4 ms·

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...

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."
- wmf 13y ago
  I would much rather see Google offering a guarantee on whatever bandwidth they can actually deliver. And then their cable competitors would slaughter them by offering "the same" bandwidth for half the price and Google Fiber would go out of business.
  - aspensmonster 13y ago
    And? If a competitor can do it for half the price then I'd be all for it.
    - wmf 13y ago
      No, my point is that if Google guarantees bandwidth (e.g. 20 Mbps for $70) but none of their competitors do, competitors would offer something that sounds better (e.g. "up to" 20 Mbps for $35) but is actually much worse.
      - chii 13y ago
        however, will the mom and dads know what is _actually_ true vs what they've been told (and cannot verify)? AKA, marketing. If this is true, google will end up with the niche customers who do utilize their full bandwidth, while the majority goes to comcast (or whatever company that lies about their bandwidth).
    - nemothekid 13y ago
      Look, not everyone is going to use 100% util. of the 50Mbps internet connection, infact only a very, very tiny percent of users will, and they are better off getting a business grade contract. What wmf is saying that the competitors will also offer "50Mbps", and to 99.9% of users, the internet speed will be exactly the same. A single netflix movie will download at 50Mbps, however if Google User A were to host a video streaming service, he would find he had much more consistent speeds than Comcast User B. Now given that information, you had to choose: A.) Comcast "up to" 50 Mbps for $29.99/mo or B.) Google 50Mbps 24/7 for %49.99/mo Which would most user choose given that 99.9% of users will never use or need 100% util. of their connections?

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."

wmf 13y ago
I would much rather see Google offering a guarantee on whatever bandwidth they can actually deliver. And then their cable competitors would slaughter them by offering "the same" bandwidth for half the price and Google Fiber would go out of business.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  And? If a competitor can do it for half the price then I'd be all for it.
  - wmf 13y ago
    No, my point is that if Google guarantees bandwidth (e.g. 20 Mbps for $70) but none of their competitors do, competitors would offer something that sounds better (e.g. "up to" 20 Mbps for $35) but is actually much worse.
    - chii 13y ago
      however, will the mom and dads know what is _actually_ true vs what they've been told (and cannot verify)? AKA, marketing. If this is true, google will end up with the niche customers who do utilize their full bandwidth, while the majority goes to comcast (or whatever company that lies about their bandwidth).
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    Look, not everyone is going to use 100% util. of the 50Mbps internet connection, infact only a very, very tiny percent of users will, and they are better off getting a business grade contract. What wmf is saying that the competitors will also offer "50Mbps", and to 99.9% of users, the internet speed will be exactly the same. A single netflix movie will download at 50Mbps, however if Google User A were to host a video streaming service, he would find he had much more consistent speeds than Comcast User B. Now given that information, you had to choose: A.) Comcast "up to" 50 Mbps for $29.99/mo or B.) Google 50Mbps 24/7 for %49.99/mo Which would most user choose given that 99.9% of users will never use or need 100% util. of their connections?