Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 0:23 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired) by rqosa
Parent article: Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

It's written in Google Fiber TOS:

>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.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 0:37 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link]

Well, if that's so, then maybe the Wired article is wrong about the "game server" case at least.

That policy is still ambiguous at best about the "home SSH server" case, though — and Google has an economic interest in discouraging decentralized alternatives (e.g. SSH, rsync, ownCloud, etc.) to their hosted services such as Google Drive&heliip;

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 1:06 UTC (Wed) by magila (guest, #49627) [Link]

The text you've quoted is not in the TOS, it's from the Google Fiber FAQ which is of course not part of the legal agreement users accept. The language in the TOS states (by reference to a support article):

>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...

Obviously this leaves the TOS and the FAQ in conflict. If I were a Google Fiber customer I know I'd like to see the TOS clarified before I trusted what the FAQ says.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 1:22 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (8 responses)

Except (as others have pointed out) that's the FAQ, not the ToS. The former is not legally binding, the latter is, and it's what completely bans servers of any sort.

But to me, even if the FAQ was legally binding, it still references "legal and non-commercial purposes"

Something as simple as hosting a blog (even with externally-served ads) is considered commercial purposes. So is hosting a portfolio site for your artwork. So is backing up your office stuff to a "server" at home. So is hosting a web page with a "donate money via paypal" link on it.

Reasonable restrictions (IMO) would be along the lines of "don't create an wireless ISP using your goggle fiber connection", but there's a huge gulf between that and "any commercial purpose"

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 2:19 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

I would be concerned as well if there was a history of the kind of abuse you are talking about. Even the most evil of incumbent ISPs (ATT) has not done what you suspect Google of attempting. Maybe the publicity will get the statement in the FAQ added to the TOS, but the reason these clauses likely exist is the litigious society we have in the US. They need strong affirmative clauses that have no leeway so they can't be challenged in court later.

The simple answer is that if you don't like the terms don't subscribe to Google or convince them to offer a separate class of account that allows servers. I don't personally expect them to ever do so because one of the revenue sources on these connections is data mining the household that subscribes, if the connection is used for legitimate server services that data mining will be worthless. To me at least the massive privacy violation of Google being the ISP is far worse that banning servers.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 11:58 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Something as simple as hosting a blog (even with externally-served ads) is considered commercial purposes.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Even simple blog can lead to complains.

So is hosting a portfolio site for your artwork.

That's basically a landmine.

So is backing up your office stuff to a "server" at home.

That one is probably fine.

So is hosting a web page with a "donate money via paypal" link on it.

Definitely a problem.

As was already explained above they are not trying to save bandwidth (they have tons of bandwidth). They want to avoid complains. As long as your service is not falling in category which can lead to complains to ISP - it's not server as far as Google is concerned.

That's why there will never be a clarification in TOS: what is "server" and what is not "server" lawmakers of your jurisdiction are deciding, not Google.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 13:37 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

>As was already explained above they are not trying to save bandwidth (they have tons of bandwidth). They want to avoid complains. As long as your service is not falling in category which can lead to complains to ISP - it's not server as far as Google is concerned.

That may be their intention, but it's certainly not what is written. :)

Unfortunately Google doesn't have any concrete plans for a "business-class" offering, so if you want (or need) to run a server of any sort, Google Fiber is simply not an option. Nobody is going to risk their business/livelihood by relying on their ISP to not enforce the ToS.

...I'm currently paying Comcast for a "business" connection. They charge me about double their residential rate, but it doesn't cost *them* any more to provide the basic pipe. They do bundle some value-add stuff (five email accounts instead of one, hosted on exchange, and a free antivirus license, big whoop) and they have a much better support staffing ratio.

But at the end of the day, I'm paying them double so I can have an unfiltered static IP.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 15:23 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

The fact that the ISP pays for anti-virus software to give away to subscribers should be evidence that their real concern is as stated by khim, they want to reduce complaints about traffic from their subscribers.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 21:29 UTC (Wed) by lordsutch (guest, #53) [Link] (1 responses)

The FAQ may not be legally binding, but if there is a legal dispute the FAQ can certainly be introduced into evidence in your defense if Google (or any other ISP similarly situated) were to decide to enforce the TOS provision in a way that was contrary to the FAQ. Not to mention that the FTC and state regulators would have a cause of action against Google (or any other ISP) for false advertising in that event.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Jul 31, 2013 23:49 UTC (Wed) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link]

Indeed, anyone who has spent more than a few minutes at Groklaw should be familiar with the terms "estoppel" and "laches". If Google's FAQ wouldn't constitute a case of promissory estoppel, then I don't know what would.

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Aug 2, 2013 18:33 UTC (Fri) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link] (1 responses)

+1 (from the complainant in the case)

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Posted Aug 2, 2013 18:47 UTC (Fri) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]

and just because threading is a bit hard to see, my +1 goes to pizza's comment that I replied to.