6 ms·

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6129379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6129379 The main point of contention appears to be that

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6129379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6129379 The main point of contention appears to be that the EFF is defining "server" as any process that opens listening sockets, while ISPs use definitions based more on traffic patterns and uptime requirements. Google's FAQ addresses this issue. From https://fiber.google.com/help/ https://fiber.google.com/help/ : Can I run a server from my home? Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home security and others which may include server capabilities but are being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and encouraged. See also: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google...

diminoten 13y ago
I said it before, and I'll say it again, but any attempt to differentiate packets based on use rather than quantity is a violation of network neutrality. All packets are created equally, why should any ISP care why my packets exist?
- jmillikin 13y ago
  Network Neutrality is typically defined in terms of traffic sources, not use. It's both expected and encouraged that ISPs will differentiate between different types of packets based on what they contain. For example, it would be obviously bad for Comcast to place Netflix at the bottom of the QOS stack, but perfectly reasonable to do so with Bittorrent.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Comcast should not be maintaining a QOS stack. Period. That is a violation of net neutrality.
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      You are using a definition of net neutrality that differs from everyone else's. In the interest of conversational clarity, you ought to pick a different term. All residential ISPs sell more aggregate consumer capacity than total peering capacity, because very few users require the full use of their connection at all times. This permits their users' bills to be much lower, a tradeoff that is obviously beneficial to almost everyone. Overprovisioning absolutely requires the use of QOS and throttling. If my neighbor decides to torrent a hundred terabytes of ATLAS data, that should (ideally) not cause any of my DNS or RTP packets to be dropped.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        "Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."[0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality ISPs should stop overprovisioning if it prevents them from being neutral to my packets.
      - qu4z-2 13y ago
        He's using the same definition of "net neutrality" I was using... What do you mean by it?
        jmillikin 13y ago
        My understanding is that net neutrality is when the ISP does not prioritize/throttle/block traffic based on sender or recipient. This definition permits traffic shaping based on content, such as dropping bittorrent packets to preserve dns/rtp latency on a link shared between customers.
        diminoten 13y ago
        Net neutrality isn't simply about sender/recipient, it's also about type of packet. Mandated QoS is a direct violation of net neutrality.
  - Flimm 13y ago
    No, it's not perfectly reasonable.
- whyoh 13y ago
  And you'll need to say it again and again, because some people just refuse to understand. I don't care how "normal" it is for ISPs to discriminate traffic and how "every ISP does this" (no, it doesn't). It's just not acceptable.
gohrt 13y ago
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away" The TOS says "no servers", it doesn't say "non-commercial use' only. Can I run a 1Gpbs upstream feed from my Kittycam to a million non-paying subscribers?
- jufo 13y ago
  or can I just host my blog and a few Git repositories?
md224 13y ago
So, basically: "You can't run a server, unless it's a server-ish thing that most people use, in which case we encourage it." Really wish there was a clearer distinction they could make. Maybe they're drawing a clear line at "legal and non-commercial"?
- fatjokes 13y ago
  They should just say: you can't run a server that makes money. Of course, that opens up another can of worms...
  - sukuriant 13y ago
    They did: "non-commercial purposes"
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Note the word 'just'. They explicitly don't allow commercial purposes. But that's not the full list of what makes something a banned server. What is the full list? Hell if I can figure it out.
ihsw 13y ago
Frankly the dancing around the term "server" stinks. It can be resolved quite easily by stipulating that one cannot operate a commercial business out of a home internet connection.
- bennyg 13y ago
  Like selling things on eBay? Or are we talking about something a little more fine-tuned: Using the listening ports of a computer on the network to facilitate the selling of goods/services for commercial reasons. Is a business license the limiting factor? We need clearer terms before any argument has merit here.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    > Using the listening ports of a computer on the network to facilitate the selling of goods/services for commercial reasons. Sounds about right. We can take it a step further and explicitly state that a customer is prohibited from living on the avails of their residential internet connection, rather than simply "facilitating the selling of goods/services for commercial reasons." Too many things can be considered "facilitating."
    - bennyg 13y ago
      Ebay counterexample still accounts for the "living on the avails" line.
ajross 13y ago
Exactly. The EFF and the TOS terms are clearly using different jargon. The problem, though, is that the EFF's definition is the "correct" one at least as commonly understood by technical people. The license is using the term to connote things that it doesn't define, and that's a frustrating place to be if you as a user want to know if your gadget is permitted. The linked FAQ is a great clarification, and Google should be commended for adding it (they may be alone among broadband ISPs in having language like this, I don't know). But they really need to get that clarity into the license itself.
- mhurron 13y ago
  No, the EFF appears to have it right: https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981?hl=en&topic=2440874&ctx=topic https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981?hl=en&topic=... "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 ..."

diminoten 13y ago

I said it before, and I'll say it again, but any attempt to differentiate packets based on use rather than quantity is a violation of network neutrality. All packets are created equally, why should any ISP care why my packets exist?

jmillikin 13y ago
Network Neutrality is typically defined in terms of traffic sources, not use. It's both expected and encouraged that ISPs will differentiate between different types of packets based on what they contain. For example, it would be obviously bad for Comcast to place Netflix at the bottom of the QOS stack, but perfectly reasonable to do so with Bittorrent.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Comcast should not be maintaining a QOS stack. Period. That is a violation of net neutrality.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    You are using a definition of net neutrality that differs from everyone else's. In the interest of conversational clarity, you ought to pick a different term. All residential ISPs sell more aggregate consumer capacity than total peering capacity, because very few users require the full use of their connection at all times. This permits their users' bills to be much lower, a tradeoff that is obviously beneficial to almost everyone. Overprovisioning absolutely requires the use of QOS and throttling. If my neighbor decides to torrent a hundred terabytes of ATLAS data, that should (ideally) not cause any of my DNS or RTP packets to be dropped.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      "Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."[0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality ISPs should stop overprovisioning if it prevents them from being neutral to my packets.
    - qu4z-2 13y ago
      He's using the same definition of "net neutrality" I was using... What do you mean by it?
      - jmillikin 13y ago
        My understanding is that net neutrality is when the ISP does not prioritize/throttle/block traffic based on sender or recipient. This definition permits traffic shaping based on content, such as dropping bittorrent packets to preserve dns/rtp latency on a link shared between customers.
        diminoten 13y ago
        Net neutrality isn't simply about sender/recipient, it's also about type of packet. Mandated QoS is a direct violation of net neutrality.
- Flimm 13y ago
  No, it's not perfectly reasonable.
whyoh 13y ago
And you'll need to say it again and again, because some people just refuse to understand. I don't care how "normal" it is for ISPs to discriminate traffic and how "every ISP does this" (no, it doesn't). It's just not acceptable.

gohrt 13y ago

"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away" The TOS says "no servers", it doesn't say "non-commercial use' only. Can I run a 1Gpbs upstream feed from my Kittycam to a million non-paying subscribers?

jufo 13y ago
or can I just host my blog and a few Git repositories?

md224 13y ago

So, basically: "You can't run a server, unless it's a server-ish thing that most people use, in which case we encourage it." Really wish there was a clearer distinction they could make. Maybe they're drawing a clear line at "legal and non-commercial"?

fatjokes 13y ago
They should just say: you can't run a server that makes money. Of course, that opens up another can of worms...
- sukuriant 13y ago
  They did: "non-commercial purposes"
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Note the word 'just'. They explicitly don't allow commercial purposes. But that's not the full list of what makes something a banned server. What is the full list? Hell if I can figure it out.

ihsw 13y ago

Frankly the dancing around the term "server" stinks. It can be resolved quite easily by stipulating that one cannot operate a commercial business out of a home internet connection.

bennyg 13y ago
Like selling things on eBay? Or are we talking about something a little more fine-tuned: Using the listening ports of a computer on the network to facilitate the selling of goods/services for commercial reasons. Is a business license the limiting factor? We need clearer terms before any argument has merit here.
- ihsw 13y ago
  > Using the listening ports of a computer on the network to facilitate the selling of goods/services for commercial reasons. Sounds about right. We can take it a step further and explicitly state that a customer is prohibited from living on the avails of their residential internet connection, rather than simply "facilitating the selling of goods/services for commercial reasons." Too many things can be considered "facilitating."
  - bennyg 13y ago
    Ebay counterexample still accounts for the "living on the avails" line.

ajross 13y ago

Exactly. The EFF and the TOS terms are clearly using different jargon. The problem, though, is that the EFF's definition is the "correct" one at least as commonly understood by technical people. The license is using the term to connote things that it doesn't define, and that's a frustrating place to be if you as a user want to know if your gadget is permitted. The linked FAQ is a great clarification, and Google should be commended for adding it (they may be alone among broadband ISPs in having language like this, I don't know). But they really need to get that clarity into the license itself.

mhurron 13y ago
No, the EFF appears to have it right: https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981?hl=en&topic=2440874&ctx=topic https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981?hl=en&topic=... "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 ..."