Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

googleprotest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#101

Post by lotu »

ape4 wrote: post #90
rsingel wrote: post #88

I still don't think this comports with the net neutrality rules, which focus on network management at a user/protocol level. Commercial/non-commercial is a business distinction -- which is exactly what net neutrality was meant to stop (e.g. Comcast throttling BitTorrent). Google Fiber shouldn't care a whit if my server is commercial or non-commercial (what does that even mean?) If my usage hurts the network, then GF…

I run a very non-busy website on my home server. Its got ads so I guess its a business. Seems petty to ban such things. (Not on Google Fiber)

Simply making money is not enough to classify your website as commercial. Also, it is likely your website costs you money when you factor in hardware, electricity, and programing time. Even if you make money your website probably still counts as hobby unless you have incorporated or are running it like you would run a business.

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#102

Post by lotu »

parfe wrote: post #30
betterunix wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like false advertising to me...

In the same way that Olive Garden falsely advertises Unlimited Soup Salad and Bread Sticks when they prevent you from stocking your food truck with their "unlimited" items.

That's brilliant I will have to reuse this line.

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#103

Post by pontifier »

rsingel wrote: post #88

I still don't think this comports with the net neutrality rules, which focus on network management at a user/protocol level. Commercial/non-commercial is a business distinction -- which is exactly what net neutrality was meant to stop (e.g. Comcast throttling BitTorrent). Google Fiber shouldn't care a whit if my server is commercial or non-commercial (what does that even mean?) If my usage hurts the network, then GF…

I added a link to your article, as well as a link to the discussion here.

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#104

Post by count »

belorn wrote: post #52
maxsilver wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not all internet is equal. Most ISP's give home users a significant discount on their service, in exchange for agreeing to certain assumptions about their use. This is done because most home users could never afford internet, if they had to pay for full price. For example, in this area, a dedicated 20x20mb connection to the internet costs about $500USD per month (Metro Ethernet). You can do almost anything yo…

Since you are defending this kind of practices, I must ask you: Can you name a single other service or product in the world that include such restrictions , and "up to X" quantity? If I only got 50% of the actually contracted time of an rented apartment (say they wrote "up to 1 month"), I would sue. If the fine print said apartment had restrictions such as only 10 enter/exits, no commercial activities inside it like…

Technically, commercial activities in a rented apartment ARE generally restricted, either by zoning ordinances or lease terms.

Residentially zoned areas generally do not allow 'business' to be conducted out of a home. Those ordinances are worded differently everywhere, so sometimes 'coding', where you don't have lots of foot traffic or visitors, is 'ok', and other times it's not allowed anyway.

Just because it's unenforceable doesn't mean it's not against the law...

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#105

Post by Karunamon »

lambda wrote: post #83
belorn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer truthful advertisement. If they must cut down on minimum transfer rates, then that’s what the advertisement should say. I have a general rule: Buy 250KB/s, and you get 100% of the bought speed. Buy 1MB/s, and get 95% of the bought speed. Buy 10MB/s, and get 80% of the bought speed. Buy 100MB/s, and get in average around 50% of the bought speed. 25 at prime time, and 90 around 4am. In the end, more expe…

Bandwidth is not like gas. It's not something that you buy, and consume it, and then go out and buy more. Instead, there's an infrastructure that need to be built. That infrastructure has a certain capacity; at any given time, only so many bits per second can be flowing over it. Now, most people don't use all of their capacity at a continuous, constant rate. Rather, their usage is quite bursty. You use a lot of bandw…

I don't have any problem with an ISP saying "up to #Mbps" as that's what they allow each customer to get (though this is 2013 and I'm sure with the amount of metrics that CPE can gather, we could measure average thruput and advertise that too).

What I have a huge issue with is selling the services as unlimited and then smacking people down when they walk over some invisible line, or worse selling an "up to #Mbps" line when they know damn well based on basic math that nobody's ever going to get anywhere near that speed in that area.

It's absolutely ripe for abuse. You, as an ISP, can legally sell someone a 100 meg line you know in advance won't reach that speed.

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#107

Post by nemothekid »

betterunix wrote: post #51
lambda wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what would you prefer? Would you prefer fixed lower bandwidths; everyone gets exactly 1 Mbps all the time, for the same price you're paying now for 50 Mbps? Then you're going to have a ton of bandwidth going unused all the time, while everything will load slower. Or would you prefer the famously unpopular bandwidth caps and overage charges? Saying "unlimited bandwidth" but selling it as a residential (ie, non-com…

I would prefer minimum service guarantees rather than maximum usage allowances . If I want to maximize my use of my connection, the only thing my ISP should do is reduce my throughput when someone else is trying to check their email, so that I do not get in their way. Other than that Internet connections should be a free-for-all. The real problem here is that ISPs are so grossly overselling their networks' capacities…

Following the thread here, I think what you are asking for is unreasonable given the current infrastructure or massively unpopular.

In the current environment what you are asking for is completely possible. Comcast will give you your speeds, but if they see you are seeding your debian torrents for too long, they will throttle your connection. Now they could advertise this, but we know how unpopular connection throttling is. However in a way, a connection throttle is your minimum service guarantee - your speed will never go below the throttle.

Now I don't know anything about laying internet pipe, but lets say we gave everyone minimum service guarantees, how much do you think that would cost, and how much would you be willing to pay for a given speed? It may be completely possible that Comcast is fine with your seeding as long as you limit your speed to percentage of that number.

This doesn't really refute your point, but given these two constraints its easy to see why ISPs may choose to go the "up to XMbps" route rather than the "minimum allowed route." Would it really change anything for you if you found out that your minimum service guarantee was 768kbps at your current price point?

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#108

Post by jdhendrickson »

__david__ wrote: post #69
kodablah wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inbound on port 25? I know my ISP does

Mine doesn't (Roadrunner). I run my own SMTP server off my cable modem. I have no problems getting incoming mail. Outgoing, however, was a pain because so many SMTP servers block mail coming from dynamic IPs. It annoys me to no end. I understand the reasons for doing it, but it annoys me to no end. I had to set up a small satellite server on a static IP that I route all my outgoing mail through.

This leads me to wonder why you run any portion of your mail server from your home if you have access to a small satellite server?

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#109

Post by sounds »

cmatteri wrote: post #21
numbsafari wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They specifically left email off of that list. The question is: can I host servers that may compete with the commercial offerings of Google? Can I host my personal blog? Can I host my personal email server?

Or P2P services, which could potentially present a greater threat to Google. Only a small fraction of network users are willing and able to run a personal server, and even those that do aren't capable of competing with Google in terms of hardware. Decentralized content sharing could remove those obstacles, and a high bandwidth network could facilitate the adoption of P2P services.

I suspect that if the P2P client ran google's ads they wouldn't be opposed.

Google is pretty savvy to P2P, but it does remove their ability to push ads at you. The latter is what would bother them.

Re: Google Fiber now allows servers for non-commercial use

#110

Post by XorNot »

dusklight wrote: post #91
rsingel wrote: post #88

I still don't think this comports with the net neutrality rules, which focus on network management at a user/protocol level. Commercial/non-commercial is a business distinction -- which is exactly what net neutrality was meant to stop (e.g. Comcast throttling BitTorrent). Google Fiber shouldn't care a whit if my server is commercial or non-commercial (what does that even mean?) If my usage hurts the network, then GF…

I agree with everything that you said however consider the possibility of every residential building being bought out and replaced with a server farm along the locations where googfib is first being laid out. I think we can understand why google doesn't really want that right now?

That's a network utilization issue for Google, and a zoning law issue for the local government.

Delineating allowed usage of network infrastructure you pay for based on whethet its commercial or not is a pretty clear net neutrality violation to me.

Post reply on HN