I've recently filed an FCC form 2000F complaint regarding how your current terms of service for google fiber prohibit hosting any server of any kind. I feel this is in violation of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201 which I believe cements my right as an end-user to provide novel services to the internet at large via a server hosted at my residence connected to my fixed broadband internet service. While I have communicated secondhand with Milo Medin about this, perhaps this is a mo
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday September 10, 2012 @11:46AM (#41288357)
Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.
Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.
I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.
What does "crazy" mean? Anything that gets on the radar as potentially commercially competing with any existing or future commercial google endeavor or aspiration?
So then why can't they write it into legaleze that you can't do something that will (*) negatively impact other users on your section of the fiber [does fiber work that way?], or (*) serve more than XYZ GB/TB/whatever a month?
Seems to me they could make it clear that you're free to do what you want, within some limits.
Because a lawyer wrote it, and if you don't give a lawyer clear orders regarding stuff like this, they'll forbid everything they can possibly think of. Not because they're evil, it's just part of the training (risk management). They've probably heard of a dozen cases where some company got in trouble because they didn't forbid something and then screwed up afterwards.
It's the same reason you can't have a beancounter in charge of innovation. It just doesn't work that way. But of course, they could write some
Nothing motivates a man more than to see his boss put in an honest day's work.
EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score:5, Interesting)
(my support email to google fiber-)
Hello,
I've recently filed an FCC form 2000F complaint regarding how your
current terms of service for google fiber prohibit hosting any server of
any kind. I feel this is in violation of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201
which I believe cements my right as an end-user to provide novel
services to the internet at large via a server hosted at my residence
connected to my fixed broadband internet service. While I have
communicated secondhand with Milo Medin about this, perhaps this is a
mo
Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score:5, Interesting)
Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.
Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.
I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (until determined to be a made-up story instead of factually accurate)
Re: (Score:2)
What does "crazy" mean? Anything that gets on the radar as potentially commercially competing with any existing or future commercial google endeavor or aspiration?
Re: (Score:2)
So then why can't they write it into legaleze that you can't do something that will (*) negatively impact other users on your section of the fiber [does fiber work that way?], or (*) serve more than XYZ GB/TB/whatever a month?
Seems to me they could make it clear that you're free to do what you want, within some limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a lawyer wrote it, and if you don't give a lawyer clear orders regarding stuff like this, they'll forbid everything they can possibly think of. Not because they're evil, it's just part of the training (risk management). They've probably heard of a dozen cases where some company got in trouble because they didn't forbid something and then screwed up afterwards.
It's the same reason you can't have a beancounter in charge of innovation. It just doesn't work that way. But of course, they could write some