Well, shit... Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality - Polidicks

[QUOTE]In a dramatic about-face on a key internet issue yesterday, [B]Google told the FCC that the network neutrality rules Google once championed don’t give citizens the right to run servers on their home broadband connections[/B], and that the Google Fiber network is perfectly within its rights to prohibit customers from attaching the legal devices of their choice to its network. At issue is Google Fiber’s Terms of Service, which contains a broad prohibition against customers attaching “servers” to its ultrafast 1 Gbps network in Kansas City. Google wants to ban the use of servers because it plans to offer a business class offering in the future. A potential customer, Douglas McClendon, filed a complaint against the policy in 2012 with the FCC, which eventually ordered Google to explain its reasoning by July 29. In its response, Google defended its sweeping ban by citing the very ISPs it opposed through the years-long fight for rules that require broadband providers to treat all packets equally. “Google Fiber’s server policy is consistent with policies of many major providers in the industry,” Google Fiber lawyer Darah Smith Franklin wrote, going on to quote AT&T, Comcast and Verizon’s anti-server policies. [B]Google’s version, as it admits in its response to McClendon (.pdf), flatly prohibits subscribers from using “any type of server:”[/B] [QUOTE]Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests. Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection, use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, or use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties (including, but not limited to, selling Internet access to third parties).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] [url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/]Source[/url] Fuck. [B]E:[/B] Forgot to include this in the quote [quote]But in the Google Fiber forums, employees assure subscribers the rules aren’t meant to apply to Minecraft servers. And, in reality, Google Fiber probably won’t notice, let alone kick you off, for using a Slingbox or peer-to-peer software.[/quote] So not a full on no servers but still pretty major.

the hell is this

You were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the Anti-Net Neutrality Supporters, not join them! Bring balance to the Internet, not leave it in darkness!

Course they don't want people to run their own servers, it gets in their way since they can't have control over the money made off of it that way.

really.. fuck that

I don't see much wrong with this. They're giving ONE GIGABIT. They don't want people hosting god damn massive servers on that cheap internet. They're not paying for a datacenter. FYI this doesn't stop you from hosting a 6 player GMOD server or playing L4D2 with friends. This is to prevent people hosting massive servers or websites on their home internet connection.

But does it affect those who plan to run a basic HTML/FTP/Telnet/SSH server alongside their more demanding game servers? What if you're in a position where it's either google Fiber or the local ISP with equally awful upload/download?

[QUOTE=MIPS;41654205]In other words they know that there's no way even a currently modern fiber service can handle the loads of a large percentage of the users without everyone feeling the slowdown.[/QUOTE] If a small portion of those users are using most of the bandwidth by hosting large, popular servers? Of course not, the same as even plain old copper. Google are totally within their right to stop people from hosting massive servers, that shit isn't cheap to provide for. Hence why you normally pay a ton for datacentre lines.

I wanna know how 'large' a large number of users is by Google's standards.

[QUOTE]But in the Google Fiber forums, employees assure subscribers the rules aren’t meant to apply to Minecraft servers.[/QUOTE] I think that might be the single best piece of PR I've seen in a while.

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;41654395]I think that might be the single best piece of PR I've seen in a while.[/QUOTE] oh ok. carry on then google.

[QUOTE=Wii60;41654399]oh ok. carry on then google.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Now the only people that will be getting mad are a really small minority of people with massive servers that need a forklift to move around.

No consumer ISP allows you to host a server on your home connection. (But tons of people do anyway)

[QUOTE=hexpunK;41654257]If a small portion of those users are using most of the bandwidth by hosting large, popular servers? Of course not, the same as even plain old copper. Google are totally within their right to stop people from hosting massive servers, that shit isn't cheap to provide for. Hence why you normally pay a ton for datacentre lines.[/QUOTE] It'd cost the same to provide for, the difference is that a business plan gives you an SLA and stuff like "bulk bandwidth" based charging that'd probably end up costing cheaper than a home connection. Google don't want people running something like the next Netflix on their home network stuff, because it then starts relying too much on the quality of random components and connections between the path, something a datacenter (or so) wouldn't have.

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;41654437]Pretty much. Now the only people that will be getting mad are a really small minority of people with massive servers that need a forklift to move around.[/QUOTE] Physical size of a server has nothing to do with the network usage.

Before you guys get scared that your game and private media servers are at risk read a little more. It's to prevent people from providing commercial services through their home lines such as VPN's that channel hundred's of people's internet connections and so on. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

yes unbunch your panties everyone this isn't what it looks like running a little website they don't care about trying to copy youtube, they might care

[QUOTE=Zeke129;41654444]No consumer ISP allows you to host a server on your home connection. (But tons of people do anyway)[/QUOTE] IIRC there's no rules against it on many Canadian ISPs, especially the independents. I think Teksavvy actually encourages it, and one time when I called Primus to ask about blocked ports they had no issues with me hosting one, nor did they block any ports.

Seriously disappointed here, it's no business of your ISP what you do with your internet. What if the dicks at the car dealership said "Well you can buy a car but you're not allowed to drive it to A&W because we made a deal with KFC". People would tell them to fuck right off and it's a shame the same thing isn't happening with ISPs

I dunno, sounds pretty shitty to me. If their business model doesn't support that maybe it's time for a new model.

[QUOTE=Elspin;41654499]Seriously disappointed here, it's no business of your ISP what you do with your internet. What if the dicks at the car dealership said "Well you can buy a car but you're not allowed to drive it to A&W because we made a deal with KFC". People would tell them to fuck right off and it's a shame the same thing isn't happening with ISPs[/QUOTE]Actually, its more like riding a bus and being told that you can't attach a trailer to the back and expect them to tow it..

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;41654509]I dunno, sounds pretty shitty to me. If their business model doesn't support that maybe it's time for a new model.[/QUOTE] ok heres the dealio their business model does support it however, they aren't actually set up to give everyone 1Gbps down and up at all times simply because thats not how networks work if you start maxing your connection that starts to affect other connections on regular ISPs that's mitigated because you can't use as much before your connection cannot handle that many players/clients/whathaveyou not so much with this speed. if you max out google fiber's network serving le epic cat vids, it will affect the quality of service of other people using google fibers

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;41654518]Actually, its more like riding a bus and being told that you can't attach a trailer to the back and expect them to tow it..[/QUOTE] No, it's really not. It's definitely pretty goofy trying to do something commercial with consumer class internet but that should be covered under a different set of laws, not some ambiguous "no server" rule that's left entirely up to google's discretion.

[QUOTE=Elspin;41654581]No, it's really not. It's definitely pretty goofy trying to do something commercial with consumer class internet but that should be covered under a different set of laws, not some ambiguous "no server" rule that's left entirely up to google's discretion.[/QUOTE] do you have any idea how this works the reason its ambiguous is so they don't have to have a bajillion different rules for each type of transmission they will not enforce this for anything you could do on a regular cable connection

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;41654598]do you have any idea how this works the reason its ambiguous is so they don't have to have a bajillion different rules for each type of transmission they will not enforce this for anything you could do on a regular cable connection[/QUOTE] Oh boy childish insults on the internet, my favourite. Yes, I get it - someone with this fast of an internet connection trying to do something massive and ridiculous could definitely fuck with other people's internet and google wants to prevent that. But I don't think just saying "fuck it, ban everything and enforce it when we feel it's necessary" is the right way to do things.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;41654495]IIRC there's no rules against it on many Canadian ISPs, especially the independents. I think Teksavvy actually encourages it, and one time when I called Primus to ask about blocked ports they had no issues with me hosting one, nor did they block any ports.[/QUOTE] The ToS on mine says not to but I've had techs over to fix some issues and they've mentioned how tons of people do. (He mentioned how he has his own private cloud server setup and wishes the upload speeds were better for it after I asked whether there are any infrastructure upgrades planned in my area)

[QUOTE=Zeke129;41654678]The ToS on mine says not to but I've had techs over to fix some issues and they've mentioned how tons of people do. (He mentioned how he has his own private cloud server setup and wishes the upload speeds were better for it after I asked whether there are any infrastructure upgrades planned in my area)[/QUOTE] Yeah, you're looking for business-class solution. [editline]31st July 2013[/editline] Besides I get their decision, I would like them to make their business-class services distinguishable from their residential.

Sensationalist headlines at its finest This is basically Google saying "We don't want people to host image uploaders, large websites, or 32 slot game servers", which is pretty reasonable. I highly doubt they're going to single out people who host 6 player GMod servers, or 12 player Minecraft servers, or personal FTP servers/SSH/whatever.

Money can change things people. [video=youtube;9FKoplr-c1k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FKoplr-c1k[/video]

Nothing wrong with this at all, Google don't want you hosting a large VPN/whatever hogging up the residential line. They're just trying to make sure you're not running a 40,000 user internet radio stream using a residential line.