disclosure: complainant here- I'd consider it a favor if someone would mod the parent up. The comment it is responding to is 4-informative, and seems in my view to give sanction to the whitewashing of- well, if everybody has been making these blatant marketing lies about unlimited bandwidth while massaging the network for their maximum profits and convenience (engineering lazyness in part) at the expense of free speech empowerment for residential users (I would argue perhaps the most important class of internet end-points or edges)... Anyway, you get my point.
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.
disclosure: complainant here. I disagree, as mentioned elsewhere about any legitimacy to commercial vs non-commercial. The point I make there is - when you trade your eyeball attention at google ads in exchange for an advanced gmail cloud service, you are engaging in commercial internet traffic. By capitalistic theory, you wouldn't be doing it if you didn't feel you'd profit from it. And in this case, the profit can be measured in dollars. Next, the way your last sentence sounds makes sense, but again, you are mistankenly tying different levels of SLA with "commercial/noncommercial". Correlation is not causation, though this is another case where that gets easily confused. I.e, call it "high-grade vs low-grade" service all you like and charge different prices. Just don't tell me that how much I profit personally as an end-user from a fixed number of packets determines how much I get charged from them. We don't need that extra taxman in the picture.
I cannot say where you draw the line, in reality a lot of it would be based on usage. They really do not care if a small time carpenter has a website
dislosure- complainant here: The *point* is that I don't care what they "don't care about". What I care about is being *free* to run that carpenter website, without feeling *guilty that I am willfully violating the simple and clear wording of a contract I entered into*.
Google's not stopping you from developing the next great thing, nor will they lower the priority of your packets when you do. They just don't want you doing it on a line that the TOS specifically says you can't.
disclosure: complainant here. And I'm pointing out that the Network Neutrality rules forbid the blocking of traffic to *any/all* legal devices. They don't get to, either in their switches and routers, or in their terms of service, decide that my linux pc running an openarena server has less worthy traffic than my neighbor uploading lol-cat videos to youtube. Otherwise the network operators would be in too great a position to effectively shape and dominate the internet devices marketplace. Which of course they'd all love to do. Even Google.
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).
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.
disclosure: complainant here- I like that you brought up the idea of charging for static IP addresses. I agree that IPv4 addresses are a scarcity, and thus it may be reasonable to charge for them. Do you think it is reasonable to charge for a static IPv6 address? Do you realize how not-a-scarcity they are?
Yes, bash on Google for stating what they did, but pretty much NO ISP provider to home connections allow servers on them.
So wrong... Look up TimeWarner's ToS as a start. I'm sure there are others. It's actually precisely because of network neutrality and how a server is a "lawful device". Google made a boo boo in not figuring that out much sooner.
complainant here, please mod (*THE PARENT*) up, which contains this text- " subject: and so the internet dies
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. "
I don't really see why anybody would want to use a home ISP connection for business uses.
I think you lack imagination. Ponder the resiliance of bittorrent as a file distribution service. If one 'server' goes down for an hour or a day, it's not a big deal if there are at least a few other servers perhaps hundreds of miles away that can pick up the slack temporarily.
If you read any amount of my complaint you would understand that I am not trolling. Network Neutrality does not allow network providers to charge one rate for non-commercial traffic, and another for commercial traffic. Go read it. Really.
you are right. In the sense that if every customer read that deep into the fine print, compared to the BOLD advertising claims alone, then it could not be considered "fraud". However it *can* then be considered a Network Neutrality violation, because a Quake3 server is just as legal a device to connect to the internet as an android tablet.
If you read my manifesto, you'll see that my answer to this involves pointing out the verbiage in the NetNeutrality document (FCC 10-201 Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet) which states that the internet is awesome, *precisely* because Tim-Berners Lee was able to develop and deploy WWW/http "without getting any permission from governments or network providers" (close to verbatim).
"Nobody advocates a strict, absolute interpenetration of "Net Neutrality", or you could get away with ping flooding your neighbor under the guise of free and unfettered access."
Do you really think Google couldn't have 1-3 employees spend 1-3 hours crafting language that would make it clear the difference between such obvious abuse, and "prohibiting any kind of server"?
For frack's sake, this is about Google not wanting home servers to provide the masses with alternatives to things like Gmail and GoogleHangouts. This is 2013 for frack's sake, and I can't run an OpenArena server without violating my contract? Really?!?
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.
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.
I think it actually is net neutrality (of course, since I'm the complainant). However what you subsequently said is all spot-on. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim "unlimited bandwidth" in advertising, then not deliver it to the people smart enough to lawfully take advantage of it. In some circles such misleading advertising is known as "fraud".
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.
First, I hope you mis-spoke when you said "difference between business and commercial uses of the internet". I presume you meant, non-commercial vs commercial. Which gets to the point that finally a journalist has on the record agreed with me about. I.e. the way NetNeutrality currently exists, such distinction is not in the legal domain of ways that ISPs may block or throttle "lawful devices connected to the network" (including servers, small like pi or large like an onyx). I.e. suppose I find a way to make $1,000,000 serving less traffic in funny cat videos than my neighbor uses for skype calls with their grandchildren. Are you really suggesting that it is the commercial vs non-commercial nature of that traffic that should allow Google as an ISP to charge me more for it?
"FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator
For years, Google was the most active corporate supporter of federal Net Neutrality regulations prohibiting broadband providers from controlling what apps or devices Americans use on the internet services they pay for."
I think you are beginning to see the real mess. As far as the datacenter abuse argument, if I here google try to use that, I'll argue back from the cookie monster angle.
"With advertising claims like these, you need a way to keep commercial users from taking advantage. I assume Google Fiber is similar."
If I'm using the exact same bandwidth as my neighbor, upstream and downstream, but I'm making $1,000,000 per year selling funny cat videos, then yes, I'm taking better advantage of the same resource as my neighbor (if I'm the sort of person that doesn't consider watching funny cat videos to be torturous).
"Can I run a server from my home? Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home security and others which may include server capabilities but are being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and encouraged."
And you don't sense anything fishy going on with language that self-contradictory? Do you really think that Google is not technically smart enough to word things in a less blatantly self-contradictory fashion than that, if their were no hidden agendas being served?
Slashdot Mirror
disclosure: complainant here- I'd consider it a favor if someone would mod the parent up. The comment it is responding to is 4-informative, and seems in my view to give sanction to the whitewashing of- well, if everybody has been making these blatant marketing lies about unlimited bandwidth while massaging the network for their maximum profits and convenience (engineering lazyness in part) at the expense of free speech empowerment for residential users (I would argue perhaps the most important class of internet end-points or edges)... Anyway, you get my point.
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.
disclosure: complainant here. I disagree, as mentioned elsewhere about any legitimacy to commercial vs non-commercial. The point I make there is - when you trade your eyeball attention at google ads in exchange for an advanced gmail cloud service, you are engaging in commercial internet traffic. By capitalistic theory, you wouldn't be doing it if you didn't feel you'd profit from it. And in this case, the profit can be measured in dollars. Next, the way your last sentence sounds makes sense, but again, you are mistankenly tying different levels of SLA with "commercial/noncommercial". Correlation is not causation, though this is another case where that gets easily confused. I.e, call it "high-grade vs low-grade" service all you like and charge different prices. Just don't tell me that how much I profit personally as an end-user from a fixed number of packets determines how much I get charged from them. We don't need that extra taxman in the picture.
I cannot say where you draw the line, in reality a lot of it would be based on usage. They really do not care if a small time carpenter has a website
dislosure- complainant here: The *point* is that I don't care what they "don't care about". What I care about is being *free* to run that carpenter website, without feeling *guilty that I am willfully violating the simple and clear wording of a contract I entered into*.
That is the problem.
Google's not stopping you from developing the next great thing, nor will they lower the priority of your packets when you do. They just don't want you doing it on a line that the TOS specifically says you can't.
disclosure: complainant here. And I'm pointing out that the Network Neutrality rules forbid the blocking of traffic to *any/all* legal devices. They don't get to, either in their switches and routers, or in their terms of service, decide that my linux pc running an openarena server has less worthy traffic than my neighbor uploading lol-cat videos to youtube. Otherwise the network operators would be in too great a position to effectively shape and dominate the internet devices marketplace. Which of course they'd all love to do. Even Google.
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).
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.
disclosure: complainant here- I like that you brought up the idea of charging for static IP addresses. I agree that IPv4 addresses are a scarcity, and thus it may be reasonable to charge for them. Do you think it is reasonable to charge for a static IPv6 address? Do you realize how not-a-scarcity they are?
Yes, bash on Google for stating what they did, but pretty much NO ISP provider to home connections allow servers on them.
So wrong... Look up TimeWarner's ToS as a start. I'm sure there are others. It's actually precisely because of network neutrality and how a server is a "lawful device". Google made a boo boo in not figuring that out much sooner.
complainant here, please mod (*THE PARENT*) up, which contains this text-
"
subject: and so the internet dies
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.
"
You're being charged for a certain capacity and you wish to exceed that.
False. Just because servers on average use much more capacity than clients, does not mean mine will. Correlation is not causation.
I don't really see why anybody would want to use a home ISP connection for business uses.
I think you lack imagination. Ponder the resiliance of bittorrent as a file distribution service. If one 'server' goes down for an hour or a day, it's not a big deal if there are at least a few other servers perhaps hundreds of miles away that can pick up the slack temporarily.
If you read any amount of my complaint you would understand that I am not trolling. Network Neutrality does not allow network providers to charge one rate for non-commercial traffic, and another for commercial traffic. Go read it. Really.
you are right. In the sense that if every customer read that deep into the fine print, compared to the BOLD advertising claims alone, then it could not be considered "fraud". However it *can* then be considered a Network Neutrality violation, because a Quake3 server is just as legal a device to connect to the internet as an android tablet.
If you read my manifesto, you'll see that my answer to this involves pointing out the verbiage in the NetNeutrality document (FCC 10-201 Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet) which states that the internet is awesome, *precisely* because Tim-Berners Lee was able to develop and deploy WWW/http "without getting any permission from governments or network providers" (close to verbatim).
"Nobody advocates a strict, absolute interpenetration of "Net Neutrality", or you could get away with ping flooding your neighbor under the guise of free and unfettered access."
Do you really think Google couldn't have 1-3 employees spend 1-3 hours crafting language that would make it clear the difference between such obvious abuse, and "prohibiting any kind of server"?
For frack's sake, this is about Google not wanting home servers to provide the masses with alternatives to things like Gmail and GoogleHangouts. This is 2013 for frack's sake, and I can't run an OpenArena server without violating my contract? Really?!?
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.
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.
I think it actually is net neutrality (of course, since I'm the complainant). However what you subsequently said is all spot-on. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim "unlimited bandwidth" in advertising, then not deliver it to the people smart enough to lawfully take advantage of it. In some circles such misleading advertising is known as "fraud".
what in the name of all things good does it mean to "leech bandwidth". What makes _your_ "use" of bandwidth ok, and _mine_ "leaching"???
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.
here is what they were responding to-
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
First, I hope you mis-spoke when you said "difference between business and commercial uses of the internet". I presume you meant, non-commercial vs commercial. Which gets to the point that finally a journalist has on the record agreed with me about. I.e. the way NetNeutrality currently exists, such distinction is not in the legal domain of ways that ISPs may block or throttle "lawful devices connected to the network" (including servers, small like pi or large like an onyx). I.e. suppose I find a way to make $1,000,000 serving less traffic in funny cat videos than my neighbor uses for skype calls with their grandchildren. Are you really suggesting that it is the commercial vs non-commercial nature of that traffic that should allow Google as an ISP to charge me more for it?
https://medium.com/editors-picks/5a2d9322bdc4 (Ryan Singel, former editor of Wired.com's Thread Level blog)
"FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint
Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator
For years, Google was the most active corporate supporter of federal Net Neutrality regulations prohibiting broadband providers from controlling what apps or devices Americans use on the internet services they pay for."
Bill Hicks had a good bit about advertisers you might like-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
And for my opinion of the biggest marketer hypocrisy going on lately-
https://medium.com/editors-picks/5a2d9322bdc4
headline: FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint; Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator
I think you are beginning to see the real mess. As far as the datacenter abuse argument, if I here google try to use that, I'll argue back from the cookie monster angle.
"With advertising claims like these, you need a way to keep commercial users from taking advantage. I assume Google Fiber is similar."
If I'm using the exact same bandwidth as my neighbor, upstream and downstream, but I'm making $1,000,000 per year selling funny cat videos, then yes, I'm taking better advantage of the same resource as my neighbor (if I'm the sort of person that doesn't consider watching funny cat videos to be torturous).
"Can I run a server from my home?
Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home security and others which may include server capabilities but are being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and encouraged."
And you don't sense anything fishy going on with language that self-contradictory? Do you really think that Google is not technically smart enough to word things in a less blatantly self-contradictory fashion than that, if their were no hidden agendas being served?