I just filed my 'net neutrality'/FCC-10-201 complaint regarding Google's fiber-to-KC fixed broadband internet service provisioning...

[Douglas McClendon]

It's done. I filed my FCC form 2000F complaining about Google's
violation of FCC-10-201(aka 'net neutrality'). The online form was
limited to 1000 characters. (FCC must be run by ex-twitter people these
days). So I kept it short and to the point- (if I get no traction, I'll
continue with the 30 page essay on the topic)-

(note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the
target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider,
believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open
internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving
the free and open internet.

--- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-

"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others� enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-

"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"

In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic
---

-dmc
Douglas McClendon
http://cloudsession.com/dawg

P.S.- R.I.P. Doug Niehaus- https://lwn.net/Articles/514182/

[Mike Dupont]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Douglas McClendon
<dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
> "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so,
> you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection"

That is sick, it is the only reason I would get a gfiber!


--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

[jldu...@gmail.com]

Is this your first time purchasing internet service for a household,
or have you filed complaints regarding the other ISPs you used
previously? AFAIK, all home ISPs have rules like this, so it seems
silly to single out any one in particular.

Justin

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Douglas McClendon
<dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
> It's done. I filed my FCC form 2000F complaining about Google's violation of
> FCC-10-201(aka 'net neutrality'). The online form was limited to 1000
> characters. (FCC must be run by ex-twitter people these days). So I kept it
> short and to the point- (if I get no traction, I'll continue with the 30
> page essay on the topic)-
>
> (note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the target of
> the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider, believed to
> be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open internet rules
> layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving the free and open
> internet.
>
> --- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
> Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
> service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain this
> text-
>
> "You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited to
> using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper, infringe the

> rights of others, or adversely impact others’ enjoyment of the Services. A

> list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "
>
> where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
>
> "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so,
> you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection"
>
> In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from the
> University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I believe
> these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.
>
> [1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html
> [2]
> http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic
> ---
>
> -dmc
> Douglas McClendon
> http://cloudsession.com/dawg
>
> P.S.- R.I.P. Doug Niehaus- https://lwn.net/Articles/514182/
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "kulua-l" group.
> To post to this group, send email to kul...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> kulua-l+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/kulua-l?hl=en.
>

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/01/2012 04:14 PM, jldu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is this your first time purchasing internet service for a household,
> or have you filed complaints regarding the other ISPs you used
> previously? AFAIK, all home ISPs have rules like this, so it seems
> silly to single out any one in particular.

IPv4 was legitimately not capable (more or less after some date a few
years back) of allowing each and every end-node to have it's own
address, and run it's own servers (e.g. apache web server, quake3 game
server).

IPv6 is a game changer.

I think Google thought they could use this state of affairs (users not
educated enough about what IPv6 really fixes/enables) to sneak through
the ability to leverage their control of the tubes, to prop up (remove
innovative competitors from the lanscape) their non-ISP businesses.

There is no reasonable need for IPv6 capable internet service to block
the ability (via filtering at the network or terms of service levels) of
each node on the internet to serve its own content.

-dmc

>
> Justin
>
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Douglas McClendon
> <dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
>> It's done. I filed my FCC form 2000F complaining about Google's violation of
>> FCC-10-201(aka 'net neutrality'). The online form was limited to 1000
>> characters. (FCC must be run by ex-twitter people these days). So I kept it
>> short and to the point- (if I get no traction, I'll continue with the 30
>> page essay on the topic)-
>>
>> (note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the target of
>> the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider, believed to
>> be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open internet rules
>> layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving the free and open
>> internet.
>>
>> --- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
>> Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
>> service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain this
>> text-
>>
>> "You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited to
>> using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper, infringe the

>> rights of others, or adversely impact others� enjoyment of the Services. A

[Steve Nordquist]

>> "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so,
>> you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection"
>
> That is sick, it is the only reason I would get a gfiber!

Nicely filed. Nobody wants to visit work and see a soft market.
Maybe this is where we start to see the (AJAX) pop-up when 1Gibps is
exceeded entitled: 'Google Fiber: Let's talk about your IPv6 service
declarations. -(x)Include AdWords in discussion circle -(o)Include
broadcast IP region dysm074'

[jldu...@gmail.com]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Douglas McClendon
<dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
> IPv4 was legitimately not capable (more or less after some date a few years
> back) of allowing each and every end-node to have it's own address, and run
> it's own servers (e.g. apache web server, quake3 game server).
>
> IPv6 is a game changer.

Not yet it's not. Whatever server you intend to run had better have an
IPv4 address for at least the next year, likely longer. And IP address
space was not the reason they banned servers. You could run a mail
server behind NAT and they'd still be upset. It comes down to
bandwidth, and the lack of security in the average joe's home.
Blocking SMTP stops a lot of spam from infected PCs.

> I think Google thought they could use this state of affairs (users not
> educated enough about what IPv6 really fixes/enables) to sneak through the
> ability to leverage their control of the tubes, to prop up (remove
> innovative competitors from the lanscape) their non-ISP businesses.

If stifling competition was their nefarious goal, why get into the ISP
game at all? The status quo was already you don't get to run servers
at home (if detected).

> There is no reasonable need for IPv6 capable internet service to block the
> ability (via filtering at the network or terms of service levels) of each
> node on the internet to serve its own content.

Here's a reason: spam.

Justin

[Mike Dupont]

We have been using ipv6 in kosovo (sixxs and miredo ipv6 over ipv4
tunnels) where the isps are totally draconian (blocking almost
everything),
people have been able to host web servers at home, and ip4 to ipv6
can be used for normal people to access it. ipv6 over ipv4 is viable
and using http://freedns.afraid.org/ you can also get a dyndns. it
just works (tm).

btw, we are having our fourth conference this year, SFK12 and it is
going to be great http://lanyrd.com/2012/sfk12/

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 11:31 PM, jldu...@gmail.com <jldu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IPv6 is a game changer.
>
> Not yet it's not. Whatever server you intend to run had better have an
> IPv4 address for at least the next year, likely longer.

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/01/2012 04:31 PM, jldu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Douglas McClendon
> <dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
>> IPv4 was legitimately not capable (more or less after some date a few years
>> back) of allowing each and every end-node to have it's own address, and run
>> it's own servers (e.g. apache web server, quake3 game server).
>>
>> IPv6 is a game changer.
>
> Not yet it's not. Whatever server you intend to run had better have an
> IPv4 address for at least the next year, likely longer. And IP address
> space was not the reason they banned servers. You could run a mail
> server behind NAT and they'd still be upset.

Is this really true if you don't even have an internet accessible IPv4
address (e.g. my current timewarner cable internet service)?

It comes down to
> bandwidth, and the lack of security in the average joe's home.
> Blocking SMTP stops a lot of spam from infected PCs.

Blocking spam can happen in response to detected network abuse.
Blocking all serving on an entire class (residential least expensive
tier) of internet nodes, in response to spam is not IMHO a reasonable
network management practice.

>
>> I think Google thought they could use this state of affairs (users not
>> educated enough about what IPv6 really fixes/enables) to sneak through the
>> ability to leverage their control of the tubes, to prop up (remove
>> innovative competitors from the lanscape) their non-ISP businesses.
>
> If stifling competition was their nefarious goal, why get into the ISP
> game at all? The status quo was already you don't get to run servers
> at home (if detected).

If that was the status quo, then the status quo was in violation of
FCC-10-201[1]. Let me quote some of it, and it's less legaleze FCC open
internet page[2] (starred *emphasis* is mine)

"
The �Open Internet� is the Internet as we know it. It�s open because it
uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build
to, and it *treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly
the same way*. The principle of the Open Internet is sometimes referred
to as �net neutrality.� Under this principle, consumers can make their
own choices about what applications and *services* to use and are free
to decide what lawful content they want to access, create, or *share
with others*. This openness promotes competition and enables investment
and innovation.
"

I ask you, is it right that I'm forced to use another companies servers
(e.g. facebook/youtube/1and) to *share with others* my content, when a
$20 v2 pogoplug drawing 10-20 watts of electricity plugged into my IPv6
capable ISP jack can satisfy all my serving needs (If I get slashdotted
regularly, or become a rockstar, I'll be happy to purchase better
serving facilities from another company. But until then, I'd rather not
be penalized to subsidize the popular at the expense of my free speech
rights)

>
>> There is no reasonable need for IPv6 capable internet service to block the
>> ability (via filtering at the network or terms of service levels) of each
>> node on the internet to serve its own content.
>
> Here's a reason: spam.

If Robert Keller of Google, one of my mentors, and someone who worked
closely with my brother at SGI, and then also with my brother and Milo
Medin (current head of google fiber) at @home (first major cable modem
broadband provider in the US)... If Robert Keller tells me that with a
straight face, or a majority of my EECS professors at KU tell me that
with a straight face, I'll believe them. I don't believe the spam
threat is a legitimate justification for blocking the ability of all
lowest-cost-tier residential internet nodes from being allowed the free
speech abilities that serving your own content provides.

$0.02...

-dmc

[1] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
[2] http://www.fcc.gov/topic/open-internet

[jldu...@gmail.com]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Douglas McClendon
<dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
> Is this really true if you don't even have an internet accessible IPv4
> address (e.g. my current timewarner cable internet service)?

I've never had the pleasure of using timewarner, but I do use Comcast.
They're rolling out IPv6 very shortly. But for the moment, I believe
my equipment is similarly configured: one public IP allocated to my
linksys router. It's simple enough to set up a server using port
forwarding. It works. But it's against ToS[1]. Just like it was back
when I was using @home service. Seems pretty status quo to me, but
apparently circumstances vary.

I'm just curious why you've selected Google in particular when this is
more or less the industry norm. It seems like your goals of broader,
cheaper free speech would be served by a blanket protest of all ISPs,
rather than just this one provider.

Justin


[1]: http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/HighSpeedInternetAUP.html

[Douglas McClendon]

I've been waiting for IPv6, and the resulting ability to run my own
linux lamp stack (and quake server et al) at home for many years now*.
AFAIK Google-fiber-to-KC is the first IPv6 capable ISP offering service
to me (at any kind of price point I can afford). Thusly they are the
first for me to complain about. If/when TimeWarner does the same thing,
it would be reasonable for me to file a seperate complaint. Though if
either success or failure befalls this first complaint, it seems
unlikely I'll need to, or believe it would serve any purpose to file
another.

-dmc

* yes I could run my own servers long ago, but the IPv4 address
exhaustion issue meant that I knew that until IPv6, I could not run a
server, and expect to continue running it indefinately (i.e. establish a
kind of lifelong stable presence in the matrix, entirely running on my
own computers that I administer myself (e.g. FOSS Linux based, root
account owned by me and me alone). And yes I know that it will take 20
years for an IPv6 server to be as usable by all end users as IPv4
servers are today. That doesn't bother me. I'm ready to dive into the
future with all of its new IPv6 enablements, and suffering decreasingly
over time the IPv6 issues (when dealing with IPv4 clients).

[Christofer C. Bell]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Douglas McClendon
<dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
> * yes I could run my own servers long ago, but the IPv4 address exhaustion
> issue meant that I knew that until IPv6, I could not run a server, and
> expect to continue running it indefinately (i.e. establish a kind of
> lifelong stable presence in the matrix, entirely running on my own computers
> that I administer myself (e.g. FOSS Linux based, root account owned by me
> and me alone).

I've been running a publicly accessible IPv4 addressed server (using
the same IP address the entire time) on the Internet at home for about
17 years now (it's been awhile, I can't remember). If that's not
considered long term, I don't know what is. What obstacles do you
feel you face that prevent you from doing the same thing without the
availability of IPv6?

--
Chris

[Douglas McClendon]

I've lived in about 10 different residences over the past 15 years.
When you move, you change ISPs. With my most recent one (and perhaps a
few before), I now no longer get even a single dynamicly assigned
publicly accessible IPv4 address. I.e. with the TimeWarner cable modem
I currently have, I'm _already_ downstream of a NAT. Thus if I had been
maintaining my own IPv4 server over the last 15 years (actually I pay
$10/mo to 1and1 currently), then with this latest move, I'd have had my
presence disappear.

-dmc

[Richard Allen]

> I've lived in about 10 different residences over the past 15 years. When you move, you change ISPs.  With my most recent one (and perhaps a few before), I now no longer get even a single dynamicly assigned publicly accessible IPv4 address.  I.e. with the TimeWarner cable modem I currently have, I'm _already_ downstream of a NAT.  Thus if I had been maintaining my own IPv4 server over the last 15 years (actually I pay $10/mo to 1and1 currently), then with this latest move, I'd have had my presence disappear.
>

What model# is your cable modem? It sounds like one of those combo modem/routers. Usually you can disable that and get a single IP, which basically turns it back into a modem.

[Douglas McClendon]

That sounds entirely plausible and likely. But clearly this is about me
wanting to dive into the brave new IPv6 world, ASAP, which seems to be
Google fiber. And I certainly am hopeful that Google can be convinced
to see the light and the wrongness of their ways here (as opposed to no
hope that I could reason with a more traditional telco like timewarner).
I think what Google is trying to get away with here is pretty 'evil',
in exactly the sense they meant to remind themselves of with their
famous motto. Also, this is not vague paranoid conspiracy theory. I
have off the record explanations that they are concerned about
'potentially jeopardizing their cloud business(es/profits)'. Which I
think they were/are in some self denial about how that relates to the
spirit and letter of FCC-10-201 as it applies to them, and any other
fixed broadband internet service provider. Note, there were other
reasons as well, i.e. why I made such a point of specifically replying
to the 'spam' threat model. And note also, from that off the record,
that they don't really want to go so far as disallowing a quake3 server,
but for reasons (some aforementioned) they have the current ToS as it
is, and as I registered an official 2000F complaint to the FCC about.

I think really what Google would like to do, would be to allow enough
serving for people to enjoy some obvious benefits, but disallow enough
such that no innovative business could start up that leverages the
newfound ability for applications deployed on consumers devices to
harness the power of serving. The most canonical example would be the
standard FOSS video network phone that LWN's Corbet recently lamented
not existing on the nexus7. Obviously what prevents a nice video
network phone that simply cuts out the skype/googletalk server
middleman, requires the ability of your device to 'listen for
connections', i.e. run an IPv6 server process on your device. Once that
happens, one person's nexus7(or laptop with a webcam) can simply 'dial
up' anothers. And as an FOSS video network phone app, no part of that
communication between friends and family will then get to be leveraged
in any way to deliver or create more effective advertising that
increases the profits of the company that may also happen to own the
IPv6 tubes going into your house, that the spirit and letter of
FCC-10-201 suggest you ought to be able to use your fair share of the
bandwidth of, in a completely application/service agnostic way.

But I digress...

-dmc

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/01/2012 04:31 PM, jldu...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Douglas McClendon
> <dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
>> IPv4 was legitimately not capable (more or less after some date a few years
>> back) of allowing each and every end-node to have it's own address, and run
>> it's own servers (e.g. apache web server, quake3 game server).
>>
>> IPv6 is a game changer.
>
> Not yet it's not. Whatever server you intend to run had better have an
> IPv4 address for at least the next year, likely longer. And IP address
> space was not the reason they banned servers. You could run a mail
> server behind NAT and they'd still be upset. It comes down to
> bandwidth, and the lack of security in the average joe's home.

And since I've begun revealing my off the record weeklong debate I
recently was part of in california, I'll mention this in response to the
'lack of security in the average joe's home' theory of blocking-

I'm totally cool with fear winning the day on that theory, but with the
following caveat- If you really believe that the relative
innaccessibility of typical user's low-security-conscious PCs behind
current typical IPv4 NATs, is a reason to block IPv6 serving at
residential nodes, then simply do this- Make it a developer switch, in
the same spirit as the physical developer switch locked bootloader on
some existing google/affiliated devices. I.e. fine, make the default
IPv6 router/jack configuration for residential subscribers be blanket
filtering of all incoming connection requests (i.e. blocking all
serving). But have some form of developer switch, that allows the
advanced user to say- that functionality is important to me and I want
to use it, and I don't mind that the instant I flip the switch, I become
subject to 100 pages of mind-numbing ToS copied from any typical
dedicated hosting company that provides internet service to its racked
client's baremetal servers.

Note, I was off the record invited to draft an alternate ToS in a way
that would address all the off the record concerns I was told about, but
that would then allow the e.g. quake3 server. The first simple response
I gave was the above 'developer switch, then lazily copy and paste
server-grade ToS from e.g. hurricane electric'. The second simple
response I gave was 'I can't possibly do a better job than Robert
Keller, who Milo Medin and my brother are both very familiar with and
who works with them already at Google, could do in 10 minutes'. (i.e.
Robert Keller walked me through my first corporate sendmail and dns
config over pizza back in '97, and is I would say the smartest
networking guru I've ever met).

But that was nearly a month ago now, and neither of those suggestions or
repeated warnings of an actual FCC complaint have effected any change in
their ToS. And I think it's important that everyone have the debate,
and realize that yes, Net Neutrality as defined in FCC-10-201 really
does apply to me, as a potential customer of google fiber in KC, and my
quest to run my own pokerth/quake3/apache/lamp server from a random 5
year old PC or $20 pogoplug I have lying around.

Que Sera Sera...

-dmc

[Christofer C. Bell]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Douglas McClendon

While I understand and sympathize with your plight (my IP has followed
me through 3 different residences across completely different sides of
town - Lawrence), I don't see how IPv6 would solve it. While IPv6 has
a vast address space, it is routed exactly the same way that IPv4 is.

The reason NAT is not part of the specification is because NAT was
never intended for security but rather for "address space expansion"
which IPv6 doesn't need. It's otherwise fundamentally identical in
operation. So again, I'm just not sure that IPv6 is the answer you're
looking for.

--
Chris

[Douglas McClendon]

The vast address space is precisely what solves it. DNS always has, and
always will provide the functionality required when you roam your server
from one IP(v4 or v6) address on one ISP's network to another. So as
soon as I move from a technology (IPv4) that is not able to provide me a
publicly addressable IP address at every physical place I locate my
server on the internet, to a technology that is able to do that (IPv6)
the problem is solved, and I can _actually use the internet as it was
designed_!!! :)

The IPv4 address exhaustion issues were _temporary_, not a model for how
things actually should be forever.

>
> The reason NAT is not part of the specification is because NAT was
> never intended for security but rather for "address space expansion"
> which IPv6 doesn't need. It's otherwise fundamentally identical in
> operation. So again, I'm just not sure that IPv6 is the answer you're
> looking for.

Please ask more questions. It is very important that people understand
that IPv6 actually does fix something really important. It will allow
everyone, if they so choose to run their own linux lamp server. In a
way that is permanently and easily accessible by all other users of the
internet. But this is only possible if you can always plug your server
into a net neutral IPv6 jack, and keep up their domain registration dues*.

* (or use an alternate to DNS that is cheaper. If residential nodes are
allowed to serve IPv6 traffic, there could easily be competition for a
cheaper alternate set of root DNS servers, so that one could maintain a
lifelong presence without paying as much as $10/yr to keep their domain
registered.

The internet is an awesome thing. The IPv4 address limitation issue has
made a mess of things and user's expectations about what is possible.
IPv6 fixes that, but if we're not careful, the confusion could lead to a
kind of draconian nightmare, where only upper/first class internet
service provides the ability to host servers, and as such, users are
forced to purchase cloud services, which their own devices are plenty of
capable of providing themselves if IPv6 serving was not blocked at the
lowest-cost-residential-tier internet service.

I.e, what is the business model for 'cloud storage', when any user can
host their own 1TB server connected to a pogoplug for about $100 in
hardware?

Such things are what google investors rightly ought to fear. And I fear
google and the rest of the passively-colluding ISPs may be big enough to
get away with this. This is a new wave of technological revolution.
And like all waves of all revolutions, may well get thwarted, or may
well change the face of the earth.

$0.02...

-dmc

[Christofer C. Bell]

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Douglas McClendon
<dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 06:04 PM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>>
>> While I understand and sympathize with your plight (my IP has followed
>> me through 3 different residences across completely different sides of
>> town - Lawrence), I don't see how IPv6 would solve it. While IPv6 has
>> a vast address space, it is routed exactly the same way that IPv4 is.
>
>
> The vast address space is precisely what solves it. DNS always has, and
> always will provide the functionality required when you roam your server
> from one IP(v4 or v6) address on one ISP's network to another. So as soon
> as I move from a technology (IPv4) that is not able to provide me a publicly
> addressable IP address at every physical place I locate my server on the
> internet, to a technology that is able to do that (IPv6) the problem is
> solved, and I can _actually use the internet as it was designed_!!! :)

Ah, okay, so this is what answers my question. It's not that you're
looking for a permanent, unchanging IP address (whether it's IPv4 or
IPv6), it's that you're looking to IPv6 to make it impossible for a
company like Time Warner to shield your computer from all incoming
connections. The IP address doesn't matter, since DNS can overcome
that, you're simply wanting to make sure the technical means aren't
there to prevent your address from being publicly accessible,
regardless of what that address is.

Is that right?

--
Chris

[Richard Allen]

> I.e, what is the business model for 'cloud storage', when any user can host
> their own 1TB server connected to a pogoplug for about $100 in hardware?

Uptime. Redundancy. Latency(a single machine cannot get around the
fact that the U.S.A. is 16mS wide). Decreased likelihood of a
neighbor's dog destroying your pipe.

What is the business model for 'cloud storage', when users are choked
down to uploading a few megabits or less?

It would just surprise me if this no-server rule were put in to quash
innovation. Nearly every end-user ISP does it, and for the same reason
- nobody has the backhaul to support all their users running full-bore
at the same time. Latest SONET is still only 150Gb/S, and they aren't
going to run one of those to every big apartment building they serve.

I really hope they run routes to some of the local fiber hotels, as
this would improve speed/latency for local servers downtown. However,
at Fric&Frac, it appears all the traffic is routed to Houston, then
back to KC.

[Douglas McClendon]

bingo

And today, I don't know if Google is even putting in place network level
filtering. But their Terms Of Service level filtering I feel is enough
to file the FCC complaint. Precisely because if the language stands,
they will always have the ability to start filtering and say- hey, we
told ya how it was if you had read the fine print. And even if Google
turn out to be awesome and never actually filter, I strongly suspect
that the other more traditional ISPs when they roll out IPv6 and no
longer have the IPv4 excuse, will most definitely charge a hefty premium
price on the ability to not have your incoming IPv6 connection requests
blocked. *Just Because They Can*. And if my FCC complaint fizzles, the
can and will be able to do that.

-dmc

[Christofer C. Bell]

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Richard Allen <rsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I.e, what is the business model for 'cloud storage', when any user can host
>> their own 1TB server connected to a pogoplug for about $100 in hardware?
>
> Uptime. Redundancy. Latency(a single machine cannot get around the
> fact that the U.S.A. is 16mS wide). Decreased likelihood of a
> neighbor's dog destroying your pipe.
>
> What is the business model for 'cloud storage', when users are choked
> down to uploading a few megabits or less?
>
> It would just surprise me if this no-server rule were put in to quash
> innovation. Nearly every end-user ISP does it, and for the same reason
> - nobody has the backhaul to support all their users running full-bore
> at the same time.

This part confuses me about the rule, as well. ISP's prevent users
from flooding their network with their own private services by limited
upstream bandwidth. Google is offering gigabit in both directions.
What is the point of offering gigabit uplink and then telling people
they can't use it? If Google were serious about this, they'd give you
1 gigabit down and some smaller megabit (or even kilobit) upload.

This reminds me of a quote by John Milton in the movie The Devil's Advocate:

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to
watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He
gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear
for His own amusement, His own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the
rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch.
Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha."

Google gives you this 1 gigabit uplink and then tells you not to use it.

--
Chris

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/02/2012 09:45 PM, Richard Allen wrote:
>> I.e, what is the business model for 'cloud storage', when any user can host
>> their own 1TB server connected to a pogoplug for about $100 in hardware?
>
> Uptime. Redundancy. Latency(a single machine cannot get around the
> fact that the U.S.A. is 16mS wide). Decreased likelihood of a
> neighbor's dog destroying your pipe.

Yup, you are right. There will still be a market for better cloud
storage service than you can provide yourself. But I'd wager that 10%
of the market, due to their individual circumstances could be more than
satisfied serving with their own hardware and net neutral IPv6
connection. I would love to write software to help out those folks and
expand the number of people who can be satisfied with that style solution.

Though as to the dog/redundancy issue- the FOSS world has some smart
folks. The solutions that involve a social network of cooperating nodes
are pretty obvious. (i.e. my 1TB disk goes 250G to me, 750G to 3
friends, each of whose 1TB disk has 250G of my data on it, updated and
replicated probabalisticly more often during non-peak network hours.

>
> What is the business model for 'cloud storage', when users are choked
> down to uploading a few megabits or less?
>
> It would just surprise me if this no-server rule were put in to quash
> innovation. Nearly every end-user ISP does it, and for the same reason
> - nobody has the backhaul to support all their users running full-bore
> at the same time. Latest SONET is still only 150Gb/S, and they aren't
> going to run one of those to every big apartment building they serve.

That's exactly what net neutrality is about. Do I get to use my
upstream bandwidth in an application/service agnostic way or don't I?

I just want my fair share. If there are 100 active users on my segment,
and 99 are uploading videos and pictures to facebook and youtube, and
I'm running a quake3 server, all I want is for us to be throttled in an
application and service agnostic way. Which, we all know here, the
hardware is designed to do by default, with all kinds of advanced
throttling variables tunable if desired.

Google, by being both in the cloud services market (youtube) and the ISP
market, has an unavoidable conflict of interest, in that they would
rather all residential users use youtube instead of serving their own
video. Because youtube views have advertising and promoted videos that
help their bottom line.

> I really hope they run routes to some of the local fiber hotels, as
> this would improve speed/latency for local servers downtown. However,
> at Fric&Frac, it appears all the traffic is routed to Houston, then
> back to KC.

Somewhat related, I have an entrepreneurial mind that envisions taking
advantage of cheap (probabalisticly less likely to be throttled) more
local network on a gbit fiber network. I.e. that replication of your
self-served cloud storage among friends, becomes even less of a burden
on the network if those friends are geographicly close, in the same
apartment complex etc. But none of it works unless the ToS and network
allow incoming IPv6 connection request traffic to me, and I'm in a
position that I feel I can host a server without being in violation of a
contract I've signed.

-dmc

[Geoffrion, Ron P [IT]]

You know, I read the ipv6 spec when it came out.

You no longer know the route the packet took.

And who cares if the message came from a resistor, or a refrigerator, or a phone; and how it got here as long as it got here. It creates a reaction...

Its not how you track it but who can track it. Because _you_ can't, afaik. Think SS7 and Captain Hook in reverse order.

My version of Nordquist (sp?) on this list, apologies extended to the real deal.

Ron

Sent from my cool Sprint phone. Buy one.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kulua-l" group.
To post to this group, send email to kul...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to kulua-l+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/kulua-l?hl=en.

---

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

[Jared Starkey]

Forgive me if I'm trolling - but you guys DO realize that almost EVERY
commercial ISP on the planet has a clause similar to this? This isn't an
issue of "Network Neutrality" because there's no packet prioritization -
Its just whining about how your ISP reserves the right to shut down your
home web server if it becomes disruptive.

The IPv6 complaints seem to be more focused on a profound
misunderstanding of how 4-to-6 and 6-to-4 translation work in the real
world.

I don't think this is a valid "Net Neutrality" complaint. I also think
that considering you're getting the fastest internet on the planet, you
sure seem to feel entitled.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qqw5g/

[Christofer C. Bell]

I don't think it has anything to do with entitlement, at least not the
question it raises in my mind. I think this bears repeating:

> This part confuses me about the rule, as well. ISP's prevent users
> from flooding their network with their own private services by limited
> upstream bandwidth. Google is offering gigabit in both directions.
> What is the point of offering gigabit uplink and then telling people
> they can't use it? If Google were serious about this, they'd give you
> 1 gigabit down and some smaller megabit (or even kilobit) upload.
>

> Google gives you this 1 gigabit uplink and then tells you not to use it."

Going from connections that are anywhere from 512 Kb/s to 5 Mb/s up
(like mine) to a 1 Gb/s uplink *is* a paradigm shift in what users are
able to do at home. What is the point of giving people 1 Gb/s up and
then *telling people not to use it*? As I stated above, ISPs
accomplish this today through a similar policy of disallowing home
servers backed by an actual throttling of the uplink speed. Google
isn't doing that. They've put a toothless policy in place because
they're still giving you the *full upload speed*.

Google isn't seeking to be a traditional "commercial ISP" here,
anyway. I'm a customer of Knology (formerly Sunflower broadband) and
I pay Knology a monthly fee to use of their service (that that bill
has gone up by 40% since Knology took over Sunflower is a question for
their billing department). I'm not quite sure how Google plans to
monetize this, but customers of the service aren't directly paying for
it. That's because, as the adage goes, "if you're not paying for it,
you're not the customer, you're the product."

So, Knology gives me 50 Mb/s download and 5 Mb/s upload, giving me 10%
of the download bandwidth for upload bandwidth. This prevents me from
running a high bandwidth service off my cable modem. Google offers me
(hypothetically since I'm not in the coverage area) a 1 Gb/s download
speed (a *2,000%* increase in bandwidth) *and* gives me the same
upload speed (a *20,000%* increase in bandwidth) and *then* tells me
*I can't use it*.

That just plain doesn't make sense. To say this feeling comes from a
sense of entitlement ignores the fact that what Google is offering is
a service that's on a completely different level from what the
traditional commercial ISP offers.

--
Chris

[Jared Starkey]

Quantity of bandwidth does not equate to a "paradigm shift". Its the
same internet, its just faster. Isn't that the principle argument for
Network Neutrality - its the same internet?

The connection you're purchasing is intended for consuming content - not
providing it. That's what commercial connections are for.

As a legal nerd - I'd point out how the intent in writing the clause is
to reserve the right to shut down people who unfairly use the service
for hosting large quantities of content that become disruptive to other
users of the service.

In wording the clause broadly - as good lawyers do - they leave very
little "arguing" room about why someone would be shut down.

The TOS would be 90000 pages in length if they worded it specifically
enough to allow home users to host content under a certain volume, or of
certain types, or under certain conditions, or during a certain time of
the day, or for "home" use as opposed to "commercial" use, or
"Non-profit use" vs "for profit use". EVEN then, if they shut down
someone for violating one of the very-specific terms and conditions,
there's arguing room for why.

TL;DR - Go to law school, then you'll realize why its a simple "no"
instead of a complex "yes".

Google is your biggest ally in the fight for Network Neutrality - and
you're spitting in their face because you've failed to understand
something as simple as why a clause is worded a certain way regarding
your RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICE.


Lord... I just realized I'm feeding the trolls.

[Christofer C. Bell]

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Jared Starkey <jared....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... blah blah blah snipped ...]

>
> Lord... I just realized I'm feeding the trolls.

Piss off, asshole. :-)

--
Chris

[Jared Starkey]

Touche ;)

[Russell Valentine]

I never realized they had that in their TOS. It is disappointing. All
along my thoughts were, finally a ISP that sees potential in giving
users full upload speed, and liberty to do what they want with it.

I thought the point of this fiber test was in part to see what
innovative things could be done. I guess it is mostly what innovative
things they could do, not the people with the service.


Russell Valentine

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/03/2012 11:15 AM, Jared Starkey wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm trolling - but you guys DO realize that almost EVERY
> commercial ISP on the planet has a clause similar to this? This isn't an
> issue of "Network Neutrality" because there's no packet prioritization -
> Its just whining about how your ISP reserves the right to shut down your
> home web server if it becomes disruptive.

Actually packet prioritization would fall under the 3rd clause of
network neutrality (discrimination). This argument is about the 2nd
clause(blocking).

>
> The IPv6 complaints seem to be more focused on a profound
> misunderstanding of how 4-to-6 and 6-to-4 translation work in the real
> world.

I don't pretend to have a complete grasp of all the nuance of 4-to-6 and
6-to-4 translation and compatability. But I do think I have a pretty
complete grasp of IPv4 on its own, and IPv6 on its own, and what each is
capable of.

>
> I don't think this is a valid "Net Neutrality" complaint. I also think
> that considering you're getting the fastest internet on the planet, you
> sure seem to feel entitled.

You're entitled to your analysis. FCC-10-201 does in fact make me feel
entitled to a net neutral ISP jack that does not block lawful services
and applications, or discriminate against them (in the fixed broadband
case).

-dmc

>
> http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qqw5g/
>

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/03/2012 11:43 AM, Jared Starkey wrote:
> Quantity of bandwidth does not equate to a "paradigm shift". Its the
> same internet, its just faster. Isn't that the principle argument for
> Network Neutrality - its the same internet?
>
> The connection you're purchasing is intended for consuming content - not
> providing it. That's what commercial connections are for.

Have you read FCC-10-201?

>
> As a legal nerd - I'd point out how the intent in writing the clause is
> to reserve the right to shut down people who unfairly use the service
> for hosting large quantities of content that become disruptive to other
> users of the service.

This imagines that Google or any ISP is not trivially capable of
throttling in an application and service agnostic way.

>
> In wording the clause broadly - as good lawyers do - they leave very
> little "arguing" room about why someone would be shut down.
>
> The TOS would be 90000 pages in length if they worded it specifically
> enough to allow home users to host content under a certain volume, or of
> certain types, or under certain conditions, or during a certain time of
> the day, or for "home" use as opposed to "commercial" use, or
> "Non-profit use" vs "for profit use". EVEN then, if they shut down
> someone for violating one of the very-specific terms and conditions,
> there's arguing room for why.

FCC-10-201 lays out specifically that fixed broadband providers are not
legally allowed to seperate their nodes abilities based on 'commercial'
vs 'non-commercial'. Traffic must not be blocked or discriminated
against in such a way that the ISP is choosing the winners and losers of
those innovating on the internet using basic InternetProtocol(v4 or v6)
functionality. IMO.

>
> TL;DR - Go to law school, then you'll realize why its a simple "no"
> instead of a complex "yes".
>
> Google is your biggest ally in the fight for Network Neutrality - and
> you're spitting in their face because you've failed to understand
> something as simple as why a clause is worded a certain way regarding
> your RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICE.
>
>
> Lord... I just realized I'm feeding the trolls.

I think you are the troll since you seem incapable of just reading
10-201 and seeing that yes, it does in fact apply to RESIDENTIAL
INTERNET SERVICE.

-dmc

[Douglas McClendon]

+1

[Jared Starkey]

Well - if you want to get into it...

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Douglas McClendon <dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:

On 09/03/2012 11:43 AM, Jared Starkey wrote:

Quantity of bandwidth does not equate to a "paradigm shift". Its the
same internet, its just faster. Isn't that the principle argument for
Network Neutrality - its the same internet?

The connection you're purchasing is intended for consuming content - not
providing it. That's what commercial connections are for.

Have you read FCC-10-201?

I just did. My points still stand. Have you?

"To preserve the Internet’s openness and broadband providers’ ability to manage
and expand their networks, we adopt high-level rules embodying four core principles:
transparency, no blocking, no unreasonable discrimination, and reasonable network management."

Telling people that they SHOULD NOT use a home-based internet connection to host services is easily reasonable network management in the same way you'd tell a user its a bad idea to share their entire C: drive over your corporate VPN. ISPs have a right to manage the expected traffic across their network. By agreeing not to host services (which you already did) you are helping them do that.

As a legal nerd - I'd point out how the intent in writing the clause is
to reserve the right to shut down people who unfairly use the service
for hosting large quantities of content that become disruptive to other
users of the service.

This imagines that Google or any ISP is not trivially capable of throttling in an application and service agnostic way.

Google has said nothing about, nor is committing any "throttling", "blocking", or "prioritizing" of your internet access. They've simply asked you to agree not to host services as a condition of use - and if you're a subscriber you have already agreed.

To directly refute your "fixed broadband" arguement under paragraph 48, which directly addresses the idea that ISPs don't need to look at your information as part of network management... No inspection needs to take place. You have already agreed not to do it.
 

In wording the clause broadly - as good lawyers do - they leave very
little "arguing" room about why someone would be shut down.

The TOS would be 90000 pages in length if they worded it specifically
enough to allow home users to host content under a certain volume, or of
certain types, or under certain conditions, or during a certain time of
the day, or for "home" use as opposed to "commercial" use, or
"Non-profit use" vs "for profit use". EVEN then, if they shut down
someone for violating one of the very-specific terms and conditions,
there's arguing room for why.

FCC-10-201 lays out specifically that fixed broadband providers are not legally allowed to seperate their nodes abilities based on 'commercial' vs 'non-commercial'.  Traffic must not be blocked or discriminated against in such a way that the ISP is choosing the winners and losers of those innovating on the internet using basic InternetProtocol(v4 or v6) functionality.  IMO.

You are right - which is exactly supporting my above point. There is no difference of "commercial" vs "non-commercial". The difference is simple - and directly addressed in paragraph 50.

 "For a number of reasons, these rules apply only to the provision of broadband
Internet access service and not to edge provider activities, such as the provision of content or
applications over the Internet"

You are using Internet Access Service, and have voluntarily self-classified yourself by agreeing to the Terms of Service. You are not an edge provider - therefore you do not need to host services, and again - you already agreed not to.

Lawyered.

[Jared Starkey]

If you want to argue a complaint against them - you should be pushing the "Redress Options" clause - which requires ISPs to make known the method by which you may resolve complaints and questions.

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/03/2012 04:13 PM, Jared Starkey wrote:
> Well - if you want to get into it...
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Douglas McClendon
> <dmc....@filteredperception.org

> <mailto:dmc....@filteredperception.org>> wrote:
>
> On 09/03/2012 11:43 AM, Jared Starkey wrote:
>
> Quantity of bandwidth does not equate to a "paradigm shift". Its the
> same internet, its just faster. Isn't that the principle
> argument for
> Network Neutrality - its the same internet?
>
> The connection you're purchasing is intended for consuming
> content - not
> providing it. That's what commercial connections are for.
>
>
> Have you read FCC-10-201?
>
>
> I just did. My points still stand. Have you?

Yes. Mine still stand as well, but- you just made some more, and I read
some more, so- on we go

>
> "To preserve the Internet�s openness and broadband providers� ability to

> manage
> and expand their networks, we adopt high-level rules embodying four core
> principles:
> transparency, no blocking, no unreasonable discrimination, and
> reasonable network management."
>
> Telling people that they SHOULD NOT use a home-based internet connection
> to host services is easily reasonable network management in the same way
> you'd tell a user its a bad idea to share their entire C: drive over
> your corporate VPN. ISPs have a right to manage the expected traffic
> across their network. By agreeing not to host services (which you
> already did) you are helping them do that.

I haven't agreed to anything. The current ToS is something I wouldn't
agree to, so I chose to file an FCC complaint instead, since I believe
them to be in violation of 10-201. Google has blocked me, from using
it's residential ISP services in an application and service agnostic
way. Uncool.

>
>
>
>
> As a legal nerd - I'd point out how the intent in writing the
> clause is
> to reserve the right to shut down people who unfairly use the
> service
> for hosting large quantities of content that become disruptive
> to other
> users of the service.
>
>
> This imagines that Google or any ISP is not trivially capable of
> throttling in an application and service agnostic way.
>
>
>
> Google has said nothing about, nor is committing any "throttling",
> "blocking", or "prioritizing" of your internet access. They've simply
> asked you to agree not to host services as a condition of use - and if

> you're a subscriber *you have already agreed.*

Again, haven't agreed. And yes, google, because it runs network routers
does engage in throttling. Throttling is a basic part of every segment
of the internet.

>
> To directly refute your "fixed broadband" arguement under paragraph 48,
> which directly addresses the idea that ISPs don't need to look at your
> information as part of network management... No inspection needs to take

> place. *You have already agreed not to do it.*

Again, haven't agreed.

Again, I didn't agree to anything. But in this case, you have
highlighted an important and relevant part of 10-201. I agree, reading
paragraph 50, if I stop at the first sentence, and look at it like you
want me to, that your point makes sense and holds. *But*, and it's a
big one, when I look at the language of the FCC's meta-page for
NN/10-201, as they describe 'the open internet', I see them speak of
residential end users with the ability to share their own content. Now,
I'll grant it is conceivable that the drafters of FCC-10-201 may have
been so inadequately educated about the nature of the Internet Protocol,
and particularly the problems that IPv6 addressed and fixed, and how it
relates to any user being able to share their own content with a linux
based free and open source apache webserver. I mean, I guess maybe they
didn't consider that, or perhaps it would be addressed if I followed the
3-4 chain of replies and counterarguments mentioned in the footnote for
that first sentence of the 50th paragraph (footnote 155 I think it might
have been).

And then if I continue reading beyond the first sentence of paragraph
50, I do admit I become slightly bewildered amongst legaleze and other
terms that I find confusing. So if at the end of all this, I just hear
back from the FCC that I should reread paragraph 50 until I understand
why my complaint is invalid, then Se La Vi. Might happen. I hope it
goes the other way though.

-dmc

[Douglas McClendon]

An open letter to president Obama- I'll vote for you, if you let me
spend an afternoon with you, teaching you how to install and deploy a
free and open source software texas holdem poker game
server(pokerth.sf.net) that can let you play texas holdem with your
family spread across the internet on their computers and android phones,
if and only if, you have an IPv6 net-neutral(by the definition I've been
going by, perhaps not clause-50 as Starkey sees it) fixed broadband
connection. And/Or a simple website/blog. The internet is pretty cool
people. If we are all allowed to use all of it's most basic functionality.

-dmc

[Douglas McClendon]

You'll forgive me, but I was already in secondhand communication with
the person in charge. Not to mention that I blew off the most recent
google HR person to ping me by email about employment opportunities,
letting them know I was in the middle of calling out google as being
'evil' in this instance.

But I wonder Jared, since I was kind enough to legitimately read
paragraph 50 in your light, can you do me a favor and try reading
paragraph 13 in my light, and ask yourself if you really feel that the
spirit, and the letter of paragraph 13 at least, of the law is on my
side here? (most specifically the bit where it lumps the rights of
end-users and edge providers together, in that *BOTH* are allowed to
create successful content, applications, services, and devices on the
'general purpose technology' of the internet)-

---

Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a �general purpose
technology� that enables new methods of production that have a major
impact on the entire economy.12 The Internet�s founders intentionally
built a network that is open, in the sense that it has nogatekeepers
limiting innovation and communication through the network.13
Accordingly, the Internet enables an end user to access the content and
applications of her choice, without requiring permission from broadband
providers. This architecture enables innovators to create and offer new
applications and services without needing approval from any controlling
entity, be it a network provider, equipment manufacturer, industry body,
or government agency.14 End users benefit because the Internet�s
openness allows new technologies to be developed and distributed by a
broad range of sources, not just by the companies that operate the
network. For example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was able to invent the World
Wide Web nearly two decades after engineers developed the Internet�s
original protocols, without needing changes to those protocols or any
approval from network operators.15 Startups and small businesses benefit
because the Internet�s openness enables anyone connected to the network
to reach and do business with anyone else,16 allowing even the smallest
and most remotely located businesses to access national and global
markets, and contribute to the economy through e-commerce17 and online
advertising.18 Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation
and allows all end users and edge providers (rather than just the
significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to create and
determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and
devices, it maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that
address key national challenges� including improvements in health care,
education, and energy efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.19
---

-dmc

[Mike Dupont]

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Douglas McClendon <dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:

 Not to mention that I blew off the most recent google HR person to ping me by email about employment opportunities, letting them know I was in the middle of calling out google as being 'evil' in this instance.

yeah that is the problem with such huge companies, once they reach a certain size they are going to be difficult to criticise because of the fact that they have all the money, jobs and power. So we have freedom of speech from the government, but the real power is in the hands of the huge megacorps.

mike 

--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org

Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/03/2012 04:13 PM, Jared Starkey wrote:

> Telling people that they SHOULD NOT use a home-based internet connection
> to host services is easily reasonable network management in the same way
> you'd tell a user its a bad idea to share their entire C: drive over
> your corporate VPN.

No it's not. For two (interdependent) reasons. First, if you'll reread
my 1000 character form 2000F complaint to the FCC, you'll see that
'hosting a server of any type using your google fiber connection' is on
the official list of 'prohibited activities'. *Not* on the list of
'suggested to avoid activities', but on the list of 'prohibited activities'.

ISPs have a right to manage the expected traffic
> across their network.

Second, the FCC-10-201 is _precisely_ about the fact that fixed
broadband internet service providers are legally forbidden from managing
the expected traffic across their network in a way that is not service
and application agnostic. By blocking incoming IPv6 connection request
traffic, either with ISP firewall/router configuration, or with the
current terms of service that impose the same barrier with contractual
obligation, Google is violating the blocking clause of net neutrality.
They are blocking all end users on the internet from accessing the (e.g.
apache/quake3/) server sitting in my house, that is a subscriber to
Google as an ISP.

The ultimate hypocrisy in all this, is that Google is a proponent of
network neutrality when they are the internet service provid_*ee*_, but
not when they are the internet service provid_*er*_. If they claim they
can't support their ISP business model while allowing all end users full
functionality of the internet, that seems almost comicly similar to
google's upstream networks complaining that they cannot maintain their
business model, unless they are able to treat different customers
differently (e.g. charge google massively more, because they know google
is profitting disproportionately more from their internet service than
their other customers, and can afford to be 'squeezed' for more. Of
course nobody likes to be 'squeezed' so google has made a great high
minded moral argument for 'net neutrality'. But come time for them to
be on the side of the internet service provid_*er*_ rather than
provid_*ee*_, and all of a sudden they aren't so keen about enabling all
the wonderful innovation that a net neutral (FCC-10-201 paragraph 13)
IPv6 connection will provide to all of it's lowest cost tier residential
users.

-dmc

[davidryman]

One of the commercials on TV for Google Fiber shows kids running an online talent show over Google fiber after their school show gets cancelled.

Each user node is serving data to the others, so is this not allowed? 

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 3:59:20 PM UTC-5, Douglas McClendon wrote:

It's done. I filed my FCC form 2000F complaining about Google's
violation of FCC-10-201(aka 'net neutrality'). The online form was
limited to 1000 characters. (FCC must be run by ex-twitter people these
days). So I kept it short and to the point- (if I get no traction, I'll
continue with the 30 page essay on the topic)-

(note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the
target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider,
believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open
internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving
the free and open internet.

--- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-

"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others� enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-

"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"

In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic
---

-dmc
Douglas McClendon
http://cloudsession.com/dawg

P.S.- R.I.P. Doug Niehaus- https://lwn.net/Articles/514182/

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/04/2012 11:01 AM, davidryman wrote:
> One of the commercials on TV for Google Fiber shows kids running an
> online talent show over Google fiber after their school show gets cancelled.
> Each user node is serving data to the others, so is this not allowed?

I haven't seen the commercial, but I'd guess the corporate line would
be- you can do all these wonderful things if you use a server middleman
like youtube/skype/google(talk/hangouts). But if you want to cut out
the server middleman who is going to leverage that cloud service usage
for their own bottom line (through advertising or extra fees), you are
out of luck.

That such server middleman, due to their incoming connection request
traffic not being blocked, effectively have an upper class net
connection, that makes all of the residential nodes net connection's
laughably 'neutral' I think goes over google's head at this moment.

-dmc

>
> On Saturday, September 1, 2012 3:59:20 PM UTC-5, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>
> It's done. I filed my FCC form 2000F complaining about Google's
> violation of FCC-10-201(aka 'net neutrality'). The online form was
> limited to 1000 characters. (FCC must be run by ex-twitter people these
> days). So I kept it short and to the point- (if I get no traction, I'll
> continue with the 30 page essay on the topic)-
>
> (note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the
> target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service
> provider,
> believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open
> internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order
> preserving
> the free and open internet.
>
> --- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
> Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
> service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
> this text-
>
> "You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
> to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,

> infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others�

> enjoyment of
> the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears
> here. "
>
> where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
>
> "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting
> you do
> so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
> connection"
>
> In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
> the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
> believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.
>
> [1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html
> <http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html>
> [2]
> http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic
> <http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic>
>
> ---
>
> -dmc
> Douglas McClendon
> http://cloudsession.com/dawg
>
> P.S.- R.I.P. Doug Niehaus- https://lwn.net/Articles/514182/

> <https://lwn.net/Articles/514182/>

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "kulua-l" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kulua-l/-/3nh8WjwMlqwJ.

[Douglas McClendon]

First on the record response from a Google employee (though I think one
not working on fiber-to-KC)

https://plus.google.com/104846107422140003469/posts/RqYDPx7X4Lh

Here is the current full thread, which I hope gets longer but I won't
repost here again-

---

Douglas McClendon2:47 PM

special note to RCK- In the depths of TL;DR land (bam taught me that
one) of the current 41 posts by 10 author thread, I call you out by name
to defend the idea that spam is a legitimate justification to consider
blocking all incoming connection request traffic (by router config or by
terms of service contractual obligation equivalent) for an entire class
of nodes on the internet (residential lowest cost tier) a reasonable
network management practice as defined by FCC-10-201.


Robert Keller4:18 PM

I think that a lot of us (myself included) forget how big a problem spam
is for people providing email services.

By the end of running my own sendmail (years ago), I realized that
hosting email at the end of a consumer service was no longer for me.
From a practical perspective its more scalable for any email service
provider to blacklist all of consumer service X's networks. I figured
that it was just a matter of time before the vendor I was using fell on
a blacklist too, it didn't matter whether my sendmail config was secure
or not.


Douglas McClendon7:34 PM

I would argue in response to that that- a) IPv6 ending the address
shortage issue allows/enables/fixes the lanscape such that a vision of
the internet as described in paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201 is finally
possible. b) in such a vision of the 'fixed' internet, the practice of
blacklist by association (entire networks rather than nodes on
blacklists) is simply no longer the correct answer. And that the
obvious transition to blacklisting individual nodes instead of networks
is the obvious right answer (adapted to IPv6 world). And that as an
answer it will be equivalently effective. Not to mention that I think
new clever and effective solutions will arise as the problem space
evolves. c) we should perhaps get into more disturbing detail, as to
how this relates specificly to precluding residential lowest cost tier
users from hosting any server. I.e. it doesn't actually require hosting
a server to send spam. Off the cuff, I'm just remembering the problem
of open smtp relays, but I don't think that is applicable here, because
google isn't saying you can't host an open smtp relay, they are saying
you are prohibited from hosting any server of any kind. Which seems
obviously overreaching in my opinion.

I believe google has an unavoidable conflict of interest as both a cloud
services provider and an internet service provider. In that between
letting people serve their own low traffic video (say, <100 views/month)
vs using youtube, they see $$ when people use youtube and also view
advertising. It seems unreasonable to me, in the spirit of that
paragraph 13, that google as a fixed broadband ISP is allowed to block
my incoming IPv6 connection request traffic that I would use to serve
video via an FOSS service(apache) alternative to the current defacto
standard- youtube in the cloud.

---

-dmc

> [2]

[Jared Starkey]

I'll say it again: BLOCKING, THROTTLING, SHAPING, and PRIORITIZING are not being used, and not necessary per the TOS.

You're arguing a *hypothetical* situation that *can not happen*.

This is also known as "beating a dead horse", or "pointless".



....And this has NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kulua-l" group.

To post to this group, send email to kul...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to kulua-l+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/04/2012 08:25 PM, Jared Starkey wrote:
> I'll say it again: BLOCKING, THROTTLING, SHAPING, and PRIORITIZING are
> not being used, and not necessary per the TOS.
>
> You're arguing a *hypothetical* situation that *can not happen*.
>
> This is also known as "beating a dead horse", or "pointless".
>
>
>
> ....And this has NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX.

You are entitled to your opinion. And if people take a vote here, and
your idea that this has "NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX" wins, I'll
unsubscribe from the list.

-dmc

>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Douglas McClendon
> <dmc....@filteredperception.org

> <mailto:dmc....@filteredperception.org>> wrote:
>
> First on the record response from a Google employee (though I think
> one not working on fiber-to-KC)
>

> https://plus.google.com/__104846107422140003469/posts/__RqYDPx7X4Lh

> [1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/__terms.html
> <http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html>
> [2]
> http://support.google.com/__fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&__answer=2659981&topic=2440874&__ctx=topic

> <http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic>
>
> ---
>
> -dmc
> Douglas McClendon
> http://cloudsession.com/dawg
>

> P.S.- R.I.P. Doug Niehaus- https://lwn.net/Articles/__514182/

> <https://lwn.net/Articles/514182/>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "kulua-l" group.
> To post to this group, send email to kul...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:kul...@googlegroups.com>.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> kulua-l+unsubscribe@__googlegroups.com
> <mailto:kulua-l%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> For more options, visit this group at

> http://groups.google.com/__group/kulua-l?hl=en
> <http://groups.google.com/group/kulua-l?hl=en>.

>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "kulua-l" group.
> To post to this group, send email to kul...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> kulua-l+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Dario Landazuri]

Jeebus, a bunch of drama queens you two are.

In my professional opinion as the holder of a Bachelor of Science in
Computer Engineering degree from the EECS department at The University
of Kansas and a Senior Systems Administrator for the Office of
Telecommunication Services at The University of Texas System, and in my
authoritative opinion as a member of the KULUA Cabal (There Is No
Cabal(tm)):

Does this topic have anything to do with Linux? No.
Does this topic have a place on this mailing list? Of course!

Besides, it's not like we're drowning in other traffic on this list!

Jared: IMO, you've been coming across as the stereotypical douchebag
lawyer since your first post on this topic - always on the attack.
Cristofer Bell tried to point it out, but don't think you quite got it.
I'm gonna need you to bring it down a notch. You're up here: ^^^^,
and I need you to be down here: ____. And if you want to "rules lawyer"
about what belongs on a list or not, try KCLUG, or maybe one of the
Debian lists.

Side note for Jeffrey Watts: man, when did we start allowing *LAWYERS*
on this list? It was bad enough when you let squishy social
science-types like Paul on here.

Douglas - I get, sorta, what you're on about. But I think you're
misascribing Google being lazy for Google being evil. I suspect when
they needed a TOS for their forthcoming FTTH ISP project, they (or more
likely their lawyers) took a look at the TOSes for other residential
ISPs and basically cobbled together an equivalent - it was not put
together by the engineers at Google, it was put together by MBAs and
JDs. As all these types of documents are.

I appreciate you bringing the topic up. It makes for an interesting
(though lately, tedious) discussion on an otherwise quiet list. Do I
think you've got something about how the TOS is written? Yeah. Do I
think filing an FCC complaint was the right way to go about it? Not
really, but everyone's different.

TL;DR - calm down you two, this is very much an appropriate topic for
this list, IMO.

Cheers,
Dario

--
************************************************************
Dario Landazuri Triangle Fraternity Minn97Ok
da...@landazuri.net
http://www.landazuri.net
************************************************************
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

[Jeffrey Watts]

I've been on Time Warner for the last nine years, and get a dynamically assigned IP that changes a couple of times a year. DynDNS solves that problem. I serve out HTTP and SSH. Both IIRC are against the TOS. I once received a warning when I was still serving out SMTP from TW, though that was due to the volume of (spam) email my old email address was getting at the time. Other than that TW's been great. 

As far as Google Fiber goes, I think it's great that you're calling attention to this. It's an issue worthy of discussion. However, don't make the mistake of overly embracing it and losing sight of the big picture. The reality is that big companies have a need to protect themselves. Organizations like RIAA and MPAA like to sue deep pocketed ISPs that they see as "facillitators" of piracy. Others would love to attack Google should something like a pedophilia site be found on Google's network and be technically allowed. 

Again, I think you have the right ideals, but keep in mind that we don't live in a black and white world. Don't get so passionate about this that you forget that what Google is doing for this town is, in net, a very good thing. "Don't bite the hand that feeds". 

Jeffrey

[Joe Francis]

Perhaps what the MBA/JD's writing the TOS consider a "server" and what
geeks consider a "server" are two different animals.

Some people here define "server" as "anything with a listening socket."
If you follow that logic, every p2p program is a "server."

And I just can't imagine Google really intends to use their TOS to boot
anybody that plays Diablo or Warcraft and "serves" content in Blizzard's
p2p network. Their bar for what is a "server" is going to have to be a
lot higher than just "anything listening on a socket".

Joe

[Karl Schmidt]

On the outside chance that this is a real issue (my take is it only makes it easy for Google pull
the plug if your server starts causing problems pushing spam - if they won't open ports for you find
a different provider ) - I can compare this to Knowlogy and AT&T's U-verse.

Knowlogy decided to close port 25 on our static IP and refused to reopen it - no amount of money
would make it happen - made me really miss the good folks that ran Sunflower.

Moving to U-verse gave me hesitation - I had heard about the terrible support etc - what I got was a
real surprise. The guy that put it in used to work for Sunflower ( had some interesting stories
about the Knowlogy purchase ) - ATT provides the service with default settings of port 25 closed - I
had to contact support ot get that changed - because I had a static IP it went direct to peer 2
support - very good service from someone that understood what I was talking about. (BTW there are
plans to use two POTs pairs for uverse to double the data rate - (anyway data rate has become much
less of an issue - latency is now the key when looking at QOS )). Anyway - I recommend anyone in a
U-verse area to go for it.

Google - who's original search algorithms were borrowed from an intelligence agency - is in the data
mining business - I suppose that AT&T is also - non of these folks are really our friends. Data
mining often looks innocent - but I predict that there will be grave unintended consequences down
the road for some people that rely on Google or other cloud providers to hold and move their
unencrypted data. The issues we see today are only the obvious abuses - I think there will be
disruptive paradigm shifts (political and otherwise ) in the future that will make people regret
ever using these cloud data services.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Schmidt EMail Ka...@xtronics.com
Transtronics, Inc. WEB http://secure.transtronics.com
3209 West 9th Street Ph (785) 841-3089
Lawrence, KS 66049 FAX (785) 841-0434

It looks like both parties are now playing the tax Peter
to buy Paul's vote game. This won't end well. -kps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/04/2012 10:51 PM, Dario Landazuri wrote:
> Jeebus, a bunch of drama queens you two are.

...

> Does this topic have anything to do with Linux? No.
> Does this topic have a place on this mailing list? Of course!

...

> Douglas - I get, sorta, what you're on about. But I think you're
> misascribing Google being lazy for Google being evil.

Cool, then I think my work/drama here is done. I spent a week in person
arguing this with my brother, a google engineering VP. And allegedly
secondhand with Milo Medin, the google VP actually in charge of google
fiber to the home in Kansas City. In all likelyhood I've probably
played at a weekly poker game with Milo once or twice as well.

But during that week of off the record high level talks, all I got was a
line like Jared's. Not an ounce of - you know, you actually have a
point about how the vision of the internet layed out in FCC-10-201(aka
net neutrality, spec. paragraph13) protects every customer of every
fixed broadband connection in the US's right to run an apache server (on
winblowz or linux) and serve the video files from their digital cameras.
And it is laughable, if only due to corporate lazyness, that google's
initial fiber-to-KC ToS explicitly prohibit that.

But now I am content that enough of the right people, see at least the
kernel of point I've been trying to make all along. Honestly a kernel,
a foot in the door, the thin end of the wedge (forgive the drama), is
all I think I need to get done what I'm trying to help get done.

Don't misunderstand this as my personal war against google. If anything
I see google as an army I'm trying to recruit. The real battle will be
in cementing these rights for all US(hopefully the world) users of the
internet, and having them respected by all the major telco ISPs, not
just Google. *That* is the war. If I can't get google on my side, I
know I'm not going to win that one.

-dmc

[Jeffrey Watts]

Not sure if you intended it, but your last post was one long self-pat on the back.  Don't get me wrong, it's a good discussion to have, but your ego is way too involved in this.  The world is full of obnoxious disclaimers, terms of service, terms and conditions, etc that all seek to deprive us of our rights.  How does Google's stand out so much that it's worth all of this angst and fervor?  Surely you've encountered and ignored shrink wrapped TnCs and clicked through ToSs before.  You are posting from a Gmail account, so clearly you must not have read that fine print, or you would be similarly outraged.

I _do_ agree with you that it's good to push back on companies that publish these things, and it's great to have discussions about them.  However, it's really hard for me to get as excited as you obviously are about them, and harder still for me to raise you on my shoulders and carry you around the plaza cheering, when all you've done is point out that one small section of their ToS might violate the letter of the Net Neutrality laws, and most likely violates the spirit.  I might be more excited if I had heard of Google actually using that provision to restrict common use scenarios (Diablo, Quake servers, home webservers, etc).  But we haven't.  Perhaps you'll be vindicated in the future, but given the prevalence of these things I have my doubts.

Jeffrey.

P.S. Do you really argue with your brother about this stuff?  I'm assuming that he doesn't directly work on fiber.  I worked at Sprint for 11 years on Long Distance billing systems.  I always LOVED it when family or friends would want to bitch on and on about how their shitty PCS phone would drop calls in their basement.  Does he enjoy your conversations on this subject?  :)

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/05/2012 01:28 PM, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
> Not sure if you intended it, but your last post was one long self-pat on
> the back.

Yes, the over-the-top conversational tactic is well within my conscious
personality.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good discussion to have, but your
> ego is way too involved in this.

I wouldn't bet against you being right on this one. But where you see
ego, I see gravity of the issue that you are skeptical of. In my mind,
such filtering of the 99% of lowest cost tier residential end nodes is
tantamount to a blueprint for how oppressive regimes should limit free
speech on the internet.

The world is full of obnoxious
> disclaimers, terms of service, terms and conditions, etc that all seek
> to deprive us of our rights. How does Google's stand out so much that
> it's worth all of this angst and fervor?

It stands out, because it is such a canonical opinion of hypocrisy on
the issue of net neutrality. I really do think this is a perfect
example of a company acting both as an ISP and non-ISP, and having one
view of net neutrality as it pertains to their non-ISP business, and an
actually opposite view of net neutrality as it pertains to their ISP
business. We'll see if I get any traction in the public debate on this.

Surely you've encountered and
> ignored shrink wrapped TnCs and clicked through ToSs before. You are
> posting from a Gmail account,

no, not really, though I did use a gmail account to register my google
plus account, though I doubt that was what you were referring to.

so clearly you must not have read that
> fine print, or you would be similarly outraged.

Again, for all the stupid ToS in the world, your point makes sense.
But, for _google_ on this core net neutrality issue specificly, the
excuse of it being in the 'ferengi print' I don't buy. I think there is
a real issue here with conflict of interest between google's non-ISP
business (cloud services, e.g. youtube), and google's ISP business.
Even if I hadn't heard back from google (off the record) that
'potentially jeopardizing cloud profits' was their reason for the no
server hosting clause in their ToS, I would still be harping on the
issue due to the fact that it is a generic reason why common data
carriers should not be part of parent corporations that also have a
vested interest in blocking home-serving if it is a threat to their
cloud serving business.

>
> I _do_ agree with you that it's good to push back on companies that
> publish these things, and it's great to have discussions about them.
> However, it's really hard for me to get as excited as you obviously
> are about them,

I'm honestly excited that you are as persuaded as you already are. I
realize I'm coming off as a zealot. My intent is not to incite a riot
of zealots, but to start a less-ego-bound discussion amongst the
relevant technical professionals, such that in a calm and cool manner,
people can see the rightness of my argument _on this point alone_. I
have other political issues too :)

and harder still for me to raise you on my shoulders and
> carry you around the plaza cheering,

I never wanted to be the center of this debate. I emailed l...@lwn.net a
month ago asking them to look at the issue independently of me and my
fervor. I tried talking with smart successful silicon valley friends
while I was in california. I tried using social networking like
facebook to make a public debate. Honestly this thread is what finally
worked. Believe me- in that tacticly, filing the FCC complaint _was not
something I wanted to do_. I fear I may actually suffer for it, due to
other political protest choices I've made that I certainly wouldn't
blame anyone but myself for.

when all you've done is point out
> that one small section of their ToS might violate the letter of the Net
> Neutrality laws, and most likely violates the spirit.

I wouldn't call it 'small'. But words are complex and important things.

I might be more
> excited if I had heard of Google actually using that provision to
> restrict common use scenarios (Diablo, Quake servers, home webservers,
> etc). But we haven't.

You have a point. Time will tell, and fairly shortly. One of the two
of us will report back to this list when we see what actually happens.

Perhaps you'll be vindicated in the future, but
> given the prevalence of these things I have my doubts.

I've got doubts too. I doubt my own sanity often. This entire thread
was something of a sanity check, though I'm insane enough that I take
this most recent reply of yours as a confirmation of my sanity. :)

peace...

-dmc

>
> Jeffrey.
>
> P.S. Do you really argue with your brother about this stuff? I'm
> assuming that he doesn't directly work on fiber. I worked at Sprint for
> 11 years on Long Distance billing systems. I always LOVED it when
> family or friends would want to bitch on and on about how their shitty
> PCS phone would drop calls in their basement. Does he enjoy your
> conversations on this subject? :)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Douglas McClendon
> <dmc....@filteredperception.org

[jldu...@gmail.com]

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Douglas McClendon
<dmc....@filteredperception.org> wrote:
> Honestly this thread is what finally worked.

You and I clearly have differring interpretations of "worked".

[Douglas McClendon]

My interpretation: 52 post, 14 author thread on a forum with 23 members.
And an on the record response from Robert Keller.

My voice has been heard, my point has been made. Things will go one way
or the other, but the issue really has nothing to do with me specificly
anymore, which is how I wanted it all along.

-dmc

[Jared Starkey]

> My voice has been heard, my point has been made.

Not unless your point is that you don't understand what Network
Neutrality is really about: Blocking, Prioritization, Shaping, and
Throttling.

This is a bitch-fest about Terms of Service, and irrelevant to Network
Neutrality.

While you believe that you're fighting for a noble cause, you're just
using that cause as cover for complaining about something *ALL INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS DO*

Where's your FCC complaint against your current ISP?

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/05/2012 02:26 PM, Jared Starkey wrote:
>> My voice has been heard, my point has been made.
>
> Not unless your point is that you don't understand what Network
> Neutrality is really about: Blocking, Prioritization, Shaping, and
> Throttling.

I assert that blocking is happening at the Terms of Service level at
least, and that it remains to be discovered whether or not it happens at
the network level as well.

> This is a bitch-fest about Terms of Service, and irrelevant to Network
> Neutrality.

I understand that is how you see the issue.

> While you believe that you're fighting for a noble cause, you're just
> using that cause as cover for complaining about something *ALL INTERNET
> SERVICE PROVIDERS DO*
>
> Where's your FCC complaint against your current ISP?

I explained that given the technological limitations of the earlier IPv4
protocol, I did not make the decision to complain about my current ISP.

Also, I re-request a response to the following since you are in the mood
to keep this thread going-

[Brian Stinson]

As a geek (CS graduate) and a convert to the softer-sciences (Polsci Grad
student) I thought I would chime in on a really interesting question. I'm pretty
sure I understand your point from a philosophical perspective, and whether or
not we on the list agree with you isn't the issue I would like to talk about. I
can see a couple of arguments from Google's perspective (irrespective of
rightness or wrongness):

1.) You are not a customer, Google has never provided broadband services to you
therefore they can not, by definition, have removed or degraded those services.
In this view you have made a consumer decision based on their publicly posted
terms of service. From the FCC's perspective (speaking practically, not
philosophically), I can imagine that they would say that Google has done their
duty under the "Transparency" directives in 10-201 by providing a publicly
accessible Terms of Service on their site. Coupled with this, they have not
operationalized their "block servers" term at the network level (that we know
of), and the burden of proof would fall on you to show that they have.

2.) The ability to block servers falls under the "reasonable network management"
clauses. For example blocking open email resolvers (by some definitions a "server") has been
an active security practice ISPs have used to combat spam, and I think it will
still be at least marginally useful in the IPv6 days. This scenario relies
on a business-ey definition of a "server" in which case Google should look at
revising its TOS to be more clear.

3.) The intent behind this part of the TOS is to give Google some recourse
against people who buy one connection and attempt to chop up and resell
connections to their neighbors, (the "use your Google Fiber account to provide a
large number of people with Internet access" part) which is certainly within the
rights of any ISP, but again might require Google to be more clear.

To be honest, if I had to bet money I would bet against your complaint
having the effect you hope it does, but it does highlight some ways where
rulemakers (and TOS writers) can improve their technical definitions in any
case, and it certainly makes for good discussion.

Making no values judgements here,
--Brian

> Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a “general
> purpose technology” that enables new methods of production that have
> a major impact on the entire economy.12 The Internet’s founders

> intentionally built a network that is open, in the sense that it has
> nogatekeepers limiting innovation and communication through the
> network.13 Accordingly, the Internet enables an end user to access
> the content and applications of her choice, without requiring
> permission from broadband providers. This architecture enables
> innovators to create and offer new applications and services without
> needing approval from any controlling entity, be it a network
> provider, equipment manufacturer, industry body, or government

> agency.14 End users benefit because the Internet’s openness allows

> new technologies to be developed and distributed by a broad range of
> sources, not just by the companies that operate the network. For
> example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was able to invent the World Wide Web

> nearly two decades after engineers developed the Internet’s original

> protocols, without needing changes to those protocols or any
> approval from network operators.15 Startups and small businesses

> benefit because the Internet’s openness enables anyone connected to

> the network to reach and do business with anyone else,16 allowing
> even the smallest and most remotely located businesses to access
> national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through
> e-commerce17 and online advertising.18 Because Internet openness
> enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and edge
> providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of
> broadband providers) to create and determine the success or failure
> of content, applications, services, and devices, it maximizes
> commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national

> challenges— including improvements in health care, education, and

> energy efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.19
> ---
> "
>
> -dmc
>

[Douglas McClendon]

On 09/05/2012 07:20 PM, Brian Stinson wrote:
> As a geek (CS graduate) and a convert to the softer-sciences (Polsci Grad
> student) I thought I would chime in on a really interesting question. I'm pretty
> sure I understand your point from a philosophical perspective, and whether or
> not we on the list agree with you isn't the issue I would like to talk about. I
> can see a couple of arguments from Google's perspective (irrespective of
> rightness or wrongness):
>
> 1.) You are not a customer, Google has never provided broadband services to you
> therefore they can not, by definition, have removed or degraded those services.
> In this view you have made a consumer decision based on their publicly posted
> terms of service. From the FCC's perspective (speaking practically, not
> philosophically), I can imagine that they would say that Google has done their
> duty under the "Transparency" directives in 10-201 by providing a publicly
> accessible Terms of Service on their site. Coupled with this, they have not
> operationalized their "block servers" term at the network level (that we know
> of), and the burden of proof would fall on you to show that they have.

As to the burden of proof of network level blocking against signed up
customers, I grant you are correct. Again on that, time will tell, and
fairly shortly (they start work on the 9th? or anybody already have a
live connection?)

As to the not being a customer, you are siding with one of Jared's core
points there. I would argue that there is much language already in
10-201 about equivalency situations, i.e. proactively closing
theoretical loopholes. In this case, and no, IANAL, I would think the
loophole of 'you can get around any law by putting anything you want in
the ferengi print' is not a legally viable defense. Clearly there are
certain rights one cannot legally sign away in a business contract.
Else we'd have 'voluntary slavery'. I believe that paragraph 13 of
FCC-10-201 sets in place the idea that hosting a novel service on a
server connected to your fixed broadband ISP connection is just such a
right.

>
> 2.) The ability to block servers falls under the "reasonable network management"
> clauses. For example blocking open email resolvers (by some definitions a "server") has been
> an active security practice ISPs have used to combat spam, and I think it will
> still be at least marginally useful in the IPv6 days. This scenario relies
> on a business-ey definition of a "server" in which case Google should look at
> revising its TOS to be more clear.

This is an argument I have considered and I just don't think it's valid.
And the FCC has giftwrapped paragraph 13 to me (thanks Jared for
making me take a second look) to defend this idea. The ability for all
end users of fixed broadband ISP connections to be able to create
successful content, services, applications, and devices on the general
purpose technology of the internet precludes fixed broadband ISPs from
having the right to block their ability through network filtering (or, I
would also argue, chilling language in terms of services, but I agree
it's debatable legal hairsplitting).

>
> 3.) The intent behind this part of the TOS is to give Google some recourse
> against people who buy one connection and attempt to chop up and resell
> connections to their neighbors, (the "use your Google Fiber account to provide a
> large number of people with Internet access" part) which is certainly within the
> rights of any ISP, but again might require Google to be more clear.

And 10-201 dedicates no small amount of language to this specific
activity. But hosting a server, which any number of clients at any
number of sites on the internet have access to via the dispatching of
connection initiation requests, as described in the open internet of
paragraph 13, is in no way equivalent to chopping up the service and
selling it to your neighbors.

>
> To be honest, if I had to bet money I would bet against your complaint
> having the effect you hope it does,

I might bet the same way, but I'll save my money and just hope instead.

but it does highlight some ways where
> rulemakers (and TOS writers) can improve their technical definitions in any
> case, and it certainly makes for good discussion.
>
> Making no values judgements here,
> --Brian

Thanks for your feedback.

-dmc

>> Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a �general
>> purpose technology� that enables new methods of production that have
>> a major impact on the entire economy.12 The Internet�s founders

>> intentionally built a network that is open, in the sense that it has
>> nogatekeepers limiting innovation and communication through the
>> network.13 Accordingly, the Internet enables an end user to access
>> the content and applications of her choice, without requiring
>> permission from broadband providers. This architecture enables
>> innovators to create and offer new applications and services without
>> needing approval from any controlling entity, be it a network
>> provider, equipment manufacturer, industry body, or government

>> agency.14 End users benefit because the Internet�s openness allows

>> new technologies to be developed and distributed by a broad range of
>> sources, not just by the companies that operate the network. For
>> example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was able to invent the World Wide Web

>> nearly two decades after engineers developed the Internet�s original

>> protocols, without needing changes to those protocols or any
>> approval from network operators.15 Startups and small businesses

>> benefit because the Internet�s openness enables anyone connected to

>> the network to reach and do business with anyone else,16 allowing
>> even the smallest and most remotely located businesses to access
>> national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through
>> e-commerce17 and online advertising.18 Because Internet openness
>> enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and edge
>> providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of
>> broadband providers) to create and determine the success or failure
>> of content, applications, services, and devices, it maximizes
>> commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national

>> challenges� including improvements in health care, education, and