Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

posted by mattie_p on Thursday February 20 2014, @12:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the non-soluble-fiber-is-good-for-digestion dept.

Fluffeh writes:

"Google has officially invited 34 cities in nine metro areas to become the next batch of the Google Fiber rollout.

Google said it 'genuinely would like to build in all of these cities,' but that the complexities of deploying networks may not allow it. 'During this process, we will work with each city to map out in detail what it would look like to build a new fiber-optic network there,' Google said. 'The most important part of this teamwork will be identifying what obstacles might pop up during network construction — and then working together to find the smoothest path around those obstacles. Some might be easy, some might take some creative thinking or a few months to iron out, and in some cases there might be such local complexities that we decide it's not the right time to build Google Fiber there.'"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by hash14 on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:02AM

    by hash14 (1102) on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:02AM (#3187)

    To make this comparison fair, don't many other ISPs offer similar terms?

    The minor difference here being that Google doesn't offer a business class service that would replace that, but perhaps those plans are in the future. Not that these sorts of terms worrisome anyways...

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by dmc on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:15AM

    by dmc (188) on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:15AM (#3193)

    "
    To make this comparison fair, don't many other ISPs offer similar terms?
    "

    This is true, and Google used it in their compelled by the FCC defense of my Network Neutrality complaint against them. Unfortunately I've found the FCC to be impossible to pin down to an enforceable opinion when it comes to NN.

    The core of my view that this falls under NN is the following from paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201/NN
    (bold emphasis mine, note it does not say "anyone with a 'business class' connection, it says just _anyone_'. And no weasel words about 'via a third party like a cloud hosting provider')

    "
    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-commerce(17)
    "

  • (Score: 1) by c0lo on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:22AM

    by c0lo (156) on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:22AM (#3198)

    The minor difference here being that Google doesn't offer a business class service that would replace that, but perhaps those plans are in the future. Not that these sorts of terms worrisome anyways...

    Well... good luck with that.

    (I like your positive attitude... no, seriously, I like it.
    I'm a bit more pessimistic: without pressure, Google won't change anything... it's not in their business interest to do it. Yes, grabbing good slice of market because they afford to invest does make good business sense. However, allowing more liberty to that market slice... nope, is doesn't make sense)

    To make this comparison fair, don't many other ISPs offer similar terms?

    Here, downunder, all ISP-es that I used until now allow you to do anything that is legal with your connection (this includes running your server). Yes, I might pay a bit more (like I'm paying now for a dedicated IP address), but I'm still a home user and can run my own Web and stmp server.
    My (limited) experience with Europe shows the same in this regard.
    Why wouldn't US market want the same... it's not like being impossible?

    • (Score: 1) by hash14 on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:55AM

      by hash14 (1102) on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:55AM (#3212)

      Idiotic typo on my part... I meant to say, "Not that these terms AREN'T worrisome" and definitely agree, they won't change their position until made to do so. These terms are likely a CYA so they can, in the future, choose to shut you down for something that they don't like. And then they may perhaps even steal your idea. Very worrisome indeed.

      The fact is, many of those internet startups (Google itself included, perhaps) were probably borne from a home server in someone's basement. When people talk about how Net Neutrality will preserve the innovation of the internet, they fail to point out how it applies to clauses like these as well. Sure, you can get a VPS on the cheap somewhere, but there's just something cool about having your own hardware, being able to upgrade it and tailor it to your needs in a way that a virtual machine somewhere thousands of miles away never could.... This of course, the buearocrats will never understand or care about. Sad.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by dmc on Thursday February 20 2014, @02:19AM

        by dmc (188) on Thursday February 20 2014, @02:19AM (#3222)

        "
        The fact is, many of those internet startups (Google itself included, perhaps) were probably borne from a home server in someone's basement. When people talk about how Net Neutrality will preserve the innovation of the internet, they fail to point out how it applies to clauses like these as well. Sure, you can get a VPS on the cheap somewhere, but there's just something cool about having your own hardware, being able to upgrade it and tailor it to your needs in a way that a virtual machine somewhere thousands of miles away never could.... This of course, the buearocrats will never understand or care about. Sad.
        "

        You may find this post from an AC on slashdot interesting-
        "
        http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41 288357 [slashdot.org] (quoted entirely here-)

        Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score:5, Interesting)
        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10, 2012 @10:46AM (#41288357)

        Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.

        Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.

        I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.
        "