dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
124
share rss forum feed
bvierra

join:2011-07-17
North Hollywood, CA

It's way overblown

It is being way overblown and most of the FUD seems to be about a basic misunderstanding of how the internet works. Remember the entire internet is based on overselling, you don't sell 10 connections @ 1Gbps because you have a 10Gbps uplink, you sell a few hundred.

I am sure that Google could care less if you run a server or not on the connection, data is data. What matters however is the amount of data that is continuously used on the line, a residential user that uses 750Mbps (hey we are talking about a Gbps connection here) for a few hours every day with low usage (let's say 10Mbps) for the majority of the rest of their time will cost a lot less than someone who consistently pushes 200-300Mbps because of a few servers.

Now let's say Google puts 100 connections for every 10Gbps uplink (realistically it's higher than this, but still), usually people aren't going to use anywhere near that 1Gbps and if they do it's for a second or two at most. Even at peak times they have plenty of room to spare and everyone is happy. Now let's say that 50 of that 100 is hosting servers pushing 200Mbps, uh oh... there goes the entire uplink.

If people want to run servers that are going to consume enough BW that Google will even notice, they really need to be in a Data Center and paying for the sustained BW.

You also have to remember a blanket statement like that is there for a reason, could you imagine if they tried to explain that your Gbps connection came with a 100Mbps 95th % and TOS says you cannot use more than that? Try explaining that either before the contract is signed or the poor guy in the call center trying to explain it over the phone to someone. This was to make things much easier on the consumer, blanket it but do not enforce unless they go overboard.

Would people be happier with a 1Gb down / 50Mb up? Or would you rather have that full burst available at all times for when you need it? In return Google asks that you not be an ass and use up the entire connection.

TL;DR It's a blanket statement to save the call center guys from committing suicide, if you don't abuse the privilege and sustain too much traffic Google could care less what you do on it.

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: It's way overblown

said by bvierra:

I am sure that Google could care less if you run a server or not on the connection, data is data.


Then there is not point to it in the ToS. So remove it.
Same goes for the rational that it never gets enforced. Then remove it.

--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation
bvierra

join:2011-07-17
North Hollywood, CA

Re: It's way overblown

If we lived in a non-legal everyone can sue for anything world it would be. The issue is that we don't and every company has to cover their ass.

It's the same reason at work I had to to write, send to atty, rewrite, send to atty (repeat another 50 times) an IT handbook that basically said we may monitor what you do on your computer, you cannot do anything a reasonable person would know was bad, commit crimes from company property. All 55 pages of it. Because if it is not written down someone will argue that it is not their fault because they didn't know.
mark04

join:2013-03-21
Lynnwood, WA
This is such a tired argument. WHY WHY WHY do people keep conflating "servers" with "bandwidth consumption"?

Look, the stuff that bandwidth hogs are running on their connections are by and large NOT generally classified as servers: streaming video, downloading porn from file-depot sites, torrents. (You may argue that joining a torrent is acting as a server and while I would agree on a technical level, it has pretty clearly sailed under the bar with all of the major ISPs. None of them say you can't run torrents, because it's too popular.)

So who gets dinged by the no-servers policy and the port-blocking so often used to enforce it? People like me who want to run a mail server, a web server, basically anything that needs to live on a well-known TCP port. These services consume a trivial amount of bandwidth.

Why does this policy keep showing up then? Because it has become standard, and accepted to a certain degree, by the sheeple/consumers/nontechnical users, and the company lawyers know they can get away with it. The clause becomes their "nuclear option" which can be deployed whenever the need arises, because EVERYONE is in violation! (Ever use Skype? instant messaging? "push" email? how are any of those things *not* servers?)

It saddens and discourages me to see so many leap to Google's defense here. Since when is "everyone else does it" and "don't worry, they won't enforce it" a valid excuse?

fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR

Re: It's way overblown

said by mark04:

It saddens and discourages me to see so many leap to Google's defense here. Since when is "everyone else does it" and "don't worry, they won't enforce it" a valid excuse?

People are coming to google's defense because google isn't doing anything wrong.

As others have said, ISPs have had these clauses since the beginning of time. Whether or not that is a sufficient reason for google to do the same is beside the point. Where were the defenders of Net Neutrality for the last 20 years that mom & pop ISPs had this provision in their TOS?

Why is this is an issue now that google is doing it?
Bengie25

join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Reviews:
·Solarus
said by mark04:

This is such a tired argument. WHY WHY WHY do people keep conflating "servers" with "bandwidth consumption"?

You seem to be conflating bandwidth and data. P2P consumes a lot of data, but relatively low bandwidth.

You have no idea how hard it is to use 1Gb of bandwidth short of a server. I only have a 50Mb symmetrical line that can be pegged 24/7 without nary a hick-up, but when I try to seed 500GB of torrents, my average bandwidth consumption is around 3Mb/s average with very short burst up to line rate.

It's not often someone can handle me sending my full line rate at them.

At these speeds data transfers so fast, that your line is almost always idle.

The issue is most residential server uses of bandwidth is for file-sharing of some sort. At high speeds, eventually you run out of storage on one end.

Commercial Servers tend to stream data to a very large audience, which means they are in constant demand. There is no breathing room.

Even a customer who makes full use of their 1Gb link will probably not being do it for long if it is residential usage. It will probably be 1-2 months at most as it requires quite the computer resources to sustain that. A business can use 1Gb for eternity.