EFF Slams Google Fiber For Banning Servers On Its Network 301
MojoKid writes "Anyone who has tried to host their own website from home likely knows all-too-well the hassles that ISPs can cause. Simply put, ISPs generally don't want you to do that, preferring you to move up to a business package (aka: more expensive). Not surprisingly, the EFF doesn't like these rules, which seem to exist only to upsell you a product. The problem, though, is that all ISPs are deliberately vague about what qualifies as a 'server.' Admittedly, when I hear the word 'server,' I think of a Web server, one that delivers a webpage when accessed. The issue is that servers exist in many different forms, so to target specific servers 'just because' is ridiculous (and really, it is). Torrent clients, for example, act as servers (and clients), sometimes resulting in a hundred or more connections being established between you and available peers. With a large number of connections like that being allowed, why would a Web server be classified any different? Those who torrent a lot are very likely to be using more ISP resources than those running websites from their home — yet for some reason, ISPs force you into a bigger package when that's the kind of server you want to run. We'll have to wait and see if EFF's movement will cause any ISP to change. Of all of them, you'd think it would have been Google to finally shake things up."
Definition of a server (Score:4, Informative)
A server is something that serves data. If it responds to a request for data, that makes it a server.
Does your IP address have ports mapped open for games or other products? It is a server!
Does your IP address respond to ping requests? It is a server!
Does your IP address respond to ANY inbound connection? It is a server!
An ourtright ban on servers does not make sense. It breaks the Internet. Bandwidth limits might make sense in some scenarios, but not in this case for fiber-to-the-home. If the data needed to travel through their servers and other equipment a cap could be potentially justified in not saturating their equipment. But for fiber to the home where the other end is connected to internet backbones, the ISP doesn't bear any traffic so bandwidth limits are nonsense and profiteering.
Re:Pros/Cons (Score:4, Informative)
To wit, with great bandwidth comes great responsibility.
Re:Movie Pirates are ruining it for everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Fuckheads addicted to high volume piracy, plains and simple.. multiple order of magnitude more bandwidth than anything..
also, the brainwashed people who believe corporate announcements...
First of all, if they didn't want anyone using "orders of magnitude" more bandwidth, then the solution is simple: do not sell unlimited plans! Advertise it as X-GB plans and charge people extra for going over. But they prefer to advertise it as "unlimited" because the commercials have a better jingle to them (vs "200-GB a month plan").
Second, today anyone with active Netflix/Hulu/streaming accounts can easily use a lot of bandwidth without any pirating whatsoever. And these people will be targeted just as much as anyone else. Your average obnoxious webpage without flashblock/adblock will start playing 3-4 decent quality videos and blaring sound! I am sure that uses a lot of bandwidth
So bottom line, let them advertise exactly what they sell and life will be fair once again. But none of this "people who use too much bandwidth will be throttled/kicked-off, but won't tell you what 'too much' is, because that will ruin the surprise"
The other side (Score:5, Informative)
In short, Google isn't doing anything that the other ISPs aren't doing (it's not like there's any indication that they will actually enforce the ban), and the reason the language is there is that Google will likely roll out a business package in the future.
If uploads are expensive, cap them specifically (Score:5, Informative)
Isp's care about uploads since it costs them money to send data to another network operator
If transit cost is the problem, then why not just offer users something like "250 GB download and 25 GB upload allowance per month"? That'd solve the bandwidth problem while still allowing low-bandwidth hobby servers.
Re: Who cares what it is (Score:5, Informative)
Isp's care about uploads since it costs them money to send data to another network operator
This is why business service costs more
They assume you will send more data to other networks
Well, that's one consideration, there are others as well. For example, it's a lot easier to keep spam operations on your network to a minimum if you simply block mail server ports for residential connections. In actual practice, most ISP's don't mind if you run a more private type of server these days, especially things like games.
The other reason is that when you run a server, you're a lot more likely to utilize your entire bandwidth capability, and do so around the clock in many cases. This messes with the "buffet style" internet service sold to most residential subscribers. Yes, ISP's could offer dedicated bandwidth but most people don't want to pay what it would cost to actually have enough bandwidth to support their connections 24/7 at max capacity. In many places you'd have to charge people upwards of $100 a month just to give all of them a dedicated 5meg.
Another reason, specific to cable modems, is that instead of offering a symmetrical connection they offer a low upload with a high download. This is because they use a larger chunk of spectrum on the wire for the downstream carrier than they do for the upstream. Many ISP's who offer business grade modem service do it by using different carrier ranges for residential and business modems, and segregate traffic through the IP network so they can have a lower "over-sale" percentage on their network for businesses.
The list goes on, that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's far more complex than simply writing it off to greedy ISP's.
Re:Definition of a server (Score:2, Informative)
To perhaps dissuade other retarded moderators from downmodding: My post was in agreement with its parent, illustrating that the definition of server is even more illusive and far reaching than simplistic definitions of application logic. TOS rules need to be very precise and clear to determine what is meant by server, else uploading a video to Youtube could be considered becoming a video server.
Note that my explanation of standard "punch through" technique is similar to that used widely in peer to peer applications using the STUN protocol. Neither the game client or game server waits to "accept" connections with open ports, they only send UDP packets to each other after determining port ranges. Skype used to act this way: If you had your ports configured correctly you could become a "super node" and thus serve as a relay.
Feel free to downmod this self reply if you're irrationally offended by anything I've ever written. Also feel free to fuck right off if you do so.
Re:Who cares what it is (Score:5, Informative)
what's stupid is the article title. It's targeting *all* ISP's ridiculous policies, not just google for going along with it.
Re:If uploads are expensive, cap them specifically (Score:4, Informative)
Bogus headline, flamebait. Shame, EFF. (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you have evidence that Google actually ever blocked a server on their Google Fiber network the "banning servers on its network" headline is bogus. I do not know that such a thing has ever happened, nor ever will. The terms of service don't even actually prohibit it. They only discourage it.
The terms do not say "will not". Nor "may not". Nor "must not". Nor "it is a network security violation to", like everybody else. They say "should not", which any kid you know will tell you is code for "you can, you might, and you may, but I'd rather you didn't."
Once upon a time EFF reps could read.
Re:If uploads are expensive, cap them specifically (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bogus headline, flamebait. Shame, EFF. (Score:4, Informative)
disclaimer: complainant here: The terms say "prohibited". Look it up.