I'm sure that once they offer business tier internet service, you'll be able to get that as part of the deal along with static IPs, same-day on-site service, separate tech-support line with technicians that understand networking, etc. By running a server, I suppose you want it to be available 24/7, right? You can't have that without an appropriate service contract. Otherwise you're just some guy running a server for nothing of any real consequence, and Google most likely won't care to enforce the no-server portion of the TOS for you and other residential customers.
First, they already offer business service, though not "transparently". I.e. you must "call them for details". I actually think this is a violation of network neutrality's "transparency" prong, and that all traffic rates should be well known and published "transparently". Next, no, I do not expect 24/7 or greater uptime than my other residential neighbors get. But there is a lot you can do with an internet connection with 95% uptime and a gigabit link. If residential users could expect such unblocked actual symmetric client/server internet (protocol, version 6) access from their ISP, then I do foresee servers of much consequence, even on mere 97% uptime links. Finally, your point about Google's selective enforcement, is the icing on the anti-competitive practice here. I see the term of service as their way to prevent residentially hosted servers that might ultimately adequately compete with their existing services (e.g.g squirrelmail open source webmail vs gmail).
what the person may have meant was that just as perhaps their linksys wrt54g running openwrt can be an interesting, if not slashdot-proof scale web server for some interesting amount of content, so too could pretty much everyone's firewall and router, if the source was available for aspiring FOSS coders to similarly enhance. Then, the way you get slashdot-proofness and no dependency on >95% uptime SLA and support from your non-business-class ISP contract, is by pooling and sharing your resources with countless other residential user's wall-warts/routers.
I really have no idea what sort of change a gigabit Internet connection will bring, but it's just as likely to open up all sorts of new services for consumers and opportunities for revenue for software developers and content providers that were unimaginable a few years ago.
This is what I was really hoping, but sadly discovered that their initial terms of service prohibited all residential customers from hosting any kind of server. While this is not exactly unexpected, I do consider it a violation of FCC-10-201/NetNeutrality's "blocking" prong. Though traditionally that is understood as residential ISPs blocking a residential client from a remote server, I also believe it applies to the symmetric use of IPv6, i.e. remote clients blocked from residential servers. My FCC 2000F complaint (ref#12-C000422224-1) is currently in "Enforcement review" after 7 months of getting bounced to the Kansas Attorney General who just bounced it back to the quite slow to respond FCC.
Anyway, until we can get some sort of residential internet users bill of rights for what they can expect from their bridge to the global information superhighway, I don't think we'll see remotely the advances in new services that we otherwise would.
If all you want out of your symmetry is to upload large videos to youtube and other established players, then yes, it is symmetric. If however you want to use your upstream bandwidth to, say, do the first thing that should come to most slashdot reader's minds- run a server providing your own alternate services to Google's cloud offerings, then you are *squarely* out of luck. Because GoogleFiber is same as the old boss- hosting any kind of server is prohibited. Using the service for business requires you contact them for non-transparent pricing 'details' (aka, their calculated level of 'tribute'). (as if trading your visual attention (reading GoogleAds) for advanced computing services (youtube/gmail/etc) is not 'business')
Telecommuting, it can save more gas than any hybrid pretty much if you work in an office you can telecommute. Huge quality of life benefits from this when combined with flexible hours etc. The huge this is google is the only major thing since modems and ISDN that's symmetric it's a gig down and a gig up.
Public Service Announcement: Google Fiber requires you contact them for 'details' if you intend to use the service for a business. I believe this is in violation of FCC-10-201 'Network Neutrality' transparency. Of course I'm more concerned with their terms of service prohibitting hosting any server of any kind, as I consider that a violation of the blocking prong of the Network Neutrality rules (though the case of the residential client blocked from the remote server is the more common understanding of the blocking rule). In any event, for 7 and a half months now, I have had an outstanding NN(form 2000F) complaint with the FCC (ref#12-C000422224). It is currently in "enforcement review" after having been bounced once to the Kansas Attorney General who was not interested in pursuing the matter, though referred me back to the FCC for help. I think it is important to realize how google is participating in a widespread practice of disempowering residential internet users from the ability to provide traditionally unforseen and innovative services to the rest of the internet, in order to protect the established players (cough *them* cough) existing moneymaking servers from new competition, enabled by such advancements as the IPv6 solution to the scarce IP address problem. In fact, if you follow enough of my information warfare links here, you'll find that Google's CEO even agrees with me fairly strongly, but is apparently content to let the lawyers dictate the shape of Google's Gigabit residential internet of the near future. So be it.
> Google and five other technology companies for allegedly forming an illegal cartel to tamp down workers' wages and prevent the loss of their best engineers during a multiyear conspiracy
John Galt is a sociopath.
John Galt is a fictional protagonist from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, who would probably defend leisse fairre (sp?) cartel style intra-corporate collusion in cases such as this. Even if the 'exploited' class was say, of a specific race or gender etc, instead of high-tech workers here. The theory being that somehow in the big big ol picture, the system of self motivated parts would punish such non-optimal strategies. OTOH, Galt was somewhat conflicted, because despite being such an advocate, he basically came to the conclusion that the established system was so corrupt, it should be allowed to collapse upon itself while he and a community of friends went off and started an isolated pre/beginning-industrial microsociety. And then at some point, he follows his true love back into the wider world, which attempts to crucify, er... electrocute-torture (that 'vietnam' gitmo related technique?) him to death.
I used to be a serious Rand inspired capitalistic zealot. As I got older and saw leisse-fairre capitalistic intracorporate collusion at great scales potentially threatening classes of people by race, gender, professional-field, etc, I tend to be closer to a U.S. democrat. But it's still a great book and character. But it's a lot more complex and worthy of study than 'sociopath' suggests.
the real benefactors of this will be business clients. Time Warner Cable charges out the nose and any other orifice they can find if you are not at a residential address... Also many are accusing Time Warner of not playing nice when it comes to peering and network neutrality
Note well that GoogleFiber also is well entrenched into the EVIL "business class" service tactics. Never mind that users at home VPN-ing into work, or trading their visual attention (aimed at google ads) for advanced computing services (gmail, ghangouts, et al) are clearly engaged in "business". I tend to believe that Google Fiber's current published FAQ that has business clients "contact us for details", instead of transparently publishing consistent data rates and prices, is in clear violation of the transparency prong of FCC-10-201/NetworkNeutrality. I also believe that their current terms of use barring any residential user from hosting any kind of server is a clear violation of the blocking prong of NetworkNeutrality (though somewhat in inverse of the way network neutrality is most commonly thought. I.e. blocking of services by residential ISPs can happen in both ways, the residential client blocked from the remote server, or the remote client blocked from the residential server. cuz like, ya know, the internet was like, designed to be symmetrical where every node could behave as both client *and* server.... So in the end Google gets to have its cake and eat it too hypocritically with network neutrality. Sigh.... I'm less than entirely hopeful that my current complaint (2000F) about this with the FCC (ref#12-C000422224-1) will come to anything when it finally emerges from the "enforcement review" procedural step it is in. But who knows...
IPv6, at least as it was taught to me in my computer engineering degree, was about several things, though the most prominent is simply the transitioning from 32 bit to 128 bit addresses, thus making IP addresses not a scarce resource. That sounds good to me. In fact I eagerly awated it for a decade such that it would allow me to run, e.g. a quake3 video game server at home, without any valid reason for my "Internet Service Provider" to complain. Of course when Google was my first ISP offering residential IPv6, I pretty much had my brain explode when their terms of service stated that all residential users were prohibited from running any server of any kind. If you've got an alternate arcitecture that would allow me to run a quake3 videogame server on my residential internet access, I'm all ears. Because, while some of the things you say sound crazy, some of them sound smart enough to warrant closer attention.
note that parent author isdnip wrote this choice comment last year-
"No, NAT will not die. NAT is a good idea, not a bad one. Virtually everyone uses firewalls nowadays, most of which do NAT, which adds a level of security (not enough by itself, but it helps).
It is a critical flaw in TCP/IP architecture that the application translates the name to the address and sees the IP address. And there's never a good reason for applications to have numeric IP addresses inside them. NAT only breaks broken applications. IPv6 is Just Plain Stupid. It's ugly and it wants to die. And it will. The people who are pushing it are the kind of people who seek out authority in order to obey it blindly."
I'm not sure a high percentage of Obama's supporters, or americans in general, know what net neutrality is. I don't think most videogame enthusiasts know how net neutrality is important to their future lives. I -know- most netflix users don't.
In my book, the current most illuminating issue is my quixotic battle with Google Fiber over IPv6 based home servers. I think this is a core aspect of "Net Neutrality" that videogame enthusiasts should help spread the word about. The fact is, that the FCC's 2010 "Report and Order Preserving The Open Internet" (FCC10-201), actually, if read technically, does apply to home videogame servers, as well as all of Google and other established player's servers. But Google and the established players know there is a crapload of their existing cloud business turf that they need to protect against the wave of home serving that IPv6 can finally enable.
Google and the FCC (and the Kansas Attorney General) have ignored my complaint (FCC REF#12-C000422224) for 6 months now, and somehow hearing this news does not give me hope for my cause in the short term. Which is why I'm focusing my efforts on information warfare to educate people about how the current manor in which net neutrality is being enforced, primarily only helps hypocrites on the issue like Google. Larry Page, if the slashdot AC's story is to be believed[1], is an especially open hypocrite on this issue (since allegedly, he is the one in charge).
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change? Thats why people aren't protesting now.
There is a large part of my soul that senses truth in your sentiment. But... then I remember that 2008 saw the election of the first non-white-male US president in history. It is a damn shame that all the other orwellian shit that 9/11 and ?republicans? spawned, hasn't been rolled back by Obamo. Or even just the simple following through of Obama's day 1 signed pledge to close GITMO within a year. Of course that last one was patently obvious bullshit to me as soon as I saw the year deadline. If it was going to be closed because it was an ethically, strategically, and morally reprehensible state of our union, it would have happened the instant someone who thought that assumed a position with the power to do it. And don't tell me that closing something that was unconstitutionally created requires congressional approval. That, is the joke of the modern injustices. But remember kids, we got our first non-white-male president. That was the grand bargain. It almost warms my soul that both the person I'm replying to, and much of my own soul, can almost lose sight of that. I hope it's worth living in a torture and surveillance age. Maybe it is. We'll see.
mod parent up. I would only explicitly add the lens of "seperation of church and state" and how I believe mairrage should be a matter under the purview of freedom of religion, and not a matter under the state. And for what its worth, I think sci-fi as a medium, is the penultimate arena to explore people's fear of non-popular forms of the family and procreation. For instance, I can imagine forms of the family that involve "harems", and I can imagine both ones that involve predominantly kindness and happiness and ones that involve predominantly oppression and sadness. Of course the same goes for monogomous heterosexual mairrages as well. Which again factors into the parent-poster's position of 'mairrage' should just be an ambiguous word under the purview of religion, rather than a part of our legal system. $0.02...
Serious as a heart attack. I view the internet as a paradigm shift for humanity, and inter-human communication. I believe its protocols were designed from the beginning to empower each and every endpoints ability to communicate in arbitrary ways with every other endpoint. Sure, there are limits to free speech, e.g. death threats, beyond-fair-use violation of copyrights, etc. And those things should be policed in all communication mediums. But blocking the ability of residential internet users to use the full flexibility of the Internet Protocol (version 6), to provide otherwise legal services to humanity at large, is quite simply evil in my opinion. And due to the nature of Google and Network Neutrality, purely hypocritical. And I know, from a lot of reasons, not the least of which the quite plausible leak of Larry Page "repeatedly needling" Pichette about his annoyance with the clause, that enough of the right people at Google know better, that they should be damned ashamed of themselves and what they've become.
You try running an ISP and tell me if home servers are at all a good idea.
Wish I was in that position of power. But I guess I'm just a broke loon when it comes to having those options. So I'll just wage my information war the best I can until that changes.
Seriously, if Google referred to GFiber as an "existing established well moneyed cloud services access provider" rather than an "Internet Service Provider" I would probably from a libertarian perspective at least, not be offended by what they are doing. To me, "Internet Service Provider" means that as a customer I get access to "Internet Service", which involves being able to send and receive packets according to the "Internet Protocol"(v6 these days) published standard. What Google Fiber and similar "ISPs" are providing to customers is not in fact true "Internet Service", but rather a needlessly disabled and limited version of true "Internet Service". In my opinion.
Sure, but, they're not affixing tracking to websites. That's all on sites that leverage their advertising network and G+.
Right, that's all I was saying. I wasn't implying anything else, you read 'kook' into what I was saying, when all I was saying was they were doing a ton of tracking. Which they are. Not against people that aren't, through at least ignorance, opting into it. But they are doing a ton of it.
Sorry dude, you've squirreled your way into kook territory.
And you are into uncalled for disrespectful territory.
There's all sorts of legitimate reasons why Google doesn't want to let residential customers host their own servers.
Sure, and the one I'm most vocally concerned about is that residential customers hosting their own servers have the capability to compete with existing google services. E.g. squirrelmail competing with gmail.
Including liability and support issues dealing with people running shit arbitrarily on port 80/440 or whatever service you're running.
Uh, yeah, like, good gracious, what would they have to do, if an ISP actually had to like, support, IP, aka "Internet Protocol"
It's not hypocritical to say that it's not OK to run servers on their residential service when they're not doing the same thing at all. You're conflating issues and being incredibly unreasonable.
I respectfully disagree
Net Neutrality is about user to server access.
That's a matter of interpretation. I interpret internet access as a two-way street, where everyone was meant, from the beginning to both consume and produce content. To be both client and server. Others, like US Navy Information Warfare Officer Dave Schroeder agree with me. You and Google do not. So be it.
They're not prioritizing Google search over DuckDuckGo or GMail over Outlook.com, or YouTube over Vimeo.
Here you are spot on correct, except not noticing that my FCC complaint referred to the _blocking_ rule violation versus the _prioritizing_ rule violation to which you allude.
If they're caught doing THAT then yes, that's hypocritical and extremely evil. Not that that's likely; that's not the game Google plays.
read 10-201, blocking is an entirely seperate rule violation from prioritization.
I don't care. Some guy hammering the upstream or hosting god knows what just isn't a good deal for residential providers.
Not sure what TLA APK is, but I if you were calling me a loon, I'll one up you and address your point. You are right, allowing server hosting isn't a good deal for residential providers. You know what else isn't a good deal? Google not having to pay bit for bit for the data they send across other people's networks. But they get to flood the entire internet with their tracking and advertising without paying legitimate rates for the traffic because of this thing called "network neutrality". Pretty good deal for them huh? But as soon as I want to provide my friends and family with a free webmail service (aka SquirrelMail, like I was running for my family years before GMail existed), then Google isn't so happy about actually following the letter and the spirit of the "network neutrality" rules. That sir, is the definition of hypocrisy. If my david versus goliath fight against such hypocrisy has made me a bit 'loony', I do apologize. But I also have a legitimate point.
I'll even admit here that I've been enough of an asshole to intentionally avoid bringing up how I blame Milo for starting this evil bulls#it when we was running things in the cable modem arena at his prior job with @Home.
We all know how that ended up. (Former @Home customer)
@Home may no longer exist. But the tradition of EVIL "no server hosting" clauses in ISP ToS is as entrenched as it gets, despite a US Navy Information Warfare Officer agreeing with my interpretation of FCC-10-201 "Network Neutrality", that such ToS are tantamount to criminal blocking of legal services provided over fixed broadband connections.
So, you're the asshole keeping google from expanding to other cities. Do the cable companies and phone companies allow server hosting on their residential lines? No, you need a higher cost business line. Would you just let google expand before you go about this BS.
Yup, I'm that asshole. And no, I don't want Google to be the new national ISP, or their wet dream that they have already more or less achieved, the national telco. Google is not our friend. Google is the new Microsoft, same as the old boss. If Google had the kind of righteousness still that it started with, the same fire that drove it's successful rise against Microsoft, I'd be very happy with them being my ISP. This whole excercise, starting with my initial proxied direct discussions with Milo Medin last year where he requested I rewrite their ToS to allow server hosting, but somehow "protect google's potential cloud profits", has proved to me that Google is as f***ing evil as they come these days. I'll even admit here that I've been enough of an asshole to intentionally avoid bringing up how I blame Milo for starting this evil bulls#it when we was running things in the cable modem arena at his prior job with @Home.
I recently (last year) filed a complaint (ref#12-C000422224-1) with the FCC about Google Fiber's "no server hosting allowed of any kind" terms of service. With those kinds of EVIL ToS, you just won't see the kind of innovation and utilization of gigabit fiber service that is possible and that would cause a great increase in demand. Somehow, even though I got the local vocal U.S. Navy Information Warefare Officer who posts here (Dave Shroeder) to publicly call my 53 page anti-google manifesto 'good' and agree with it's core network neutrality argument, I have been pretty much completely ignored by both Google and the FCC. Hell, there was even an AC leak from a google all hands meeting that said Google's CEO was "really annoyed with the no server hosting clause" and "repeatedly needled" the CFO about it, who said there was "no intent to enforce, except against crazy datacenter style abuse". Personally I think that's all bullshit part of a conspiracy to deny residental citizen's the ability to compete with google and other established player's servers and services... Finally a couple weeks ago on valentine's day, 2 days after pinging the FCC again, and 1 day after being pinged by another asshole google recruiter (williamwest@google.com), the FCC finally escalated my complaint. Time will tell...
Now that most interesting new software is delivered to us over the web or via other network protocols, does this marginalize the contributions of open source and free software? For example Google, Amazon, and Facebook all have had some involvement with open source software as both users and contributors, but for the most part their technology stacks above the OS level (Linux) are under lock and key.
This sounds like a good question to me. Trying to hype my own little unpopular cause of the moment, I'd add the obvious note that what is required for open source (top to bottom) solutions to compete with the Gang Of Four (Google/Amazon/Facebook/...) is the 'Right To Serve'. I.e. my legal theory all end users of the internet in the US, due to Network Neutrality (FCC-10-201, subparagraph13), have the right to host and run servers connected to their residential fixed broadband service. Any help or on the record comments that I can get from noteworthy thinkers will be greatly appreciated. Mr. Vint Cerf of Google claimed last week to be investigating the matter internally at Google. Mr Page of Google apparently, from an AC leak on slashdot is also "very annoyed with the no servers clause" of Google Fiber's (their new ISP to Kansas City) terms of service.
... focus on releasing those millions of parked domainnames or atleast fix the administrative gap that allows registrars to keep those millions of domains parked for practically free. The problem isn't a lack of TLD's, it's a lack of decent domainnames and most of those are wasted on yet another money grabbing scheme.
Umm... please do explain said gap. I'd like to save money on a few that I've 'parked', though without any ads, and not in any way to scam other companies.
Mod parent up, seems like an important question. The internet is turning into oligarchy instead of its former peer to peer nature. These choke points make censorship and surveillance easier. How long before email can only be sent from gmail to gmail?
At the risk of losing my excellent slashdot karma for the first time in my life, I'll shamelessly continue my network flooding to get this issue into the public debate. Especially since I remembered after posting the question last night that I had already brought the issue to the attention of join@freedomboxfoundationorwhatever.org over a month ago. Unless my words are being censored by Navy Information Warfare Officers, I'm still boggled by how off the radar this topic is. Part of me hopes Mr. Cerf answers me by the one week(and a bit) deadline I gave him/Google. But given no response yet, I'm now leaning towards the theory that Google's lawyers have taken over (which given my aggressive language throughout, is understandable. Though I would hope Mr. Cerf, if anyone on the planet, could rise above the lawyer level. In several ways, I've already sacrificed any personal legal case I have, and put myself on the mercy of the system, and hopefully the validity or not of my logical and moral arguments).
I've recently been championing an interpretation of Network Neutrality which assumes that all ISP customers (of all service tiers) have the right to host and run servers from their connections (presuming IPv6 environment, ignoring IPv4 address scarcity case). I apparently even got Dave Schroeder, someone who publicly identifies themselves in slashdot comments as a Navy Information Warfare Officer to give high praise[1] to a draft of my manifesto[2], which, with his help (getting an email address) has led it to the inbox of one Mr. Vint Cerf who is now reading it and investigating further (unless someone impersonated him via insecure email). Anyway, I think from my manifesto it is clear that I likely share some visions with the FreedomBox project, which I suspect is just as effectively dependent on a 'Right To Serve' landscape/net-ground-rules as I am rallying for.
If it leads to vendor GPU drivers being developed in the open then I'm in!
Why were you upset again?
...because it won't, and never will, and because this is the Linux community attempting to force Nvidia to develop open-source drivers, which is just about the exact opposite of freedom. Or at least, that is what it looks like to me.......
What it looks like to me is that in order to use _some_ features of _some_ kernels NVidia must do some driver work in the open (source). Whereas the prior situation to this kerfluffle included NVidia being of the position that in order for linux users to use _some_ features of _some_ NVidia hardware, that they must accept drivers that are closed source.
Big whoop. NVidia has a choice to make. Ignoring a potentially lucritive market is one of their options. (not to mention how things like individual human good or ill will towards companies tends to spill across markets in non-obvious ways...)
A luxury or a human right. What there isn't a middle ground here?
Yes, they asked a leading question based on a false dichotomy and got a stupid answer. Internet access is a utility, like electricity or clean water. Like those things, the more people have access to it, the better off they will be. However, equating utilities with the likes of freedom of speech and freedom from slavery is a slap in the face of anyone who has struggled for those true human rights.
I respectfully disagree. Without utilities like the information superhighway, or the actual highway, or clean water, things like 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom from slavery' are almost meaningless. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie 'The Matrix' where Neo first encounters 'supernatural' physics. After Neo demands his 'right to a phone call', agent Smith wryly states - "What good is a phone call, if you are unable to speak" (as Neo's lips become sealed shut due to the Matrix's master's control over 'reality'.
Of course my own delusionality is that this slashdot article is a Navy psy-op architected by Information Warfare Officers[1] such as Dave Shcroeder who recently gave high praise to my "Right To Serve" network neutrality manifesto, as well as Vint Cerf's email address to help me cut to the heart of the issue. From my initial ack, Mr. Cerf is currently reading my draft[2] and investigating further.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that once they offer business tier internet service, you'll be able to get that as part of the deal along with static IPs, same-day on-site service, separate tech-support line with technicians that understand networking, etc. By running a server, I suppose you want it to be available 24/7, right? You can't have that without an appropriate service contract. Otherwise you're just some guy running a server for nothing of any real consequence, and Google most likely won't care to enforce the no-server portion of the TOS for you and other residential customers.
First, they already offer business service, though not "transparently". I.e. you must "call them for details". I actually think this is a violation of network neutrality's "transparency" prong, and that all traffic rates should be well known and published "transparently". Next, no, I do not expect 24/7 or greater uptime than my other residential neighbors get. But there is a lot you can do with an internet connection with 95% uptime and a gigabit link. If residential users could expect such unblocked actual symmetric client/server internet (protocol, version 6) access from their ISP, then I do foresee servers of much consequence, even on mere 97% uptime links. Finally, your point about Google's selective enforcement, is the icing on the anti-competitive practice here. I see the term of service as their way to prevent residentially hosted servers that might ultimately adequately compete with their existing services (e.g.g squirrelmail open source webmail vs gmail).
what the person may have meant was that just as perhaps their linksys wrt54g running openwrt can be an interesting, if not slashdot-proof scale web server for some interesting amount of content, so too could pretty much everyone's firewall and router, if the source was available for aspiring FOSS coders to similarly enhance. Then, the way you get slashdot-proofness and no dependency on >95% uptime SLA and support from your non-business-class ISP contract, is by pooling and sharing your resources with countless other residential user's wall-warts/routers.
I really have no idea what sort of change a gigabit Internet connection will bring, but it's just as likely to open up all sorts of new services for consumers and opportunities for revenue for software developers and content providers that were unimaginable a few years ago.
This is what I was really hoping, but sadly discovered that their initial terms of service prohibited all residential customers from hosting any kind of server. While this is not exactly unexpected, I do consider it a violation of FCC-10-201/NetNeutrality's "blocking" prong. Though traditionally that is understood as residential ISPs blocking a residential client from a remote server, I also believe it applies to the symmetric use of IPv6, i.e. remote clients blocked from residential servers. My FCC 2000F complaint (ref#12-C000422224-1) is currently in "Enforcement review" after 7 months of getting bounced to the Kansas Attorney General who just bounced it back to the quite slow to respond FCC.
Anyway, until we can get some sort of residential internet users bill of rights for what they can expect from their bridge to the global information superhighway, I don't think we'll see remotely the advances in new services that we otherwise would.
$0.02...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891
It's also 1Gbit symmetric .
If all you want out of your symmetry is to upload large videos to youtube and other established players, then yes, it is symmetric. If however you want to use your upstream bandwidth to, say, do the first thing that should come to most slashdot reader's minds- run a server providing your own alternate services to Google's cloud offerings, then you are *squarely* out of luck. Because GoogleFiber is same as the old boss- hosting any kind of server is prohibited. Using the service for business requires you contact them for non-transparent pricing 'details' (aka, their calculated level of 'tribute'). (as if trading your visual attention (reading GoogleAds) for advanced computing services (youtube/gmail/etc) is not 'business')
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891
Telecommuting, it can save more gas than any hybrid pretty much if you work in an office you can telecommute. Huge quality of life benefits from this when combined with flexible hours etc. The huge this is google is the only major thing since modems and ISDN that's symmetric it's a gig down and a gig up.
Public Service Announcement: Google Fiber requires you contact them for 'details' if you intend to use the service for a business. I believe this is in violation of FCC-10-201 'Network Neutrality' transparency. Of course I'm more concerned with their terms of service prohibitting hosting any server of any kind, as I consider that a violation of the blocking prong of the Network Neutrality rules (though the case of the residential client blocked from the remote server is the more common understanding of the blocking rule). In any event, for 7 and a half months now, I have had an outstanding NN(form 2000F) complaint with the FCC (ref#12-C000422224). It is currently in "enforcement review" after having been bounced once to the Kansas Attorney General who was not interested in pursuing the matter, though referred me back to the FCC for help. I think it is important to realize how google is participating in a widespread practice of disempowering residential internet users from the ability to provide traditionally unforseen and innovative services to the rest of the internet, in order to protect the established players (cough *them* cough) existing moneymaking servers from new competition, enabled by such advancements as the IPv6 solution to the scarce IP address problem. In fact, if you follow enough of my information warfare links here, you'll find that Google's CEO even agrees with me fairly strongly, but is apparently content to let the lawyers dictate the shape of Google's Gigabit residential internet of the near future. So be it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891
> Google and five other technology companies for allegedly forming an illegal cartel to tamp down workers' wages and prevent the loss of their best engineers during a multiyear conspiracy
John Galt is a sociopath.
John Galt is a fictional protagonist from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, who would probably defend leisse fairre (sp?) cartel style intra-corporate collusion in cases such as this. Even if the 'exploited' class was say, of a specific race or gender etc, instead of high-tech workers here. The theory being that somehow in the big big ol picture, the system of self motivated parts would punish such non-optimal strategies. OTOH, Galt was somewhat conflicted, because despite being such an advocate, he basically came to the conclusion that the established system was so corrupt, it should be allowed to collapse upon itself while he and a community of friends went off and started an isolated pre/beginning-industrial microsociety. And then at some point, he follows his true love back into the wider world, which attempts to crucify, er... electrocute-torture (that 'vietnam' gitmo related technique?) him to death.
I used to be a serious Rand inspired capitalistic zealot. As I got older and saw leisse-fairre capitalistic intracorporate collusion at great scales potentially threatening classes of people by race, gender, professional-field, etc, I tend to be closer to a U.S. democrat. But it's still a great book and character. But it's a lot more complex and worthy of study than 'sociopath' suggests.
the real benefactors of this will be business clients. Time Warner Cable charges out the nose and any other orifice they can find if you are not at a residential address ... Also many are accusing Time Warner of not playing nice when it comes to peering and network neutrality
Note well that GoogleFiber also is well entrenched into the EVIL "business class" service tactics. Never mind that users at home VPN-ing into work, or trading their visual attention (aimed at google ads) for advanced computing services (gmail, ghangouts, et al) are clearly engaged in "business". I tend to believe that Google Fiber's current published FAQ that has business clients "contact us for details", instead of transparently publishing consistent data rates and prices, is in clear violation of the transparency prong of FCC-10-201/NetworkNeutrality. I also believe that their current terms of use barring any residential user from hosting any kind of server is a clear violation of the blocking prong of NetworkNeutrality (though somewhat in inverse of the way network neutrality is most commonly thought. I.e. blocking of services by residential ISPs can happen in both ways, the residential client blocked from the remote server, or the remote client blocked from the residential server. cuz like, ya know, the internet was like, designed to be symmetrical where every node could behave as both client *and* server.... So in the end Google gets to have its cake and eat it too hypocritically with network neutrality. Sigh.... I'm less than entirely hopeful that my current complaint (2000F) about this with the FCC (ref#12-C000422224-1) will come to anything when it finally emerges from the "enforcement review" procedural step it is in. But who knows...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891
IPv6, at least as it was taught to me in my computer engineering degree, was about several things, though the most prominent is simply the transitioning from 32 bit to 128 bit addresses, thus making IP addresses not a scarce resource. That sounds good to me. In fact I eagerly awated it for a decade such that it would allow me to run, e.g. a quake3 video game server at home, without any valid reason for my "Internet Service Provider" to complain. Of course when Google was my first ISP offering residential IPv6, I pretty much had my brain explode when their terms of service stated that all residential users were prohibited from running any server of any kind. If you've got an alternate arcitecture that would allow me to run a quake3 videogame server on my residential internet access, I'm all ears. Because, while some of the things you say sound crazy, some of them sound smart enough to warrant closer attention.
note that parent author isdnip wrote this choice comment last year-
"No, NAT will not die. NAT is a good idea, not a bad one. Virtually everyone uses firewalls nowadays, most of which do NAT, which adds a level of security (not enough by itself, but it helps).
It is a critical flaw in TCP/IP architecture that the application translates the name to the address and sees the IP address. And there's never a good reason for applications to have numeric IP addresses inside them. NAT only breaks broken applications. IPv6 is Just Plain Stupid. It's ugly and it wants to die. And it will. The people who are pushing it are the kind of people who seek out authority in order to obey it blindly."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2901899&cid=40251831
I'm not sure a high percentage of Obama's supporters, or americans in general, know what net neutrality is. I don't think most videogame enthusiasts know how net neutrality is important to their future lives. I -know- most netflix users don't.
In my book, the current most illuminating issue is my quixotic battle with Google Fiber over IPv6 based home servers. I think this is a core aspect of "Net Neutrality" that videogame enthusiasts should help spread the word about. The fact is, that the FCC's 2010 "Report and Order Preserving The Open Internet" (FCC10-201), actually, if read technically, does apply to home videogame servers, as well as all of Google and other established player's servers. But Google and the established players know there is a crapload of their existing cloud business turf that they need to protect against the wave of home serving that IPv6 can finally enable.
Google and the FCC (and the Kansas Attorney General) have ignored my complaint (FCC REF#12-C000422224) for 6 months now, and somehow hearing this news does not give me hope for my cause in the short term. Which is why I'm focusing my efforts on information warfare to educate people about how the current manor in which net neutrality is being enforced, primarily only helps hypocrites on the issue like Google. Larry Page, if the slashdot AC's story is to be believed[1], is an especially open hypocrite on this issue (since allegedly, he is the one in charge).
[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
full saga/manifesto- http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf (lulu.com/cx1 preview feature has the submitted 53 page version)
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change? Thats why people aren't protesting now.
There is a large part of my soul that senses truth in your sentiment. But... then I remember that 2008 saw the election of the first non-white-male US president in history. It is a damn shame that all the other orwellian shit that 9/11 and ?republicans? spawned, hasn't been rolled back by Obamo. Or even just the simple following through of Obama's day 1 signed pledge to close GITMO within a year. Of course that last one was patently obvious bullshit to me as soon as I saw the year deadline. If it was going to be closed because it was an ethically, strategically, and morally reprehensible state of our union, it would have happened the instant someone who thought that assumed a position with the power to do it. And don't tell me that closing something that was unconstitutionally created requires congressional approval. That, is the joke of the modern injustices. But remember kids, we got our first non-white-male president. That was the grand bargain. It almost warms my soul that both the person I'm replying to, and much of my own soul, can almost lose sight of that. I hope it's worth living in a torture and surveillance age. Maybe it is. We'll see.
mod parent up. I would only explicitly add the lens of "seperation of church and state" and how I believe mairrage should be a matter under the purview of freedom of religion, and not a matter under the state. And for what its worth, I think sci-fi as a medium, is the penultimate arena to explore people's fear of non-popular forms of the family and procreation. For instance, I can imagine forms of the family that involve "harems", and I can imagine both ones that involve predominantly kindness and happiness and ones that involve predominantly oppression and sadness. Of course the same goes for monogomous heterosexual mairrages as well. Which again factors into the parent-poster's position of 'mairrage' should just be an ambiguous word under the purview of religion, rather than a part of our legal system. $0.02...
Seriously?
Serious as a heart attack. I view the internet as a paradigm shift for humanity, and inter-human communication. I believe its protocols were designed from the beginning to empower each and every endpoints ability to communicate in arbitrary ways with every other endpoint. Sure, there are limits to free speech, e.g. death threats, beyond-fair-use violation of copyrights, etc. And those things should be policed in all communication mediums. But blocking the ability of residential internet users to use the full flexibility of the Internet Protocol (version 6), to provide otherwise legal services to humanity at large, is quite simply evil in my opinion. And due to the nature of Google and Network Neutrality, purely hypocritical. And I know, from a lot of reasons, not the least of which the quite plausible leak of Larry Page "repeatedly needling" Pichette about his annoyance with the clause, that enough of the right people at Google know better, that they should be damned ashamed of themselves and what they've become.
You try running an ISP and tell me if home servers are at all a good idea.
Wish I was in that position of power. But I guess I'm just a broke loon when it comes to having those options. So I'll just wage my information war the best I can until that changes.
Seriously, if Google referred to GFiber as an "existing established well moneyed cloud services access provider" rather than an "Internet Service Provider" I would probably from a libertarian perspective at least, not be offended by what they are doing. To me, "Internet Service Provider" means that as a customer I get access to "Internet Service", which involves being able to send and receive packets according to the "Internet Protocol"(v6 these days) published standard. What Google Fiber and similar "ISPs" are providing to customers is not in fact true "Internet Service", but rather a needlessly disabled and limited version of true "Internet Service". In my opinion.
Sure, but, they're not affixing tracking to websites. That's all on sites that leverage their advertising network and G+.
Right, that's all I was saying. I wasn't implying anything else, you read 'kook' into what I was saying, when all I was saying was they were doing a ton of tracking. Which they are. Not against people that aren't, through at least ignorance, opting into it. But they are doing a ton of it.
Sorry dude, you've squirreled your way into kook territory.
And you are into uncalled for disrespectful territory.
There's all sorts of legitimate reasons why Google doesn't want to let residential customers host their own servers.
Sure, and the one I'm most vocally concerned about is that residential customers hosting their own servers have the capability to compete with existing google services. E.g. squirrelmail competing with gmail.
Including liability and support issues dealing with people running shit arbitrarily on port 80/440 or whatever service you're running.
Uh, yeah, like, good gracious, what would they have to do, if an ISP actually had to like, support, IP, aka "Internet Protocol"
It's not hypocritical to say that it's not OK to run servers on their residential service when they're not doing the same thing at all. You're conflating issues and being incredibly unreasonable.
I respectfully disagree
Net Neutrality is about user to server access.
That's a matter of interpretation. I interpret internet access as a two-way street, where everyone was meant, from the beginning to both consume and produce content. To be both client and server. Others, like US Navy Information Warfare Officer Dave Schroeder agree with me. You and Google do not. So be it.
They're not prioritizing Google search over DuckDuckGo or GMail over Outlook.com, or YouTube over Vimeo.
Here you are spot on correct, except not noticing that my FCC complaint referred to the _blocking_ rule violation versus the _prioritizing_ rule violation to which you allude.
If they're caught doing THAT then yes, that's hypocritical and extremely evil. Not that that's likely; that's not the game Google plays.
read 10-201, blocking is an entirely seperate rule violation from prioritization.
Looks like APK has a contender for local /. loon.
I don't care. Some guy hammering the upstream or hosting god knows what just isn't a good deal for residential providers.
Not sure what TLA APK is, but I if you were calling me a loon, I'll one up you and address your point. You are right, allowing server hosting isn't a good deal for residential providers. You know what else isn't a good deal? Google not having to pay bit for bit for the data they send across other people's networks. But they get to flood the entire internet with their tracking and advertising without paying legitimate rates for the traffic because of this thing called "network neutrality". Pretty good deal for them huh? But as soon as I want to provide my friends and family with a free webmail service (aka SquirrelMail, like I was running for my family years before GMail existed), then Google isn't so happy about actually following the letter and the spirit of the "network neutrality" rules. That sir, is the definition of hypocrisy. If my david versus goliath fight against such hypocrisy has made me a bit 'loony', I do apologize. But I also have a legitimate point.
I'll even admit here that I've been enough of an asshole to intentionally avoid bringing up how I blame Milo for starting this evil bulls#it when we was running things in the cable modem arena at his prior job with @Home.
We all know how that ended up.
(Former @Home customer)
@Home may no longer exist. But the tradition of EVIL "no server hosting" clauses in ISP ToS is as entrenched as it gets, despite a US Navy Information Warfare Officer agreeing with my interpretation of FCC-10-201 "Network Neutrality", that such ToS are tantamount to criminal blocking of legal services provided over fixed broadband connections.
So, you're the asshole keeping google from expanding to other cities. Do the cable companies and phone companies allow server hosting on their residential lines? No, you need a higher cost business line.
Would you just let google expand before you go about this BS.
Yup, I'm that asshole. And no, I don't want Google to be the new national ISP, or their wet dream that they have already more or less achieved, the national telco. Google is not our friend. Google is the new Microsoft, same as the old boss. If Google had the kind of righteousness still that it started with, the same fire that drove it's successful rise against Microsoft, I'd be very happy with them being my ISP. This whole excercise, starting with my initial proxied direct discussions with Milo Medin last year where he requested I rewrite their ToS to allow server hosting, but somehow "protect google's potential cloud profits", has proved to me that Google is as f***ing evil as they come these days. I'll even admit here that I've been enough of an asshole to intentionally avoid bringing up how I blame Milo for starting this evil bulls#it when we was running things in the cable modem arena at his prior job with @Home.
I recently (last year) filed a complaint (ref#12-C000422224-1) with the FCC about Google Fiber's "no server hosting allowed of any kind" terms of service. With those kinds of EVIL ToS, you just won't see the kind of innovation and utilization of gigabit fiber service that is possible and that would cause a great increase in demand. Somehow, even though I got the local vocal U.S. Navy Information Warefare Officer who posts here (Dave Shroeder) to publicly call my 53 page anti-google manifesto 'good' and agree with it's core network neutrality argument, I have been pretty much completely ignored by both Google and the FCC. Hell, there was even an AC leak from a google all hands meeting that said Google's CEO was "really annoyed with the no server hosting clause" and "repeatedly needled" the CFO about it, who said there was "no intent to enforce, except against crazy datacenter style abuse". Personally I think that's all bullshit part of a conspiracy to deny residental citizen's the ability to compete with google and other established player's servers and services... Finally a couple weeks ago on valentine's day, 2 days after pinging the FCC again, and 1 day after being pinged by another asshole google recruiter (williamwest@google.com), the FCC finally escalated my complaint. Time will tell...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
Now that most interesting new software is delivered to us over the web or via other network protocols, does this marginalize the contributions of open source and free software? For example Google, Amazon, and Facebook all have had some involvement with open source software as both users and contributors, but for the most part their technology stacks above the OS level (Linux) are under lock and key.
This sounds like a good question to me. Trying to hype my own little unpopular cause of the moment, I'd add the obvious note that what is required for open source (top to bottom) solutions to compete with the Gang Of Four (Google/Amazon/Facebook/...) is the 'Right To Serve'. I.e. my legal theory all end users of the internet in the US, due to Network Neutrality (FCC-10-201, subparagraph13), have the right to host and run servers connected to their residential fixed broadband service. Any help or on the record comments that I can get from noteworthy thinkers will be greatly appreciated. Mr. Vint Cerf of Google claimed last week to be investigating the matter internally at Google. Mr Page of Google apparently, from an AC leak on slashdot is also "very annoyed with the no servers clause" of Google Fiber's (their new ISP to Kansas City) terms of service.
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.txt
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
... focus on releasing those millions of parked domainnames or atleast fix the administrative gap that allows registrars to keep those millions of domains parked for practically free. The problem isn't a lack of TLD's, it's a lack of decent domainnames and most of those are wasted on yet another money grabbing scheme.
Umm... please do explain said gap. I'd like to save money on a few that I've 'parked', though without any ads, and not in any way to scam other companies.
Mod parent up, seems like an important question. The internet is turning into oligarchy instead of its former peer to peer nature. These choke points make censorship and surveillance easier. How long before email can only be sent from gmail to gmail?
At the risk of losing my excellent slashdot karma for the first time in my life, I'll shamelessly continue my network flooding to get this issue into the public debate. Especially since I remembered after posting the question last night that I had already brought the issue to the attention of join@freedomboxfoundationorwhatever.org over a month ago. Unless my words are being censored by Navy Information Warfare Officers, I'm still boggled by how off the radar this topic is. Part of me hopes Mr. Cerf answers me by the one week(and a bit) deadline I gave him/Google. But given no response yet, I'm now leaning towards the theory that Google's lawyers have taken over (which given my aggressive language throughout, is understandable. Though I would hope Mr. Cerf, if anyone on the planet, could rise above the lawyer level. In several ways, I've already sacrificed any personal legal case I have, and put myself on the mercy of the system, and hopefully the validity or not of my logical and moral arguments).
I've recently been championing an interpretation of Network Neutrality which assumes that all ISP customers (of all service tiers) have the right to host and run servers from their connections (presuming IPv6 environment, ignoring IPv4 address scarcity case). I apparently even got Dave Schroeder, someone who publicly identifies themselves in slashdot comments as a Navy Information Warfare Officer to give high praise[1] to a draft of my manifesto[2], which, with his help (getting an email address) has led it to the inbox of one Mr. Vint Cerf who is now reading it and investigating further (unless someone impersonated him via insecure email). Anyway, I think from my manifesto it is clear that I likely share some visions with the FreedomBox project, which I suspect is just as effectively dependent on a 'Right To Serve' landscape/net-ground-rules as I am rallying for.
[1]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
[2]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.txt
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf
this reminds me quite a bit of Neil Stephenson's concept of "Gargoyles"...
If it leads to vendor GPU drivers being developed in the open then I'm in!
Why were you upset again?
...because it won't, and never will, and because this is the Linux community attempting to force Nvidia to develop open-source drivers, which is just about the exact opposite of freedom. Or at least, that is what it looks like to me.......
What it looks like to me is that in order to use _some_ features of _some_ kernels NVidia must do some driver work in the open (source). Whereas the prior situation to this kerfluffle included NVidia being of the position that in order for linux users to use _some_ features of _some_ NVidia hardware, that they must accept drivers that are closed source.
Big whoop. NVidia has a choice to make. Ignoring a potentially lucritive market is one of their options. (not to mention how things like individual human good or ill will towards companies tends to spill across markets in non-obvious ways...)
A luxury or a human right. What there isn't a middle ground here?
Yes, they asked a leading question based on a false dichotomy and got a stupid answer. Internet access is a utility, like electricity or clean water. Like those things, the more people have access to it, the better off they will be. However, equating utilities with the likes of freedom of speech and freedom from slavery is a slap in the face of anyone who has struggled for those true human rights.
I respectfully disagree. Without utilities like the information superhighway, or the actual highway, or clean water, things like 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom from slavery' are almost meaningless. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie 'The Matrix' where Neo first encounters 'supernatural' physics. After Neo demands his 'right to a phone call', agent Smith wryly states - "What good is a phone call, if you are unable to speak" (as Neo's lips become sealed shut due to the Matrix's master's control over 'reality'.
Of course my own delusionality is that this slashdot article is a Navy psy-op architected by Information Warfare Officers[1] such as Dave Shcroeder who recently gave high praise to my "Right To Serve" network neutrality manifesto, as well as Vint Cerf's email address to help me cut to the heart of the issue. From my initial ack, Mr. Cerf is currently reading my draft[2] and investigating further.
[1]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
[2]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.txt
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.txt