The friction in these situations generally comes from the hand-wavey definition of server. Google doesn't care about your website as it currently exists. They do care if it turns into boingboing, or something more commercial.
Clearly defining the point at which the line is crossed hamstrings them when unforseen situations arise. Not clearly defining it allows for capricious enforcement. At either end of the spectrum one party loses out. This middle ground allows for both parties to be happy much of the time, but that's not to say no improvements can be made.
I would hope serious proposals for change would take both parties into account and try to find a better compromise.
Why? Really why? I'm buying a certain number of bits per second. They don't need to know nor should care about the content of those bits.
If they oversubscribe and sell bandwidth "bursting" up to X, but only a small fraction of X for a sustained period then they should have to advertise that clearly and not claim "X bandwidth connection". Rather than burying it in a TOS.
Because it let's them provide better service (as defined as what most people care about) to the majority of people. Better, in the context is cheaper and faster. Do you think they can provide the same speed for the same price without any limitations? I don't believe so, but feel free to make your case.
Note that by previous internet usage patterns the sustained usage of an shared upstream connection wouldn't necessarily result in less than maximum speed if provisioned correctly based on usage levels. That may be different now with more video streaming, but only in scale, not in principle.
If you're running a business then you _must_ read the TOS. It's a contract between you and the provider. You can (largely) get away with not reading it if you're a personal user, but if your business depends on something then you need to understand the small print.
You are paying for a given usage profile, and the economics are based around that usage profile. A few leaches can exist for a given economic expectation, but beyond that everyone suffers.
Then, like I said, they should advertise they are selling "a usage profile" and not bandwidth. There are laws that protect consumers from being misled.
Leaches, wtf?
Should the power company be able too ban you from using the electricity they sell you to power a saw? If you do, are you then leeching from the other electricity customers?
Google isn't being misleading any more than a landlord. You can't run an auto repair shop in an apartment complex; they usually forbid that in the lease.
Just because you purchased 800 square feet (or 1Gbps), doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.
Clearly defining the point at which the line is crossed hamstrings them when unforseen situations arise. Not clearly defining it allows for capricious enforcement. At either end of the spectrum one party loses out. This middle ground allows for both parties to be happy much of the time, but that's not to say no improvements can be made.
I would hope serious proposals for change would take both parties into account and try to find a better compromise.