
Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality - hvs
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/
======
smtddr
IMHO, this headline & article is sensational and almost a straw-man argument.
I'm not sure anyone should expect to be able to run a _substantial_ business
off their home internet connection without buying a business-class connection
- nor does this decision by Google somehow imply they've "flip-flopped" on
net-neutrality. I run a little game-server from my RaspberryPi at home.
Technically, I'm not allowed to do this. While my Comcast IP is supposedly
dynamic, it only changes once every 18 months or so. But I really think the
law is there for people who go overboard sending terabytes-per-hour with some
crazy successful business. At its peak, my site only gets only about 5,000+
hits per month or so(because it reports real-time data and people hit refresh
all the time). Like Comcast, even if Google says no, just go ahead and do it
anyway. They'll probably not bother you unless you're rolling your own
Netflix-clone or something, in which case you really should upgrade to
business-class or get on those cloud providers.

~~~
Groxx
> _people who go overboard sending terabytes-per-hour with some crazy
> successful business_

Which is why they probably limit 'excessive use', and / or have hard GB caps
in place, which basically every ISP does. If you paid for, say, 20GB of
up/down traffic, and you can run your server within that, why should they be
able to say you _can 't_ do that, just because it's a "server"? If you had
uploaded 20GB to e.g. Dropbox, they aren't complaining.

If you have Google's fiber, even if they say it's unlimited, they still have
the ability to restrict your up/down speed (I'm assuming, given the legal
support of all the past "unlimited X!" that sometimes gets throttled to
extinction). Why don't they just limit it if you're being excessive,
regardless of the purpose? Or offer extended GB/TB packages and put hard
limits somewhere?

~~~
Dylan16807
> If you had uploaded 20GB to e.g. Dropbox, they aren't complaining.

It's even more ridiculous than that! If you sync 20GB to dropbox, that's a
client. If you sync 20GB with bittorrent sync, that's a server. Same data,
same purpose, same network load. But one gets banned.

Also, I have to wonder if someone at google has heard of a thing called an X11
server...

~~~
ars
You are defining server that way. Google is not. So you are arguing about
something that doesn't even exist.

~~~
Dylan16807
How does google define server, then?

1\. Does P2P count?

2\. What if I'm downloading a creative commons movie and seed it to a ratio of
15?

3\. What if I'm seeding a hobby video podcast I make at a constant 300mbps?

4\. What if I use opera unite instead of bittorrent?

5\. What if I switch to nginx?

6\. What if I make a living off that video podcast?

7\. What if I was only sending it to my family instead of the world?

~~~
ars
1: No

2: No

3: No

4: No

5: No

6: Yes

7: No

Computer programmers like exact definitions. Server: The main controller of
the program, or main sender of data.

The real world is much more fuzzy. They are concerned with business use, not
server use exactly.

~~~
Dylan16807
So your answers to my questions say that anything non-commercial will be fine.

But then you define server in a way that disagrees with those answers.

Do they care about servers, or do they care about businesses? If businesses,
why can't they make it explicit in the rules?

~~~
ars
They care about businesses, it says so very clearly in the article. And if
they haven't already, they should make it explicit.

It's nothing special about google - all ISPs have the same rule.

I DID NOT define server! You read it exactly backward. I said that's how
programmers define it, but that's NOT how google defines it (for internet
purposes).

~~~
Dylan16807
Oh. Sorry about misreading there.

But seriously, while programmers are pedantic sometimes, when I'm running a
website out of my basement that's a 'server' by ANY definition. If google is
only going to enforce the rule on business servers, they should say so.

And it doesn't matter what other ISPs do, we already know they're horrible.

------
spankalee
Disclaimer: Google employee here, though nothing to do with Fiber.

I don't really like the no "server" policy, mainly because it's impossible to
define what a server is, but I understand it from a business perspective. If a
business likely to use a significant portion of their upstream bandwidth, it's
reasonable to charge more than a consumer who doesn't. At the same time you
want to be nice to power users who aren't running a business, but who use more
upstream than average and might recommend the service to others.

Personally, I think this is all a consequence of not having metered billing.
It would be more fair if your bill was a function of max bandwidth, actual
data transferred, and service levels (support, QoS, etc.), though I would pay
more than most of my neighbors.

The headline and net-neutrality tie in are just wrong though. This has nothing
to do with net neutrality, it's a service level / market segmentation issue.

~~~
ChuckMcM
_" I don't really like the no "server" policy, mainly because it's impossible
to define what a server is, but I understand it from a business perspective."_

But that is the rub isn't it, its easy to understand why, _from a business
perspective_ , ComCast (nee Xfinity) might think it has the right to limit
bandwidth to YouTube while providing full bandwidth to its Video-on-demand
service right?

And yet that is exactly the sort of behavior Google argued against in ite
neutrality plea arguing that it is about the _customer 's perspective_ that is
important here, and if the _customer_ wants to get their video from YouTube,
their _ISP_ should be prevented from interfering with that, especially if they
have a conflict of interest going on.

And guess what, Google has a fecal-load of conflict of interest when you start
putting a server on your Google Fiber, that is perhaps an "AppEngine" account
they didn't get, or a better email experience than Gmail, or really awesome
photo sharing. All things that Google would not get any revenue (advertising
or otherwise) if they let that happen.

I expect that we'll eventually get to packet access to the Internet is a city
service, like sewer and garbage, and all of this will be moot. But until this
is a really poor move on Google's part and entirely hypocritical to their
earlier stance. So in that regard I feel the headline is spot on.

~~~
drcube
> All things that Google would not get any revenue (advertising or otherwise)
> if they let that happen

Wait, is Google Fiber free now?

I'll never understand why ISPs can't just tell you the bandwidth you get and
let you use it. If they want you to use less, don't offer more. Why is it so
hard to just tell people what you want from them instead of fooling them?

And how in the _hell_ would a customer use even a tiny fraction of 1Gbs upload
speed without a server? You'd think Google Fiber was run by idiots; but no,
it's just assholes.

~~~
wmf
Deceptive marketing has a ratchet effect. If ISP A advertises guaranteed 1
Mbps for $50 and ISP B advertises up to 20 Mbps for $50 (in reality both are
providing exactly the same service), then ISP A has no choice but to change
their marketing if they want to stay in business. It's the same thing we saw
with "4G"; once Sprint started advertising 4 Mbps WiMax as "4G" then T-Mobile
and AT&T had to call their 7 Mbps HSPA "4G" too.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
"4G" doesn't actually mean anything. "20 Mbps" means something specific. If
you advertise "20 Mbps" then you should be providing twenty megabits per
second. If you don't actually want to provide that then you can call it 20
Mbps burst or what have you, but one way or another you need to be providing
what you're selling.

The real problem is the lack of accountability. If the first company to
advertise 20 Mbps without actually providing 20 Mbps was held accountable to
the offer then everything would be fine: The users who want to use 20Mbps
sustained 24/7 for the whole month would be attracted to that service, the
provider would have to set the price at a sustainable level or go out of
business, the market works. It's the fact that we allow them to get away with
offering something they aren't actually selling that creates the problem to
begin with.

------
RyanZAG
I think by now most people have learned never to trust Google (or Oracle or
Microsoft, etc). This certainly doesn't come as a surprise to me, and I fully
expect them to pull as many anti competitive stunts on Chrome and Android in
the future as they possibly can.

The question is: what can we do to mitigate this? And no, choosing not to use
Google products is about as useful as choosing not to use MS Windows was 10
years ago. We need to try and find solutions now before this becomes a serious
problem.

~~~
bad_user
> _choosing not to use Google products is about as useful as choosing not to
> use MS Windows was 10 years ago_

Actually people that decided not to use Windows 10 years ago are precisely the
reason for why Microsoft is more and more irrelevant today. They've been
haemorrhaging mind-share amongst developers ever since early 2000.

This isn't something that happens overnight, but when losing the mind-share of
influencers, the long-term effects are devastating. And developers in the
software industry are the ultimate influencers.

Pick any successful product that's eroding Microsoft's market-share, anything
at all. You'll discover an interesting pattern - the early adopters, the
influencers, the ones providing the much-needed spark are exactly the people
that stopped using Microsoft's products 10 years ago.

And yes, most people are still on Windows, but they aren't locked to Windows
any more and guess who made that happen?

~~~
stephengillie
Like how videogame developers started shifting from DirectX in 2003 and many
now write for open standards, like OpenGL & OpenAL?

Except that didn't happen. The videogame industry got too caught up in the
nVidia vs ATI fanboy wars, allowing Microsoft's proprietary standards (or
however I should refer to DirectX) to become the _de facto_ industry standard.

~~~
nkassis
There has been some recent changes around this situation such as Microsoft now
implementing WebGL in IE11 which means they are starting to loose some of
their stronghold on the graphic api world.

~~~
stephengillie
I don't think it's a case of Microsoft consciously releasing their
stranglehold so much as new devices (smartphones) forcing a change in the
videogame landscape.

------
wmf
IMO this headline is a little inflammatory; the (mostly unenforced) ban on
servers is a pretty small carve-out. Also note that the NN people haven't been
complaining much that _every_ consumer broadband plan also bans servers.

~~~
Terretta
That's not a "small carveout". That's a muzzle. It's asymmetric power, that
you're only allowed to consume, not to publish.

What's more, from a technical standpoint, it's different for a fiber provider
than for a cable company. Coax cable capacity is asymmetric. It can carry only
a given amount of data and they can carve it up to give you more down and less
up, equal amounts, or more up and less down. Obviously most users want fast
downloads and aren't as concerned about uploads.

By contrast, fiber is symmetric, offering full capacities up and down at once.
So while cable has a technical justification for "service levels" to offer a
server, fiber providers do not. Google Fiber is 1000/1000 Mbit/s symmetrical.
Forcing the consumer to not use the idle uplink is against consumer generated
content and consumer ownership of their own content, for the sake of a
"differentiated business plan". It's against the democratization of consumer
created content that consumers can control themselves.

(Google has dogs in that hunt too, you "should" host your content on G+ or
YouTube, and host your email on Gmail, rather than drop in a Mac Mini Server
or "host any type of server" at home.)

FWIW, my $50/mo residential plan doesn't ban servers, even though the company
offers business plans from $200/mo up. I can host a mail server and a web
server, with dynamic DNS and open ports 25 and 80. Ports >1024 are open for
all classes of service, even their lowest.

Finally, I think the point here is that other consumer broadband providers
weren't lobbying for network neutrality. Telcos weren't, cable wasn't. Google
was.

It feels a bit icky when "don't be evil" turns out to mean " _for now_ ...
until we have an offering in that area that enough people adopt and this
practice we used to actively call evil turns out could make us more money and
is actually good ... _for us_ ".

Mind you, being magnanimous until they own enough customers is an excellent
strategy. They just need a different slogan and to quit with the flip
flopping.

~~~
jauer
> By contrast, fiber is symmetric, offering full capacities up and down at
> once. So while cable has a technical justification for "service levels" to
> offer a server, fiber providers do not. Google Fiber is 1000/1000 Mbit/s
> symmetrical.

Link symmetry is a property of the datalink protocol and service provisioning,
not the physical media.

Many, if not most, FTTH deployments use PON which delivers asymmetric
bandwidth that is shared among a number of users. GPON delivers 2.488Gbps down
and 1.244Gbps up and is typically shared between 16 and 64 users.

~~~
Terretta
For some reason, I was under the impression Google's FTTH (fiber to the home)
was using real (active) fiber networking home runs instead of telco/cable's
bastardized passive optical splitting down and TDM up. Wiki cited 1000/1000
symmetric, so I assumed they were using active symmetric.

Seems to be some debate about it:

[http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27731107-Google-Fiber-
Lates...](http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27731107-Google-Fiber-Latest-
Installs-Suggest-Non-PON-Tech)

If it's not real fiber networking, then yeah, same asymmetric song and dance
as cable.

But see pages 10 and 11 of this Google PDF explaining why they might as well
use symmetric point to point:

[http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...](http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf)

It says end run to users is the ultimate future proof approach and a costs
negligible amount more.

If they didn't go that way, well, I am disappointed.

~~~
jauer
It is also possible that they are using WDM-PON with a different wavelength
for each subscriber.

Even with Active Ethernet (the industry term for dedicated run of fiber to
each subscriber) you likely still have a bandwidth constraint somewhere, be it
at the switch uplinks or border routers so some level of oversubscription is a
given.

Right now FTTH networks are getting away with some pretty wild
oversubscription ratios since content and consumption are lagging. From what
I've seen on my network residential traffic tends to interleave pretty well as
it is really bursty. Business traffic tends to a constant during the work day
so can't interleave as many business customers. It will be interesting to see
what Google Fiber charges medium & large businesses.

~~~
Terretta
Just checked your profile -- love what you're doing. I helped start up a metro
ISP in early 90s that we grew gangbusters by guaranteeing no busies and max
modem speeds, till it got rolled up by a telco in late 90s.

Incidentally, as this is about hosting one's own servers, early on I wrote the
first (as far as I know) dynamic DNS for dial-up users, so when you connected
to a Portmaster and auth'd via RADIUS, your username.isp.com got pointed to
your dynamic IP, allowing you to host over dialup under your own name.
Customers even ran their own mail servers at home since SMTP was happy to wait
for them to dial in. I believed in user publishing then and still do today.

From day one competitor telco ISP services (and telco backbone links) were so
oversubscribed it felt immoral. Sorry to hear that's still not changing.

------
nathas
Eh, I don't see a huge problem with Google saying "You can't run enterprise-
level servers off of our consumer-level lines" even if they have ridiculous
speeds.

"Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your
guests"

I'd consider small-time server software to be within a "reasonable use". If
you're hosting a web server with 10 simultaneous requests, you're outside of
reasonable use. Any other ISP would have turned your pipe off.

~~~
smutticus
I remember when the internet was seen as a many-to-many communications medium.
Have we given up on that premise?

~~~
superuser2
Unfortunately, that pretty much went out the window when residential ISPs
realized they could get away with 25mb/s down and 0.5mb/s up. Which was a
while ago.

------
codereflection
The thing that concerns me the most if how unresponsive Google has proven to
be when someone files a complaint about being wrongly chosen for having their
account suspended. Just look to the recent example of Gary Bernhardt trying to
get his email turned back on.
[https://twitter.com/garybernhardt‎](https://twitter.com/garybernhardt‎)

What's going to happen when someone's kid starts up a Minecraft server to play
with his friends and Google suspends their Fiber account due to it. Most
likely - they won't respond. I hate to see them turn into the next Comcast.

~~~
nathanb
To me, this is one of the most serious concerns about Google Fiber.

Google's legendarily bad customer support (motto: make a product that keeps
85% of your customers happy and ignore the unhappy minority) combined with
something as important as a home Internet connection? No thanks.

------
kevingadd
I seem to remember lots of people talking about the exciting potential Google
Fiber would create for internet startups and small businesses. Too bad Google
doesn't feel the same way.

~~~
Shooti
Same article: " _Google wants to ban the use of servers because it plans to
offer a business class offering in the future._ "

~~~
kevingadd
So end users who want to make use of new and exciting internet software, peer
to peer applications, media streaming and other tools need a business class
connection?

~~~
mmanfrin

      So end users who want to make use of new and exciting internet software, peer to peer applications, 
      media streaming and other tools need a business class connection?
    

Because having terms against running a server off consumer pipes stops you
from using 'exciting internet software', streaming, or using 'other tools'?

~~~
kevingadd
Yes, it does. Most modern internet multiplayer games use some sort of P2P
functionality at this point, whether for voice chat or hosting or matchmaking.
Software/game updaters tend to use P2P to download large patches. Media
players might use P2P to accelerate downloads. Gaming consoles like the PS3
allow 'remote play' by acting as a server for remote connections. People turn
their home machine into a server to connect using remote access software. Etc,
etc.

~~~
mmanfrin
P2P != Running a Server.

~~~
dragonwriter
P2P requires running a combined client/server. Its a subset of, rather than
equal to, running a server. Prohibit servers prohibits P2P.

~~~
mmanfrin
In a pedantic sense, yes, a P2P program is a server, but at that level of
technicality, anything could be considered a server -- which is the point I am
trying to make: you guys are taking this notion of 'server' to an absolute
extreme that undermines you point. Pretending that these terms forbid you from
downloading a WOW patch is flat out absurd, and to continue down this line
shows you aren't concerned about practical reality.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In a pedantic sense, yes, a P2P program is a server, but at that level of
> technicality, anything could be considered a server

Well, no. Plenty of programs exist which do not listen for and respond to
network connections, either exclusively initiating network connections (pure
network clients) or not communicating on the network at all. It is not the
case that using "server" to mean what it actually means suddenly means
"anything could be considered a server".

> Pretending that these terms forbid you from downloading a WOW patch is flat
> out absurd, and to continue down this line shows you aren't concerned about
> practical reality.

The _terms_ plainly prohibit that (assuming that WOW patches use P2P software
which involves a server, which I have no certain knowledge of since WOW isn't
one of the things I have much interest in.)

It may (quite likely is, from what various Google employees have apparently
said about how the Google Fiber policy is enforced) be that the actual
enforcement of the terms does not, which actually is problematic in a
different way (what it means is that the terms are not the real rules, and the
real rules are not disclosed, which, on top of whatever problem the server
prohibition itself has with the Open Internet order's neutrality provisions,
seems to fall afoul of the order's transparency provisions; which underlines
the extent to which what Google is doing here is exactly what the FCC Order --
which Google lobbied heavily _for_ \-- was designed to protect consumers
_against_.)

------
nknighthb
Google has never, _ever_ objected to server restrictions on residential
connections, and the entire industry has had those restrictions for most of
its existence.

Remember how big a deal Speakeasy always made of allowing servers? It's
because _nobody else did_.

~~~
jessriedel
But this does run counter to basic net neutrality, which Google championed. If
it didn't explicitly have an objection to server restrictions before, that
doesn't diffuse the hypocrisy; they didn't stand to lose or gain from server
restrictions before.

~~~
geon
Apart from the point that a "server" is a very vague term, there is a big
difference between inspecting every packed and block/throttle the traffic
depending on the content, and requiring the subscriber to not run a business
from a home connection.

~~~
jessriedel
If you want to draw a distinction between those two types of net non-
neutrality, fine. But this is still a convenient distinction for Google to be
drawing. In a competitive market, I don't think either type of non-neutrality
would survive.

------
GhotiFish
[http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon...](http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon_complaint__as_filed_072913.pdf)

    
    
       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,
       use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial 
       services to third parties (including, but not limited 
       to, selling Internet access to third parties)
    

I think I see what's going on here, they have to assume most people arn't
actually going to use their connection. So they offer it on the pretense that
no one will take advantage of it.

It's why the bandwidth caps exist, it's why bittorrent shapping is happening
at all. BitTorrent really did start making use of the bandwidth the telco's
promised. A promise they couldn't deliver.

Frankly, google's going to need more clauses than that in order to prevent
people from taking advantage of their empty promise. I can't wait to see these
obvious rule patches grow like cancer.

Anyway, Why can't I share my connection? It's very easy. "Hey neighbor, take
this Ethernet cable, you're welcome." Oh that's not ok? OK so why can my
family use it then? I'm the one buying right and my family arn't guests. What
about multiple families that live in the same house? We should order 3
packages?

This is silly. What is going on down there?

As a closing thought. People are laying these expectations of google fiber,
because google fiber was supposed to be the ISP that was going to save us. If
you're going to lead by example, you're not supposed to go "But those ingrates
are doing it, so I can too".

~~~
aspensmonster
Their entire response is just fancy legal maneuvering to dodge actually having
to justify the "no server hosting of any kind allowed" clause in the ToS. The
response is essentially: "LOL u have no standing kthxbai" along with a dash of
"this is just 'reasonable network management'" and "everyone else is doing
it!" You know, the exact same talking points that all of the other ISPs have
been spewing.

If Google cannot actually provide symmetric gigabit links to its customers,
then it sounds to me like any network degradation is their own doing based on
their own failures to reasonably provision the network. I would much rather
see Google offering a guarantee on whatever bandwidth they can _actually_
deliver. I'd sooner pay 70 a month for _guaranteed_ symmetric 50 Mbps uplinks
than 70 a month for a symmetric gigabit uplink that is subject to Google's (or
any other provider's) touchy-feely notions of "reasonable network management."

~~~
wmf
_I would much rather see Google offering a guarantee on whatever bandwidth
they can actually deliver._

And then their cable competitors would slaughter them by offering "the same"
bandwidth for half the price and Google Fiber would go out of business.

~~~
aspensmonster
And? If a competitor can do it for half the price then I'd be all for it.

~~~
nemothekid
Look, not everyone is going to use 100% util. of the 50Mbps internet
connection, infact only a very, very tiny percent of users will, and they are
better off getting a business grade contract.

What wmf is saying that the competitors will also offer "50Mbps", and to 99.9%
of users, the internet speed will be exactly the same. A single netflix movie
will download at 50Mbps, however if Google User A were to host a video
streaming service, he would find he had much more consistent speeds than
Comcast User B.

Now given that information, you had to choose:

A.) Comcast "up to" 50 Mbps for $29.99/mo or B.) Google 50Mbps 24/7 for
%49.99/mo

Which would most user choose given that 99.9% of users will never use or need
100% util. of their connections?

~~~
aspensmonster
If it were true that 99.9% of all users never ever saturated their lines, then
no one would ever be having these kinds of conversations. The only reason
network neutrality has become such an issue is precisely because there are
ubiquitous technologies that can and do saturate your link, and consumers love
them. Napster, Kaaza, Morpheus, Bit Torrent --all popular (or once popular,
anyway) P2P technologies that take advantage of as much bandwidth as you want
to throw at them. Consumers can, have, and do saturate their lines in great
numbers. The ISP industry's response was to throw a hissy fit that consumers
were taking advantage of what was sold to them, institute throttling and deep
packet inspection, and dig their heels in on upgrading network infrastructure,
even when the government threw billions of dollars their way to make it
happen.

Google's public image on the matter has strongly revolved around shaming these
practices, going so far as to file amicus curiae briefs to the courts in
relevant cases condemning the very practices they're now attempting to
implement. The rhetorical "think of all the things you could do with a
connection that fast!" questions are pervasive in their marketing. They've
gone so far as to say that the reason they're getting into the ISP game is
precisely to incite the development of technologies that can take advantage of
those links. These public faces are at odds with the words of their legal
department that wants to hide under "reasonable network management" in ways
that make them indistinguishable from the very competitors they claim to be
shaming.

~~~
nemothekid
I really don't think Google is out to get torrent users. What I think is
happening here, is a legal battle.

"Server" is a very broad term, heck every device is technically a server. What
I believe Google is pushing for, is the ability to include this language in
their ToS, then to discriminate on a case by case basis.

~~~
GhotiFish
>is the ability to include this language in their ToS, then to discriminate on
a case by case basis

I know. I'm pretty peeved about that.

------
jotm
That's not what net neutrality is about - the author is taking it to the
extreme.

Not allowing a server on the client side is just reasonable business practice,
as opposed to shaping or prioritizing traffic to the client according to the
source or the client's pay plan.

~~~
anu_gupta
Why is it a reasonable business practice?

~~~
jotm
The way I see it, client Internet connections are for data consumption, i.e.
mostly download. Servers, on the other hand, create and provide the content.

Kind of like being the manufacturer of a watch and being its end user.

The line is getting pretty blurry, but I don't think you can put the two in
the same bucket - not yet anyway.

------
Zikes
This is pretty disappointing to me, I was looking forward to being able to use
my internet however I please on the off chance Google Fiber ever came to my
area.

------
justina1
If everybody maxes out a 1 Gbps line, no one will get a 1 Gbps line.

The implication is that the broad terminology will prohibit computers doing
common consumer things in addition to servers. Except that hasn't happened.

The complaint was filed by a potential customer, not someone who ran in to the
restriction. In fact, it sounds as though Google Fiber keeps making exceptions
for even less consumer-like things (Gaming servers in this case).

~~~
teddyh
No, if everybody maxes out a 1 Gbps line, the ISPs will invest in faster
networks.

------
joe_bleau
From
[http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/history/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/history/)

1996: "BackRub operates on Stanford servers for more than a year—eventually
taking up too much bandwidth to suit the university."

1998: "Google sets up workspace in Susan Wojcicki’s garage at 232 Santa
Margarita, Menlo Park."

I wonder, were those business class connections? Or were they maybe bending
the rules just at bit at times?

------
neura
I love the use of "should" in "you should not host any type of server using
your Google Fiber connection".

For a legal document, that's a pretty muddy word. It could be just a
suggestion or it could be interpreted as "shall", basically making it a
demand.

------
rayiner
In other words, now that Google is an ISP, all the concerns that ISP's have
about traffic management suddenly make sense.

------
chiph
If they had said only 256 or 128 mb/sec of your 1024 mb/sec is allowed for
home server traffic, I'd be ok with that. Yeah, it's a residential connection,
so the TOS would surely be different. But as it stands, I now have no
compelling reason to choose them over the competition (who will also be
offering fast transfer speeds once Google Fiber comes to Austin)

~~~
ajross
The competition will have the same terms. None of the broadband providers in
the US offer restriction-free upstream traffic on their consumer lines. You
have to pay more for a different kind of account for that. This is called
price discrimination, and it's a _good thing_ for the consumer as it reduces
prices. No one could afford to offer 1Gbps for $70/mo or whatever it costs
given a typical service provision load of ~50% utilization.

Now, I will agree that as written the terms are inflexible and would appear to
apply to things like an inbound ssh port or personal web server, which are
certainly things many technical readers would want to use and which clearly
won't impact the network.

Also: since when is this about "network neutrality", which has always been
about backbone traffic. Consumer lines have _always_ been subject to price
discrimination like this.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Also: since when is this about "network neutrality"

The reason that this is even in the news is that this is Google's response to
a complaint to the FCC that Google is violating the neutrality provisions of
the FCC Open Internet Report and Order. So, its an issue _precisely_ because
its about net neutrality.

> which has always been about backbone traffic.

No, net neutrality has not always been (at least, not _exclusively_ ) about
backbone traffic.

------
anonymoushn
What does the policy mean by servers? "Hosting a server" might include hosting
custom games in Warcraft III or hosting netplay games in
$FIGHTING_GAME_OF_CHOICE. It might also include operating some machines that
are "servers" even if they are not running any particular "server" software.

------
GravityWell
Sounds to me like they want to offer a Business level tier. The wording _"
should not host any type of server"_ was probably groomed by the legal team.
My guess is rather than define what a server is, which is almost impossible,
they are covered by that vague terminology.

The important question is to what degree do they enforce it? 0.01%? If so,
then no big deal to me. I'm paying a lot more for a lot less with my current
ISP. I'd be glad to endure Google's draconion rules.

------
znowi
Google dismissed the _don 't be evil_ mantra a while ago and has little
resemblance to the company of integrity so many of us fell in love with.
They're so big and pervasive - it's a juxtapose of government and
multinational corporation with vastly different set of goals and values.
Incidentally, not very favorable for us, users. But it will take 3 Stallman's
and another Snowden some time in the future for people to finally realize that
:)

------
apalmer
Its not really against net neutrality in the 'traditional' sense... but its
more inappropriate advertising. Google and all the other ISPs advertise their
service as 10 Mbps Down/5 Mbps Up, when really if you read the fine print its
('up to' 10 Mbps Down/spike uploads of 5 Mbps but not sustained uploads...
which is a fine product, and not a big dealbreaker to most people, but is
definitely not what is usually advertised.

------
arh68
I'm trying to piece together the legal basis for the whole no-residential-
server thing, and the more I dig, the more baseless it all seems.

Darah Franklin's dismissal [1] of McClendon's complaint states, 'Google
Fiber's server policy is an aspect of "reasonable network management" that the
Open Internet Order and Rules specifically permit.' That seems like an awfully
vague phrase, "reasonable network management", but here's one interpretation,
offered by the FCC back in 2009 [2]:

>> Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a
provider of broadband Internet access service: ... 2. would not be allowed to
prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the
lawful services of the user’s choice; 3. would not be allowed to prevent any
of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of
lawful devices that do not harm the network;

'Lawful services'? 'Lawful devices'? It seems like a private git server should
be allowed, after all. But that was just a draft. Franklin doesn't mention any
room for exceptions, though:

> The server policy has been established to account for the congestion
> management and network security needs of Google Fiber's network
> architecture.

Okay, so "reasonable network management" is justified by "congestion
management and network security needs". But then I read the FCC's 2008
decision concerning Comcast's BitTorrent RST abuse [3], and right there on the
first page:

>> We consider whether Comcast, a provider of broadband Internet access over
cable lines, may selectively target and interfere with connections of peer-to-
peer (P2P) applications under the facts of this case. Although Comcast asserts
that its conduct is necessary to ease network congestion, we conclude that the
company's discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelches the dynamic
benefits of an open and accessible Internet and does not constitute reasonable
network management.

So the FCC has indeed set precedent that a necessity to "ease network
congestion" does not necessarily outweigh "the dynamic benefits of an open and
accessible Internet". Franklin makes more than one reference to a certain
Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices document [4]. I
found this reference incredibly brazen. Franklin claims this server issue was
specifically discussed. In the document, Google actually argues

> The threat that wireless networks may develop into fundamental non-neutral
> platforms is real. For example, the terms imposed by most major wireless
> carriers purport to prohibit the use of, at minimum: ... server or host
> applications. ... All of these actions threaten user choice and freedom
> online, and adopting network neutrality rules for wireless networks will
> allow the Commission to take action against these kinds of practices in the
> future.

What the hell? Google specifically advised the FCC to disallow what Franklin
specifically says is industry standard. Google is playing a Dark Knight here:
the laws are bad, and Google wants everyone to feel the full force of bad law.
I can't applaud them for playing the status quo so hard like this, and now
that they're moving into the ISP sector it's getting more and more dissonant
to hear them claim they're powerless over industry standards.

Lastly, I can't find the forum thread described by the Wired article, "But in
the Google Fiber forums, employees assure subscribers the rules aren't meant
to apply to Minecraft servers." I think this kind of deception is heinous. The
employees can't say what their legal department will or will not state.
They're maintaining a false PR stance that is simply misleading: Google (Darah
Franklin) has clearly stated Google Fiber disallows servers. Tricking the
public to think they are in the clear to run a Minecraft server is perhaps
well-intentioned but just doesn't jive with "Don't be evil."

[1]
[http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon...](http://lwn.net/images/pdf/google_fiber_response_to_mcclendon_complaint__as_filed_072913.pdf)

[2]
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159...](http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.pdf)

[3]
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183...](http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf)

[4] [http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-
legacy/FP_Co...](http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-
legacy/FP_Comments_wireless_and_managed_services_10_12_2010.pdf)

------
transfire
Sigh. To disallow the ability to run services from anywhere, particularly
home, undermines the very future of the Internet's full potential as a
massively distributed computational aid and data store. Google was the great
hope in this. Now they too have succumbed to the $$ of acting as a cartel.
Which means, eventually the Internet will be little more than a glorified
cable box.

------
mncolinlee
Don't these terms also forbid Chromecasting? The device itself is a server on
your local network.

------
jakejake
Why are ISP so terrified to say that you only get a fixed limit of bandwidth?
Can you not survive in this business unless you lie and say "unlimited?" It
seems we all know that unlimited actually means "some unknown number of Gb
before you get a warning letter."

Server monitoring seems so easy. If you're running a serious server-based
business then your upload is going to be way out of whack with download
bandwidth. Why not just limit your upload traffic and let people do whatever
they want?

I'd rather know what my limit was and work with it than to have my ISP tell me
I have "unlimited" bandwidth, but then secretly limit or throttle me.

------
_greim_
Instead of content-based throttling, why not just switch people from 1GBPS to
10MBPS after the first NTB per billing period? Still fast enough to watch
streaming video all month long, just not fast enough to _host_ streaming
video.

------
mesozoic
Don't be evil... Unless you know it helps us make more money or something.

------
adam_lowe
The key will be how they actually enforce this. Siting servers is the wrong
thing to tack on to. Because there are perfectly legitimate personal servers
as outlined in comments above for personal use that wouldn't eat up excessive
bandwidth. That being said I think the "no professional" or "no business" uses
are terrible too depending on how they choose to interpret and apply. A
loosely enforced version of the latter would be better in my opinion.

------
bowlofpetunias
All I can think is : thank god I don't live in the US. The telco and cable
market there sounds utterly horrible.

Banning servers is normal practice? Those kind of restriction were dropped
over a decade ago in civilized countries with decent broadband.

BTW, this is the second time Google has done a 180 on net neutrality. The
first time was when it tried together with Verizon to redefine net neutrality
with an exception for wireless networks.

------
_greim_
Why not just treat broadband as a utility like everything else (electricity,
gas, water) and just charge a dollar per TB or whatever?

~~~
wmf
Because grandma is mad that she got a bill for $1,000 when her computer
accidentally downloaded the Internet.

------
gradstudent
Isn't net neutrality about giving preferential treatment to traffic depending
on its point of origin? Has Google flip-flopped on this issue?? All I see is
some rambling protestations about Google not allowing servers on their free
internet connections.

------
gaoshan
"Don't Be Evil... you know, generally. When it's practical. For us."

------
sumit_psp
Not surprised, it's a business and like every other business it is trying to
protect its interests. The good news is now we know Google's stance, so it's
upto you if you still want to get to Fiber.

------
Simple1234
Frankly, I don't care if Google changes it's slogan to "Do lots of Evil". If
it means I get Google Fiber in my area I'm all for it.

------
MrKurtz
I'm not sure I understand the tone of that piece, it strikes me as yet another
attempt at vilifying Google for the most trivial and altogether invalid
reasons.

Google offers gigabit speeds in very select areas; coverage-wise they are
hardly a blip on the map. Ostensibly the main strategic purpose of Google
Fiber is proving that 1Gbps connections to consumers are possible and
affordable, which in turn might shame the main players to up their game or
result in municipal broadband initiatives and the like.

So now after scrutinizing a strictly worded and loosely enforced TOS
agreement, the author (in a shameless display of feigned indignation) is
invoking the plight of political dissidents?! this is absurd, the author ought
to re-adjust his perspective and lay off the navel gazing.

I don't know what the future holds for Google Fiber but from afar it appears
to be an experimental initiative that is still evolving, so disallowing
enterprise grade servers at this point in time isn't the end of the world,
keep in mind that doing similar things on competing services isn't even
viable.

