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

Posted Jul 31, 2013 2:06 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953)
In reply to: Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired) by ras
Parent article: Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality (Wired)

Google is doing what all the other ISPs do, they are saying everything is not acceptable and then likely only enforcing that provision when it causes problems for other customers (or support). As you and several other posters have pointed out this is an area where you really can't say this is allowed and that isn't as it's fairly easy to turn things around and demand they abide even though you are violating the intent. It's far to easy to game specific terms.

Servers (as in real servers like web, email etc, not SSH, game or such) cause support issues, they get IP blocks into the RBL they can cause SPAM and all sorts of problems that cost ISPs serious support money. This is why business class service costs more, to handle the support issues of customers running servers that consume bandwidth, cause security issues and generate support tickets.

I've never seen an ISP filter or monitor traffic in any way other than simple measures like port blocks on 25 and 80 on residential connections , except where they are getting support complaints (though Comcast did use DPI to cut off torrent traffic and was rightly taken to the shed for it). People running low volume stuff are likely to fly under the radar up until they get slashdot'd and shut down their entire neighborhoods connection at which point their accounts will likely be terminated. Google and every other ISP on the planet uses these draconian terms so they can easily shut down customers that cause problems. It reduces support costs and helps keep the service cost down. It's not the best method to do it, but I'd lay money on them not bothering a soul that isn't screwing up others service.

There are two things you have to keep in mind, first is that Google is offering free lifetime connections (at 5mbit) for a $300 install fee. Second at the price they are offering gigabit they aren't counting on any support costs.

Finally network neutrality doesn't have anything to do with customers and them "getting what they were sold". It's always been about messing up the routing and throughput deliberately then charging extra to undo it. The potential for abuse in doing so is extreme, the potential abuse of the ISPs requiring separate accounts for business and personal use is non existent.

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

Posted Jul 31, 2013 2:36 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] (4 responses)

> Servers (as in real servers like web, email etc, not SSH, game or such) cause support issues

That's a false distiction between "real" vs. non-"real" servers — for example, I've occasionally run a private Apache instance (with authentication enabled) on residential DSL in order to share things (e.g. digital camera photos/videos) with Windows-using friends/relatives without having to have them install an SSH client. It makes no sense to prohibit using HTTP for this but allow SSH for the same purposes.

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

Posted Jul 31, 2013 7:27 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

My home system runs postfix. It hosts a full-blown server for household internal use. But I couldn't get it to upload mail to my mail provider so all my email clients need to be configured to do that themselves.

So it looks like I would be in breach of Google's TOS, yet my server is incapable of originating network traffic ...

Cheers,
Wol

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

Posted Jul 31, 2013 17:43 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (2 responses)

Just like I said previously, for any scenario of unacceptable (from the point of view of increasing support costs) that makes sense you can come up with a counter example that doesn't meet their(perceived) goal that is doing exactly the same thing. This is why it's impossible for them to come up with a list of acceptable/unacceptable and they are forced into the situation of just out right banning everything and then only targeting users that cause the problems.

There is simply no way to create a list of things that will cause problems because the very same activity done in a different way wouldn't cause problems. You could end up with a 1000 page document that still doesn't cover every scenario and no one would read it anyway.

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

Posted Jul 31, 2013 18:41 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> This is why it's impossible for them to come up with a list of acceptable/unacceptable and they are forced into the situation of just out right banning everything and then only targeting users that cause the problems.

In other words, by default, a majority of their users will be technically in violation of the ToS the moment their connection is lit up.

If Google wants to reserve the right to ban "bad" stuff then they should just out and say that, including some non-exclusive examples, or at least formally carve out exceptions for stuff that everyone and their grandmother could legitimately have running.

For example:

> 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.

could become:

> Google Fibre reserves the right to deny you service or request a change of terms if your use of the network places excessive demands on it or significantly degrades our ability to provide a consistent level of service to other users, if you use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, or if you use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties.

And presto, my objections go away, because they are describing unacceptable behavior in terms of its effect, rather than a blanket ban on stuff they intend to ignore anyway.

(Thanks to 'kawa' over at the verge for that proposed text -- http://www.theverge.com/users/kawa)

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

Posted Jul 31, 2013 19:04 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

I didn't argue the language couldn't be cleaned up, just that you can't be specific about any one thing because there is a counter example of the exact same use not causing the same problems. I don't really like the blanket statements and lack of enforcement, but they aren't government, they are allowed to selectively enforce whatever rule they want to create.

My argument has been and remains the abuse of the term "network neutrality" to include such silly things as peering arrangements between Tier 1/2 providers and a provider having tiered services for commercial/residential uses.

My views fall very in line with the article link I posted at the bottom in fact. In other words, Google has a lot of room for improvement but this particular case isn't network neutrality and people need to stop calling every little thing they don't like network neutrality.