All of Google’s behavior can be explained by remembering one thing:
Before anything else, Google is the largest advertising company in the world.
I wish every Google “product” had that reminder printed on it, like disease warnings on tobacco products.
So then you sell the SLA, not the pointless restrictions on “business” vs “residential” use.
The ISP already (even for “business-class” service) has liability-avoidance language in the SLA, so they’re not on the hook for business losses due to downtime anyway.
Just sell me an IP, bandwidth to the ISP, and tell me how much you’ve oversold your upstream bandwidth, already.
Save stacks of money by NOT:
My crap is stuff, your crap is shit. To paraphrase Carlin.
once again with the HOA analogies. I ask why or how can we have rules which we are agreeing, out loud, we will enforce when and how we see fit. I am told this is normal. We have a two pet limit, but will enforce it only when it is a problem, for example. I say why not have a nuisance rule and drop the phony pet rule. “Well, everyone does it this way”, I am told, or even, “you have to do it this way.”
Any authorities to speak to this relevant point?
What do we say about net neutrality when we ourselves become an ISP?
NOT TODAY.
[With apologies to GRRM and GoT.]
This topic incites strong feelings within me. Before I do anything drastic (like pull the trigger on Google Takeout), I have to ask - what’s the parent company of Boing Boing?
But . . .what if it comes down to Google looked at the issue from an engineering perspective and concluded that they could do it and it would work unless a certain kind of usage became a problem. Something like, if a few people open spam servers that can pump out spam as fast as it can get it on the net then this will screw up the whole network and we should not do it. So they go to the lawyers and the lawyers say, “Well, the most specific you can get without first amendment issues cropping up (or something) is to say no one can have a server. It is that or you can’t turn up the bandwidth for everyone”
Now what?
exactly google don’t be big brother and don’t pretend to be selling a service you don’t actually want people to use or deliver, and most importantly don’t be evil, and this is evil.
this is total bs. i run my own ftp using dyndns so i can access my files from the road. i have MAMP installed for development. I VNC into my machine remotely. I run a media server so my mobile devices can access my media library from anywhere. All over my current cable connection, sure i have a monthly bandwidth cap that i pay extra if i go over, but they sure as hell don’t try and micro-police what i can and cannot do with the service I pay to provision so long as those uses are legal. None of these would be allowed by google’s bull s@#t policy which is the worst policy i’ve ever seen implemented by any isp and is pure orwellian level evilness plain and simple. shame on you google. shame.
Google is trying to control everything. For me, this is a bad idea for all netisens around the world. We have our own right to access everything in Internet. We must deliver our own expressions no matter how good or bad.
Probably true. Ars Technica has an article about a guy using close to a terabyte a week in bandwidth on a residential connection. Turns out that he had like 10 rack servers being used by friends and neighbors for movies and such. The ISP suggested that a business internet connection was a better choice for the amount of bandwidth being consumed. The guy admitted that he was in violation of his terms of service because he had the servers connected, but just couldn’t see paying almost double for the business service.
For those that are arguing that everything is a server, there’s a difference between a hardware device whose primary purpose is data storage and retrieval and software that permits communication between itself and a client. The distinction is that hardware controls the dissemination of data.
Well, it’s actually simpler that that; network downtime equals loss of money. Therefore they pay more for better equipment and possibly also backup links.
Might be Google also wants to limit the amount of civil network downtime compensation lawsuits, by making it clear you shouldn’t put any servers on their service in the first place…
They’re calling it fine already. Residential use is not commercial use, and that’s all they’re saying. If you want to use Google Fiber for commercial uses, then get a business account.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether a user should be paying their ISP for a residential or a commercial connection.
Framing this under Net Neutrality stinks of lack of domain specific knowledge. This sort of policy has nothing to do with it. Really when you’re talking about Net Neutrality you’re talking about a customer accessing a website or service on the Internet, not that customer using their connection for anything they damn well please (e.g., connecting a 42U rack of servers and selling VPSes.) You will find this sort of policy on most every residential connection available. These are policies that are oft left unpoliced, but are there to protect the ISP in the case of extreme abuse, giving them the ability to terminate that customer.
This is Good For Everyone. Suggested alternatives to a policy like this, like having bandwidth limitations or such hurts everybody. Google isn’t going to shut down your connection because you’re running PC Anywhere. I’m sure they would shut down your connection finding out you’re running an IRCd that’s being DDoSed by a bunch of script kiddies. Or you’re running an FTP site for distributing warez. Or SSH shells being used to run nmap against networks. Stuff like that. This is SOP for any ISP, so give me a break.
If you don’t want someone using 100% of a 1Gbps connection 24/7 then don’t sell it to them. It’s as simple as that.
As advertised on their site “one gigabit upload & download • No data caps”.
Even their F.A.Q. has this little gem
Q: Are there any data caps on my internet connection?
A: No way! We want you to use and enjoy your broadband or gigabit connections. There are no caps or limits to the amount of data you can send or receive.
Clearly they have oversold their network and are now regretting that mistake. Don’t sell what you don’t have.
Please define, “Oversold”?
Of course. Oversold refers to a business model in which you have X resource and sell X(N) of that resource. For example, a orchard may have 1,000 trees, each producing 7lbs of fruit per year but end up selling 15,000 pounds of fruit split equally among its 1000 customers. Then the same orchard decides to cut off some of its customers since they ate all 15 pounds of fruit provided to them giving the excuse they they never expected anyone to eat all 15 pounds of the fruit they sold to them. They then accuse those customers of being gluttonous and eating more than their share of the fruit.
There are literally doing what 100% of U.S. broadbrand providers are
doing for the exact same reasons, reasons which are partly to protect
their own business, but also the quality of service for all of their
customers.
And that somehow makes it OK?
Do you know about SLA’s, by the way?
Yes. Yes I do in fact. Requisitioning broadband is part of my job. Not that SLAs have any bearing in a discussion of a service where no SLA is provided.
you are getting your panties in a bundle over principle, not the
reality of how the policy is enforced.
That’s interesting. You seem to place more weight on someones arbitrary policy rather than principles. Myself, I’ll hang on my principles rather than hide behind policy.
Let me put it to you another way. If you promote a service and I decide to buy your service based on your description and claims, which you then do not deliver as advertised, that would be fraud in any other business sector. So, why isn’t it fraud when ISPs do it? Simply stating that this is how all the other ISPs operate is not defensible.
Again, we are not really disagreeing.
How do you suppose that is? In fact, I completely disagree with your point of view and apologist stance. I find it shameful.
Do you perchance vote Republican?
I vote for neither side of the uniparty. Sounds to me like you are the partisan hack here… seeing as you seem to think republicans are worse than democrats (as if they were anything more than two competing management teams for the same twisted ideology)
Do you actually run a network? It sounds like not, else you’d be a bit
more sympathetic towards Google’s policy decision.
I do run a network; a professional business network with routers and switches and everything. One thing I don’t do… promise my clients something I don’t deliver or punish them for fully utilizing what I sell them. I remain completely unsympathetic towards Google’s policy decision to do evil, oversell their product, and punish customers for doing what they had been told they could do.
I find it amusing how often the morally bankrupt fall to the ‘shades of grey’ trope when justifying wrongful actions. Again, this sort of thing is illegal in any other business sector.
“I vote for neither side of the uniparty. Sounds to me like you are
the partisan hack here…” I suspect you have some opinions on 9/11 as
well.
That’s typical of the establishment tripe we see every day. If someone disagrees with you, try to marginalize them by making appear to be a kook. It makes it easier to discount uncomfortable truths.
We are not on opposite sides of the debate.
Perhaps, but to me it seems your stance has slowly changed to make you appear more reasonable than your original post would support. Apologist to crusader in five short posts? I don’t buy it.
