4 ms·

It really is sensational and straw-man. I've never heard anybody suggest that the VERY common clause that prohibits servers is in some way related to net neutr

• dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I've never heard anybody suggest that the VERY common clause that prohibits servers is in some way related to net neutrality. Clearly, you have (well, unless you are using "heard" very literally, in which case perhaps you haven't, but who cares then?), if you've read the article or the comment you are responding to. And I'm sure you've heard it more than that, too. You've just chosen to disregard those arguments. > Sure, be upset that Google won't let you run your company web server on a personal Google fiber account. Fine, complain about ToS... but don't pretend that this is about Net Neutrality or Google Flip-Flopping. Its about Google prohibiting users from running a particular class of lawful applications / services on the fixed broadband service offered by Google, for which Google has offered no network management rationale (they have asserted that it falls within "reasonable network management", but provided no justification for that except "everyone else does it"). The Open Internet report and order (for which Google lobbied) provides: "A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management." This is absolutely about Net Neutrality and Google flip-flopping.
  • md224 13y ago
    I'm operating under the good faith assumption that hatsix actually hasn't come across any discussions relating server bans and net neutrality before reading your comment and the original article. That's what I took his comment to mean. In that case, it would be helpful to actually link to resources that discuss the two. For example: http://commons.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality:_Distinctions_and_Controversies#Ban_on_.22servers.22 http://commons.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality... Also: http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF (search for the phrase "Restrictions on Providing Content") Now the question becomes: does this reflect a widely-held view?
    • comex 13y ago
      > I'm operating under the good faith assumption that hatsix actually hasn't come across any discussions relating server bans and net neutrality before reading your comment and the original article. That's what I took his comment to mean. Even if he hadn't, the article quotes Google itself as promoting a particular server-based application as benefiting from net neutrality. That should be enough to demonstrate some level of hypocrisy.
      • hatsix 13y ago
        I really had not heard of any discussions of user-side server bans w/regard to net neutrality. The quotes in the article do NOT suggest that google has changed stances or flip-flopped. It's the inferences and assumptions that the author made between the quotes that suggest that. His arguments are only valid if I the reader already believes that Google's definition of "any type of Server" is consistent with the wikipedia definition of "any type of Server". The author provides no proof that this is the case. The article even points out that google employees are assuring customers that gaming servers and other non-commercial servers are NOT banned. My very non-hypocritical argument is that google used vague language in their ToS, as most ISPs do, in order to give differentiation between personal and business class service. The author decided to interpret the ToS with a specific wikipedia definition of "Server", despite lack of any indication from Google that this is what was intended, and specific cited and official instances that indicate that this is NOT what is intended. Despite lack of positive evidence for this interpretation and even citing negative evidence, the author asserts that Google is now against Net Neutrality.
  • Natsu 13y ago
    Net Neutrality was a reaction to a plan by ISPs to double-dip, charging both their subscribers and the businesses who use them. It was formed back in the days when the telcos first put forth a plan via which they would, in effect, charge for a lot of services they don't actually provide. While people have come up with a lot of their own ideas since then, the "no servers" clause has been widespread for ages and predates Net Neutrality significantly. In other words, you could very well fit it under "reasonable network management."
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Net Neutrality was a reaction to a plan by ISPs to double-dip, charging both their subscribers and the businesses who use them. That was the last straw that led to the effort to get net neutrality regulations, but it wasn't the one and only ISP restriction on that net neutrality was aimed at. > In other words, you could very well fit it under "reasonable network management." I don't see how Google's practices (the combination of the ToS's blanket no-servers policy and the apparent -- and Google employee confirmed -- practice that this is not applied to all servers, but means something more limited that is not specifically publicly disclosed) can fit anywhere within the neutrality and transparency provisions of the FCC's Open Internet Report and Order [1], and "reasonable network management" doesn't seem to save it. The relevant neutrality provisions for which reasonable network management is an exception are the non-blocking provision: A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. And the no-unreasonable-discrimination provision: A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination. And the relevant transparency provision: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. There is considerable discussion (at paragraphs 80 through 92) of the considerations that go into determining reasonable network management; but the particularly key one may be paragraph 87, which summarizes the applicable principles thusly: The principles guiding case-by-case evaluations of network management practices are much the same as those that guide assessments of “no unreasonable discrimination,” and include transparency, end-user control, and use- (or application-) agnostic treatment. The Google practice here is consistent with none of those three principles. [1] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201...
  • hatsix 13y ago
    > Clearly, you have (well, unless you are using "heard" very literally, in which case perhaps you haven't, but who cares then?), if you've read the article or the comment you are responding to. And I'm sure you've heard it more than that, too. You're absolutely correct, I wasn't using it extremely literally, or even semi-literally. I meant that I hadn't heard anybody suggest this BEFORE I read the article that suggested it. Glad you pointed that out. > You've just chosen to disregard those arguments. That's quite an assumption that you've made. But I suppose we arguing on the internet, and that's the MO... assume that the people you're arguing with are both stupid AND intentionally misleading. But, to set the record straight, I truly had not heard anybody (before this article) suggest that the rules that Comcast did and does have in effect about not operating a mail or web server be removed due to Net Neutrality. I know plenty of people thing that rule is bullshit, but they never linked the two concepts where I read or heard it. All discussion of Net Neutrality that I was aware of (again, before this article, do I really have to keep pointing this out every time, because it really seemed obvious to me when I made that original statement, but I suppose it was confusing enough the first time, so I'll keep clarifying it) revolved around bittorrent or the preferential treatment that ISPs were giving their "approved" (i.e. pay-for-performance) services (and, the discriminatory degrading of services from those who refused to pay). It was the double-dipping that was publicized, the fact that they have 'tiered' services for personal and business purposes seemed reasonable... To be fair, I am heavily biased against relying on Comcast for anything, so I guess it had never dawned on me that someone would attempt to run a server on anything that Comcast provides... personal OR business class. But I'm a block away from being able to have DSL, so I'm stuck with Comcast. I also want to point out that my reading of the quote you provide does not suggest flip-flopping. I'm neither ignorant of nor ignoring the quote, but I take it to mean that "An ISP[...] shall not block ACCESS TO lawful content [...]". Certainly this is an understandable interpretation, especially considering the events that lead up to the net neutrality debates in the first place.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I also want to point out that my reading of the quote you provide does not suggest flip-flopping. I'm neither ignorant of nor ignoring the quote, but I take it to mean that "An ISP[...] shall not block ACCESS TO lawful content [...]". Certainly this is an understandable interpretation, especially considering the events that lead up to the net neutrality debates in the first place. I'm not sure how your rewriting (particularly, inserting the additional words "ACCESS TO") is imagined to make what Google is doing anything more inconsistent with the order, or how it is consistent with the order itself [1] (e.g., Paragraphs 65, referring to the language you are modifying/"interpreting"): "We also note that the rule entitles end users to both connect and use any lawful device of their choice, provided such device does not harm the network." A server appliance is a lawful device. [1] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201...