3 ms·

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

by 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...
- Natsu 13y ago
  The "no servers" clause, and its inconsistent enforcement, has been a part of literally every single consumer ISP ToS I have ever been a party to since the 90s. I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a longstanding, standard practice of reasonable network management, because there is a reasonable concern that people might saturate their connections and cause issues for others. The thing people are really up in arms about is that their ISPs might charge them for access to Google, Skype, etc. selectively, even though they do absolutely nothing to run that service. I don't personally ascribe to whatever random definitions of Net Neutrality are out there, I just don't like the idea of ISPs charging for services they don't provide or otherwise selectively degrading them to make money. My principles are not in conflict and I simply do not care about whatever high-minded principles someone has come up with in a poor attempt to replicate that bit of common sense that ISPs shouldn't make up special fees for things they don't even provide. You may notice how that "things they don't even provide" bit means that I have no weird "is this actually neutral?" edge cases when people pay to run caches/proxies/whatever to actually improve services for people, even when there are fees involved, while people sometimes get concerned over whether or not something is truly "neutral" or not. This is because I do not care about "neutrality" as such, but rather a much simpler concept of fairness: don't charge for (or degrade) services you don't provide.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The "no servers" clause, and its inconsistent enforcement, has been a part of literally every single consumer ISP ToS I have ever been a party to since the 90s. It hasn't been part of any of the ones I've been party two prior to 2000, or any of the ones after that except the ones from major telcos (but then, the ones prior to 2000 I was party two weren't, by any stretch, broadband.) But, even so, it doesn't really matter, since prior to the Open Internet Report and Order for which Google lobbied, there weren't FCC transparency requirements on fixed broadband providers, or neutrality rules which included transparency as a factor in determining whether a restriction was reasonable network management. There is now, and Google's decidedly non-transparent practice is inconsistent with the policy for which it lobbied. > I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a longstanding, standard practice of reasonable network management I have a hard time seeing it as "reasonable network management" given the way that term is used in the FCC Open Internet Report and Order, a policy for which Google lobbied. If you can defend the idea that it is such within that context, I would like to hear the argument. But simply repeating time and again the same old "everyone has always done it" argument isn't making that case.

by Natsu 13y ago

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...

Natsu 13y ago
The "no servers" clause, and its inconsistent enforcement, has been a part of literally every single consumer ISP ToS I have ever been a party to since the 90s. I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a longstanding, standard practice of reasonable network management, because there is a reasonable concern that people might saturate their connections and cause issues for others. The thing people are really up in arms about is that their ISPs might charge them for access to Google, Skype, etc. selectively, even though they do absolutely nothing to run that service. I don't personally ascribe to whatever random definitions of Net Neutrality are out there, I just don't like the idea of ISPs charging for services they don't provide or otherwise selectively degrading them to make money. My principles are not in conflict and I simply do not care about whatever high-minded principles someone has come up with in a poor attempt to replicate that bit of common sense that ISPs shouldn't make up special fees for things they don't even provide. You may notice how that "things they don't even provide" bit means that I have no weird "is this actually neutral?" edge cases when people pay to run caches/proxies/whatever to actually improve services for people, even when there are fees involved, while people sometimes get concerned over whether or not something is truly "neutral" or not. This is because I do not care about "neutrality" as such, but rather a much simpler concept of fairness: don't charge for (or degrade) services you don't provide.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The "no servers" clause, and its inconsistent enforcement, has been a part of literally every single consumer ISP ToS I have ever been a party to since the 90s. It hasn't been part of any of the ones I've been party two prior to 2000, or any of the ones after that except the ones from major telcos (but then, the ones prior to 2000 I was party two weren't, by any stretch, broadband.) But, even so, it doesn't really matter, since prior to the Open Internet Report and Order for which Google lobbied, there weren't FCC transparency requirements on fixed broadband providers, or neutrality rules which included transparency as a factor in determining whether a restriction was reasonable network management. There is now, and Google's decidedly non-transparent practice is inconsistent with the policy for which it lobbied. > I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a longstanding, standard practice of reasonable network management I have a hard time seeing it as "reasonable network management" given the way that term is used in the FCC Open Internet Report and Order, a policy for which Google lobbied. If you can defend the idea that it is such within that context, I would like to hear the argument. But simply repeating time and again the same old "everyone has always done it" argument isn't making that case.