You are defining server that way. Google is not. So you are arguing about something that doesn't even exist.

How does google define server, then?

1. Does P2P count?

2. What if I'm downloading a creative commons movie and seed it to a ratio of 15?

3. What if I'm seeding a hobby video podcast I make at a constant 300mbps?

4. What if I use opera unite instead of bittorrent?

5. What if I switch to nginx?

6. What if I make a living off that video podcast?

7. What if I was only sending it to my family instead of the world?

1: No

2: No

3: No

4: No

5: No

6: Yes

7: No

Computer programmers like exact definitions. Server: The main controller of the program, or main sender of data.

The real world is much more fuzzy. They are concerned with business use, not server use exactly.

So your answers to my questions say that anything non-commercial will be fine.

But then you define server in a way that disagrees with those answers.

Do they care about servers, or do they care about businesses? If businesses, why can't they make it explicit in the rules?

They care about businesses, it says so very clearly in the article. And if they haven't already, they should make it explicit.

It's nothing special about google - all ISPs have the same rule.

I DID NOT define server! You read it exactly backward. I said that's how programmers define it, but that's NOT how google defines it (for internet purposes).

Oh. Sorry about misreading there.

But seriously, while programmers are pedantic sometimes, when I'm running a website out of my basement that's a 'server' by ANY definition. If google is only going to enforce the rule on business servers, they should say so.

And it doesn't matter what other ISPs do, we already know they're horrible.

I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. While I accept that they're just trying to target this specific subset of users that they feel they can get more money from, that is very much a violation of net neutrality.

Further, their current terms of service, while in intention mean: "customers who are using our services to run a business", can later be construed to target everyone. Though they promise that they wont. A dark cloud to cast.

Say they want to get rid of Alice, who knows why, but Alice has a Minecraft server. Those clauses arn't about Minecraft servers, but Alice agreed to the terms, and they can use those terms to remove her.

Despite the undercurrent of hatred for Google on hacker news, I think in general we all expect better from the company. This is not better.

wow.. where to begin. So you and Google seem understand the exact definition of "server". "main controller of the program".. lol..

Hah! You try defining server. Don't forget X-windows when you do so.

I think the typical meaning is a system that responds to requests with data. I think this is a usable definition. By default it includes P2P, but you can always add 'except P2P'. X servers don't fit this definition, which seems correct to me.

oops. sorry. I misread your earlier comment.