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)
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)

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.