Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Jul 2013 23:08 UTC
Google "In the net neutrality vision of the world, broadband providers simply deliver packets as they are paid to do. When it was just a set of online services, Google happened to fall on the side of citizens and used to advocate against broadband companies controlling the pipes. Now that it’s an ISP itself, Google is becoming a net neutrality hypocrite." This is why trusting companies - any company - is simply a bad idea. Companies don't care about you, and those that say they do are liars.
Thread beginning with comment 568447
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Blowing things out of proportion
by silviucc on Wed 31st Jul 2013 07:53 UTC
Member since:

So here's the thing. I do not live in the US. I live in the EU. I've a fiber connection that is dirt cheap and very fast 5MB down and 2MB (yes those are megabytes) for less than 10$/month. That being said, the terms of my contract also prohibit me from running my own servers. They do not enforce it and people just run their own Counterstrike and Minecraft servers, and expose their CCTV DVRs to the net, etc... Since this the country's biggest ISP they also do not take a hit as probably most of the traffic does not even leave their network.

All of the terms I've seen in the article are also in my contract. Granted my ISP does not champion "net neutrality"

I would worry when Google will start throttling Netflix and Amazon movies but not because some dude can't run a service over the cheapo' fiber connection.

Please tell me how the following is to be considered reasonable use:

Edited 2013-07-31 07:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:

Things aren't really being blown out of proportion. Google, themselves, have been lobbying for net-neutrality, they've been trying to pose themselves as the champion for end-user rights, they've been appealing to the geek audiences and they've very literally touted these kinds of measures as something inherently sinister...and then they go a full 180 when they themselves become an ISP. That's the whole and full crux here -- they're fucking hypocrites.

Reply Parent Score: 9

silviucc Member since:

A whole 180?! They just don't want people doing what the douche in the article I linked to did.

Are they throttling content providers? No. Are they restricting VoIP usage? No. If you want to run a business over a cheapo' residential line they are just sending the message that's not acceptable.

Until I see them abusing policy and making people unhappy, excuse me for not lashing out at them over "what could happen".

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:

Please tell me how the following is to be considered reasonable use:

Using the bandwidth you're paying for is not reasonable use? If you don't want people to use a lot of bandwidth then don't sell them a lot of bandwidth. It's as simple as that.
Really, it's none of the ISPs goddamn business WHAT it is used for. You've paid for a certain amount of bandwidth and that's it. Running a game server, email server, web server, a slingbox or whatever: NONE of their business.
When you buy a mobile phone there's no restrictions what you can use it for and there's no rational reason why there should be this kind of restrictions on bandwidth (no, greed is not a rational reason).

Reply Parent Score: 5

Neolander Member since:

Well, what's unreasonable about your example is not the server use itself, but the large amount of data which was sent and received. So if ISPs are not ready for that kind of traffic, they should ban exactly that, just like every cellphone data plan under the sun does.

Those "something horrible will happen to you if you consume more than X MB a month" contract clauses, as unpopular as they may be, are perfectly compatible with net neutrality. It's just the ISPs claiming (whether legitimately or not) that they cannot provide good service if users start eating more data every month.

However, as someone else said, your average home server generates less web traffic than someone watching Youtube. So if server use is unreasonable, should Google ban Youtube use from their internet connections too ? ;)

Edited 2013-08-01 19:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2