4 ms·

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 res

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
      If it were true that 99.9% of all users never ever saturated their lines, then no one would ever be having these kinds of conversations. The only reason network neutrality has become such an issue is precisely because there are ubiquitous technologies that can and do saturate your link, and consumers love them. Napster, Kaaza, Morpheus, Bit Torrent --all popular (or once popular, anyway) P2P technologies that take advantage of as much bandwidth as you want to throw at them. Consumers can, have, and do saturate their lines in great numbers. The ISP industry's response was to throw a hissy fit that consumers were taking advantage of what was sold to them, institute throttling and deep packet inspection, and dig their heels in on upgrading network infrastructure, even when the government threw billions of dollars their way to make it happen. Google's public image on the matter has strongly revolved around shaming these practices, going so far as to file amicus curiae briefs to the courts in relevant cases condemning the very practices they're now attempting to implement. The rhetorical "think of all the things you could do with a connection that fast!" questions are pervasive in their marketing. They've gone so far as to say that the reason they're getting into the ISP game is precisely to incite the development of technologies that can take advantage of those links. These public faces are at odds with the words of their legal department that wants to hide under "reasonable network management" in ways that make them indistinguishable from the very competitors they claim to be shaming.
      - nemothekid 13y ago

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
    If it were true that 99.9% of all users never ever saturated their lines, then no one would ever be having these kinds of conversations. The only reason network neutrality has become such an issue is precisely because there are ubiquitous technologies that can and do saturate your link, and consumers love them. Napster, Kaaza, Morpheus, Bit Torrent --all popular (or once popular, anyway) P2P technologies that take advantage of as much bandwidth as you want to throw at them. Consumers can, have, and do saturate their lines in great numbers. The ISP industry's response was to throw a hissy fit that consumers were taking advantage of what was sold to them, institute throttling and deep packet inspection, and dig their heels in on upgrading network infrastructure, even when the government threw billions of dollars their way to make it happen. Google's public image on the matter has strongly revolved around shaming these practices, going so far as to file amicus curiae briefs to the courts in relevant cases condemning the very practices they're now attempting to implement. The rhetorical "think of all the things you could do with a connection that fast!" questions are pervasive in their marketing. They've gone so far as to say that the reason they're getting into the ISP game is precisely to incite the development of technologies that can take advantage of those links. These public faces are at odds with the words of their legal department that wants to hide under "reasonable network management" in ways that make them indistinguishable from the very competitors they claim to be shaming.
    - nemothekid 13y ago