Google Fiber Partially Reverses Server Ban 169
Lirodon writes "After being called out by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for banning the loosely-defined use of "servers" on its Fiber service, Google appears to have changed its tune, and now allows 'personal, non-commercial use of servers that complies with this AUP is acceptable, including using virtual private networks (VPN) to access services in your home and using hardware or applications that include server capabilities for uses like multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, and home security.'"
Happy to see this, for two reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:server ban? (Score:2, Insightful)
You sound like you don't know what you are talking about because wholesale suppliers typically charge per the amount of bandwidth available, not the amount actually downloaded. For example a 1Mbps link of UNCONTENDED bandwidth might cost $400 per month, regardless of whether it is utilised or not. It is then up to the ISP to share it among all their customers at a ratio that is not noticeable slow. To Limit the link from being saturated by all customers using it at once they put in certain restrictions designed to reduce usage such as download and/or upload quotas, P2P throttling or business server use, unless they pay more to reflect that more usage would cost them more in backhaul so that other users are not bought down.
The technology they provide could very easily support a high-bandwidth server that pulls a constant 1Mbps+ in network utilisation, and Google would need to increase their backhaul by that 1Mbps+ so that other users are not affected, because nobody else can use that 1Mbps while that connection is being sustained.
RANT: it's not internet access (Score:5, Insightful)
Any provider that bans "servers" is not providing internet access. They are providing media consumption access. They should be forced to very clearly differentiate that as a type of service provided.
Internet access is unconstainted IP packets. Both TCP and UDP and whatever other protocol you want.
Re:server ban? (Score:2, Insightful)
There was a server ban? What for?
Yes and No.
Yes, in that saying "No servers" is standard for any residential TOS from any ISP.
No, in that almost nobody actually enforces the ban on "servers" for things like VPN's, remote access, personal "servers" for things like playing games, and other small-scale things which could still be called a "server".
Yes, in that you can't run any kind of commercial-grade type server, business use server, etc.
Kudos to Google for actually changing the language of the TOS, instead of relying on a "gentleman's agreement" like most ISP's do.