<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<blockquote type="cite"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers</a>
</blockquote>
Yes it's obnoxious. But it's a money play, not a freedom issue.
All of the other vendors (I don't know about Google) offer
'business' accounts that permit servers - and static IP
addresses. And freedom from port blocking. You don't have to be
a business to get one, you just have to be willing (able) to pay -
they charge more for the same data rates. And more for a static
IP address (arguably a way to ration a scarce resource for IPv4 -
but they seem to be on track to be stingy with IPv6 too.)<br>
<br>
If you go to their websites and look for (Small) Business
services, you can see what's available.<br>
<br>
The theory behind this isn't a great conspiracy to restrict
freedom. It's that businesses tend to want servers more than
individuals, businesses have more money - and this is a technical
resource that allows price discrimination. Also, the typical
consumer doesn't use the bandwidth they pay for (except in
bursts); servers tend to use more. (See also, 'bandwidth caps' -
another obnoxious practice designed to extract more money from
consumers. And 'mail limits' that preclude 'bulk mail' thru ISP
servers at levels that a small mailing list exceeds - allegedly
anti-spam, but actually forcing use of one's own servers - or a
commercial mailing service. And asymmetric speeds...)<br>
<br>
It's essentially the same theory that allows phone companies to
charge more for 'business' service than for 'residential' - <br>
<br>
I'm not saying that the basis of he theory is universally true.
But that's what it is.<br>
<br>
I'm all for the notion that this is a bad idea; individuals should
be able to fully use the network without paying business rates. I
also recognize that it's increasingly difficult to make the
distinction - many people have internet-based hobbies that are
indistinguishable from small businesses run from homes. And we
certainly don't want the ISPs inspecting the bits to judge. (Does
the fact that I use SSL to protect passwords/data from snooping
make me a real business? No. But how could they tell?)<br>
<br>
I have 'business' service at my residence since I need static IP
addresses for several of the technologies that I use for my family
network. I had to fight with the ISP to get their terms of
service to be non-self-contradictory - they cloned residential TOS
to setup 'small business service'. For example, they sold
multiple static IP addresses, but the TOS said using more than one
was a violation. And I couldn't get all the issues resolved. <br>
<br>
It would be great if someone wants to take on ISP Terms of
Service. As I've noted before with respect to
registrar/registrant TOS, they are opaque. They are subject to
change at the whim of the provider. They are heavily skewed
against the consumer. And if you need 'business class' service,
the presumption that you are a business makes it difficult to use
consumer protection laws when things go askew. (The law presumes
that a business-'business' contract was negotiated by equals, so
most consumer protection laws don't apply. And the ISP will argue
that you bought the service as a 'business'.) Then there are the
mandatory arbitration and choice of law provisions. If I were to
have an issue with my service that went that far, I'd have to go
to a court over a thousand miles from my home. Despite the fact
that my ISP has a fleet of attorneys within 10 miles... I can't
afford to stay in a hotel for a month or more of
negotiations/court dates - the ISP has no such problem. I could
go on, but you get the idea.<br>
<br>
So by all means, get upset about restrictive, anti-consumer Terms
of Service. But recognize that it's purely a commercial dispute.
The basis is not (as far as I can tell) an attempt to suppress
freedom. It's a pure capitalist play to segment the market to
maximize revenue and to rig contract terms so as to maximize
vendor flexibility and minimize expenses.<br>
<br>
Arguing about it on the basis of 'freedom' is about as likely to
succeed as arguing that Centrex / multi-line VoIP terminations
should be available for home telephone service. (OK, they should
- Asterisk for home ought to be usable -- but again, it's an
economic issue.)<br>
<br>
We're 'free' to pay for service that allows servers. It may also
be possible to buy bandwidth from these providers and setup an ISP
with more reasonable terms -- if one can come up with a business
model that supports it. At least with DSL which has been under
the telco umbrella. The latest trick that the cable/fiber ISPs
have used in their contracts with municipalities (to bring service
to town) is to require the municipality to agree that internet
service is not a telecommunications service - even if it shares
the same transmission medium. And thus the service is exempt from
regulation by the municipality. And so it becomes a 'free (or is
that 'fee'?) market' vs. 'regulated utility' dispute. The
arguments on both sides don't bear repeating here. <br>
<br>
The bottom line is that ISP TOS and pricing are a real mess - that
real pro-consumer legal minds (I'm not an attorney, I just read
contracts) could have a career fighting.<br>
<br>
What that battle has to do with ICANN/NCUC/NCSG is not at all
clear.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
</pre>
On 12-Aug-13 23:15, DeeDee Halleck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKOC+OaMfEGRNfm5OaJLBVDiNeUcmVFqEQ48x2FE+_93Xdk_jA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers</a>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>xx</div>
<div>dd<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org"
target="_blank">http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>