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."

As a carnivorous junk food lover, this is also my gut response to the 'processed food' is bad allegation. But then, cuz the alleger was cute, I thought about it more with an open mind, and realized that, as laughable pedantically as the allegation is, it is worth understanding. Quite simply what this is about is refined drugs. Before cocaine was refined (I'm guessing), sugar and salt were the refined pleasure giving white crystals of choice. In general, not because of the definition of the word 'processing', but because of human's attraction to refined pleasure giving chemicals, 'processed foods' are (i'd guess if I did the scientific research) *generally* unhealthier. Because the producers are just "increasing shareholder value" by giving us unhealthy addicts what we're willing to spend our money on.

But their friends in the Mafia can. Of course the gubernment, including the FBI/CIA/NSA are supposed to protect us from organized criminals. But as history teaches us (camden 28 documentary) the government often seems more inclined to hire the Mafia to commit it's organized criminal activity, than to police them and protect us from them.

Z seems to have taken a stronger stand for ideals than Google (but I might be biased, time to go smoke a bowl of good ol' Kansas Free State Homegrown :)

Thanks for your thanks. It really means a lot. 11 more days till I get my first on the record answer from Google... I so hope they just admit I was right all along. But if they don't, you and the dozen or two others I've had see my point along the way will definitely make me feel a little less insane. It means a lot. Time will tell...

I call pure B.S. There are many ISPs that allow residential users to run servers. You're B.S. is so exceptionally transparent, I can quote an anonymous leak of Google's CEO and CFO that show precisely that there is no technical lack of supporting infrastructure-

(score 5 unrefuted Anonymous Coward leak post of Larry Page and Patrick Prichett (CEO and CFO of Google))
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357

OK, so what, don't care. You are like one of those people for jailing flag burners who don't get that allowing people to burn flags without going to jail doesn't mean *you* will be forced to burn your flag. Businesses that want servers and switching and storage will buy them, businesses that want to outsource that infrastructure will still be more than free to do so. non-issue.

That's not really true, but again, wouldn't matter much if it were. Most individuals probably do have a 10 year old PC they aren't using for anything else, and could easily run linux on it, *if they wanted to*. But nobody will be forcing them to. Just an option.

No, it really doesn't. What it means is that in *some* cases it makes business sense to store your data offsite and run your apps offisite. In other cases, the opposite.

Or your servers in your residence- *if you choose* (and if the terms of service or FCC interpretation of network neutrality allow it)

I hope you are just trolling and aren't so stupid as to actually believe that. A raspberri pi already can do many interesting things as a server (cheap already), and bandwidth is already fast, compared to 10 years ago (when slashdot.org and other websites were already doing very interesting things with many thousands of users, and a rather paltry amount of bandwidth used by today's standards. I just want to be able to do the same at home now that costs for servers and bandwidth have come down.

And even if you are exactly right, you have still made my point. That 20% is where I want to be. I think Network Neutrality entitles me the opportunity to compete in that 20% of the market. Bruce Schneier seems to agree (Thanked me) with me and wishes me Good Luck with my complaint.

Right To Serve -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993