Microsoft's CEO has sworn to "fucking kill Google", saying "I've done it before and I can do it again." He's spending several billion dollars a year on that effort, historically more than $16 Billion if you include aQuantive. He's spending several billion dollars a year on the Google-bashing campaign. It's not like Microsoft is some random developer here innocently trying to get their app to work.
20,000 years ago was when the climate began to warm in Antarctica. It took quite a while for the ice to melt, the atmospheric temperatures to exceed today's. Several thousand years after that the seas began to rise. Whether it was 13,000, 17,000, 11,000 years ago is irrelevant. It happened. It was long ago before the age of modern history, before the age of carbon fuels, and the Earth was warmer, wetter, the glaciers smaller, the seas higher than now. And it was "natural". That's the science and it's not debatable.
The natural course is to return to glaciation as the Earth's orbit moves away from this climactic optimum for Men. That's the science and not debatable either. The Warmists would have you believe that this is a desirable end. Maybe it is - certainly it would be "natural" for mile-high glaciers to sweep all of the US Eastern Seaboard into the sea again leaving no record of Man's presence there. I wouldn't miss New York.
I live too far North to welcome it though. The glaciers would come for me too, and scrape my house into the sea. I would quite prefer that Man altered his environment in such a way as to prevent a recurrence of this dire fate. Luckily for me, that seems to be the plan.
It's true. One compelling reason why Google is offering gigabit to every user is that they actually have the backhaul to support it. They make their own network gear and have people in all of the research groups. They own the physical fibers so it behooves them to make the most of them. Their backbone isn't even Ethernet any more - it's a proprietary protocol that encapsulates Ethernet. They pay to have their own SFP+ modules fabricated, and don't even tell the fabricator what they do or what they're for. Google could probably do 100Tbps over single mode if they wanted to, and they expect the speeds will get only faster. Google may never need to light up their dark fiber. They have a LOT of it.
I actually own a Windows Phone too. It's an HTC HD7 my wife bought to spite me (ah, domestic bliss). She did it right - this was a WP "hero" phone, the benchmark of that day. She used it for three weeks thinking to school me but after a few rounds of "how do I do that cool thing you do on your Galaxy Phone" and the reply "your phone doesn't have that app" she gave up. It's in a drawer somewhere. I haven't seen it in a year. She uses a feature phone now, and is thinking about the Moto X - a real wood skin and awesome life would be just the thing to show up my GS3 with the ultrathick 3rd party extended life battery. She bought the teens iPhones to spite me quite more successfully. Our teens love their iPhones and I don't blame them - they're great gear. iThings are not my thing, but you have to let kids find their own religion.
The half life of that single mode fiber laid down in the.bomb era is 32,000 years. Back then it was 100mbs fiber per strand. Now it's terabit fiber - 4 orders of magnitude more, just by switching out the endpoints. You are complaining that tech progresses. Why would you want tech to not progress?
Words mean things, and in this case they don't mean the things you say they do. You are trying to find a way to paint Google "evil". You are playing to your audience alone. Actually, the further out there you guys go with the tinfoil hat thing the less credible you are.
Usually I'm OK with "slippery slope" arguments, even though I know it's a logical fallacy. The slope is rather slippery usually, after all.
The thing is that you group them with others, when they are breaking with the others. The others say it is not allowed. They say they would rather you didn't. It's quite a departure from the slope.
As for what they will do in the future: when Google Fiber was first presented Google Founder Sergey Brin was first to call out this clause and say "if we had had 'no server' terms early on there would be no Google." Sergey is not Google's CEO, nor it's Chairman, but he is their moral compass. Google isn't going to cut off any servers.
As for NSA: I would believe that Microsoft built in backdoors for the NSA, that they installed a tap direct to the NSA datacenter, and for other governments too. It's not like their software lacks for exploits. When China presented Google with "tap and censor or get out" Google got out immediately without question, and Microsoft's Bing trumpeted their China win over Google. Microsoft might play that. Google though? No. Sergey Brin's father was a suppressed Russian Jewish dissident who fled to America with young Sergey at an impressionable age. I don't believe Sergey could participate in such a thing. In fact his revulsion to the prospect of caving on this moral issue is actually why Google left China, Eric Schmidt left the CEO spot and Larry Page became CEO. I think the "don't be evil" motto isn't a corporate marketing thing - Eric and Larry might do the most profitable whether or not it was evil but Sergey just isn't able and he limits.
Now Eric does strategy, Larry does operations, and Sergey wields the power of "no, we don't do that."
Google is delivering more bandwidth to the KC area than the entire rest of the US Internet combined. That is potentially a problem if all the people so enabled are rude. It's not a matter of them beating down subscribers, it's about not breaking the whole Internet. Having Gigabit Internet is a dire responsibility as a home user. You can't just fire up wget on your favorite site, even/., without crashing it unless you rate limit. You "should not" do that. To most sites ONE user with a gigabit connect and an itchy click finger looks like a denial of service attack. A whole city full looks like a DDOS.
Google is bringing end users into a new era one city at a time, but they understand that most of the Internet is built on legacy tech that can't handle this.
Grandma has 5mbps up and 1mbps down in the case of Google Fiber free Internet. AFAIK she can saturate the whole thing for the whole seven years and it won't bother her or them. Google has said they expect 1Gbps connections to be free in 7 years.
As far as overbuilding their network: they bought dark fiber already laid in the ground at pennies on the dollar during the.bomb era when companies who laid fiber thought interstate Long Distance at 56kbps and a dollar a minute would still be a thing. They bought it lock, stock and barrel. They didn't pay for overbuilding their network - failed telecom companies and their investors did. Technology has advanced now to where Google can put thousands of times more bits down that pipe than even the builders imagined. They didn't buy it to do this - they bought it to prevent being deprived of backhaul by a well monied competitor who wants to kill them. It is just incidental that technology has progressed to the point where they can push terabits rather than 100 megabits through each fiber.
The plain language is that you may run a server but they prefer you don't. To claim they don't allow servers, denied them, prevented them, you need an actual incident where they denied a server ever. Do you have one?
If you don't have one you're Chicken Little, claiming that one day they might even though in actual words they don't say they will.
/I am symbolset. (symbol)(set). The basic primitive of communication between individuals is a shared symbol set. Unless the words (symbols) mean things, they do not convey information. They are just meaningless grunts. Without a group (set) of them, complex information cannot be conveyed. It is not possible to communicate without a symbol set.
Even in the reference material the figure is 11,000 years for the southern hemisphere. I could be off by as much as 2,000 years, but I stand by my post.
Oldschool ISPs oversubscribe their uplinks 20x or more. I was one way early when 40:1 or more was more common and my uplink was a T1 that cost over $10K to install and $2K monthly. A T1 is 0.00154 gbps, and I broke even oversubscribing fractions of that to pay for my own crazy Internet habit back in the day. That's what you get with Comcast, TWC and all the others: the legacy many to one design. They architect for minimal uplinks and oversubscription at the neighborhood, town, city, metro area and region levels. They do it because they have the burden of history: they have installed kit installed at great cost that wasn't fiber, or is the wrong kind of fiber. They moved too soon. That's not Google's problem. I see no evidence Google is doing this, or at least not at this level. Google doesn't have to pay for peering and uplinks - they have their own insane bandwidth backhaul, dark fiber, peering points and nobody would dare deprive their customers of Google services. Google earnestly believes that end users are each going to need this bandwidth both up and down and so will have built it to reduce oversubscription. They design their own network stuff down to the hardware level and hire out the build, so it's not like they're paying $1200 for a 10gig GBIC and millions for switching architecture. At L2 these signals aren't even properly Ethernet from the neighborhood to Google's switching center. They're likely on 100Gbps all the way to the neighborhood, and terabit for distro links, and plenty of active and dark fibers on every run because the labor is the biggest cost so may as well pay for the thick bundle. Having architected a solution that supports insane symmetric 1Gbps bandwidth to every home they are creating a Kansas City Enclave of bandwidth that will soon exceed the aggregate of the entire rest of the US, both consumer and commercial.
Google's insane architecture and backhaul supports this: remember, they read and index the entire Internet EVERY DAY minute by minute, and failover entire datacenters from one country to another in milliseconds - so fast you can't even tell it happened while you're using it. Their backhaul is likewise ridiculously undersubscribed or they wouldn't even have entered this game. They have to carefully meter their googlebots to not overwhelm poor feeble servers. They deliver Youtube to every home that can take it in HD at full rate, unlimited streams. One KC subscriber with wget on this link looks like a Denial Of Service attempt to a traditional blog server. All of them at once is a freaking flood that could bring down Taiwan or intercontinental links, and they're barely even started building out one city. Google has the bandwidth to support unlimited 1Gbps servers. The non-Google Internet doesn't. They have to not bring down the global Internet, so: they give guidance on how to be a polite users of your Google Fiber flamethrower, rocket launcher and nuclear weapon.
I think that's what they mean by "you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection". Your Google Fiber connection is a serious responsibility. It's the Internet equivalent of WMD. You should use it responsibly.
I seriously doubt there is an ISP in the world that would dare charge Google to send data to their customers. The negotiations would be swift: "OK, we won't."
The story is not true. Google does not prohibit servers. They do not ban servers. They do not block servers. They suggest that you "should not" run servers. This is actually IN the article. So the evil you speak of, it ain't Google.
The devil would tar the saint with unearned Evil, so to corrupt the hearts of Men. He is the father of lies.
Google really doesn't care if you run an mtr network stress test between Kansas City and Norway 24/7 and suck up your whole gigabit both up and down. They would just prefer that not everybody did all at once. If too many people try that they're going to have to do something about that.
I'm pretty sure Norway is with them on that. By now Kansas City's aggregate bandwidth is probably greater than the capacity of the transatlantic fibers.
Unless you have evidence that Google actually ever blocked a server on their Google Fiber network the "banning servers on its network" headline is bogus. I do not know that such a thing has ever happened, nor ever will. The terms of service don't even actually prohibit it. They only discourage it.
... you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection
The terms do not say "will not". Nor "may not". Nor "must not". Nor "it is a network security violation to", like everybody else. They say "should not", which any kid you know will tell you is code for "you can, you might, and you may, but I'd rather you didn't."
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's CEO has sworn to "fucking kill Google", saying "I've done it before and I can do it again." He's spending several billion dollars a year on that effort, historically more than $16 Billion if you include aQuantive. He's spending several billion dollars a year on the Google-bashing campaign. It's not like Microsoft is some random developer here innocently trying to get their app to work.
Google is running a service. I believe the appropriate terms are "we reserve the right to refuse service."
20,000 years ago was when the climate began to warm in Antarctica. It took quite a while for the ice to melt, the atmospheric temperatures to exceed today's. Several thousand years after that the seas began to rise. Whether it was 13,000, 17,000, 11,000 years ago is irrelevant. It happened. It was long ago before the age of modern history, before the age of carbon fuels, and the Earth was warmer, wetter, the glaciers smaller, the seas higher than now. And it was "natural". That's the science and it's not debatable.
The natural course is to return to glaciation as the Earth's orbit moves away from this climactic optimum for Men. That's the science and not debatable either. The Warmists would have you believe that this is a desirable end. Maybe it is - certainly it would be "natural" for mile-high glaciers to sweep all of the US Eastern Seaboard into the sea again leaving no record of Man's presence there. I wouldn't miss New York.
I live too far North to welcome it though. The glaciers would come for me too, and scrape my house into the sea. I would quite prefer that Man altered his environment in such a way as to prevent a recurrence of this dire fate. Luckily for me, that seems to be the plan.
It's true. One compelling reason why Google is offering gigabit to every user is that they actually have the backhaul to support it. They make their own network gear and have people in all of the research groups. They own the physical fibers so it behooves them to make the most of them. Their backbone isn't even Ethernet any more - it's a proprietary protocol that encapsulates Ethernet. They pay to have their own SFP+ modules fabricated, and don't even tell the fabricator what they do or what they're for. Google could probably do 100Tbps over single mode if they wanted to, and they expect the speeds will get only faster. Google may never need to light up their dark fiber. They have a LOT of it.
Got me there. I plead tequila.
Wait. You forgot to say "Microsoft says". Surely that is relevant.
I actually own a Windows Phone too. It's an HTC HD7 my wife bought to spite me (ah, domestic bliss). She did it right - this was a WP "hero" phone, the benchmark of that day. She used it for three weeks thinking to school me but after a few rounds of "how do I do that cool thing you do on your Galaxy Phone" and the reply "your phone doesn't have that app" she gave up. It's in a drawer somewhere. I haven't seen it in a year. She uses a feature phone now, and is thinking about the Moto X - a real wood skin and awesome life would be just the thing to show up my GS3 with the ultrathick 3rd party extended life battery. She bought the teens iPhones to spite me quite more successfully. Our teens love their iPhones and I don't blame them - they're great gear. iThings are not my thing, but you have to let kids find their own religion.
"Don't be evil" doesn't extend to picking up that blood-soaked hitchhiker with a chainsaw. That's covered by the "don't be stupid" corrolary.
Hoo
The half life of that single mode fiber laid down in the .bomb era is 32,000 years. Back then it was 100mbs fiber per strand. Now it's terabit fiber - 4 orders of magnitude more, just by switching out the endpoints. You are complaining that tech progresses. Why would you want tech to not progress?
You're going to teach symbolset about vocabularies. That's rich.
Words mean things, and in this case they don't mean the things you say they do. You are trying to find a way to paint Google "evil". You are playing to your audience alone. Actually, the further out there you guys go with the tinfoil hat thing the less credible you are.
Of course not. You staked out the namespace of A.Cow
Usually I'm OK with "slippery slope" arguments, even though I know it's a logical fallacy. The slope is rather slippery usually, after all.
The thing is that you group them with others, when they are breaking with the others. The others say it is not allowed. They say they would rather you didn't. It's quite a departure from the slope.
As for what they will do in the future: when Google Fiber was first presented Google Founder Sergey Brin was first to call out this clause and say "if we had had 'no server' terms early on there would be no Google." Sergey is not Google's CEO, nor it's Chairman, but he is their moral compass. Google isn't going to cut off any servers.
As for NSA: I would believe that Microsoft built in backdoors for the NSA, that they installed a tap direct to the NSA datacenter, and for other governments too. It's not like their software lacks for exploits. When China presented Google with "tap and censor or get out" Google got out immediately without question, and Microsoft's Bing trumpeted their China win over Google. Microsoft might play that. Google though? No. Sergey Brin's father was a suppressed Russian Jewish dissident who fled to America with young Sergey at an impressionable age. I don't believe Sergey could participate in such a thing. In fact his revulsion to the prospect of caving on this moral issue is actually why Google left China, Eric Schmidt left the CEO spot and Larry Page became CEO. I think the "don't be evil" motto isn't a corporate marketing thing - Eric and Larry might do the most profitable whether or not it was evil but Sergey just isn't able and he limits.
Now Eric does strategy, Larry does operations, and Sergey wields the power of "no, we don't do that."
They bought an overbuilt network in a yard sale.
Not "any trouble at all"
Google is delivering more bandwidth to the KC area than the entire rest of the US Internet combined. That is potentially a problem if all the people so enabled are rude. It's not a matter of them beating down subscribers, it's about not breaking the whole Internet. Having Gigabit Internet is a dire responsibility as a home user. You can't just fire up wget on your favorite site, even /., without crashing it unless you rate limit. You "should not" do that. To most sites ONE user with a gigabit connect and an itchy click finger looks like a denial of service attack. A whole city full looks like a DDOS.
Google is bringing end users into a new era one city at a time, but they understand that most of the Internet is built on legacy tech that can't handle this.
Grandma has 5mbps up and 1mbps down in the case of Google Fiber free Internet. AFAIK she can saturate the whole thing for the whole seven years and it won't bother her or them. Google has said they expect 1Gbps connections to be free in 7 years.
As far as overbuilding their network: they bought dark fiber already laid in the ground at pennies on the dollar during the .bomb era when companies who laid fiber thought interstate Long Distance at 56kbps and a dollar a minute would still be a thing. They bought it lock, stock and barrel. They didn't pay for overbuilding their network - failed telecom companies and their investors did. Technology has advanced now to where Google can put thousands of times more bits down that pipe than even the builders imagined. They didn't buy it to do this - they bought it to prevent being deprived of backhaul by a well monied competitor who wants to kill them. It is just incidental that technology has progressed to the point where they can push terabits rather than 100 megabits through each fiber.
Again, proof? An actual incident?
The plain language is that you may run a server but they prefer you don't. To claim they don't allow servers, denied them, prevented them, you need an actual incident where they denied a server ever. Do you have one?
If you don't have one you're Chicken Little, claiming that one day they might even though in actual words they don't say they will.
/I am symbolset. (symbol)(set). The basic primitive of communication between individuals is a shared symbol set. Unless the words (symbols) mean things, they do not convey information. They are just meaningless grunts. Without a group (set) of them, complex information cannot be conveyed. It is not possible to communicate without a symbol set.
Even in the reference material the figure is 11,000 years for the southern hemisphere. I could be off by as much as 2,000 years, but I stand by my post.
Oldschool ISPs oversubscribe their uplinks 20x or more. I was one way early when 40:1 or more was more common and my uplink was a T1 that cost over $10K to install and $2K monthly. A T1 is 0.00154 gbps, and I broke even oversubscribing fractions of that to pay for my own crazy Internet habit back in the day. That's what you get with Comcast, TWC and all the others: the legacy many to one design. They architect for minimal uplinks and oversubscription at the neighborhood, town, city, metro area and region levels. They do it because they have the burden of history: they have installed kit installed at great cost that wasn't fiber, or is the wrong kind of fiber. They moved too soon. That's not Google's problem. I see no evidence Google is doing this, or at least not at this level. Google doesn't have to pay for peering and uplinks - they have their own insane bandwidth backhaul, dark fiber, peering points and nobody would dare deprive their customers of Google services. Google earnestly believes that end users are each going to need this bandwidth both up and down and so will have built it to reduce oversubscription. They design their own network stuff down to the hardware level and hire out the build, so it's not like they're paying $1200 for a 10gig GBIC and millions for switching architecture. At L2 these signals aren't even properly Ethernet from the neighborhood to Google's switching center. They're likely on 100Gbps all the way to the neighborhood, and terabit for distro links, and plenty of active and dark fibers on every run because the labor is the biggest cost so may as well pay for the thick bundle. Having architected a solution that supports insane symmetric 1Gbps bandwidth to every home they are creating a Kansas City Enclave of bandwidth that will soon exceed the aggregate of the entire rest of the US, both consumer and commercial.
Google's insane architecture and backhaul supports this: remember, they read and index the entire Internet EVERY DAY minute by minute, and failover entire datacenters from one country to another in milliseconds - so fast you can't even tell it happened while you're using it. Their backhaul is likewise ridiculously undersubscribed or they wouldn't even have entered this game. They have to carefully meter their googlebots to not overwhelm poor feeble servers. They deliver Youtube to every home that can take it in HD at full rate, unlimited streams. One KC subscriber with wget on this link looks like a Denial Of Service attempt to a traditional blog server. All of them at once is a freaking flood that could bring down Taiwan or intercontinental links, and they're barely even started building out one city. Google has the bandwidth to support unlimited 1Gbps servers. The non-Google Internet doesn't. They have to not bring down the global Internet, so: they give guidance on how to be a polite users of your Google Fiber flamethrower, rocket launcher and nuclear weapon.
I think that's what they mean by "you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection". Your Google Fiber connection is a serious responsibility. It's the Internet equivalent of WMD. You should use it responsibly.
While I agree with you there, the stupid goes deeper even than that.
I seriously doubt there is an ISP in the world that would dare charge Google to send data to their customers. The negotiations would be swift: "OK, we won't."
Google really doesn't care if you run an mtr network stress test between Kansas City and Norway 24/7 and suck up your whole gigabit both up and down. They would just prefer that not everybody did all at once. If too many people try that they're going to have to do something about that.
I'm pretty sure Norway is with them on that. By now Kansas City's aggregate bandwidth is probably greater than the capacity of the transatlantic fibers.
The meek shall inherit the earth, one meter wide and two meters long." - Lazarus Long
Unless you have evidence that Google actually ever blocked a server on their Google Fiber network the "banning servers on its network" headline is bogus. I do not know that such a thing has ever happened, nor ever will. The terms of service don't even actually prohibit it. They only discourage it.
The terms do not say "will not". Nor "may not". Nor "must not". Nor "it is a network security violation to", like everybody else. They say "should not", which any kid you know will tell you is code for "you can, you might, and you may, but I'd rather you didn't."
Once upon a time EFF reps could read.