Complainant here. I was living in Kansas City when the complaint was made, and for months after. I have since moved a few miles east. I think you'll see that I am not the only residential internet user who would like to be able to run a server without violating their contract.

And that is precisely the kind of Free Speech problem that Net Neutrality is trying to solve. If the network operators become the gatekeepers determining which speech can go on their networks, and which can't (outside any government law enforcement agency direction), then... well, it's not good.

I think it actually is net neutrality (of course, since I'm the complainant). However what you subsequently said is all spot-on. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim "unlimited bandwidth" in advertising, then not deliver it to the people smart enough to lawfully take advantage of it. In some circles such misleading advertising is known as "fraud".

what in the name of all things good does it mean to "leech bandwidth". What makes _your_ "use" of bandwidth ok, and _mine_ "leaching"???

The problem with these "Cover Your Ass" overreaching terms in the fine print is that they are very chilling to the development of home server software. If there was a "right to serve" on the internet, there would be more home server software developed, and in my opinion we would all be better off.

here is what they were responding to-

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf

What Google I think argued was that all lawful devices shall not be blocked by network providers of 'the internet'. A server is a lawful device. Google is saying that you are not allowed to watch video from suppliers whose servers are connected to their edge of the internet.

First, I hope you mis-spoke when you said "difference between business and commercial uses of the internet". I presume you meant, non-commercial vs commercial. Which gets to the point that finally a journalist has on the record agreed with me about. I.e. the way NetNeutrality currently exists, such distinction is not in the legal domain of ways that ISPs may block or throttle "lawful devices connected to the network" (including servers, small like pi or large like an onyx). I.e. suppose I find a way to make $1,000,000 serving less traffic in funny cat videos than my neighbor uses for skype calls with their grandchildren. Are you really suggesting that it is the commercial vs non-commercial nature of that traffic that should allow Google as an ISP to charge me more for it?

https://medium.com/editors-picks/5a2d9322bdc4 (Ryan Singel, former editor of Wired.com's Thread Level blog)

"FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint
Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator

For years, Google was the most active corporate supporter of federal Net Neutrality regulations prohibiting broadband providers from controlling what apps or devices Americans use on the internet services they pay for."

Bill Hicks had a good bit about advertisers you might like-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

And for my opinion of the biggest marketer hypocrisy going on lately-

https://medium.com/editors-picks/5a2d9322bdc4

headline: FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint; Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator

I think you are beginning to see the real mess. As far as the datacenter abuse argument, if I here google try to use that, I'll argue back from the cookie monster angle.

"With advertising claims like these, you need a way to keep commercial users from taking advantage. I assume Google Fiber is similar."

If I'm using the exact same bandwidth as my neighbor, upstream and downstream, but I'm making $1,000,000 per year selling funny cat videos, then yes, I'm taking better advantage of the same resource as my neighbor (if I'm the sort of person that doesn't consider watching funny cat videos to be torturous).

And you don't sense anything fishy going on with language that self-contradictory? Do you really think that Google is not technically smart enough to word things in a less blatantly self-contradictory fashion than that, if their were no hidden agendas being served?

Citations needed. Please find me the "no server at all" policy in TimeWarner Broadband's terms of service (or network management practices, or similar official policy documents. I think you'll find that Google was actually exceptionally stupid in this regard. The existing big players at least knew enough about network neutrality to just make pages and pages of chilling terms of service, but without ever going so far as to say "no server at all". Next, please go ahead and give me the citation/URL for GoogleFiber's "non-commercial server" policy. It may well be something quite recent that I will be informed of one week from today, as it sounds like a possible attempt to address my complaint. Honestly if they did concede that much I'd be at least half-way happy. But then I'd start quoting them paragraph 13 of the Federal Communication Commission's Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet again, and asking where exactly they think they get the right to prevent residential users from engaging in that kind of value trading commerce over the internet, while hypocritcally their non broadband carrier divisions go on trading advanced cloud services like gmail with residential end users in exchange for their eyeball attention (and in some cases, money for enhanced services). Yeah, ok, non-commercial only, sure, spose, cha.... :)

But the problem is that residential ISPs don't want to have to actually provide "internet service". What they really want to provide is the much simpler and more profitable "client only internet service". I.e. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service-

ComIntercept (FCC->GoogleFiber)"
"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.
"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

Why Yes! Thank you for bringing it up in the first post. Go ahead and follow this rabbit trail if you are more interested in the situation-

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."