Slashdot Mirror
Google Fiber Partially Reverses Server Ban
Lirodon writes "After being called out by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for banning the loosely-defined use of "servers" on its Fiber service, Google appears to have changed its tune, and now allows 'personal, non-commercial use of servers that complies with this AUP is acceptable, including using virtual private networks (VPN) to access services in your home and using hardware or applications that include server capabilities for uses like multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, and home security.'"
Maybe so, but Comcast cut off my friend for running a low-volume mail server. The definition of "server" is intentionally left vague in the TOS. That allows the ISPs to single out users for any reason they want, without having to be specific or consistent.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
It still contrasts the "bit are bits" argument, but my pragmatic side is willing to accept that we may need an artificial tier in there to keep prices low for non-business users.
I don't. Google's wholesale cost for ip transit is probably around $6 per terabyte - wholesale cost was about $12 a year ago and its been falling by 50% for the last 4-5 years.
If they are worried about losing money, then set a threshold like 5TB/month and then start charging wholesale plus minimum necessary mark-up for anything over that.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Of course, I'm glad to see the policy nixed (like I'll ever get Google fiber), but I think it's rare we give companies props for reversing decisions we've nuked them for. So, go Google. Way not to be evil.
You are totally blocking my view of the wall. - Dogbert
As a Network Security architect in a big ISP, I can tell you that one of the biggest threat to network security is all those compromised servers installed by anyone who can read a random howto on the internet...
It's just boilerplate legal speak put into the contracts. It was never meant to ban what they are explicitly excluding now, it was just put in to differentiated between commercial and residential service. They wanted a line in the contract to throw at you if you abused to the service for commercial use, so far as I know no one was ever booted by their ISP for running a VPN or hosting a multi-player game (though occasionally their networks settings made it difficult to do things).
Any provider that bans "servers" is not providing internet access. They are providing media consumption access. They should be forced to very clearly differentiate that as a type of service provided.
Internet access is unconstainted IP packets. Both TCP and UDP and whatever other protocol you want.
No.
http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/some-clarification-for-small-businesses.html
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Seeding a torrent to 100% without leasing a seedbox is running a server at home. Being player 1 in an online game is running a server at home. Using GoToMyPC or LogMeIn or any other sort of remote desktop is running a server at home. Sharing a large (tens of GB) collection of photos or other files with family members (or with yourself, just in case you're on another computer and need the files off yours) without leasing a VPS and uploading them all, expecting that most won't be downloaded, is running a server at home.