[NCUC-DISCUSS] Server bans

Tue Aug 13 13:17:12 CEST 2013

> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers 

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.)

If you go to their websites and look for (Small) Business services, you 
can see what's available.

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...)

It's essentially the same theory that allows phone companies to charge 
more for 'business' service than for 'residential' -

I'm not saying that the basis of he theory is universally true. But 
that's what it is.

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

What that battle has to do with ICANN/NCUC/NCSG is not at all clear.

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

On 12-Aug-13 23:15, DeeDee Halleck wrote:
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers 
>
>
> xx
> dd
>
> -- 
> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130813/9bd0ecbb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss