Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4873 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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...
 
2013-07-31 01:15:28 PM  
I guess if I want to run my Arma3 server, I won't get Googlefiber.
 
2013-07-31 01:39:15 PM  

BullBearMS: 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?


"Commercial" and "for profit" don't cover all the bases. There are any number of high-bandwidth usage models that are not single-user or even dozen-user that are not commercial, and even more that are not profitable, but are commercial (like Tumblr). It's much easier to get the language out there that they don't want you slamming the network with tons of multi-user traffic on a residential account. The TOS are weakly defined, so there's a lot of leeway in both directions, and it will be interesting to see where this ends up. On the surface, it looks like they are trying to segment their customers to charge for more usage in a tiered fashion.
 
2013-07-31 01:56:36 PM  
Google....Do as we say, not as we do!!!....forget about that evil thing and buy a pair of our spy glasses when they come out!
 
2013-07-31 02:03:45 PM  
How the hell is this even a story?

He quotes this answer (https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981 ) from Jan 22, 2013. Here is a response from March from a member of the Google Fiber Team (http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/fiber/-ixejP9yHj4 ) That's probably not official, but it links to the FAQ (https://fiber.google.com/help/ ) where if you search for "server", you'll find an answer.

Journalism's dead.
 
2013-07-31 02:18:15 PM  
Journal

technoblogical: How the hell is this even a story?

He quotes this answer (https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981 ) from Jan 22, 2013. Here is a response from March from a member of the Google Fiber Team (http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/fiber/-ixejP9yHj4 ) That's probably not official, but it links to the FAQ (https://fiber.google.com/help/ ) where if you search for "server", you'll find an answer.

Journalism's dead.


Journalism? Wired? I read an article there once that said, in the first paragraph, that computers store data as a series of 0s and 1s, and these numbers are called  binary. Supposed to be a geek magazine?

Good find though, at your link:

"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 02:26:04 PM  

waterrockets: It's much easier to get the language out there that they don't want you slamming the network with tons of multi-user traffic on a residential account using the bandwidth you are paying them for.


Again, before Google became an ISP they were very clear that they were completely supportive of the concept that a consumer should be legally guaranteed the right to connect any legal device to the connection they were paying for.
 
2013-07-31 02:29:36 PM  

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


Technically, yes.  Would they actually care, almost certainly not.

However, they should be more specific in the policy, IMHO.  A gamer server is a server, and so is something like a nanny cam, but these aren't what the ban is meant to stop (basically, they want you to pay extra for the business class service if you are running high-bandwidth business applications).
 
2013-07-31 02:32:50 PM  

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?


Actually, it sounds like that is ok (it's multi-player gaming and legal and non-commercial).  If you charge for it, though, it would be banned.
 
2013-07-31 02:35:41 PM  

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

Technically, yes.  Would they actually care, almost certainly not.

However, they should be more specific in the policy, IMHO.  A gamer server is a server, and so is something like a nanny cam, but these aren't what the ban is meant to stop (basically, they want you to pay extra for the business class service if you are running high-bandwidth business applications).


But you are already paying them for X bandwidth.  As more and more consumers use more and more bandwidth - there are lots and lots of 'business class' servers you can run without hitting that bandwidth level.

ISPs saying, 'Well, an HTTP server means you have to pay us more - but a CS server doesn't cause you are just playing a game with your cousins online' is the opposite of net neutrality....and Google was all for it before.
 
2013-07-31 02:53:05 PM  
I can run a server on my mobile phone with my contract. Done it a few times when I needed to. I really do have unlimited internet on it.

They are stopping you hosting torrents which is flagged as server activity. Sky blocks it, most home ISPs block it.
 
2013-07-31 02:55:09 PM  

ProfessorOhki: 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?


they make it like that so they can stop what they like and allow what they like and shut up is the answer if you quiz them about it.
 
2013-07-31 03:07:27 PM  

BullBearMS: waterrockets: It's much easier to get the language out there that they don't want you slamming the network with tons of multi-user traffic on a residential account using the bandwidth you are paying them for.

Again, before Google became an ISP they were very clear that they were completely supportive of the concept that a consumer should be legally guaranteed the right to connect any legal device to the connection they were paying for.


Well, we can get down to a Clinton level of word parsing, but there is some difference between the right to "connect" a server to the network and "running" a server on the network. Running a server would consist of connecting it, but presumably it would be accompanied by activities such as promoting its use, and increasing its traffic for commercial purposes. If I go buy a blade and play Minesweeper on it and check my email, I'm not running a server, but one is connected.
 
2013-07-31 03:35:47 PM  

Marine1: We nerds like people who give us shiat for free, and Google does a lot of that...


They give you nothing for free. You richly compensate them, just not with cash.
 
2013-07-31 04:07:49 PM  

waterrockets: Well, we can get down to a Clinton level of word parsing, but there is some difference between the right to "connect" a server to the network and "running" a server on the network.


Or we could just admit that Google has completely changed their position here.

I don't think anyone would be upset if their position had been that "you need to pay for a business account if you are going to run a for-profit server".

That's not what they are doing here, though.

I'm reminded of their decision to remove adblock from the play store. Google likes to claim that they have have high ideals, unless money comes into the picture.
 
2013-07-31 04:23:51 PM  
Yeah, I'm not arguing that they didn't change their position on net neutrality.

Some people are generally pretty upset that an immature dot-com-boom company would become wildly successful and "grow up" from a business standpoint. I don't know what other alternatives they have, really, other than just giving up some of their bottom line just because of goals they had a decade ago. Money changes everything, and Google is no exception.

Is there a precedent for a company that became wildly successful and didn't start following the cash for most decisions? What's the alternative for Google? They slow down their pace, take some hits on their margins, make some room for competition, said competition doesn't mind being evil, and squishes Google into a distant memory of the 90s? I don't think there's a happy ending to big company success from a consumer standpoint.

The net neutrality thing makes a lot of sense, but it will never happen, because some large ISP is going to have to be the first one to take a stand, and they'll lose a lot of profit initially.

Sometimes a company will shake things up a bit, like T-Mobile this year, allowing me to get 95% of the same service I had with Verizon for $600 less per year. How far will it go though? If a wireless data provider starts selling service by the KB, something might get rolling on the ISP front...
 
2013-07-31 04:37:09 PM  

waterrockets: Some people are generally pretty upset that an immature dot-com-boom company would become wildly successful and "grow up" from a business standpoint.


Their stance on network neutrality was not expressed when they were an immature dot-com company. It was expressed just a couple of years ago.

"We also care a lot about Net Neutrality," Schmidt said. "Whether you agree with me or not, you would agree with the following principle: No entity that controls the last mile, whether it's a telco or a cable company or, by the way, a local government since they're doing this stuff, too, should be able to control the content that flows over it.

Seriously, just stop making excuses for their bad behavior.
 
2013-07-31 04:45:52 PM  
I'm not making excuses, I'm just not surprised, and I'm not disappointed. I still use Google for some stuff and competitors for other stuff. When Fiber lands in Austin next year, I'll look at them and the competition and make a decision.

There's a lot of polarization around tech companies for some reason, and it's annoying. They all rock in some areas and suck in others. There's no story here.
 
2013-07-31 04:56:00 PM  

waterrockets: There's no story here.


Hypocrisy always makes for a great story.

When it was a question of increasing costs for other ISP's to allow customers to use the full bandwidth they were paying for, Google was all up in Comcast/Verizon/AT&T's faces castigating them for limiting everyone's FREEDOMZ!

Now, when it might marginally increase Google's costs they are taking the exact same "fark you, paying customer" position they so recently claimed to oppose.
 
2013-07-31 05:03:13 PM  

BullBearMS: waterrockets: There's no story here.

Hypocrisy always makes for a great story.

When it was a question of increasing costs for other ISP's to allow customers to use the full bandwidth they were paying for, Google was all up in Comcast/Verizon/AT&T's faces castigating them for limiting everyone's FREEDOMZ!

Now, when it might marginally increase Google's costs they are taking the exact same "fark you, paying customer" position they so recently claimed to oppose.


While that's all true, the fact that "hypocrisy always makes for a great story" is also a statement that it's not uncommon. Fun to catch people/companies with it, and that's half of the Daily Show every night, so I guess there is a story there.
 
2013-07-31 05:43:19 PM  

BullBearMS: waterrockets: Some people are generally pretty upset that an immature dot-com-boom company would become wildly successful and "grow up" from a business standpoint.

Their stance on network neutrality was not expressed when they were an immature dot-com company. It was expressed just a couple of years ago.

"We also care a lot about Net Neutrality," Schmidt said. "Whether you agree with me or not, you would agree with the following principle: No entity that controls the last mile, whether it's a telco or a cable company or, by the way, a local government since they're doing this stuff, too, should be able to control the content that flows over it.

Seriously, just stop making excuses for their bad behavior.


They're not talking about the CONTENT of the net, but the direction and usage. They don't want you to run a business level usage on their net. You can download everything that you want. They don't care about content. They don't want to have to upload gigs over gigs just because you're being entitle and prissy. They were trying to be honest and anyone trying to run a business-level account is being DIS-honest. And you're asking them to just take the hit? Get real.
 
2013-07-31 06:07:22 PM  

skozlaw: Marine1: We nerds like people who give us shiat for free, and Google does a lot of that...

They give you nothing for free. You richly compensate them, just not with cash.


Well, yeah, but we don't get it marketed to us like that.

I miss the old days where you could just pay for something and, for the most part, be done with a company.

/... but free!... and open source!...
 
2013-07-31 06:13:16 PM  

rocky_howard: BullBearMS: waterrockets: Some people are generally pretty upset that an immature dot-com-boom company would become wildly successful and "grow up" from a business standpoint.

Their stance on network neutrality was not expressed when they were an immature dot-com company. It was expressed just a couple of years ago.

"We also care a lot about Net Neutrality," Schmidt said. "Whether you agree with me or not, you would agree with the following principle: No entity that controls the last mile, whether it's a telco or a cable company or, by the way, a local government since they're doing this stuff, too, should be able to control the content that flows over it.

Seriously, just stop making excuses for their bad behavior.

They're not talking about the CONTENT of the net, but the direction and usage. They don't want you to run a business level usage on their net. You can download everything that you want. They don't care about content. They don't want to have to upload gigs over gigs just because you're being entitle and prissy. They were trying to be honest and anyone trying to run a business-level account is being DIS-honest. And you're asking them to just take the hit? Get real.


They want to price the pipe based on your intentions. That's completely against their former stance and completely against Net Neutrality.

/Google fanbois are the new Apple fanbois
//But amazingly, even less informed
 
2013-07-31 07:17:52 PM  
Don't Be Evil
imageshack.us
 
2013-07-31 10:30:47 PM  

digistil: They want to price the pipe based on your intentions. That's completely against their former stance and completely against Net Neutrality.


Which has little to nothing to do with net neutrality, but thank you for trying. You can pass any kind of information through Google tubes and they won't throttle or negate any kind of packet.

They have issues with the amount you pass. I'm very sure if you set up a server that uploads let's say 10GBs a month (or whatever the average upload is), they won't care about it because they know, for example, that torrents upload stuff to the net. But if you set up a server and you end uploading 250GBs a month or more, you're damn sure they'll come down on you. And with reason.

Cry all you want, it's true.

You can say that they're backing down from a promise, doubtful, but okay. What you can't say is that they now don't support net neutrality.

What they're actually doing is filling a loophole in their wording after they saw some people were unfairly gaming the system.

/Google fanbois are the new Apple fanbois
//But amazingly, even less informed


Cry all you want about fanbois. I don't use Gmail, I have an iPhone and I couldn't care less about brands. I still use Google search though. Sorry Bing.
 
2013-08-01 12:02:29 AM  
rocky_howard:You can pass any kind of information through Google tubes and they won't throttle or negate any kind of packet.

Where does Google state this?
 
2013-08-01 11:48:02 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...


It's not the worst possible violation of net neutrality, but if Google doesn't want users to run servers that hog bandwidth, they could just put limits on bandwidth.

I run a server on my computer that lets me connect and get at my data remotely.  It's a perfectly valid reason to run a personal server and won't put the tiniest dent in bandwidth.  It'd be a pity if that were banned.  (Although I have ways to get around that.  *evil laugh*)
 
2013-08-01 03:52:04 PM  

rocky_howard: You can say that they're backing down from a promise, doubtful, but okay. What you can't say is that they now don't support net neutrality.


Actually you can.

"You can use IMAP to retrieve your e-mail from our servers"
"You can't use IMAP to retrieve your e-mail from your server"

Minimal load both ways, damn near the same packets, only thing that changes is the directionality and competition. It doesn't matter what you think the intent was, that's the letter of the ToS. If you don't think banning one transaction and allowing another based solely on who the originator and receiver were isn't counter to net-neutrality... what do you think is?

If you want to hand-wave it as "oh, they only say that but it'll be different in practice," go for it, but it's still there in the terms.
 
2013-08-01 04:10:05 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Minimal load both ways, damn near the same packets, only thing that changes is the directionality and competition. It doesn't matter what you think the intent was, that's the letter of the ToS. If you don't think banning one transaction and allowing another based solely on who the originator and receiver were isn't counter to net-neutrality... what do you think is?


You're being disingenuous because they won't mack on you for retrieve emails from your server. Like you said, it's a minimal load. They won't care.
 
2013-08-01 04:48:05 PM  

rocky_howard: ProfessorOhki: Minimal load both ways, damn near the same packets, only thing that changes is the directionality and competition. It doesn't matter what you think the intent was, that's the letter of the ToS. If you don't think banning one transaction and allowing another based solely on who the originator and receiver were isn't counter to net-neutrality... what do you think is?

You're being disingenuous because they won't mack on you for retrieve emails from your server. Like you said, it's a minimal load. They won't care.


Again, it's not a matter of enforcement. If they're making public statements against anti-net-neutrality laws, the moment they're in any sort of proceeding, you can bet the cable companies are going to go, "wait, see, THEY want to restrict what can go over their network too." Google can drag up all the statistics they want about how it was used minimally to ensure network health and Comcast will turn around and go "yeah, that's the only reason we want to prioritize On-Demand over Netflix too; network health."

I think it damages their standing as a large pro-net-neutrality lobbing force more than it'll ever affect an average consumer directly.
 
Displayed 79 of 79 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report