5 ms·

Same article: "Google wants to ban the use of servers because it plans to offer a business class offering in the future."

by Shooti 13y ago

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.
    - mmanfrin 13y ago
      P2P != Running a Server.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        P2P requires running a combined client/server. Its a subset of, rather than equal to, running a server. Prohibit servers prohibits P2P.
        mmanfrin 13y ago
        In a pedantic sense, yes, a P2P program is a server, but at that level of technicality, anything could be considered a server -- which is the point I am trying to make: you guys are taking this notion of 'server' to an absolute extreme that undermines you point. Pretending that these terms forbid you from downloading a WOW patch is flat out absurd, and to continue down this line shows you aren't concerned about practical reality.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > In a pedantic sense, yes, a P2P program is a server, but at that level of technicality, anything could be considered a server Well, no. Plenty of programs exist which do not listen for and respond to network connections, either exclusively initiating network connections (pure network clients) or not communicating on the network at all. It is not the case that using "server" to mean what it actually means suddenly means "anything could be considered a server". > Pretending that these terms forbid you from downloading a WOW patch is flat out absurd, and to continue down this line shows you aren't concerned about practical reality. The terms plainly prohibit that (assuming that WOW patches use P2P software which involves a server, which I have no certain knowledge of since WOW isn't one of the things I have much interest in.) It may (quite likely is, from what various Google employees have apparently said about how the Google Fiber policy is enforced) be that the actual enforcement of the terms does not, which actually is problematic in a different way (what it means is that the terms are not the real rules, and the real rules are not disclosed, which, on top of whatever problem the server prohibition itself has with the Open Internet order's neutrality provisions, seems to fall afoul of the order's transparency provisions; which underlines the extent to which what Google is doing here is exactly what the FCC Order -- which Google lobbied heavily for -- was designed to protect consumers against.)
MartinCron 13y ago
The idea of having to upgrade to a "business class" offering in order to run my kids' low-traffic Minecraft server seems ridiculous. I would expect this kind of broad-brush treatment from a cable company, I like to imagine that I could expect better from Google.

Same article: "Google wants to ban the use of servers because it plans to offer a business class offering in the future."

by 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.
  - mmanfrin 13y ago
    P2P != Running a Server.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      P2P requires running a combined client/server. Its a subset of, rather than equal to, running a server. Prohibit servers prohibits P2P.
      - mmanfrin 13y ago
        In a pedantic sense, yes, a P2P program is a server, but at that level of technicality, anything could be considered a server -- which is the point I am trying to make: you guys are taking this notion of 'server' to an absolute extreme that undermines you point. Pretending that these terms forbid you from downloading a WOW patch is flat out absurd, and to continue down this line shows you aren't concerned about practical reality.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > In a pedantic sense, yes, a P2P program is a server, but at that level of technicality, anything could be considered a server Well, no. Plenty of programs exist which do not listen for and respond to network connections, either exclusively initiating network connections (pure network clients) or not communicating on the network at all. It is not the case that using "server" to mean what it actually means suddenly means "anything could be considered a server". > Pretending that these terms forbid you from downloading a WOW patch is flat out absurd, and to continue down this line shows you aren't concerned about practical reality. The terms plainly prohibit that (assuming that WOW patches use P2P software which involves a server, which I have no certain knowledge of since WOW isn't one of the things I have much interest in.) It may (quite likely is, from what various Google employees have apparently said about how the Google Fiber policy is enforced) be that the actual enforcement of the terms does not, which actually is problematic in a different way (what it means is that the terms are not the real rules, and the real rules are not disclosed, which, on top of whatever problem the server prohibition itself has with the Open Internet order's neutrality provisions, seems to fall afoul of the order's transparency provisions; which underlines the extent to which what Google is doing here is exactly what the FCC Order -- which Google lobbied heavily for -- was designed to protect consumers against.)

MartinCron 13y ago

The idea of having to upgrade to a "business class" offering in order to run my kids' low-traffic Minecraft server seems ridiculous. I would expect this kind of broad-brush treatment from a cable company, I like to imagine that I could expect better from Google.