Google Fiber Server 'Neutrality Violation' Being Overblown

The other day I noted that an individual by the name of Douglas McClendon had filed a complaint with the FCC, claiming that the company's TOS language blocking the use of servers is a network neutrality violation. The story is primarily being driven by Wired's Ryan Singel, who first noted McClendon's complaint over at his blog, and now has a follow up piece over at Wired lamenting the fact that Google is "flip flopping on net neutrality."

His reports have resulted in all manner of Internet hand wringing and face fanning about how Google has turned evil because of this anti-server TOS language, including lamentations from folks like Apple brand apostle John Gruber , who can't help but gloat about his brand nemesis's troubles.

Unfortunately, this particular story of Google's descent into the heart of darkness is being absurdly overblown. To make it clear Google has absolutely waffled on their original network neutrality principles to an obnoxious degree, and there's plenty to criticize the company for on that front, starting with their decision to work with Verizon to gut real neutrality protections for wireless.

Except Google Fiber's "ban" on servers isn't really a ban on servers, and it isn't part of Google's race to the dark side. To start, if you've been around this industry at all over the last decade, you'll know that nearly every ISP has this kind of language embedded in their terms of service in one form or another to help differentiate residential and business services and manage extreme consumption. The language is designed to give the ISP a little leeway in stopping customers from running commercial-grade servers on residential lines instead of ponying up for a business-grade connection and SLA like a big boy.

With that said such language is very rarely actually enforced , and many users never run into a problem running full-grade servers at home -- even on larger providers with long and rich histories of anti-competitive behavior (AT&T, Verizon). The language has certainly never been used to stop someone from using Slingbox or from running a Minecraft server, the kind of aggressive violations constantly being hinted at by Singel and McClendon. It's important to understand we're talking about theoretical service restrictions that haven't actually ever happened, even on the networks of the very worst neutrality offenders in this industry.

The alternative to this kind of residential/business TOS language is metered broadband, where every line simply gets capped and users pay for consumption. As I've discussed more than a few times, this is a road you don't want to go down, given the limited broadband market competition in the States ensures carriers will relentlessly drive caps lower and prices higher at every opportunity, creating more potential for neutrality violations than ever, using caps and often unreliable meters to thwart competing video services.

Is this kind of TOS language obnoxiously broad and in need of pruning? Absolutely. Terms of service for ISPs have always given carriers the dubious legal right to do absolutely anything they see fit, from booting you for running servers, to kicking you off the network for copyright infringement or hacking. The industry's recent attempt to erode consumer legal rights and force binding arbitration (thanks, AT&T) is a particularly obnoxious development.

Except here's a newsflash: every single service you use online has an incredibly obnoxious terms of service that utterly constrains your rights, from Facebook and Apple to every single ISP in this industry. Are they all "network neutrality violations"? Google's a waffler on neutrality principles, that's not in dispute. Those suddenly realizing that Google is just like every other giant corporation and is shoving principles aside as they shift from innovator to turf protector are certainly welcome to their belated epiphany without disagreement.

Here we have a guy who can't even get Google Fiber, has never tried to run a server on Google Fiber, complaining that Google Fiber won't allow him to run a commercial business on his nonexistent connection, when no other ISP will either. That's not Google being evil or a violation of net neutrality, it's just kind of silly.



quote: Mr. McClendon, however, fails to make clear that he is not (and could not yet become) a Google Fiber customer. He has merely signed up to receive service at an address in Kansas City, Kansas, that Google does not yet serve.10 What’s more, the Notice of Complaint indicates that Mr. McClendon resides in Lawrence, Kansas -- a city that Google Fiber does not serve at all. Mr. McClendon only hints at these facts, observing that "TimeWarner" is his "current broadband service."

However, in their required response to the FCC , Google points out a few important things, including the fact that they'd like to offer Google Fiber business connections, and the language helps differentiate the residential and business lines (again, like every other ISP). Google also notes that McClendon was never even a Google Fiber customer, nor did he live in an area that was wired with Google Fiber:It does not appear that McClendon has filed a similar complaint against any of the dozens of other ISPs or Internet companies who use similar language, or the broadband provider Google's filing claims he might actually have (Time Warner Cable). Time Warner Cable's acceptable use policy doesn't cite "servers" specifically, but bans everything from using their residential lines for commercial grade services, to violating copyright or posting material that may "violate or infringe on the rights or dignity of others." As an aside, it's not clear what kind of business McClendon was interested in, but his Google+ profile hints (perhaps jokingly?) at Poker

While getting ISPs to back away from their obnoxious and overly broad terms of service language is a noble goal, the hyperbolic execution here leaves something to be desired, and the singular focus on Google Fiber in an ocean of obnoxious small print is rather odd. Conflating crappy, overly broad terms of service with neutrality violations is also a form of crying wolf. We're now calling so many things a "neutrality violation," people won't be sure (or care) when an actual violation occurs.

Apparently a quick refresher is needed for those playing along at home: net neutrality is really about stopping an incumbent ISP from using their dominant gatekeeper position in an uncompetitive market to gain a leg up for their own services. It's also about bloated, incumbent ISPs using regulatory capture to force content companies to pay completely unnecessary fees for no sane reason whatsoever.

While their TOS may suck (a different and important issue) what Google is doing with Google Fiber is helping to improve market competition and in turn aiding net neutrality. You're suddenly getting a new entrant in the market offering symmetrical, uncapped 1 Gbps connections for $70 a month and your complaint is that their TOS doesn't let you run a poker empire on a residential line out of your bedroom closet?

Here we have a guy who can't even get Google Fiber, has never tried to run a server on Google Fiber, complaining that Google Fiber won't allow him to run a commercial business on his nonexistent connection, when no other ISP will either. That's not Google being evil or a violation of net neutrality, it's just kind of silly. If you want to wage war on crappy terms of service, fine. But do it away from the network neutrality banner -- that term has already been so molested and abused as to be entirely unrecognizable , the imprecise bloviating surrounding the definition contributing to the death of meaningful neutrality protections for consumers.