I found the Google fiber website.  From their FAQs:

Servers:
> Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of 
> applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home 
> security and others which may include server capabilities but are 
> being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and 
> encouraged.

This is more reasonable than the cited article  would lead one to 
believe.  I wonder if a personal webserver, network storage dropbox, vpn 
or email server fits the 'acceptable and encouraged' clause.   I doubt 
it, but there's some hope.  I still stand by 'obnoxious' in describing 
the restriction, as I certainly couldn't afford litigation to find out.  
And litigating a FAQ answer vs. a TOS clause would not be cheap.  If it 
came to that.

However, the article (and the 'Wired' article that it cites) exaggerate 
the effect of the restriction and attempt to tie it to net neutrality 
(which is rather dubious).  And others seem to be echoing the complaint 
without bothering to actually read what Google has to say.  I find that 
obnoxious as well.

Business product:
> We are currently focused on our Fiber-to-the-home network, which is 
> for residential consumers. For businesses located in qualified 
> fiberhoods, we plan to introduce a small business offering 
> shortly---stay tuned to google.com/fiber for more details.

To be viable, this will have to allow servers.  Personally, I'd rather 
see business service differentiated on other bases, such as guaranteed 
uptime, time-to-repair, customer service, consolidated billing for 
multiple sites, redundant paths - all of which are sold to businesses 
today - and are more sensible than 'servers'. However, this still is 
economics, not 'internet freedom'.

The actual TOS are https://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html - and I'd 
say they are in surprisingly large print and remarkably 
straightforward.  Except that they incorporate by reference the Google 
TOS, which include the usual 'and we can change anything in these terms 
any time.'  And "personal jurisdiction /choice of law" is California.

Like any commercial transaction, the question for the consumer is 
whether the value received is worth the price charged -- net of the TOS 
restrictions.  Questions for the consumer advocate include whether the 
consumer has choice and whether the TOS contradict public policy and/or 
law.

The Google example is rather typical of what I encounter:  very strict, 
even irrational TOS combined with very selective enforcement.  When 
pressed, the usual explanation is that 'abuse' is what they want to 
prevent, and it's both hard to define and a moving target.  (And if 
we're honest, we'll agree that defining 'abuse' of the DNS is equally 
difficult.)

Generally, the ISPs don't want to lose customers and expect that since 
they are (obviously:-) reasonable and that most customers are reasonable 
- the TOS are 'just legal protection for the hard cases'.  The fact that 
their customer service folks don't always understand this - and that 
customers are at the mercy of varying interpretations doesn't seem like 
a problem in the law office where these are drafted.  A 95% solution 
seems fine - unless you're in the 5%.

FWIW - Pricing:
Internet service at 5/1 Mb/sec has a one-time $300 fee, and then is free 
for at least 7 years.

1/1Gb/sec service in KS is about the same price as (for example) FiOS 
residential 75/35 Mb/sec in my area (east coast).

My reaction is that the prices are surprisingly low.  Does that outweigh 
the TOS restrictions?  Are other ISPs offering better value/TOS?  Can 
consumers get together and negotiate better TOS? Those are questions for 
each consumer to answer.  It's academic for me; I'm not in the service area.

This is my last word on this topic.  Although it is interesting, I still 
don't see it as in scope of the group's charter.

As far as I can tell, the RAA - which has similar problems and *is* in 
scope  - went through without any changes in response to our feedback on 
registrants rights and reponsibilities.  If we have energy, that would 
seem a more appropriate ball to chase.

-- 
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.