Hacker News Reader

Comment by Groxx | Hacker News Reader

>people who go overboard sending terabytes-per-hour with some crazy successful business

Which is why they probably limit 'excessive use', and / or have hard GB caps in place, which basically every ISP does. If you paid for, say, 20GB of up/down traffic, and you can run your server within that, why should they be able to say you can't do that, just because it's a "server"? If you had uploaded 20GB to e.g. Dropbox, they aren't complaining.

If you have Google's fiber, even if they say it's unlimited, they still have the ability to restrict your up/down speed (I'm assuming, given the legal support of all the past "unlimited X!" that sometimes gets throttled to extinction). Why don't they just limit it if you're being excessive, regardless of the purpose? Or offer extended GB/TB packages and put hard limits somewhere?

View on HN

> If you had uploaded 20GB to e.g. Dropbox, they aren't complaining.

It's even more ridiculous than that! If you sync 20GB to dropbox, that's a client. If you sync 20GB with bittorrent sync, that's a server. Same data, same purpose, same network load. But one gets banned.

Also, I have to wonder if someone at google has heard of a thing called an X11 server...

You are defining server that way. Google is not. So you are arguing about something that doesn't even exist.

How does google define server, then?

1. Does P2P count?

2. What if I'm downloading a creative commons movie and seed it to a ratio of 15?

3. What if I'm seeding a hobby video podcast I make at a constant 300mbps?

4. What if I use opera unite instead of bittorrent?

5. What if I switch to nginx?

6. What if I make a living off that video podcast?

7. What if I was only sending it to my family instead of the world?

1: No

2: No

3: No

4: No

5: No

6: Yes

7: No

Computer programmers like exact definitions. Server: The main controller of the program, or main sender of data.

The real world is much more fuzzy. They are concerned with business use, not server use exactly.

wow.. where to begin. So you and Google seem understand the exact definition of "server". "main controller of the program".. lol..

Hah! You try defining server. Don't forget X-windows when you do so.

oops. sorry. I misread your earlier comment.

I think the typical meaning is a system that responds to requests with data. I think this is a usable definition. By default it includes P2P, but you can always add 'except P2P'. X servers don't fit this definition, which seems correct to me.

So your answers to my questions say that anything non-commercial will be fine.

But then you define server in a way that disagrees with those answers.

Do they care about servers, or do they care about businesses? If businesses, why can't they make it explicit in the rules?

They care about businesses, it says so very clearly in the article. And if they haven't already, they should make it explicit.

It's nothing special about google - all ISPs have the same rule.

I DID NOT define server! You read it exactly backward. I said that's how programmers define it, but that's NOT how google defines it (for internet purposes).

Oh. Sorry about misreading there.

But seriously, while programmers are pedantic sometimes, when I'm running a website out of my basement that's a 'server' by ANY definition. If google is only going to enforce the rule on business servers, they should say so.

And it doesn't matter what other ISPs do, we already know they're horrible.

I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. While I accept that they're just trying to target this specific subset of users that they feel they can get more money from, that is very much a violation of net neutrality.

Further, their current terms of service, while in intention mean: "customers who are using our services to run a business", can later be construed to target everyone. Though they promise that they wont. A dark cloud to cast.

Say they want to get rid of Alice, who knows why, but Alice has a Minecraft server. Those clauses arn't about Minecraft servers, but Alice agreed to the terms, and they can use those terms to remove her.

Despite the undercurrent of hatred for Google on hacker news, I think in general we all expect better from the company. This is not better.

Or better yet, just deprioritize the heavy users' traffic. That way you don't even get slowed down unless the queues start to fill up somewhere on the network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com