Comment by ics | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ics | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

These are the terms from Optimum Online:

    Users may not run any type of server on the system. This
    includes but is not limited to FTP, IRC, SMTP, POP, HTTP, 
    SOCKS, SQUID, DNS or any multi-user forums;

    Users may not register or point a domain, sub-domain,
    or hostname to any Optimum Online IP address. Moreover,
    Users may not have traffic redirected to the Optimum
    Online Service;

I can't remember what the terms were last time I was on Comacast, but I believe they explicitly allowed running a server under some conditions (non-commercial perhaps?). There are plenty of ways they could cover their asses while still allowing people to run servers. One of the best things about web services that have been popping up over the last couple years is that they offer so much more in terms of monitoring. If Google just says to keep continuous services within some range, with a distinction between peak and non-peak hours (or even better, close-to-live network stats), what is the problem? Well adjusted bots could swamp the network if every client is using it up I suppose...

Edit: Just saw the ToS update posted below. It's an improvement, but I'm honestly surprised that a company like Google can't just skip the vague give-them-what-they-want-without-screwing-ourselves language and clearly lay down the rules in a way that's irrelevant to the common user but explicit for more aware users.

"running servers" reminds me a lot on restrictions on some systems against "running arbitrary code", then letting you browse the web with javascript turned on. These days servers take all kinds of form, from an FTP server to somebody hosting a deathmatch from their xbox. Hell would my browser going to a page that uses web sockets count as a server? Is an X server a server? I'm sure I'm running half a dozen chrome extension that count as servers in some way.

Here's a web server in a browser! http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/puramu/a-browser-based-webserver...

It's dumb and pointless, what they should be saying is what they mean, if they're afraid of too much bandwidth utilization then say "users may not saturate their connections above 30% bandwidth utilization for longer than 3 hours" or some such. If it's not wanting people to run commercial services then a couple clauses of either "for noncommercial use only" or "not to be held liable for commercial servers running on residential lines" or whatever is the appropriate legalese.

It's just weird old thinking that has nothing to do with how the technology actually works.

> It's just weird old thinking that has nothing to do with how the technology actually works.

It has nothing to do with the technology at all. A cable modem has perfectly adequate performance for a lot of commercial uses and the telecommunications companies want those customers to have to pay 50X as much for a leased line.

Which is why it doesn't make any sense for Google to be doing it. Their purpose isn't to upsell business customers, it's to demonstrate demand for high bandwidth connections so they can pressure other telecommunications companies to increase capacity.

The whole "heavy users" thing is bunkum. Yes, 20% of the users transfer 80% of the data. That's how pretty much everything works. People are diverse and have non-uniform usage patterns, and if you sort by consumption level then the high end tautologically uses more per capita than the low end. But bandwidth is by far not the predominant cost of providing internet service. The predominant cost is getting the wire to the endpoint whatsoever, once it's there you can send as many bits as you can fit and upgrades are a matter of replacing terminating equipment rather than going back into manholes and bucket trucks. If bandwidth consumption were to quintuple it wouldn't require any significant rate increase -- it has been increasing exponentially for years with no real trouble.

The only reason telcos talk about heavy users is that they want to engage in price discrimination and they know it confuses people who are used to dealing with commodities whose dominant cost is the unit cost rather than ones whose dominant cost is the fixed cost of building a distribution system.

> The only reason telcos talk about heavy users is that they want to engage in price discrimination and they know it confuses people who are used to dealing with commodities whose dominant cost is the unit cost rather than ones whose dominant cost is the fixed cost of building a distribution system.

I'd say it's reasonable to charge heavy users more. Firstly, the cost is not totally fixed for the ISP, higher usage involves investment in their own infrastructure (routers, transit etc.). Secondly, it's arguable that heavy users derive greater utility from the service so won't object to higher prices.

> Firstly, the cost is not totally fixed for the ISP, higher usage involves investment in their own infrastructure (routers, transit etc.).

You want to find out how small a portion of the total cost that actually is? Require the ILECs to lease the physical wire from the customer premises to the central office and space in the central office for the lessee's terminating equipment, prohibit the last mile provider from sharing ownership with a backhaul provider and then have the likes of Level 3 and Verizon compete with each other to sell connectivity from your local central office to the wider internet.

> Secondly, it's arguable that heavy users derive greater utility from the service so won't object to higher prices.

Also known as price discrimination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com