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 di

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...