Slashdot Mirror


Google Argues Against Net Neutrality

An anonymous reader sends this quote from an article at Wired: "In a dramatic about-face on a key internet issue yesterday, Google told the FCC (PDF) that the network neutrality rules Google once championed don't give citizens the right to run servers on their home broadband connections, and that the Google Fiber network is perfectly within its rights to prohibit customers from attaching the legal devices of their choice to its network."

7 of 555 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No they didn't. Nearly every consumer ISP has clauses that state you can't run "business servers" through the residential connections. While that term is broad and hard to enforce, ISP's don't hassle you if your traffic is light or unobtrusive. I've only been notified by Charter about my server when it got a PHP/SQL injection and hosted a virus. As soon as that was cleared up and patched they didn't care about it.

  2. Re:FCC Troll? by jdogalt · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the Google reply, the complainer doesn't even have Google Fiber service, or live in an area where Google provides fiber services. Go complain to your own ISP, buddy. FYI, his ISP is Time Warner Cable

    Complainant here. I was living in Kansas City when the complaint was made, and for months after. I have since moved a few miles east. I think you'll see that I am not the only residential internet user who would like to be able to run a server without violating their contract.

  3. Re:Don't be evil (some of the time) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google does not sell out its customers

    No? Hows this: We pay them (a lot) for listings on Google Base (shopping.) We take our own product photos, in our own photo lab, usually as some kind of action shot, and we copyright and watermark every one before the jpeg hits the server or is sent along to Google as the product image. Google's latest to us? We're supposed to remove all of these watermarks / sigils so Google can use OUR images to advertise OTHER company's products. We've presently got about 40,000 watermarked images. They gave us two weeks to "remove" the watermarks, as if they were stuck on with bubble gum.

    I think we're going to drop Google Base, actually, over this one. It's an unreliable product that never has worked very well, and certainly no better since they started charging for it. But this last bit about making us remove our marks from our own images...

    Fuck them.

  4. Re:As someone who HASN'T by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Informative

    While I have an android device, it hasn't got google play/appstore, login, nor data service to it... Android 4.3's restrictions, google's no-server limitations, etc are all pushing the masses towards sheepitude...

    This sounds confused. Just about the only android devices that don't have data service are e-readers, which are pretty safe from any evil impositions. As for Android 4.3, the restrictions are for profiles that *you* impose. If it's a single user device, you don't have to use them. And, of course, if you don't care for the way Google implements Android, there's always the choice of CyanogenMod/AOSP if you don't like the idea of Firefox OS or Linux distros for mobile.

    As for the no-server limitation, it all depends on what you're doing with it. If you are using bandwidth provided at no cost by Google, it's a bit inconsiderate to hog resources with a high-traffic server, making them unavailable to others. If all you're doing is running a little mail server for a handful of users, I doubt if Google could give a fuck.

  5. Re:Don't be evil (some of the time) by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    I always pointed out on slashdot, just HOW MUCH trust was being put in Google, with how little understanding of their operation as a publicly traded company.

    Oh, climb down before you hurt yourself.

    We ALL know that google makes money selling your demographics in bulk and pushing ads on you.
    There is no secret there. In my day job I manage google advertising for the company I work for, and we get nothing identifiable on those who click my company's ads. (Just like Google's privacy policy says).

    The ads Google pushes into web pages are targeted. We all know that. If I search for Lexus dealers, Lexus ads show up on various web pages. Big deal. I can turn on ad block at any time.

    There is no lack of understanding here. You made that up. We know what they do and how they do it.

    I've never had any of my "private information" leaked, or sold to anyone. I've got unique searchable strings in many of my Google Docs files, emails, etc, and they don't show up on the net.

    As far as this example, this so called net neutrality issue is not even what net neutrality is all about. Further, ALL broadband providers have limitations on offering services (mail, web, game, blogs) on residential connections. Comcast, Roadrunner, AT&T, all of them). There is nothing new here.

    You want to provide a service, buy a business connection.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  6. Re:Don't be evil (some of the time) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Posting anonymously as I have mod points. I can confirm that this is the case and a good friend of mine experienced this same problem.

  7. Re:As someone who HASN'T by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    If all you're doing is running a little mail server for a handful of users, I doubt if Google could give a fuck.

    I believe the whole point of this article is that Google are publicly stating that they do give a **** and that they support legally blocking you from doing it.

    --
    I hate printers.