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."

Comments

Don't be evil (some of the time)

[bonch]

Google plans to offer its own business-class services on Fiber. Can't have people running their own servers as competition. This company tends to claim support for whatever is politically popular among techies and then quietly go back on it when it affects their bottom line.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[homey of my owney]

Evil isn't in the eye of the beholder... It's in the mind of Google.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[jdogalt]

Evil isn't in the eye of the beholder... It's in the mind of Google.

And that is precisely the kind of Free Speech problem that Net Neutrality is trying to solve. If the network operators become the gatekeepers determining which speech can go on their networks, and which can't (outside any government law enforcement agency direction), then... well, it's not good.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[MrNaz]

So Google successfully conned the nerd herds into loving them with ostentatious nerd-friendly marketing in the late 90s and 00s, and now that they have acquired their financial and political power, the draw back the curtain to reveal Microsoft's policies on steroids.

"Somehow, 'I told you so' just doesn't say it."
- Will Smith.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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.

The fanbois for Google - which have a huge intersection with slashdot readership - nearly always mod-bomb these observations as flamebait or trolling. Contrariness is only rewarded when it chooses a popular target. ;-)

Google's hand-waving of good will always gets trumped by their desire to control revenue. But like a stage magician, those who want to believe continue their suspension of reality.

Google's real motivations afford them selling out customers for the value of their "private" information. You can now see, in this one, more obvious way, how principle is secondary to business and profit - through the artificial tiering of "business class" service. There is no "business class" IP.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[v1]

I don't think it was a bait-and-switch. It was simply a change in priorities.

Google used to be merely a content provider, with things like youtube. They wanted unrestricted flow of their content on other companies' networks.

But now, they are also a network provider themselves. Naturally the shoe's on the other foot now.

People seem to forget... Google isn't your best friend, or your nice neighbor lady, or your pal at the bar. Google is a company. Companies don't exist to be nice, they exist to make money for their owners and shareholders. Now, tomorrow, and well into the future. Either they prioritize this goal, or they are driven out of business by other companies that do pursue that goal. Being "nice" doesn't pay off as well as being "ruthless". There are precious few examples to the contrary.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be evil my ass. One of the rules that I have long observed is that when a company says something in its name or slogan then it is a truth they are trying to avoid. So "Quality shoes" aren't. "Honest Bill's" isn't. "Discount Teds" won't. And "service with a smile" will result in a forced smile at best. "The customer comes first" should usually read "the customer's wallet comes first". And so on.

So when Google comes out with Don't be evil I read it as "Will deny being evil."

Hooking a server up to your internet would be roughly how they got started. It is probably how zillions of internet companies got started. It is how I got started. But now google is saying "oh you want money? Nope, all the money on the internet is ours."

If google thinks that I am exaggerating, then why am I posting this anonymously? I don't even post anonymously when I blah blah about the NSA.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[jeremyp]

Google's real motivations afford them selling out customers for the value of their "private" information.

Google does not sell out its customers. If, like me, you have never handed any money over to Google but you have used their apps, Search etc, you are not a customer, you are product. Google's customers are the people who advertise with them.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[mysidia]

Right now it's all just talk, so yeah... that would be a start.

As of Today; I have no Google fiber, and Google fiber is nowhere even near my state.... all of the broadband providers in may area forbid running servers without buying an uber-overpriced "business" service that increases the monthly price tag from the residential $120/month for 3 Megabit cable from Charter to a minimum of about $800/month

Why should I really be too upset about Google restricting the use of its bandwidth to non-commercial purposes for the 5 or 6 people they are serving, again?

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[mysidia]

People seem to forget... Google isn't your best friend, or your nice neighbor lady, or your pal at the bar. Google is a company. Companies don't exist to be nice, they exist to make money for their owners and shareholders. Now, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Exactly. Google was never acting solely on their customers' behalf. Companies act on their customers' behalf only when it benefits them.

This is why corporate lobbying should be illegal, and companies like Google (and their competitors, and large businesses in all industry) should be barred from articipating in the legislative process.

I believe my recommendation would be: as soon as the company's book value or annual costs first exceed $5 million; that company and its current executives and legal representatives (due to conflict of interest) should become ineligible to participate formally in political process or a "friend of a court" in any way.

If you as Google CEO or board member want to go write a friend of the court message -- fine, but resign your post first.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[xQx]

This is a very, very common MBA question. The reasoning goes something like: "Directors have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder returns, so to not buy labor at the cheapest rate, and to not be ruthless in your pursuit of profits is not executing your Director's duties. Discuss".

Post Enron, the answer MBA lecturers are looking for is something like:

Shareholder return is measured in more than just dollars. Multi-national organisations have great power because they can't be controlled by a single government, and as such have a responsibility to act as good global citizens. Companies and their directors are legally obliged to maximize _long term_ returns, and you are not going to get long-term returns if you don't look after your customers, employees, suppliers and shareholders. This includes ensuring their welfare so everyone can live until tomorrow and loves the company brand and has money to spend on its products.

In short: Companies need to make money, but to be a global superpower for a sustained period, you need to manage your reputation and act in a way that makes people want to work for you and buy from you in the future.

On a side note, I reject the premise of this headline. I don't think offering a nobbled residential plan that doesn't allow for you to run a server - allowing Google to drive people onto a more expensive business plan that frees you from these constraints - is an assault to net neutrality. That's akin to charging more for a static IP address. It's just segmenting your market to extract better profits.

Prioritizing YouTube over bit-torrent or Netflix would be an assault to net neutrality.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[Cramer]

EXACTLY. Net Neutrality is all about packet level equality. No matter where they came from, where they're going, are what's in them, every packet gets the same equal and fair passage through the network. Under this plan, it would be "illegal" to prioritize your own (eg) VoIP traffic and/or degrade, or out right block, intentionally or otherwise, any competing service(s).

This has nothing to do with what you are allowed to do with your internet connection. The terms of which say it's for *your* *personal* use; by hosting "servers", you're allowing others to use that connection.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Bullshit. You're a pissant.

There's no reason I can't or shouldn't provide remote access to my files for my use, and those of people I chose, on a host of my choice, on my uplink.

There's no reason I can't or shouldn't run my personal mail server - as long as I am able to prevent relaying or other abuse.

This is the purpose and tradition of the best-effort, edge-service, peer-to-peer design of IP packet-switched, interconnected networks. PERIOD.

Driving me to GMail's business model, or Dropbox's or anybody else's is abuse. Corporations don't acquire special rights through monetising service offerings. DIY for home/limited scale is the point - or you can go back to TV and Radio.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[Skapare]

Stretching this to mean that you can run your own mail server ...

Not true. Net neutrality is about having absolutely zero concern about what the traffic is, aside from what the law might prohibit. What net neutrality is not about, is how much bandwidth you get to have for a price.

Buy a business connection and all these issues go away.
You also get a better upload/download ratio. Because residential is heavily favoring download speed over upload.

A "mail server" is not necessarily "business". People run personal mail servers, and web servers, and other kinds of servers. The real issue Google should be concerned about is personal, and the finite scope of that (house guests, for example) vs. commercial/business, which can, and should, be charged more for that kind of important premium service (higher bandwidth, more 9's reliability, faster repair response, etc).

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think offering a nobbled residential plan that doesn't allow for you to run a server - allowing Google to drive people onto a more expensive business plan that frees you from these constraints - is an assault to net neutrality.

And you would be wrong.

"A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service ... shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices [subject to reasonable network management]" [fcc.gov]

It would be reasonable, when the network is congested, to prioritize traffic from lighter users; it is totally unreasonable to have a policy like "you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection". I totally support Google's (and all network operators) right to have such a rule, but if they have such a rule they must make it very clear they are NOT *Internet* Service Providers.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[Chirs]

I don't think offering a nobbled residential plan that doesn't allow for you to run a server - allowing Google to drive people onto a more expensive business plan that frees you from these constraints - is an assault to net neutrality.

Sure it is. Upstream packets are upstream packets, regardless of whether they're acks to a download stream or data sent in response to a request.

They can specify an upstream bandwidth without violating net neutrality, but to put arbitrary limits on what data I can send in my upstream packets is definitely violating neutrality.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[FireFury03]

On a side note, I reject the premise of this headline. I don't think offering a nobbled residential plan that doesn't allow for you to run a server - allowing Google to drive people onto a more expensive business plan that frees you from these constraints - is an assault to net neutrality. That's akin to charging more for a static IP address. It's just segmenting your market to extract better profits.

I disagree here.

The static/dynamic IP thing is a difference to the service on a technical level - they have to specifically change the way the service operates in order to offer a static IP - in particular, the routing is probably more complex because they now need to dynamically change the routing for your IP address depending on which equipment your connection appears on when you "dial in" (and yes, ADSL still "dials in" and will appear on an arbitrary trunk at the ISP end); also IPv4 addresses are running pretty short, so there is a real, but non-monetary, cost associated with giving everyone their own IPv4 address instead of handing them out dynamically. So at a technical level, it may well be more costly for the ISP to offer a static IP, so charging more doesn't seem unreasonable here.

On the other hand, the "you may not run a server" thing is purely a change to the T&Cs - if you pay extra to be allowed to run a server then you're getting *exactly the same service* at a technical level, its just they're relaxing the restrictions. Other than trying to segment the market in order to push the "richer" customers into paying more for the same thing, this serves no purpose - this isn't about the idea that servers may use more bandwidth than clients, if it were they would be concerned about bit torrent, etc. and would be putting in actual traffic management systems to mitigate bandwidth overuse.

To my mind, Google saying "you may not run servers on your internet connection" isn't any different from AT&T saying "you may not do VoIP over your connection" or TimeWarner saying "you may not watch movies over your internet connection" - this is *exactly* the stuff that net neutrality legislation is supposed to prevent.

Now, none of this detracts that there may be other reasons why businesses may be better off with a business connection (e.g. better SLAs, etc.); but an ISP shouldn't be able to simply say "you're a business and therefore you must pay us extra" whilst providing exactly the same service as their cheaper home users will get.

Re:Don't be evil (some of the time)

[jdogalt]

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).

disclaimer: claimant here: No, you are wrong. Look up TimeWarner's ToS.

In all fairness

[frovingslosh]

In all fairness, Google was in favor of net neutrality before they became evil. Things are different on the dark side.

well

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we can now agree they have abandoned "Don't be evil"

Re:well

[jdogalt]

what in the name of all things good does it mean to "leech bandwidth". What makes _your_ "use" of bandwidth ok, and _mine_ "leaching"???

Re:well

[_merlin]

Back in my day, leeching meant finding a way to impersonate someone else on a dial-in server and using bandwidth against their quota. That made sense - you were using what someone else was entitled to. Later it came to mean downloading from peer-to-peer networks without sharing. Still made sense - you took from the community without contributing. But just using your own bandwidth for something someone doesn't smile on? Where's the leeching in that? Now get off my lawn!

Re:Misleading Article

[jdogalt]

The problem with these "Cover Your Ass" overreaching terms in the fine print is that they are very chilling to the development of home server software. If there was a "right to serve" on the internet, there would be more home server software developed, and in my opinion we would all be better off.

Re:Misleading Article

[Carewolf]

No they didn't. Nearly every consumer ISP has clauses that state you can't run "business servers" through the residential connections.

Well, probably in the US, the rest of the world is not that silly.

But even accepting that. Nearly every consumer ISP also was against net neutrality because it would disallow them from applying silly rules like that to maximize profit. Google claimed to be FOR net neutrality, well exactly until they became an ISP, and now they appear are against it.

Another failure of "unlimited" bandwidth

[MrEricSir]

The issue here isn't exactly net neutrality, it's that Google has to have some way of stopping users from sucking up all the bandwidth.

If the ISPs quit insisting on these fake "unlimited" bandwidth plans, there wouldn't be a need to have weird rules to stop people from running high-bandwidth servers.

Re:Another failure of "unlimited" bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google isn't stopping another company from talking to you."

Yes, they are. Your idea of net neutrality only makes sense in a world bifurcated into "consumers" and "producers". I run my own personal services: XMPP, SMTP, HTTP, SSH, DNS, and NNTP. I don't run those as novelties. I use _all_ of them _every_ day, from various locations. To me or anyone else I'm neither producer nor consumer, I'm just another agent on the Internet making use of various standard protocols.

The new WebRTC protocol is P2P. Does that make you a producer or consumer?

Re:Another failure of "unlimited" bandwidth

[mi]

The offers are not for "unlimited bandwidth". It is for "unlimited bandwidth without running a server of your own".

It is not any more "fraudulent", than "all you can eat" buffets imposing a time-limit, for example.

and so the internet dies.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole original IDEA was peer to peer networking that could route around damage. Somehow, we've let it become "everything gets routed through a few big players, and they can tell you what packets you can send and receive".

Sad thing is, this direction has been BLINDINGLY obvious for over a decade, easy. But nobody cared. It's only going to get worse and worse, until the internet is TV 2.0, just like the media companies wanted. And we - the internet using public - sat idly by and let them do it.

Re:the fine print

[Anonymous Coward]

It's trendy now to trash Google about everything but looking at this from a wider perspective this does not bode well for the consumer. As far as network neutrality Google was one of few big corporations actually supporting a free, open Internet. We still have isolated organizations like EFF but the idea of network neutrality is becoming more and more of 'what's a floppy?' kind of thing.

Re:No, it is simple economics

[citizenr]

If you want high speed net access, and don't want to pay a lot, you have to play nice with others and share. You can be offered 100mbit or gig to your home, with backhaul to more or less support it, for not too much money. However you can't be offered dedicated bandwidth in that amount unless you want to pay a bunch more. Just how it works.

ah, so its the same as limited Unlimited offers then? pay for what we advertise, but dont you dare using it?

Re:No, it is simple economics

[wisnoskij]

"Well that means users have to keep their usage reasonable"
I think more specifically, non commercial, and no public services.
Sure, you can torrent a terabyte of movies, but don't open up a website offering terabytes of movies to everyone.

Re:No, it is simple economics

[complete loony]

An ISP should provide me the ability to send and receive IP packets, routed to and from other IP addresses on the globally route-able internet. Nothing more, nothing less.

If I'm not allowed to use a connection continuously at it's peak capacity, then write the exact limit in bandwidth terms into the contract. eg no more than X bandwidth Up/Down over period Y.

Don't like it? Don't run an ISP.

Re:No, it is simple economics

[jdogalt]

I think more specifically, non commercial, and no public services.
Sure, you can torrent a terabyte of movies, but don't open up a website offering terabytes of movies to everyone.

What about a linux pc running an apache/web and openarena/game servers serving personal photos to friends and family? How about a custom carpenter showing off his work for potential customers to see and a phone number to call to arrange payment and shipment? Where exactly do you draw that line? Network Neutrality is about the idea that the network operator doesn't get to draw that line. They have to treat traffic as traffic. It doesn't matter whether it was a carpenter's server eating up traffic, or a chronic lol-cat youtube uploader. They have to deal with such congestion in ways that do not give preference to any lawful application, service, or device. Otherwise it won't be long till only Google branded, or Google certified devices are allowed to be used with your Google connection (bit of an exageration, the actual road forward will be subtler, but with as much as they can get away with that helps drive up their overall profits).

Re:No, it is simple economics

[I'm New Around Here]

Don't like it? Don't run an ISP.

Don't like how ISPs run their business? Plunk down your own money and start one that follows your ethical code.

How about all ISPs change their policy to allow all open access to anyone with any device they want, but the base cost is $1000 a month? If you insist they have no right to limit you, and you plan to host a backup of Google.com, then that's what you'll pay.

If you promise not "to use a connection continuously at it's peak capacity", they'll then knock off $500 to show their appreciation. If you promise not to run an active server, they'll knock off another $400. Then we'll be right back to where we are, and you'll be perfectly happy. Right?

Re:No, it is simple economics

[FireFury03]

Well that means users have to keep their usage reasonable and that means no servers that gobble up bandwidth.

Ah, so small webserver that uses a few megabytes a day to serve photos to my family is banned because it is a server and will gobble the bandwidth, but maxing out the bandwidth 24/7 with movie downloads is ok coz that's a client and therefore bandwidth-light. Gotcha.

If they care about bandwidth they can institute bandwidth caps and traffic throttling systems; the only reason for differentiating between "servers" and other traffic is to segment the market because people operating servers are often happier to pay more (often because they are a business). None of this is about "fair use" - its all about pushing people onto a more expensive "business" package (which is fundamentally identical to the "home" package, except for the price and a minor tweak to the T&Cs).