wouldn't eat up excessive bandwidth. That being said I think the "no professional" or "no business" uses are terrible too depending on how they choose to interpret and apply. A loosely enforced version of the latter would be better in my opinion.
jotm 13y ago
That's not what net neutrality is about - the author is taking it to the extreme. Not allowing a server on the client side is just reasonable business practice, as opposed to shaping or prioritizing traffic to the client according to the source or the client's pay plan.
- diminoten 13y ago
  No it's not, that's preference of certain packets over other packets. It is completely and entirely irrelevant what the packets I'm sending and receiving on my network are to be used for - server, or client, according to the principle of net neutrality. If there is a bandwidth problem then we can address that, but as it stands there is simply not a bandwidth problem. Ask how Google or any other company would enforce this. If the answer is packet inspection, then it's probably in violation of the network neutrality principle.
- anu_gupta 13y ago
  Why is it a reasonable business practice?
  - jotm 13y ago
    The way I see it, client Internet connections are for data consumption, i.e. mostly download. Servers, on the other hand, create and provide the content. Kind of like being the manufacturer of a watch and being its end user. The line is getting pretty blurry, but I don't think you can put the two in the same bucket - not yet anyway.
anonymoushn 13y ago
What does the policy mean by servers? "Hosting a server" might include hosting custom games in Warcraft III or hosting netplay games in $FIGHTING_GAME_OF_CHOICE. It might also include operating some machines that are "servers" even if they are not running any particular "server" software.
nknighthb 13y ago
Google has never, ever objected to server restrictions on residential connections, and the entire industry has had those restrictions for most of its existence. Remember how big a deal Speakeasy always made of allowing servers? It's because nobody else did.
- jessriedel 13y ago
  But this does run counter to basic net neutrality, which Google championed. If it didn't explicitly have an objection to server restrictions before, that doesn't diffuse the hypocrisy; they didn't stand to lose or gain from server restrictions before.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    No, it does not run counter to "basic net neutrality". Not as I see it. Especially since one of the key points of net neutrality advocacy is that it simply maintains the long-standing status quo. You may have your own extremist view of what net neutrality is, but it's not the view shared by everyone.
  - geon 13y ago
    Apart from the point that a "server" is a very vague term, there is a big difference between inspecting every packed and block/throttle the traffic depending on the content, and requiring the subscriber to not run a business from a home connection.
    - jessriedel 13y ago
      If you want to draw a distinction between those two types of net non-neutrality, fine. But this is still a convenient distinction for Google to be drawing. In a competitive market, I don't think either type of non-neutrality would survive.
apalmer 13y ago
Its not really against net neutrality in the 'traditional' sense... but its more inappropriate advertising. Google and all the other ISPs advertise their service as 10 Mbps Down/5 Mbps Up, when really if you read the fine print its ('up to' 10 Mbps Down/spike uploads of 5 Mbps but not sustained uploads... which is a fine product, and not a big dealbreaker to most people, but is definitely not what is usually advertised.
mncolinlee 13y ago
Don't these terms also forbid Chromecasting? The device itself is a server on your local network.
GravityWell 13y ago
Sounds to me like they want to offer a Business level tier. The wording "should not host any type of server" was probably groomed by the legal team. My guess is rather than define what a server is, which is almost impossible, they are covered by that vague terminology. The important question is to what degree do they enforce it? 0.01%? If so, then no big deal to me. I'm paying a lot more for a lot less with my current ISP. I'd be glad to endure Google's draconion rules.
mesozoic 13y ago
Don't be evil... Unless you know it helps us make more money or something.
Simple1234 13y ago
Frankly, I don't care if Google changes it's slogan to "Do lots of Evil". If it means I get Google Fiber in my area I'm all for it.
GhotiFish 13y ago
http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon_complaint__as_filed_072913.pdf http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon... Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests. Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection, use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties (including, but not limited to, selling Internet access to third parties) I think I see what's going on here, they have to assume most people arn't actually going to use their connection. So they offer it on the pretense that no one will take advantage of it. It's why the bandwidth caps exist, it's why bittorrent shapping is happening at all. BitTorrent really did start making use of the bandwidth the telco's promised. A promise they couldn't deliver. Frankly, google's going to need more clauses than that in order to prevent people from taking advantage of their empty promise. I can't wait to see these obvious rule patches grow like cancer. Anyway, Why can't I share my connection? It's very easy. "Hey neighbor, take this Ethernet cable, you're welcome." Oh that's not ok? OK so why can my family use it then? I'm the one buying right and my family arn't guests. What about multiple families that live in the same house? We should order 3 packages? This is silly. What is going on down there? As a closing thought. People are laying these expectations of google fiber, because google fiber was supposed to be the ISP that was going to save us. If you're going to lead by example, you're not supposed to go "But those ingrates are doing it, so I can too".
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  Their entire response is just fancy legal maneuvering to dodge actually having to justify the "no server hosting of any kind allowed" clause in the ToS. The response is essentially: "LOL u have no standing kthxbai" along with a dash of "this is just 'reasonable network management'" and "everyone else is doing it!" You know, the exact same talking points that all of the other ISPs have been spewing. If Google cannot actually provide symmetric gigabit links to its customers, then it sounds to me like any network degradation is their own doing based on their own failures to reasonably provision the network. I would much rather see Google offering a guarantee on whatever bandwidth they can actually deliver. I'd sooner pay 70 a month for guaranteed symmetric 50 Mbps uplinks than 70 a month for a symmetric gigabit uplink that is subject to Google's (or any other provider's) touchy-feely notions of "reasonable network management."
gaoshan 13y ago
"Don't Be Evil... you know, generally. When it's practical. For us."
_greim_ 13y ago
Instead of content-based throttling, why not just switch people from 1GBPS to 10MBPS after the first NTB per billing period? Still fast enough to watch streaming video all month long, just not fast enough to host streaming video.
_greim_ 13y ago
Why not just treat broadband as a utility like everything else (electricity, gas, water) and just charge a dollar per TB or whatever?
- wmf 13y ago
  Because grandma is mad that she got a bill for $1,000 when her computer accidentally downloaded the Internet.
MrKurtz 13y ago
I'm not sure I understand the tone of that piece, it strikes me as yet another attempt at vilifying Google for the most trivial and altogether invalid reasons. Google offers gigabit speeds in very select areas; coverage-wise they are hardly a blip on the map. Ostensibly the main strategic purpose of Google Fiber is proving that 1Gbps connections to consumers are possible and affordable, which in turn might shame the main players to up their game or result in municipal broadband initiatives and the like. So now after scrutinizing a strictly worded and loosely enforced TOS agreement, the author (in a shameless display of feigned indignation) is invoking the plight of political dissidents?! this is absurd, the author ought to re-adjust his perspective and lay off the navel gazing. I don't know what the future holds for Google Fiber but from afar it appears to be an experimental initiative that is still evolving, so disallowing enterprise grade servers at this point in time isn't the end of the world, keep in mind that doing similar things on competing services isn't even viable.
jakejake 13y ago
Why are ISP so terrified to say that you only get a fixed limit of bandwidth? Can you not survive in this business unless you lie and say "unlimited?" It seems we all know that unlimited actually means "some unknown number of Gb before you get a warning letter." Server monitoring seems so easy. If you're running a serious server-based business then your upload is going to be way out of whack with download bandwidth. Why not just limit your upload traffic and let people do whatever they want? I'd rather know what my limit was and work with it than to have my ISP tell me I have "unlimited" bandwidth, but then secretly limit or throttle me.
arh68 13y ago
I'm trying to piece together the legal basis for the whole no-residential-server thing, and the more I dig, the more baseless it all seems. Darah Franklin's dismissal [1] of McClendon's complaint states, 'Google Fiber's server policy is an aspect of "reasonable network management" that the Open Internet Order and Rules specifically permit.' That seems like an awfully vague phrase, "reasonable network management", but here's one interpretation, offered by the FCC back in 2009 [2]: >> Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service: ... 2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice; 3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network; 'Lawful services'? 'Lawful devices'? It seems like a private git server should be allowed, after all. But that was just a draft. Franklin doesn't mention any room for exceptions, though: > The server policy has been established to account for the congestion management and network security needs of Google Fiber's network architecture. Okay, so "reasonable network management" is justified by "congestion management and network security needs". But then I read the FCC's 2008 decision concerning Comcast's BitTorrent RST abuse [3], and right there on the first page: >> We consider whether Comcast, a provider of broadband Internet access over cable lines, may selectively target and interfere with connections of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications under the facts of this case. Although Comcast asserts that its conduct is necessary to ease network congestion, we conclude that the company's discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelches the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet and does not constitute reasonable network management. So the FCC has indeed set precedent that a necessity to "ease network congestion" does not necessarily outweigh "the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet". Franklin makes more than one reference to a certain Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices document [4]. I found this reference incredibly brazen. Franklin claims this server issue was specifically discussed. In the document, Google actually argues > The threat that wireless networks may develop into fundamental non-neutral platforms is real. For example, the terms imposed by most major wireless carriers purport to prohibit the use of, at minimum: ... server or host applications. ... All of these actions threaten user choice and freedom online, and adopting network neutrality rules for wireless networks will allow the Commission to take action against these kinds of practices in the future. What the hell? Google specifically advised the FCC to disallow what Franklin specifically says is industry standard. Google is playing a Dark Knight here: the laws are bad, and Google wants everyone to feel the full force of bad law. I can't applaud them for playing the status quo so hard like this, and now that they're moving into the ISP sector it's getting more and more dissonant to hear them claim they're powerless over industry standards. Lastly, I can't find the forum thread described by the Wired article, "But in the Google Fiber forums, employees assure subscribers the rules aren't meant to apply to Minecraft servers." I think this kind of deception is heinous. The employees can't say what their legal department will or will not state. They're maintaining a false PR stance that is simply misleading: Google (Darah Franklin) has clearly stated Google Fiber disallows servers. Tricking the public to think they are in the clear to run a Minecraft server is perhaps well-intentioned but just doesn't jive with "Don't be evil." [1] http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon_complaint__as_filed_072913.pdf http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon... [2] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159... [3] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183... [4] http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/FP_Comments_wireless_and_managed_services_10_12_2010.pdf http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/FP_Co...
transfire 13y ago
Sigh. To disallow the ability to run services from anywhere, particularly home, undermines the very future of the Internet's full potential as a massively distributed computational aid and data store. Google was the great hope in this. Now they too have succumbed to the $$ of acting as a cartel. Which means, eventually the Internet will be little more than a glorified cable box.
znowi 13y ago
Google dismissed the don't be evil mantra a while ago and has little resemblance to the company of integrity so many of us fell in love with. They're so big and pervasive - it's a juxtapose of government and multinational corporation with vastly different set of goals and values. Incidentally, not very favorable for us, users. But it will take 3 Stallman's and another Snowden some time in the future for people to finally realize that :)
joe_bleau 13y ago
From http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/history/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/history/ 1996: "BackRub operates on Stanford servers for more than a year—eventually taking up too much bandwidth to suit the university." 1998: "Google sets up workspace in Susan Wojcicki’s garage at 232 Santa Margarita, Menlo Park." I wonder, were those business class connections? Or were they maybe bending the rules just at bit at times?
gradstudent 13y ago
Isn't net neutrality about giving preferential treatment to traffic depending on its point of origin? Has Google flip-flopped on this issue?? All I see is some rambling protestations about Google not allowing servers on their free internet connections.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
All I can think is : thank god I don't live in the US. The telco and cable market there sounds utterly horrible. Banning servers is normal practice? Those kind of restriction were dropped over a decade ago in civilized countries with decent broadband. BTW, this is the second time Google has done a 180 on net neutrality. The first time was when it tried together with Verizon to redefine net neutrality with an exception for wireless networks.

366 points by hvs 13y ago

wmf 13y ago

IMO this headline is a little inflammatory; the (mostly unenforced) ban on servers is a pretty small carve-out. Also note that the NN people haven't been complaining much that every consumer broadband plan also bans servers.

flagnog 13y ago
every other consumer broadband plan has been against them from the start. Google, on the other hand is the only company to start off saying do whatever, then change their tune once they started offering broadband.
Wilya 13y ago
I just read the TOS of my provider, and servers aren't banned anywhere. Reselling is prohibited, any kind of "professional use" is prohibited, but they don't say anything about servers. Besides, the reason nobody hosts servers on personal connections is that the upload speed is terrible, not any sort of legal/contractual thing.
- smtddr 13y ago
  I think running home-servers falls under "professional use", but if I'm wrong please correct me.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    The OP itself points out non-professional uses of home servers (Minecraft)...
    - wmf 13y ago
      In general, ISPs don't mind non-professional servers; they're really banning commercial hosting.
      - rosser 13y ago
        [citation needed]
        wmf 13y ago
        The millions of people who have been kicked off their ISPs for gaming, using Skype, running a little server, etc. Oh wait, that didn't happen.
      - md224 13y ago
        Yep, and in this case Google is "really" banning all servers for non-business accounts, according to the original article.
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    If I run an email server for my family, or a web server to host my personal blog what is "professional use" about that?
Terretta 13y ago
That's not a "small carveout". That's a muzzle. It's asymmetric power, that you're only allowed to consume, not to publish. What's more, from a technical standpoint, it's different for a fiber provider than for a cable company. Coax cable capacity is asymmetric. It can carry only a given amount of data and they can carve it up to give you more down and less up, equal amounts, or more up and less down. Obviously most users want fast downloads and aren't as concerned about uploads. By contrast, fiber is symmetric, offering full capacities up and down at once. So while cable has a technical justification for "service levels" to offer a server, fiber providers do not. Google Fiber is 1000/1000 Mbit/s symmetrical. Forcing the consumer to not use the idle uplink is against consumer generated content and consumer ownership of their own content, for the sake of a "differentiated business plan". It's against the democratization of consumer created content that consumers can control themselves. (Google has dogs in that hunt too, you "should" host your content on G+ or YouTube, and host your email on Gmail, rather than drop in a Mac Mini Server or "host any type of server" at home.) FWIW, my $50/mo residential plan doesn't ban servers, even though the company offers business plans from $200/mo up. I can host a mail server and a web server, with dynamic DNS and open ports 25 and 80. Ports >1024 are open for all classes of service, even their lowest. Finally, I think the point here is that other consumer broadband providers weren't lobbying for network neutrality. Telcos weren't, cable wasn't. Google was. It feels a bit icky when "don't be evil" turns out to mean "for now ... until we have an offering in that area that enough people adopt and this practice we used to actively call evil turns out could make us more money and is actually good ... for us". Mind you, being magnanimous until they own enough customers is an excellent strategy. They just need a different slogan and to quit with the flip flopping.
- jauer 13y ago
  > By contrast, fiber is symmetric, offering full capacities up and down at once. So while cable has a technical justification for "service levels" to offer a server, fiber providers do not. Google Fiber is 1000/1000 Mbit/s symmetrical. Link symmetry is a property of the datalink protocol and service provisioning, not the physical media. Many, if not most, FTTH deployments use PON which delivers asymmetric bandwidth that is shared among a number of users. GPON delivers 2.488Gbps down and 1.244Gbps up and is typically shared between 16 and 64 users.
benologist 13y ago
"No servers" means entire classes of consumer products that could leverage a very fast home connection are preemptively banned out of existence for another decade. You could replace a lot of stuff with plug-in-and-forget devices on a very fast connection - dropbox, email provider, personal web hosting, etc.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Also note that the NN people haven't been complaining much that every consumer broadband plan also bans servers Yes, they have. In fact, the bans imposed by other broadband providers were the key motivation for NN folks. (Including the FCC commissioners that included the neutrality provisions in the Open Internet report and order.) Right now, many NN advocates are yelling louder about Google because Google was on their side until very recently, and now is taking the exact opposite position.
Lozzer 13y ago
Admittedly in the UK, but the ISP I use don't have a problem with people running servers: http://www.aa.net.uk/ http://www.aa.net.uk/

Zikes 13y ago

This is pretty disappointing to me, I was looking forward to being able to use my internet however I please on the off chance Google Fiber ever came to my area.

nathas 13y ago

Eh, I don't see a huge problem with Google saying "You can't run enterprise-level servers off of our consumer-level lines" even if they have ridiculous speeds. "Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests" I'd consider small-time server software to be within a "reasonable use". If you're hosting a web server with 10 simultaneous requests, you're outside of reasonable use. Any other ISP would have turned your pipe off.

Zikes 13y ago
Reasonable use shouldn't make a distinction between incoming and outgoing. If I'm making 10 req/sec to a server in the cloud, how is that any different than someone making 10 req/sec to a server in my living room?
axus 13y ago
The problem is they don't spell out what reasonable use is, or mention "enterprise-level". They simply have a blanket ban on an entire class of applications; anything that listens for and accepts connections is a server.
josephlord 13y ago
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection, use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, or use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties (including, but not limited to, selling Internet access to third parties)." That is an "or" so no servers at all without written permission. This text is referenced from the TOS as examples of what you shouldn't do but the wording isn't actually in the TOS.
nosage 13y ago
What if I am hosting a Quake match with 10 simultaneous requests, is that outside of reasonable use?
- codereflection 13y ago

kevingadd 13y ago

I seem to remember lots of people talking about the exciting potential Google Fiber would create for internet startups and small businesses. Too bad Google doesn't feel the same way.

Shooti 13y ago
Same article: "Google wants to ban the use of servers because it plans to offer a business class offering in the future."
- kevingadd 13y ago
  So end users who want to make use of new and exciting internet software, peer to peer applications, media streaming and other tools need a business class connection?
  - mmanfrin 13y ago
    So end users who want to make use of new and exciting internet software, peer to peer applications, media streaming and other tools need a business class connection? Because having terms against running a server off consumer pipes stops you from using 'exciting internet software', streaming, or using 'other tools'?
    - icebraining 13y ago
      They do if they use P2P technology. Like, say, Spotify.
      - ChuckMcM 13y ago
        Or World of Warcraft downloading patches.
    - kevingadd 13y ago
      Yes, it does. Most modern internet multiplayer games use some sort of P2P functionality at this point, whether for voice chat or hosting or matchmaking. Software/game updaters tend to use P2P to download large patches. Media players might use P2P to accelerate downloads. Gaming consoles like the PS3 allow 'remote play' by acting as a server for remote connections. People turn their home machine into a server to connect using remote access software. Etc, etc.

RyanZAG 13y ago

I think by now most people have learned never to trust Google (or Oracle or Microsoft, etc). This certainly doesn't come as a surprise to me, and I fully expect them to pull as many anti competitive stunts on Chrome and Android in the future as they possibly can. The question is: what can we do to mitigate this? And no, choosing not to use Google products is about as useful as choosing not to use MS Windows was 10 years ago. We need to try and find solutions now before this becomes a serious problem.

VikingCoder 13y ago
> I think by now most people have learned never to trust Google (or Oracle or Microsoft, etc). I haven't, and I think you're wrong to make that conclusion. It's a business, and I trust it to act like a business. It operates in multiple countries, and I trust it to follow the laws it has to. I use their services, and I trust them to act as professionally with my data as I'd expect any of my best friends to do, if they were running Google. I've been disappointed with some of Google's decisions, but that's a completely different animal from revoking my TRUST in them.
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  Let me rephrase what I said to be more specific: Five or ten years ago, I trusted Google to act in the best interests of the web and humanity in general. This is the specific trust that I and many others have now lost. It can now be assumed that Google will act in their own corporate bests interests whenever possible. This is not terribly surprising, as it is the basic mode of operation for companies such as Microsoft and Oracle, but it is a change for Google. I now trust Google to wiretap my communications in any and all countries with surveillance programs. I now trust Google to terminate any projects that are beneficial to the market but not to Google. I expect Google to modify public-friendly projects such as Chrome and Android to be public-hostile and Google-friendly. I'm very sure I am not alone here. I'm talking to the people here on HN who feel the same way that I do: How are we going to make this work? Should we fork Chrome and Android and try to get community backing for forks that we can control before it becomes too late? If we act now, we may be able to do something before we end up with the kind of stagnation we had from IE6.

chiph 13y ago

If they had said only 256 or 128 mb/sec of your 1024 mb/sec is allowed for home server traffic, I'd be ok with that. Yeah, it's a residential connection, so the TOS would surely be different. But as it stands, I now have no compelling reason to choose them over the competition (who will also be offering fast transfer speeds once Google Fiber comes to Austin)

ajross 13y ago
The competition will have the same terms. None of the broadband providers in the US offer restriction-free upstream traffic on their consumer lines. You have to pay more for a different kind of account for that. This is called price discrimination, and it's a good thing for the consumer as it reduces prices. No one could afford to offer 1Gbps for $70/mo or whatever it costs given a typical service provision load of ~50% utilization. Now, I will agree that as written the terms are inflexible and would appear to apply to things like an inbound ssh port or personal web server, which are certainly things many technical readers would want to use and which clearly won't impact the network. Also: since when is this about "network neutrality", which has always been about backbone traffic. Consumer lines have always been subject to price discrimination like this.
- chiph 13y ago
  Ultimately, it may come down to how they enforce this. I know that TimeWarner will start rotating your IP address as soon as they detect a responsive port 80 on your connection.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Also: since when is this about "network neutrality" The reason that this is even in the news is that this is Google's response to a complaint to the FCC that Google is violating the neutrality provisions of the FCC Open Internet Report and Order. So, its an issue precisely because its about net neutrality. > which has always been about backbone traffic. No, net neutrality has not always been (at least, not exclusively) about backbone traffic.
gonzo 13y ago

justina1 13y ago

If everybody maxes out a 1 Gbps line, no one will get a 1 Gbps line. The implication is that the broad terminology will prohibit computers doing common consumer things in addition to servers. Except that hasn't happened. The complaint was filed by a potential customer, not someone who ran in to the restriction. In fact, it sounds as though Google Fiber keeps making exceptions for even less consumer-like things (Gaming servers in this case).

teddyh 13y ago
No, if everybody maxes out a 1 Gbps line, the ISPs will invest in faster networks.

neura 13y ago

I love the use of "should" in "you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection". For a legal document, that's a pretty muddy word. It could be just a suggestion or it could be interpreted as "shall", basically making it a demand.

smtddr 13y ago

IMHO, this headline & article is sensational and almost a straw-man argument. I'm not sure anyone should expect to be able to run a substantial business off their home internet connection without buying a business-class connection - nor does this decision by Google somehow imply they've "flip-flopped" on net-neutrality. I run a little game-server from my RaspberryPi at home. Technically, I'm not allowed to do this. While my Comcast IP is supposedly dynamic, it only changes once every 18 months or so. But I really think the law is there for people who go overboard sending terabytes-per-hour with some crazy successful business. At its peak, my site only gets only about 5,000+ hits per month or so(because it reports real-time data and people hit refresh all the time). Like Comcast, even if Google says no, just go ahead and do it anyway. They'll probably not bother you unless you're rolling your own Netflix-clone or something, in which case you really should upgrade to business-class or get on those cloud providers.

Scaevolus 13y ago
Enforcement is currently aimed at users consuming the most bandwidth, but I'd rather not have to hope that the selective enforcement doesn't apply to my rule violations. "Everyone's a felon" and "everyone's violating the contract" is a terrible state of affairs.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  This is what retroactive restrictions based on "generally accepted understanding of what things means" feels like: Its "Unlimited Internet!", oh wait, if you are in the top 1% of bandwidth users we reserve the right to throttle you. Oh wait, we really don't want you to use more than 5GB a month. Ok fine, if you use more than 2GB we'll start throttling you and at 5GB your network connection will become unusable.
perlgeek 13y ago
> I'm not sure anyone should expect to be able to run a substantial business off their home internet connection without buying a business-class connection Right, because you usually don't have SLAs for connection. But apart from that -- why ever not?

sumit_psp 13y ago

Not surprised, it's a business and like every other business it is trying to protect its interests. The good news is now we know Google's stance, so it's upto you if you still want to get to Fiber.

codereflection 13y ago

The thing that concerns me the most if how unresponsive Google has proven to be when someone files a complaint about being wrongly chosen for having their account suspended. Just look to the recent example of Gary Bernhardt trying to get his email turned back on. https://twitter.com/garybernhardt‎ https://twitter.com/garybernhardt‎ What's going to happen when someone's kid starts up a Minecraft server to play with his friends and Google suspends their Fiber account due to it. Most likely - they won't respond. I hate to see them turn into the next Comcast.

nathanb 13y ago
To me, this is one of the most serious concerns about Google Fiber. Google's legendarily bad customer support (motto: make a product that keeps 85% of your customers happy and ignore the unhappy minority) combined with something as important as a home Internet connection? No thanks.

rayiner 13y ago

In other words, now that Google is an ISP, all the concerns that ISP's have about traffic management suddenly make sense.

spankalee 13y ago

Disclaimer: Google employee here, though nothing to do with Fiber. I don't really like the no "server" policy, mainly because it's impossible to define what a server is, but I understand it from a business perspective. If a business likely to use a significant portion of their upstream bandwidth, it's reasonable to charge more than a consumer who doesn't. At the same time you want to be nice to power users who aren't running a business, but who use more upstream than average and might recommend the service to others. Personally, I think this is all a consequence of not having metered billing. It would be more fair if your bill was a function of max bandwidth, actual data transferred, and service levels (support, QoS, etc.), though I would pay more than most of my neighbors. The headline and net-neutrality tie in are just wrong though. This has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a service level / market segmentation issue.

Zikes 13y ago
If net neutrality is not the practice of the ISP being neutral to the data being sent over its network, then what is it? If they want to make it an issue of maximum bandwidth, so be it. Give us a cap and draw the line, but ambiguity is not going to do anyone any good.
- lightcatcher 13y ago
  When I hear people talk about net neutrality, I think of ISPs inspecting and/or rate-limiting (or blocking) certain types of packets. I don't think that a simple declaration of rules (ie no servers) is as serious of a problem as silently blocking/throttling certain types of traffic.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    An incoming request to port 80 vs an outgoing request to port 80 is a certain type of traffic, if you ask me.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > When I hear people talk about net neutrality, I think of ISPs inspecting and/or rate-limiting (or blocking) certain types of packets. That's one way of violating net neutrality, but that's not the boundary of net neutrality. > I don't think that a simple declaration of rules (ie no servers) is as serious of a problem as silently blocking/throttling certain types of traffic. Well, no, silently blocking is both a neutrality problem and a transparency problem, the latter of which compounds the former by obscuring the nature and scope of it from the customer. Of course, Google's policy (which states a blanket "no servers" but is, per the statements of Google employees that some servers are okay, doesn't really mean that) also seems to have transparency problems on top of its neutrality problems.

adam_lowe 13y ago

The key will be how they actually enforce this. Siting servers is the wrong thing to tack on to. Because there are perfectly legitimate personal servers as outlined in comments above for personal use that wouldn't eat up excessive bandwidth. That being said I think the "no professional" or "no business" uses are terrible too depending on how they choose to interpret and apply. A loosely enforced version of the latter would be better in my opinion.

jotm 13y ago

That's not what net neutrality is about - the author is taking it to the extreme. Not allowing a server on the client side is just reasonable business practice, as opposed to shaping or prioritizing traffic to the client according to the source or the client's pay plan.

diminoten 13y ago
No it's not, that's preference of certain packets over other packets. It is completely and entirely irrelevant what the packets I'm sending and receiving on my network are to be used for - server, or client, according to the principle of net neutrality. If there is a bandwidth problem then we can address that, but as it stands there is simply not a bandwidth problem. Ask how Google or any other company would enforce this. If the answer is packet inspection, then it's probably in violation of the network neutrality principle.
anu_gupta 13y ago
Why is it a reasonable business practice?
- jotm 13y ago
  The way I see it, client Internet connections are for data consumption, i.e. mostly download. Servers, on the other hand, create and provide the content. Kind of like being the manufacturer of a watch and being its end user. The line is getting pretty blurry, but I don't think you can put the two in the same bucket - not yet anyway.

anonymoushn 13y ago

What does the policy mean by servers? "Hosting a server" might include hosting custom games in Warcraft III or hosting netplay games in $FIGHTING_GAME_OF_CHOICE. It might also include operating some machines that are "servers" even if they are not running any particular "server" software.

nknighthb 13y ago

Google has never, ever objected to server restrictions on residential connections, and the entire industry has had those restrictions for most of its existence. Remember how big a deal Speakeasy always made of allowing servers? It's because nobody else did.

jessriedel 13y ago
But this does run counter to basic net neutrality, which Google championed. If it didn't explicitly have an objection to server restrictions before, that doesn't diffuse the hypocrisy; they didn't stand to lose or gain from server restrictions before.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  No, it does not run counter to "basic net neutrality". Not as I see it. Especially since one of the key points of net neutrality advocacy is that it simply maintains the long-standing status quo. You may have your own extremist view of what net neutrality is, but it's not the view shared by everyone.
- geon 13y ago
  Apart from the point that a "server" is a very vague term, there is a big difference between inspecting every packed and block/throttle the traffic depending on the content, and requiring the subscriber to not run a business from a home connection.
  - jessriedel 13y ago
    If you want to draw a distinction between those two types of net non-neutrality, fine. But this is still a convenient distinction for Google to be drawing. In a competitive market, I don't think either type of non-neutrality would survive.

apalmer 13y ago

Its not really against net neutrality in the 'traditional' sense... but its more inappropriate advertising. Google and all the other ISPs advertise their service as 10 Mbps Down/5 Mbps Up, when really if you read the fine print its ('up to' 10 Mbps Down/spike uploads of 5 Mbps but not sustained uploads... which is a fine product, and not a big dealbreaker to most people, but is definitely not what is usually advertised.

mncolinlee 13y ago

Don't these terms also forbid Chromecasting? The device itself is a server on your local network.

GravityWell 13y ago

Sounds to me like they want to offer a Business level tier. The wording "should not host any type of server" was probably groomed by the legal team. My guess is rather than define what a server is, which is almost impossible, they are covered by that vague terminology. The important question is to what degree do they enforce it? 0.01%? If so, then no big deal to me. I'm paying a lot more for a lot less with my current ISP. I'd be glad to endure Google's draconion rules.

mesozoic 13y ago

Don't be evil... Unless you know it helps us make more money or something.

Simple1234 13y ago

Frankly, I don't care if Google changes it's slogan to "Do lots of Evil". If it means I get Google Fiber in my area I'm all for it.

GhotiFish 13y ago

http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon_complaint__as_filed_072913.pdf http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon... Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests. Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection, use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties (including, but not limited to, selling Internet access to third parties) I think I see what's going on here, they have to assume most people arn't actually going to use their connection. So they offer it on the pretense that no one will take advantage of it. It's why the bandwidth caps exist, it's why bittorrent shapping is happening at all. BitTorrent really did start making use of the bandwidth the telco's promised. A promise they couldn't deliver. Frankly, google's going to need more clauses than that in order to prevent people from taking advantage of their empty promise. I can't wait to see these obvious rule patches grow like cancer. Anyway, Why can't I share my connection? It's very easy. "Hey neighbor, take this Ethernet cable, you're welcome." Oh that's not ok? OK so why can my family use it then? I'm the one buying right and my family arn't guests. What about multiple families that live in the same house? We should order 3 packages? This is silly. What is going on down there? As a closing thought. People are laying these expectations of google fiber, because google fiber was supposed to be the ISP that was going to save us. If you're going to lead by example, you're not supposed to go "But those ingrates are doing it, so I can too".

aspensmonster 13y ago
Their entire response is just fancy legal maneuvering to dodge actually having to justify the "no server hosting of any kind allowed" clause in the ToS. The response is essentially: "LOL u have no standing kthxbai" along with a dash of "this is just 'reasonable network management'" and "everyone else is doing it!" You know, the exact same talking points that all of the other ISPs have been spewing. If Google cannot actually provide symmetric gigabit links to its customers, then it sounds to me like any network degradation is their own doing based on their own failures to reasonably provision the network. I would much rather see Google offering a guarantee on whatever bandwidth they can actually deliver. I'd sooner pay 70 a month for guaranteed symmetric 50 Mbps uplinks than 70 a month for a symmetric gigabit uplink that is subject to Google's (or any other provider's) touchy-feely notions of "reasonable network management."

gaoshan 13y ago

"Don't Be Evil... you know, generally. When it's practical. For us."

_greim_ 13y ago

Instead of content-based throttling, why not just switch people from 1GBPS to 10MBPS after the first NTB per billing period? Still fast enough to watch streaming video all month long, just not fast enough to host streaming video.

_greim_ 13y ago

Why not just treat broadband as a utility like everything else (electricity, gas, water) and just charge a dollar per TB or whatever?

wmf 13y ago
Because grandma is mad that she got a bill for $1,000 when her computer accidentally downloaded the Internet.

MrKurtz 13y ago

I'm not sure I understand the tone of that piece, it strikes me as yet another attempt at vilifying Google for the most trivial and altogether invalid reasons. Google offers gigabit speeds in very select areas; coverage-wise they are hardly a blip on the map. Ostensibly the main strategic purpose of Google Fiber is proving that 1Gbps connections to consumers are possible and affordable, which in turn might shame the main players to up their game or result in municipal broadband initiatives and the like. So now after scrutinizing a strictly worded and loosely enforced TOS agreement, the author (in a shameless display of feigned indignation) is invoking the plight of political dissidents?! this is absurd, the author ought to re-adjust his perspective and lay off the navel gazing. I don't know what the future holds for Google Fiber but from afar it appears to be an experimental initiative that is still evolving, so disallowing enterprise grade servers at this point in time isn't the end of the world, keep in mind that doing similar things on competing services isn't even viable.

jakejake 13y ago

Why are ISP so terrified to say that you only get a fixed limit of bandwidth? Can you not survive in this business unless you lie and say "unlimited?" It seems we all know that unlimited actually means "some unknown number of Gb before you get a warning letter." Server monitoring seems so easy. If you're running a serious server-based business then your upload is going to be way out of whack with download bandwidth. Why not just limit your upload traffic and let people do whatever they want? I'd rather know what my limit was and work with it than to have my ISP tell me I have "unlimited" bandwidth, but then secretly limit or throttle me.

arh68 13y ago

I'm trying to piece together the legal basis for the whole no-residential-server thing, and the more I dig, the more baseless it all seems. Darah Franklin's dismissal [1] of McClendon's complaint states, 'Google Fiber's server policy is an aspect of "reasonable network management" that the Open Internet Order and Rules specifically permit.' That seems like an awfully vague phrase, "reasonable network management", but here's one interpretation, offered by the FCC back in 2009 [2]: >> Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service: ... 2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice; 3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network; 'Lawful services'? 'Lawful devices'? It seems like a private git server should be allowed, after all. But that was just a draft. Franklin doesn't mention any room for exceptions, though: > The server policy has been established to account for the congestion management and network security needs of Google Fiber's network architecture. Okay, so "reasonable network management" is justified by "congestion management and network security needs". But then I read the FCC's 2008 decision concerning Comcast's BitTorrent RST abuse [3], and right there on the first page: >> We consider whether Comcast, a provider of broadband Internet access over cable lines, may selectively target and interfere with connections of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications under the facts of this case. Although Comcast asserts that its conduct is necessary to ease network congestion, we conclude that the company's discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelches the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet and does not constitute reasonable network management. So the FCC has indeed set precedent that a necessity to "ease network congestion" does not necessarily outweigh "the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet". Franklin makes more than one reference to a certain Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices document [4]. I found this reference incredibly brazen. Franklin claims this server issue was specifically discussed. In the document, Google actually argues > The threat that wireless networks may develop into fundamental non-neutral platforms is real. For example, the terms imposed by most major wireless carriers purport to prohibit the use of, at minimum: ... server or host applications. ... All of these actions threaten user choice and freedom online, and adopting network neutrality rules for wireless networks will allow the Commission to take action against these kinds of practices in the future. What the hell? Google specifically advised the FCC to disallow what Franklin specifically says is industry standard. Google is playing a Dark Knight here: the laws are bad, and Google wants everyone to feel the full force of bad law. I can't applaud them for playing the status quo so hard like this, and now that they're moving into the ISP sector it's getting more and more dissonant to hear them claim they're powerless over industry standards. Lastly, I can't find the forum thread described by the Wired article, "But in the Google Fiber forums, employees assure subscribers the rules aren't meant to apply to Minecraft servers." I think this kind of deception is heinous. The employees can't say what their legal department will or will not state. They're maintaining a false PR stance that is simply misleading: Google (Darah Franklin) has clearly stated Google Fiber disallows servers. Tricking the public to think they are in the clear to run a Minecraft server is perhaps well-intentioned but just doesn't jive with "Don't be evil." [1] http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon_complaint__as_filed_072913.pdf http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon... [2] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159... [3] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183... [4] http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/FP_Comments_wireless_and_managed_services_10_12_2010.pdf http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/FP_Co...

transfire 13y ago

Sigh. To disallow the ability to run services from anywhere, particularly home, undermines the very future of the Internet's full potential as a massively distributed computational aid and data store. Google was the great hope in this. Now they too have succumbed to the $$ of acting as a cartel. Which means, eventually the Internet will be little more than a glorified cable box.

znowi 13y ago

Google dismissed the don't be evil mantra a while ago and has little resemblance to the company of integrity so many of us fell in love with. They're so big and pervasive - it's a juxtapose of government and multinational corporation with vastly different set of goals and values. Incidentally, not very favorable for us, users. But it will take 3 Stallman's and another Snowden some time in the future for people to finally realize that :)

joe_bleau 13y ago

From http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/history/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/history/ 1996: "BackRub operates on Stanford servers for more than a year—eventually taking up too much bandwidth to suit the university." 1998: "Google sets up workspace in Susan Wojcicki’s garage at 232 Santa Margarita, Menlo Park." I wonder, were those business class connections? Or were they maybe bending the rules just at bit at times?

gradstudent 13y ago

Isn't net neutrality about giving preferential treatment to traffic depending on its point of origin? Has Google flip-flopped on this issue?? All I see is some rambling protestations about Google not allowing servers on their free internet connections.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

All I can think is : thank god I don't live in the US. The telco and cable market there sounds utterly horrible. Banning servers is normal practice? Those kind of restriction were dropped over a decade ago in civilized countries with decent broadband. BTW, this is the second time Google has done a 180 on net neutrality. The first time was when it tried together with Verizon to redefine net neutrality with an exception for wireless networks.