from http://www.elemental.org/~daleg/gargoyle/
"
What is the Gargoyle?

        The Gargoyle wearable computer is a project I am undertaking to study and
        improve apon current technologies and adapt them for use in a wearable computer
        application and a environment of every-day, practicle use. I am naming the
        prototype I am building "Gargoyle". This name comes from Neil Stephenson's
        popular cyberpunk novel "Snow Crash". In this a book, a Gargoyle refers to
        a person who wears a wearable computer of sorts, and is constantly collecting
        information or intel about his/her surroundings, and is near-constantly
        jacked into the Metaverse (a futuristic MUSH-like version of the Internet).
"

in case people aren't familiar with my non-drunken-but-close-enough debate style- scratch the tcp/ from the first sentence. And obviously I was just flailing against webrtc and this quic thing which smells like it is also trying to address the more general problem space of - "well, since we don't really have an open ipv6 internet that works for everyone, lets waste our lives engineering this big mess over here..."

The problem with trying to implement a new protocol over tcp/ip (the internet) like Tim Berners-Lee did with the web, is that the mythical 'Open Internet' has been degraded. QUIC and webRTC reek to me of some orwellian attempt to make the lies about home servers being less worthy of net-neutrality protections than skype's servers make sense. I.e. allowing 'client to client' file transfers and video chats. All this is because of the conspiracy to deprive residential internet users the power to serve. Now, don't get me wrong, the things webRTC, and I'm guessing QUIC work around (legacy nat traversal when no simple 'open internet' directly routable path is available) are useful. But it is disingenous to look at QUIC without also looking at the fact that when Google entered the residential ISP business, they actually pushed the server persecution further, with a blanket 'prohibited from hosting any kind of server' terms of service language.

Earlier this week the FCC finally after 9 months 'served' my NetNeutrality (2000F) complaint against Google, along with the longer 53 page manifesto that now reached google via the FCC via the Kansas Attorney General('s office). Yesterday after pinging schneier@schneier.com for any insight to prepare for google's July 29th compelled response, he (or someone spoofing him) replied- "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck.".

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341 (score 5 comment about the situation, with further links)

I'm not suggesting people deserve free bandwidth. Where did you get that idea from my words? As far as "cut-rate" internet service- yes I am fully aware that Google is both technically able, and could see a profitable path offering an internet service that charges different traffic rates for Google service usage that stays on it's combined ISP/content network, and then charge 10 times that amount for traffic that goes to destinations outside of the Google-sphere. But that is precisely the kind of intentional crippling of the "general purpose technology" of the internet, that Network Neutrality rules were written to prevent. I'm just waking the FCC up to the fact that my servers at home need the same legal protections as Skype's while I'm using GoogleFiber as my ISP.

The rest of your arguments are just as specious, however I'll wait to completely address them until I get Google's compelled response to my complaint on July 29th. If there were in fact a legal concept of "cut-rate" internet service that nullified my arguments, I would have hoped that within the first 9 months of the complaint being live, that someone at Google or the FCC might have referred me to the legal codes where the special treatment for "cut-rate" internet services were defined. Honestly, I loathe the business models of - razors/blades, gaming-consoles/software, mobile-phones/contract-locking. I.e. using the long term benefits of "stack lock-in" to "tax" the consumer, and remove competition from the field. But, if the FCC doesn't mind letting google do the printers-ink captialistic game to the internet and have "cut-rate internet service" in a way marketed similarly to actual legitimate "internet service" that doesn't charge different rates for the same packet with the same source and destination address, based on which end (the residential or remote) was the 'client' and which was the 'server'. Well, if they want a printers-ink model of the internet, so be it. But I'm going to make them say it out loud in clear language that educates people as to the real, precise level of Network Neutrality that Google is interested in. Namely, just enough to protect their servers, but not enough to protect the home servers of the global populace.

There is a difference between wiring up my next door neighbor, and operating a web server including a wiki that provides a service over the general purpose internet to both my neighbor, and perhaps my friend on the other side of the globe, and perhaps the global public at large.

By your logic, operating a web or any server with many clients is tantamount to "resale of their service to third parties" because *technically* operating a wiki server is distributing the utility/value(of)internetservice to both my next door neighbor, and the rest of the world.

Now... personally, I might be happier with simple per-bit charging and the ability to resell service to my neighbor if for some reason they think they'd rather do that than purchase service from the same provider (perhaps they live on the border of the service area, or perhaps they view my firewall as a value-add to the internet service). But I'm not holding my breath for that even though it seems the most logical to me.

These are subtle issues, don't try to gloss over the reality. What you described, are in fact common restriction, but what Google implemented, was a simplified language that "prohibits hosting any kind of server (without prior written permission)". If you actually read FCC-10-201 and where it lauds Tim Berners-Lee for having been able to invent the world wide web on top of the internet protocol "without having had to get permission from any government or network authority", you might begin to see the obvious problem with google's language. Though you won't fully realize the motives involved, until you stare at the abominable market for home server software that can compete with gmail, but provide enhanced 4th ammendment protections by being able to consider your data to be your "papers" at home, rather than something you entrusted to a company that is not at all concerned with your privacy if they think they can make a penny by selling it out.

The way networking works, no one user can destroy the network. It's a shared resource. I might not be able to run a business like old-school slashdot from my home server (when they had 100K users already), but I might well be able to start something like an old-old-school slashdot (say, 1000 users) from a home server, and build up momentum and revenue to enable me to then scale as needed with servers beyond the ones in my home. You are saying that such aspirations can be thwarted by ISPs that also have non-broadband-carrier divisions that have been making billions operating their own servers on the internet. I find it _too_ convenient that the "unfortunate expansion of our terms of service safetynets" manages to horribly throttle the home server software market that Vint Cerf, in an interview in my college networking textbook 10 years ago, envisioned flourishing in the new IPv6 world. Or as he writes on Google's IPv6 education page.

When my neighbors all watch the latest thing released on netflix, and I see my pr0n bandwidth rates lessened because we share network trunks, can I claim that my neighbors are "abusing" the service? Or are they merely "using" the service? I just want my fair share, no more, no less. Sending a packet to or from a remote client connected to my local server, is no more or less expensive for the ISP than sending a packet to or from a remote server from my local client. QED.

reasons, not necessarily in any order-

1) I was a kansas city resident at the time
2) I have a degree in computer engineering
3) about 20 years ago in college (and in fact in college when I was still attending high school), I enjoyed smoking pot, and playing doom at my university's computer center. After my subsequent education and carreer beginnings, I became passionate about pursuing the dream of running my own business, with my own server, at home. With enough freedom of speech on the internet to effectively clone slashdot (it's open source) and try to compete with them, maybe not using Google as my advertising partner (maybe gasp, not having an advertising partner at all).
4) GoogleFiber was the first residential ISP offering me IPv6, and coincidingly, gigabit rates
5) My brother happens to be a Google VP. Not google fiber related, however before becoming a google employee, his early carreer included being a director of engineering at @home, perhaps the first big name cable modem broadband provider. He then reported to Milo Medin, who is in fact now the google VP in charge of google fiber. And in fact this nepotistic relation enabled me to be in a position to debate the issue with highly relevantly educated and knowledgeable people. In fact, Milo invited me to rewrite their terms of service in a way that would allow e.g. a home user to run a quake3 server, but would otherwise "protect the potential cloud profits of google". In other words, to maintain the conditions that exclude home server software from realistically entering the market and competing with gmail, to provide a solution that is more protected by the 4th ammendment, since you would never be handing your papers/data over to a 3rd party commercial service whose terms of service you've probably never bothered to read closely.
6) Vint Cerf, one of two "fathers of the internet" for developing the "Internet Protocol" (v4 and v6) is also VP at google, and in fact has made statements on their IPv6 education web page that led me to believe google would not be the sort of company to engage in this
7) you are actually wrong. I know of 2 large cable modem ISPs that have no general server ban. Now, they do have instead pages upon pages of things I might argue against. But I'm sure not going to try arguing with them, if my argumentative abilities cannot succeed in persuading a company like Google, that has actually advocated instead of opposed network neutrality, to change their ways. Note well that there was a slashdot AC leak of a google all hands meeting where the CEO "repeatedly needed" the CFO about the no server hosting clause because Page disagreed with it. The CFO defended it saying that it "had to be there to prevent large datacenter style abuse". Which is a lie.

There is a difference between wiring up my next door neighbor, and operating a web server including a wiki that provides a service over the general purpose internet to both my neighbor, and perhaps my friend on the other side of the globe, and perhaps the global public at large.

By your logic, operating a web or any server with many clients is tantamount to "resale of their service to third parties" because *technically* operating a wiki server is distributing the utility/value(of)internetservice to both my next door neighbor, and the rest of the world.

Now... personally, I might be happier with simple per-bit charging and the ability to resell service to my neighbor if for some reason they think they'd rather do that than purchase service from the same provider (perhaps they live on the border of the service area, or perhaps they view my firewall as a value-add to the internet service). But I'm not holding my breath for that even though it seems the most logical to me.

These are subtle issues, don't try to gloss over the reality. What you described, are in fact common restriction, but what Google implemented, was a simplified language that "prohibits hosting any kind of server (without prior written permission)". If you actually read FCC-10-201 and where it lauds Tim Berners-Lee for having been able to invent the world wide web on top of the internet protocol "without having had to get permission from any government or network authority", you might begin to see the obvious problem with google's language. Though you won't fully realize the motives involved, until you stare at the abominable market for home server software that can compete with gmail, but provide enhanced 4th ammendment protections by being able to consider your data to be your "papers" at home, rather than something you entrusted to a company that is not at all concerned with your privacy if they think they can make a penny by selling it out.

The way networking works, no one user can destroy the network. It's a shared resource. I might not be able to run a business like old-school slashdot from my home server (when they had 100K users already), but I might well be able to start something like an old-old-school slashdot (say, 1000 users) from a home server, and build up momentum and revenue to enable me to then scale as needed with servers beyond the ones in my home. You are saying that such aspirations can be thwarted by ISPs that also have non-broadband-carrier divisions that have been making billions operating their own servers on the internet. I find it _too_ convenient that the "unfortunate expansion of our terms of service safetynets" manages to horribly throttle the home server software market that Vint Cerf, in an interview in my college networking textbook 10 years ago, envisioned flourishing in the new IPv6 world. Or as he writes on Google's IPv6 education page.

I just want my fair share. ISPs can allow (by terms of service) residential customers to host servers without their networks falling apart. The internet is not that fragile.

When my neighbors all watch the latest thing released on netflix, and I see my pr0n bandwidth rates lessened because we share network trunks, can I claim that my neighbors are "abusing" the service? Or are they merely "using" the service? I just want my fair share, no more, no less. Sending a packet to or from a remote client connected to my local server, is no more or less expensive for the ISP than sending a packet to or from a remote server from my local client. QED.

+1. I genuinely believe that the FCC has obstructed justice in regards to my complaint against GoogleFibers "Any kind of server prohibited without written permission" terms of service. It's kind of interesting to note how the predominance of such persecution against server operators achieves the ends of having the global populace gathered around a dozen large information watering holes provided by companies whose names fit on a single powerpoint slide. However, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's Enforcement Review Board/Beaureau/Whatever, Google will be "served" with my 2000F NetNeutrality complaint this week (after 9 months of not getting word one from the FCC as to whether or not my legal claims had any merit).

Please reconcile that deception with these terms of service:

(Note, after 9 months of being lied to and ignored by the FCC, this complaint will supposedly be "served" to google on Monday, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's Enforcement Beaureau)
--- FCC NetNeutrality 2000F Complaint REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-

"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"

In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html [google.com]
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]

--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf

IMHO the reason it will or won't happen is entirely up to the FCC and their Network Neutrality rules. I believe the NetNeutrality rules as written (10-201) protect the fully symmetry of the internet. I.e. my right for clients on the internet to not be blocked from my server, even if my server is sitting in my living room connected to GoogleFiber as my residential ISP. Google, and historically the FCC, have seemed to disagree, and believe it is the place of residential citizens to not host servers that compete with gmail/facebook/skype/etc, and instead know their place as *consumers* of content, rather than *producers* and *distributors* and *publishers* of content. Until the FCC and Google realize that *all* internet end users should demand the "right to serve"[1] the market for home server software can be considered to be well and truly muzzled.

[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3871729&cid=44023567
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891

Indeed. The recent NSA revelations are quite bad, but there is a long way to go between that, and forbidding journalistic coverage of Tiananmen Square in '89. That Google/Yahoo/Microsoft saw fit to collaborate with that censorship while building their digital financial empire of data and servers on the internet...

honestly on my end, it was in part due to the fact that I had had to immediately end a #2 ahead of schedule to take the call. On her end, my best guess is that it could betray a slight sense of non-straightforwardness that is not hidden by the fact that the complaint has remained live, and unanswered with a single sentence of explanation for 9 months now. And how it might relate to the interrellation between my complaint and it's fight to enable U.S.A. citizens to host their data on their own services on their own servers at their own homes. (GoogleFiber prohibits any kind of server hosting for residential users in terms of service, and selectively enforces, effectively putting a muzzle on the market for home-server software that could compete with things like gmail/ghangouts/skype/etc)

My conversation with Anna Baughman at the F.C.C. - (see this mod5 comment for the GoogleFiber/NetNeutrality/USNavyInformationWarfareOffice context http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341 )

Incoming from 717 338 2772 to 785 979 7723, 13:26CDT 2013/06/12
--
A: Anna Baughman, FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs
D: Douglas McClendon
--
A: Hi, it's Anna from the FCC, how are you?

D: Hi, I'm OK, uh, I don't suppose I could call you back in 5 minutes

A: Well, Um, Actually I'm leaving here in 5 minutes

D: Oh, never mind then, it's not that big a deal

A: I just wanted to let you know that umm we are again having the Enforcement Beaureu look at this complaint and someone from that office will be in contact with you ... we are not ignoring you

D: (laughs) Ok, that's nice to know, umm, I, I have been worried and the fact that I suppose after nine months (A: right) i can say that its still under some kind of enforcement review should indicate to me that there is at least you believe there is at least some substance even if its confused that you need to educate me about right?

A: right, but we're going to um, i just spoke with my supervisor again and we're going to um hopefully, well no we *will*, someone from E.B. will be in contact with you (D: and). It may take a couple of days but we are on/

D: Ok, a couple days, but, but, not a couple weeks? but not a couple weeks, or a couple months?

A: I would say next week sometime

D: Ok, so if I don't hear back in, if I don't hear back in 2 weeks then I can be worried or call back and start annoying you again

A: just call me back, feel free to call me back anytime but if you want to hang tight for a week or two

D: that thats fine, as long as you tell me that things are being worked on that thats the feedback I need to know to stop bugging you every day

A: Oh, well that's OK, Oh all right, well you have a good day

D: you too thank you

A: bye now

D: ok bye bye

his point was that he believes it is possible. You apparently disagree. My own assessment is that it is possible, or, with the current trajectory of technology and social usage of it, will become possible in the near term (10 years). The way to combat it in my opinion, is to view the sorts that engage in it as criminals, and violaters of the constitution. The silicon valley types like to say "the perception is the reality". If we perceive these people as being legitimate, reasonable actors in our society... well, it's gonna be unfun in my opinion. But if we perceive them as criminals, and engage in an engineering war against them (i.e. I use duct tape to cover the camera on my mobile devices phones, but if we were at war with the spooks, there would be reasonable market share of phones with hard dip switch banks to cut the power/signal to the cam, mic, accelerometers, antennas, etc. I may be deluding myself that such physical things will be useful for long with ever shrinking scale nanotech. But the fact that anyone who has tried has failed utterly, due, I think to the buying public's lack of education about what these devices are really being used for (by the 'other users' of 'their' device), then I think such products would have at least somewhat succeeded in the market in the last 10 years. But it seems more that the NSA has successfully suppressed technical literacy to the point where our populace is ripe for the surveillance harvesting.

1. automated more efficient and thus more financially profitable marketing and advertising.

2. political persecution. It's hard to get away with an old-school execution style A-list B-list purge, though certainly correlating the accelerometer data of mobile phones with the words on the web page visible at that second makes the list sorting much easier, if you don't care much about some false positives. And you can get your B list down from 50% to 1%, because computer targeting based on aggregated data really just is that good.

3. insider trading.

4. ratfucking anyone and everyone, from your brother, to the local congresscritter's close relatives under the age 14 that you don't like.

5. lots more shit that would keep me more awake at night than I can afford if I bothered to not repress the thoughts.