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.