If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Google wants to sell you a big fat Internet pipe but doesn't want you to use it   (wired.com) divider line 79
    More: Sad, Google, Google Fiber, Google wants, Raspberry Pi, mail server, friend of the courts, home computers, Slingboxes  
•       •       •

4870 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:35 AM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 09:28:49 AM
I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...
 
2013-07-31 09:36:40 AM
No problem, this is just what any other ISP does. And you now how much we love every other ISP.


si.wsj.net

They are completely different than any other multi-billion dollar company out there and we shall not speak negatively about them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732417000457863581262315 4 242.html#project%3DGOOGLE0731%26articleTabs%3Darticle
Try to link to a WSJ on Fark, I dare you.
 
2013-07-31 09:42:03 AM

UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...


A packet is either a packet or not a packet. How is Google blocking, diverting or throttling inbound HTTP request packets fundamentally different from another ISP blocking, diverting or throttling inbound data packets from Netflix?

If you're going to sell me a 1Gbps link I expect to be able to use 1Gbps for any legal purpose I choose. Why the fark is it any of their business if I use it to download 5 Debian ISOs at once or run some sort of tcp/ip based service?

Google has slowly been working on sucking the big one for a while now, but it's only in the last year or so, it seems, that they really ramped up their Be Nothing But Evil campaign.
 
2013-07-31 09:42:38 AM

UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...


That's funny, because before they opened their own ISP, they were all for the idea that people should be able to connect any legal device to the internet connection they were paying for.
 
2013-07-31 09:42:55 AM

UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...


If you had read more carefully you'd have read that Google wants to charge extra for having a Net-Neutrality-friendly account.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:04 AM

UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...


And this certainly isn't a Google specific thing. Most residential ISP plans have a provision in their TOS barring the use of servers.

Of course the wording "any type of server" is ambiguous. But I'm just repeating what the article said, which was pretty comprehensive.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:57 AM

digistil: UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...

If you had read more carefully you'd have read that Google wants to charge extra for having a Net-Neutrality-friendly account.


And that's the Issue.

You want to charge for bandwidth? that's okay.
But don't tell me that I can't put a box in my home and run a small business.

Do the Bytes cost you more when I make money on them ?

/Farking looters.
 
2013-07-31 09:48:46 AM
They already do with Youtube.

Sucking since January.
 
2013-07-31 09:49:18 AM

MightyPez: And this certainly isn't a Google specific thing.


Google has been fighting against this type of thing for years. They were all for ISPs letting people use their internet connections for whatever legal purpose the user saw fit..... right up until the point they became an ISP.

Apparently Google though it was just terrible when Comcast did it, but now it's totally cool if Google does it.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:20 AM
Question for the more technically minded.  Would Google's ban encompass temporary servers for, say, hosting a game among scattered friends?
 
2013-07-31 09:53:18 AM

skozlaw: MightyPez: And this certainly isn't a Google specific thing.

Google has been fighting against this type of thing for years. They were all for ISPs letting people use their internet connections for whatever legal purpose the user saw fit..... right up until the point they became an ISP.

Apparently Google though it was just terrible when Comcast did it, but now it's totally cool if Google does it.


Indeed. It's a shiatty about-face, but were people honestly expecting different?

With that said, I run "servers" from my Comcast residential account and they haven't thrown a fit yet.
 
2013-07-31 09:57:29 AM

Chthonic Echoes: Question for the more technically minded.  Would Google's ban encompass temporary servers for, say, hosting a game among scattered friends?


From the way they write about it in the story technically yes since you're serving data to other clients.  In practice though you don't have anything to worry about.  If you think about it Call of Duty runs exactly that way and we haven't seen mass amounts of ISP shutoffs otherwise you'd hear about it....well maybe not if they don't have internet anymore =)
 
2013-07-31 09:58:24 AM
guess it begs the question why they'd be a legit competitor if they're just offering the same product?
 
2013-07-31 10:08:50 AM

UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...


THIS

Here's what every ISP should do...

Charge by the bit, or byte, or MB, or GB, etc., The more you use, the more you pay. Your usage directly impacts the usage of other individuals, as well costing the ISP more. I know everyone wants a big, fat, unlimited pipe, but that's not realistic. In no ways does that make sense. Speed costs more. Data costs more. The problem is the ISPs never charged properly from the start.

One other note....

The contract terms merely say "you should not". "Should" in the legal world means next to nothing. They never said "you are not permitted" or the even more appropriate "you shall not". They are merely suggesting that you don't hook up a server. Are they going to come after you if you are connecting to your devices remotely and grabbing the occasional file? No. They just don't want people setting up 0-day Warez FTP sites and using up all the bandwidth.
 
2013-07-31 10:24:30 AM
This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.
 
2013-07-31 10:25:25 AM

Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.


That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?
 
2013-07-31 10:31:01 AM

MightyPez: UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...

And this certainly isn't a Google specific thing. Most residential ISP plans have a provision in their TOS barring the use of servers.



Yep.  And I think I made a mistake in my post.  I wasn't thinking of bandwidth hogging, I was thinking of sharing the connection.  I thought ISPs banned server usage to prevent people from distributing their pipe to other people who didn't pay for it (like sharing with your apartment neighbors).

It doesn't matter anyway.  With the rate people are dropping cable TV and the like, we will soon be getting charged extra for streaming to the top ten Roku apps.  And speaking of that, does the verbiage of their usage agreement ban Roku devices as well?
 
2013-07-31 10:34:15 AM
It seems obvious to me that the rule is to keep traffic at a minimum. If people don't like how they are doing it, they could just charge by the byte, throttle the speed when usage gets ridiculous, or cap the upload speed.
 
2013-07-31 10:37:33 AM

Elemental79: It seems obvious to me that the rule is to keep traffic at a minimum. If people don't like how they are doing it, they could just charge by the byte, throttle the speed when usage gets ridiculous, or cap the upload speed.


what an upgrade from comcast...

/lol
 
2013-07-31 10:38:08 AM

kidgenius: The contract terms merely say "you should not". "Should" in the legal world means next to nothing.


Actually, that wasn't the contract, wasn't that just their response?
 
2013-07-31 10:41:40 AM

Carth: Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.

That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?


https://fiber.google.com/help/

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.
 
2013-07-31 10:43:57 AM

MindStalker: Carth: Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.

That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?

https://fiber.google.com/help/

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.


I guess it helps if we actually go and read the damn thing.  :)
 
2013-07-31 10:46:55 AM

UberDave: MindStalker: Carth: Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.

That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?

https://fiber.google.com/help/

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.

I guess it helps if we actually go and read the damn thing.  :)


Well, the TOS itself doesn't say this. You have to go to their FAQ https://fiber.google.com/help/  and search for "server".
 
2013-07-31 10:48:06 AM
Honestly, I fail to see the reason for the outrage.  Google isn't saying you can't run a server, they're saying you have to pay for a business level account if you do.  It's not that expensive to do that if you really need to run a serious server.  (And if they are anything like my CenturyLink connection, they don't care about minor stuff like gaming mini-servers) Otherwise, you end up with guys like the one featured a few months ago that was running a video streaming service for all his neighbors off his residential account.

Yes, it's a disingenuous to claim "unlimited" and really limit stuff, but every single ISP does that.  Push for a requirement to list the exact limits upfront- "No servers, 250GB a month and then we cap you, etc" but it's hardly Google stopping you from running what you want.

/Or you could just buy a virtual server from Amazon's EC2 system.  No worries about exceeding the limits of your network connection
 
2013-07-31 10:48:51 AM
So no banner adds in your

UberDave: MindStalker: Carth: Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.

That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?

https://fiber.google.com/help/

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.

I guess it helps if we actually go and read the damn thing.  :)


What about banner advertisements that are placed in game by the developers? That is commercial, utilizing your hardware and internet connection to advertise to the people on your server? Do political advertisements count?
 
2013-07-31 10:54:03 AM
I just look to this to figure out where we're headed.
upload.wikimedia.org

I mean, really, is there any better authoritarian wet dream?

/we are dinosaurs in this brave new world
 
2013-07-31 10:54:36 AM

MindStalker: Carth: Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.

That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?

https://fiber.google.com/help/

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.


So it sounds like you can play xbox but you can't set up a Team fortress 2 server?
 
2013-07-31 10:56:26 AM

MindStalker: Carth: Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.

That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?

https://fiber.google.com/help/

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.


So torrenting a Debian install is ok?
 
2013-07-31 11:01:08 AM

Carth: MindStalker: Carth: Skunkwolf: This means you can not host a game on your PS3 or Xbox 360 either.

That was my first thought. Does this mean you can't legally play xbox/ps on google fiber because you're likely to be acting as a server?

https://fiber.google.com/help/

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.

So it sounds like you can play xbox but you can't set up a Team fortress 2 server?




If you can make money off a web application, you must pay someone. All loopholes will eventually be plugged. It's as simple as that.

As soon as a business notices your market, you will be squashed.
 
2013-07-31 11:01:32 AM
They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.
 
2013-07-31 11:09:39 AM

BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.




Your just not allowed to use it to make money.

Plus the more they clamp down, the higher the cost of commercial service. Yeah!

/barriers to entry
 
2013-07-31 11:14:50 AM

BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.


How is it abuse to use the service you pay for? A packet is a packet, what it is being used for should be irrelevant (obviously I mean as long as it's legal). If Google doesn't want you to use a lot of bandwidth, why are they selling unlimited data transfer at 1Gbps for a flat rate? Plus, if you pay the 'business class' fee, then they don't care. This is about squeezing money out of the consumer and nothing more.
 
2013-07-31 11:15:16 AM
Traffic schmaffic.

I imagine security is a big reason to ban servers or at least to make sure to have the right to kick a customer's ass over it.

I rent a small vserver at a very small, cheap Linux server place and in the hoster's support forums you sometimes get questions where the answer is to send the (potential) customer away to some bigger hoster with more managed plans because you can tell that the asker will be completely lost without a GUI and setup wizards.

With a "no servers" clause they can easily shut down dumbasses with more bandwidth than admin know-how and his 1337 misconfigured or hijacked server who got the ISP's subnet blacklisted for allowing open mail relays, spamming, hosting phishing sites, warez dumps etc.

I have yet to see the ISP that cares if you ssh into your home PC or play some game over the network; P2P might be a bit different, but I haven't yet heard of it being atacked via a "no servers" ToS violation instead of open or hidden throttling or traffic limits.
 
2013-07-31 11:17:41 AM

manbart: BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.

How is it abuse to use the service you pay for? A packet is a packet, what it is being used for should be irrelevant (obviously I mean as long as it's legal). If Google doesn't want you to use a lot of bandwidth, why are they selling unlimited data transfer at 1Gbps for a flat rate? Plus, if you pay the 'business class' fee, then they don't care. This is about squeezing money out of the consumer and nothing more.




In a predictable manner.
 
2013-07-31 11:18:32 AM
So I guess people who live-stream themselves playing WoW and make money of the ads displayed on their twitchtv page are in violation then.
 
2013-07-31 11:21:20 AM

StoPPeRmobile: manbart: BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.

How is it abuse to use the service you pay for? A packet is a packet, what it is being used for should be irrelevant (obviously I mean as long as it's legal). If Google doesn't want you to use a lot of bandwidth, why are they selling unlimited data transfer at 1Gbps for a flat rate? Plus, if you pay the 'business class' fee, then they don't care. This is about squeezing money out of the consumer and nothing more.

In a predictable manner.


Good argument,you have me convinced. Pat yourself on the back.
 
2013-07-31 11:21:57 AM
Fark's sake, overreact much? The extrapolation in TFA is significant, even for Wired.
 
2013-07-31 11:22:34 AM

digistil: UberDave: I read rather fast but it seems that Google simply doesn't want people to be bandwidth hogs and they didn't get specific with the rule.  I don't think that means that they are throwing net neutrality out the window...

If you had read more carefully you'd have read that Google wants to charge extra for having a Net-Neutrality-friendly account.


It's hopeless. Google fanbois are the worst kind of fanboi.  The denial in them reminds me of North Korean citizens that loved Lil Kim.
 
2013-07-31 11:29:31 AM

The Voice of Doom: Traffic schmaffic.

I imagine security is a big reason to ban servers or at least to make sure to have the right to kick a customer's ass over it.

I rent a small vserver at a very small, cheap Linux server place and in the hoster's support forums you sometimes get questions where the answer is to send the (potential) customer away to some bigger hoster with more managed plans because you can tell that the asker will be completely lost without a GUI and setup wizards.

With a "no servers" clause they can easily shut down dumbasses with more bandwidth than admin know-how and his 1337 misconfigured or hijacked server who got the ISP's subnet blacklisted for allowing open mail relays, spamming, hosting phishing sites, warez dumps etc.

I have yet to see the ISP that cares if you ssh into your home PC or play some game over the network; P2P might be a bit different, but I haven't yet heard of it being atacked via a "no servers" ToS violation instead of open or hidden throttling or traffic limits.


This is a good point. But I'm not sure this is the real reason. If you pay the business class fee, then you can run whatever server you want. There are plenty of businesses out there that have very weak IT capabilities, so the same risk exists there as well.
 
2013-07-31 11:29:53 AM
I wonder how many people read the PDF and not the bloggish 'article'.
 
2013-07-31 11:56:57 AM

manbart: StoPPeRmobile: manbart: BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.

How is it abuse to use the service you pay for? A packet is a packet, what it is being used for should be irrelevant (obviously I mean as long as it's legal). If Google doesn't want you to use a lot of bandwidth, why are they selling unlimited data transfer at 1Gbps for a flat rate? Plus, if you pay the 'business class' fee, then they don't care. This is about squeezing money out of the consumer and nothing more.

In a predictable manner.

Good argument,you have me convinced. Pat yourself on the back.




Well, I was agreeing with your final statement but suggesting a modification. Thought you might realize this.

This is about squeezing money out of the consumer,in a predictable manner, and nothing more.

Predictability is easy to sell to suits.
 
2013-07-31 12:01:23 PM

StoPPeRmobile: manbart: StoPPeRmobile: manbart: BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.

How is it abuse to use the service you pay for? A packet is a packet, what it is being used for should be irrelevant (obviously I mean as long as it's legal). If Google doesn't want you to use a lot of bandwidth, why are they selling unlimited data transfer at 1Gbps for a flat rate? Plus, if you pay the 'business class' fee, then they don't care. This is about squeezing money out of the consumer and nothing more.

In a predictable manner.

Good argument,you have me convinced. Pat yourself on the back.

Well, I was agreeing with your final statement but suggesting a modification. Thought you might realize this.

This is about squeezing money out of the consumer,in a predictable manner, and nothing more.

Predictability is easy to sell to suits.


yeah, I realized that might be the case after i posted. At first I thought it was a snide comment... my bad. Here's one free internet.
 
2013-07-31 12:14:02 PM

skozlaw: Google has slowly been working on sucking the big one for a while now, but it's only in the last year or so, it seems, that they really ramped up their Be Nothing But Evil campaign.


I agree. I very rapidly progressed from a Google fanboy to a Google hater in a matter of months.
 
2013-07-31 12:14:24 PM
Google. Is. Evil.
 
2013-07-31 12:25:45 PM
Price discrimination, folks...basic economics 101.  Same reason why plane ticket costs vary by time.  People who have the most to gain from a service are also going to use it the most (and are also the most willing and able to pay for it).  The only way to allow "fair" use by low-use people is to discriminate the commercial users out of the residential use pool.
 
2013-07-31 12:28:05 PM

manbart: StoPPeRmobile: manbart: StoPPeRmobile: manbart: BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.

How is it abuse to use the service you pay for? A packet is a packet, what it is being used for should be irrelevant (obviously I mean as long as it's legal). If Google doesn't want you to use a lot of bandwidth, why are they selling unlimited data transfer at 1Gbps for a flat rate? Plus, if you pay the 'business class' fee, then they don't care. This is about squeezing money out of the consumer and nothing more.

In a predictable manner.

Good argument,you have me convinced. Pat yourself on the back.

Well, I was agreeing with your final statement but suggesting a modification. Thought you might realize this.

This is about squeezing money out of the consumer,in a predictable manner, and nothing more.

Predictability is easy to sell to suits.

yeah, I realized that might be the case after i posted. At first I thought it was a snide comment... my bad. Here's one free internet.




All good. Was curious which way you would go.

I absolutely had absolutes. Almost as much as intolerance. If there is one thing I can't stand it's intolerance.
 
2013-07-31 12:33:45 PM

manbart: BioStormX: They obviously aren't going to go after anyone for hosting a video game, or some guy's personal site that gets shiats a month. This is to stop people from using it for business-class traffic, and I am fine with it. They're offering 1Gbps speeds at an affordable rate, you don't need to abuse it and ruin that for everyone.

How is it abuse to use the service you pay for? A packet is a packet, what it is being used for should be irrelevant (obviously I mean as long as it's legal). If Google doesn't want you to use a lot of bandwidth, why are they selling unlimited data transfer at 1Gbps for a flat rate? Plus, if you pay the 'business class' fee, then they don't care. This is about squeezing money out of the consumer and nothing more.


Good, but if you're running a business based on their service then you're no longer a consumer.
 
2013-07-31 12:45:50 PM

rocky_howard: Good, but if you're running a business based on their service then you're no longer a consumer.


If that's what they mean, then they would say "commercial server" or "for profit server".

However, that's not what their terms of service say, now is it?
 
2013-07-31 12:59:44 PM

Obbi: kidgenius: The contract terms merely say "you should not". "Should" in the legal world means next to nothing.

Actually, that wasn't the contract, wasn't that just their response?


The ToS here (Link)

ToS:
You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper, infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others' enjoyment of the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. You are responsible for all activity on the Services provided to you by Google Fiber, whether such activity is undertaken by you or someone else.

Where that link says:
Use Google Fiber properly

Google Fiber is a powerful tool. Please do not abuse it.

Here are some common-sense rules that you should keep in mind when using services provided by Google Fiber:

Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests. 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, use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, or use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties (including, but not limited to, selling Internet access to third parties).

Respect copyright. Upload and download only content that you are authorized to use or access.

Do not circumvent, disable, or otherwise modify any security features or other limitations Google Fiber places on any services it provides.

Comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations when utilizing Google Fiber's services.


So, the ToS says "prohibits," but the the link says "should." No idea how that parses. Especially since if you follow the text exactly, "comply with all applicable laws" is an example of a prohibited activity?
 
2013-07-31 01:15:22 PM

MightyPez: skozlaw: MightyPez: And this certainly isn't a Google specific thing.

Google has been fighting against this type of thing for years. They were all for ISPs letting people use their internet connections for whatever legal purpose the user saw fit..... right up until the point they became an ISP.

Apparently Google though it was just terrible when Comcast did it, but now it's totally cool if Google does it.

Indeed. It's a shiatty about-face, but were people honestly expecting different?

With that said, I run "servers" from my Comcast residential account and they haven't thrown a fit yet.


We nerds like people who give us shiat for free, and Google does a lot of that...
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report