Slashdot Mirror


Google to Offer Free Wi-Fi?

meaning writes "Business 2.0 reports on the possibility of Google building a national broadband network and giving Wi-Fi access to everyone in America. From the article: 'So once the GoogleNet is built, how would consumers connect for free access? One of the cheapest ways would be for Google to blanket major cities with Wi-Fi, and evidence gathered by Business 2.0 suggests that the company may be trying to do just that. In April it launched a Google-sponsored Wi-Fi hotspot in San Francisco's Union Square shopping district, built by a local startup called Feeva. Feeva is reportedly readying more free hotspots in California, Florida, New York, and Washington, and it's possible that Google may be involved.'"

419 comments

  1. Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 0, Troll

    Free Wi-Fi? Sure. Why Not? They've been ladling out the free Kool-Aid here for months, and that's worked out well for them. Tastes great too, doesn't it?

    DOESN'T IT?!?

    *sigh*

    OK, Citizen-Praetorian DiBona, you win. Resistance is futile, I see that now. Tell me where I report for re-programming.

    1. Re:Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

      You raise a good point. Free as in beer, Free as in Speech, and Free as in Kool-Aid. Yes, we shall have to remember that for future arguments.

    2. Re:Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They've been ladling out the free Kool-Aid here for months, and that's worked out well for them.

      Posting from Jonestown, are you?

    3. Re:Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes free is bad. The WiFi is free, but the advertisers bombarding you with sales pitches know exactly where you are. If the network's security is cracked, a lot more people than just salesmen know exactly where you are! It would be even better for Big Brother than webcams!

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    4. Re:Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by medeii · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're forgetting Free as in Herpes.

      --
      got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
    5. Re:Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by databyss · · Score: 1

      I dunno.... isn't herpes the cost?

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    6. Re:Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Durr... "free as in herpes" = "free but you don't want it."

    7. Re:Monday Night at the Google-A-Go-Go by Stone+Cold+Troll · · Score: 1

      Maybe *you* don't. Personally, I find it to be a wonderful conversation starter.

  2. Satire by dg41 · · Score: 1

    This has got to be satire.

    1. Re:Satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google installs 1 (one) wireless access point" ...clueless journalists translate it into:

      "Google is gonna give us free wireless Internet all over the USA"

      Sincerely...

  3. Gentoo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I use Gentoo; how does this affect me?

    1. Re:Gentoo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Assuming you still haven't compiled mozilla-firefox... it really DOESN'T affect you.

    2. Re:Gentoo?? by mattbot+5000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I use Gentoo; how does this affect me?

      It won't--you still won't be able to get your wireless card working.

    3. Re:Gentoo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO.

      It is a sad commentary on slashdot that this sort of nice little harmless joke is modded "flamebait" and not "funny".

      Rock on, brother. I laughed.

    4. Re:Gentoo?? by fireheadca · · Score: 1

      >I use Gentoo; how does this affect me?

      >It won't--you still won't be able to get your
      >wireless card working


      ?! Yes you will.

      -------
      "I don't understand the question."
      "Your name?"

    5. Re:Gentoo?? by tongue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no kidding--this is why i have "flamebait" articles modded up to five--they're the funniest comments on slashdot.

    6. Re:Gentoo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm the AC in the grand-parent post, still AC since I don't want some asshat to mod me down as offtopic.)

      In addition to flamebait as +6, I actually also have "funny" as -6, since the "funny" posts are certain to be either "... profit", some lame BSOD joke, or something simililarly obvious and very tired.

      Hats off to you mods, for showing just how low the least common denominator is!

    7. Re:Gentoo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In addition to flamebait as +6, I actually also have "funny" as -6, since the "funny" posts are certain to be either "... profit", some lame BSOD joke, or something simililarly obvious and very tired.

      In Soviet Russia, "funny" as -6 actually also has YOU!

    8. Re:Gentoo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually many of the +5 Funny comments belong to none of the categories you pointed at. Anyway, you're the one who loses ;)

    9. Re:Gentoo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a mozilla-firefox-bin in the portage tree. And not everyone installs gentoo with a stage1/2 approach. There are even "stage4" type distros about based on gentoo (ala VidaLinux, which is pretty decent)

      Every time I say to someone that I use gentoo, it is pretty common that they ask what I did durning the 3 day install time, only to shut them up when I tell them I can get it done easily in under 3 hours, well under.

  4. If this actually happens and doesn't kill AOL... by Quaoar · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...then I don't know what will.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
  5. Now by JonN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    these are the real times we will all need a tinfoil hat. Who knows how Google will broadcast ads using a nationwide network of Wi-Fi

    --
    do.what.promptcmds
    1. Re:Now by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The displaying of ads while surfing are the least of your tinfoil problems if you are using someone else's free wifi.

      They are already building business listing databases and reviews via Dodgeball, they are building HUGE databases based on your e-mail with GMail, and I can only imagine what databases they could build w/free wifi.

    2. Re:Now by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 1

      I don't see it being too different from those free ISPs. A bar going across the top displaying some text ads can be relatively unintrusive for free wireless.

    3. Re:Now by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's the tinfoil hat for, to use as an antenna to get better reception?

    4. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a VPN tunnel over the free link and your traffic stays private and secure.

      Here's an ISP that includes VPN service (and shell access) with any standard dialup, DSL, or wireless account: http://www.sonic.net/features/vpn/

    5. Re:Now by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, they could offer their own browser, add-ons, web-apps, information services, or even desktop applications and make their name ubiquitous. Hell, then step in and give everyone free (as in public utility) internet service. Once they know your name and see the big colorful sign saying that 'internets' are free and customers would die for that company...

    6. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "they are building HUGE databases based on your e-mail with GMail, and I can only imagine what databases they could build w/free wifi."

      oh noes we are doomed!

    7. Re:Now by LuSiDe · · Score: 1

      Exactly what i was thinking and exactly the reason why i won't use GMail and why i use Scroogle.

      However if you have a computer running on the Internet with a moderate-big pipe (say sth near a T1) and use something like IPsec, VPN, or SSH + OTP you are all set. They may catch all the data but it won't be very useful to them. Have fun with it Google! Unless one of those ex-NSA guys who works for Google now knows how to deal with it *wink*.

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
    8. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they are building HUGE databases based on your e-mail with GMail

      Really, you actually have proof they are building databases from your GMail? If so, please tell us, so we can be enlightened. Let me guess...you heard that GMail stores your deleted email, right? Guess what, ass-hat? They all do. Right on down to your ISP. Do you realize how much disk-accessing would be going on to delete these things in real-time? Just like data on your hard drive the shit ain't deleted, it's simply marked as able to be written over should that space be needed.

  6. Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google to colonize Mars!

    Google to build moon base!

    Google to cure cancer!!!! OMG!!!

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    1. Re:Next up by macdaddy357 · · Score: 0

      Great Google-ey Moogle-ey!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:Next up by croddy · · Score: 1

      What does Google need with a starship?

    3. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amazing thing is that these are even *less* substantiated than Apple rumors, if such a thing is possible. They don't even try.

      Apple: my brother's girlfriend's mom's pet labrador's best friend's dentist knows this guy who works at Apple who says Mac OS 10.5 will cure cancer!

      Google: it's possible Google may cure cancer next month -- and if they do, we think it'll be called GTumor!

      Gimme a break, guys...

      Oh, and this wouldn't be a proper slashdot comment without:

      Microsoft: we cause cancer; but what are you going to do about it? Monopoly, bay-bee.

    4. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if google builds a moon base, does that mean the job offer for there is real? :)
      ( it was one of the april fools pranks a while back )

    5. Re:Next up by melekzek · · Score: 1

      somebody should make tshirts with these, lol

    6. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Folding@Home is the major benefactor of Google Compute. Curing cancer (or at least Alzheimer's) is already on the to-do list for Google. . .

    7. Re:Next up by Articuno · · Score: 1
      Google to build moon base!
      But they will ! In 2007 !
      http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html
      --
      So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!
    8. Re:Next up by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      GoogleOS coming soon
      GoogleTV coming soon
      Google-TechTV on cable -- move over G4
      Google Radio FM via radio/internet/wi-fi
      Google-Mart Grocers -- Google Supermarkets, the price changes daily, even hourly based on real time data comparison of prices of each item from other grocery stores located with 10 square miles of each store..the prices come from searches on their own network filled with a database of all the items at each store.

      anyone want to be hired as a Google Shopper/Pricer? :) ..all so that they can have the lowest prices.. move over wal-mart.

  7. Wonder if the telcos will sponsor a bill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't want municipal free wireless, so they sure aren't going to like Google doing it. Maybe they'll try to start an antitrust action against them, saying they are getting monopoly profits from search. Wouldn't it be ironic if Google is declared a monopoly and this is stopped and Microsoft is only given a slap on the wrist!

  8. Hmmmm....I don't get it by SimplyBen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1. offer free wifi 2. offer free search 3. ?? 4. Profit Now, souls might be swomething worth selling.

    --
    if sign.nil? Sig.new
    1. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by FuturePastNow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. Offer free wi-fi
      2. Offer free search
      3. Guarantee that every human being who uses them will see ads
      4. Massive profit

      Fixed it for ya

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      I am surprised they haven't offered a web OS type deal. Kind of a free office appz over the web if you will.

      They already have google mail, that's a quarter of the web office suite. How hard would it be to offer a java based office suite freely available over the web that's compatible with everything M$.

    3. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you explain the part with the underpants again?

    4. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It is easier than that. Google is in many ways hemmed in. They are in a medium that is controlled by MS (MS has massive control of the clients and the ISPs that interface with them; Comcast, Qwest, ATT, AOL, etc).

      Google is simply clearing a path for itself. Basically, no none windows-based company can follow down the traditional paths and make it. MS will simply go and block every last cent. If google pulls this off, it will re-create the internet into what it was back during the time of Clinton; fast moving and cheap.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gmail is cool, and Thunderbird is nice 'n non-MSFT, but neither one offers as much funcitonality as Outlook which is part of the reason why Microsoft is still the dominant software solution for business types.

      To call Gmail "a quarter of the web office suite" is naive.

    6. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      "3. Guarantee that every human being who uses them will see ads"

      and that's pretty tough, if you combine ad-blockers, click fraud, non web applications, SSL...

    7. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the basic business plan that we once used to call "the New Economy" - until we realized that ads can never supply as much revenue as the products that the ads are trying to sell?

    8. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by Stone+Cold+Troll · · Score: 1

      Dropping ads into HTTP shouldn't be too difficult for an ISP to pull off if they use transparent proxies. They can either frame requested pages with ads, or serve interstitials every so often. Sure, there are some hurdles (frame-breaking javascript, excluding image requests from the ad-serving logic) but nothing insurmountable. There shouldn't be a need to drop ads into SSL sessions; they'll just get you when you drop back to straight HTTP.

    9. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by innerweb · · Score: 1
      Hmm.. Guess TV and Radio never made it.

      There is a difference between executing a model wrong and a model not working. The Internet hype forgot to take into account competition from radio, tv and other sources. Google might (if it is really doing this) reach that critical mass. Wireless can be a lot cheaper than wired to put into place. Though, if you are a cell phone user, it sure does not seem that way. ;-)

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    10. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by aixguru1 · · Score: 1

      You forgot these...

      5. Continue hiring mostly foreign workers on H1B to train.
      6. Crush all other ISP's
      7. Outsource everything to India to reduce expenses by 400%
      8. Laugh all the way to the bank and when other countries are in complete control of our internet services...

      Oh and almost forgot
      9. Deploy orbital brain lasers

      --
      root 10956 5164 0 Oct 22 - 0:23 sendmail: rejecting connections: load average: 70 (isn't sendmail just too kind)
    11. Re:Hmmmm....I don't get it by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1

      Thinking of this?

  9. How many hotspots... by Nicky+G · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if it will be 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0? Hah.

    1. Re:How many hotspots... by `Sean · · Score: 1

      OMG! A googol! Ha! You so funny! ;)

    2. Re:How many hotspots... by chucks86 · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded you down must have been either unpunny or a moron.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol/
      A one followed by a hundred zeroes is a "googol."

      --
      Help a poor college student. Send a couple cents via paypal to chucks86@gmail.com
  10. GoogleNet by Graviteh · · Score: 1

    I always thought this would happen. Man, now the only thing missing is Googzilla.
    I, for one, welcome our new Search Engine overlords.

    --
    Dance Dance Revolution.
    1. Re:GoogleNet by outlineblue · · Score: 1

      Almost sounds like SkyNet doesn't it? *shrudder* What happens when everybody uses the free GoogleNet and all broadband providers are out of buisness? Then Google can expose their real side... what if the GoogleNet becomes some kind of google version of the internet where every web page you visit is taylored to please the google overlords and nobody ever notices because everybody sees the same pages....
      On the other hand, free WiFi would be cool :P

  11. Idiots With Columns by MrNonchalant · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next Google will take over horse farming. And give us all ponies!

    Seriously people.

    1. Re:Idiots With Columns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Idiots With Columns by tommyTsunami · · Score: 0

      ponies aren't horses. ;)


      -tommy

    3. Re:Idiots With Columns by fm6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's true! Several Google employees were spotted at a pony ride in Modesto!

    4. Re:Idiots With Columns by darkov · · Score: 1, Informative

      I quite agree. I've just registered crazygooglerumors.com and am taking submissions for piss-takes, just post them as a reply and I will be in touch.

    5. Re:Idiots With Columns by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      Actually, ponies are just what small breeds of horses are called.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    6. Re:Idiots With Columns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you read the SECOND paragraph:
      ....build a national broadband network -- let's call it the GoogleNet -- massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers. Business 2.0 has learned from telecom insiders that Google is already building such a network, though ostensibly for many reasons. For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of "dark," or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York's AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York.

      So they are building SOMETHING alright.
    7. Re:Idiots With Columns by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      LOL! Brilliant sentence mate! This ought to become a quote or, at the very least, a slashdot cliche.

    8. Re:Idiots With Columns by PhosterPharms · · Score: 1

      Dude, I freaking live in Modesto, you insensitive clod!

      Seriously, though, if you were going to reference a Central Valley town, you should have mentioned Oakdale. It is, after all, the Cowboy Capitol of the World.

    9. Re:Idiots With Columns by steve's+nose+is+blee · · Score: 1

      Hilmar over here... With a nick like PhosterPharms, someone from Modesto on Slashdot, I'm guessing there's a good chance I know you, or you know a few of my friends out in IT.

    10. Re:Idiots With Columns by fm6 · · Score: 1

      And you're ashamed of Modesto ponies? As you should be!

    11. Re:Idiots With Columns by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      At least you don't live in Manteca. When I was growing up, we had to go down to Modesto to be bored. :/

  12. All Hail Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are worthless cretins at the feet of Google Almighty! There is nothing they cant do... even if they can't, slashdot will post about it anyway!

  13. Google commands you! by learn+fast · · Score: 4, Funny

    Prepare to toil in our underground sugar caves! Remarkably clean, usable, state-of-the-art sugar caves, but toil you shall!

    1. Re:Google commands you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why this is funny, but it is. I can just see them saying "But toil you shall!!!" It sounds like it's from the Simpsons or something.

    2. Re:Google commands you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooplepedia gronks the doinkbottle nicely thank you very much!

    3. Re:Google commands you! by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 1

      That is awesome. Someone will make it their sig, if they have any sense.

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
  14. Praise be Google by oiper · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one, welcome our new internet overlords. May God be with you Google as you enslave the human race.

    --
    What do I have to do to get a sig around here?! www.bearscanfly.org
  15. Pricey? by shinyplasticbag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Based on how much difficulty people have had trying to blanket even smallish cities, I have no idea how Google could possibly cover a country the size of America with WiFi. How many thousands of hotspots would it take?

    What they should do is bring back Ricochet...

    1. Re:Pricey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will take a Googleplex of wifi hotspots, too bad it will probably be Windows only software...

    2. Re:Pricey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richochet has been reborn in Denver anyway..

    3. Re:Pricey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ricochet came back, twice.

      First time was for $8.25 mil, courtesy of Metricom.

      Second time was +/- $3 mil, courtesy of YDI Wireless

    4. Re:Pricey? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing that bugs me is the entitlement mentality that some have about this. If it is "WiFi" then it should be free. I too would like to know how it can be paid for if no fee is charged especially given the high cost of infrastructure.

      Sure, free wireless works OK for coffee shops or restraunts here and there, as an incentive to get people to buy, but that is very small coverage and seems to encourage excessive loitering which is detrimental to business if they have too many people taking up tables several hours each during peak times.

    5. Re:Pricey? by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 4, Funny

      How many thousands of hotspots would it take? The impedance of the Earth (according to the Tesla mailing list, is 400uf. All google has to do is design, patent and build the first 802.400uf (oh yeah, write the 802.400uf standard) transmitter and connect it to the Earth ... oh and figure out where one would ground that to. Anyway, google will surely turn the Earth into a giant WiFi hotspot. Then in Q2 2006 they will wipe out disease. Finally, in August 2007 googlenet becomes self aware...

    6. Re:Pricey? by drakaan · · Score: 1

      The impedance of the Earth (according to the Tesla mailing list, is 400uf.

      When did the Tesla mailing list decide that inductance should be specified in farads instead of henries? I'm pretty sure Nicola would not approve...

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    7. Re:Pricey? by anaesthetica · · Score: 1
      Well, the network of tethered Google Blimps(tm) will provide an easy way to circumvent the limitations of Earth's curvature.

      Really people. It's almost as if you believe that they haven't thought this through!

    8. Re:Pricey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I though impedance was measured in ohms.

    9. Re:Pricey? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      How about through advertising. It is trivial to have a gateway make every address point to a perticular server that serves up a page of ads, then start sending traffic to the real address once "Click Here" has been clicked. I have seen this in hotels.

    10. Re:Pricey? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing that bugs me is the entitlement mentality that some have about this. If it is "WiFi" then it should be free.

      I think the mentality is that if it's the internet then it should be free. This is due to the fact that that's how the internet was designed. Of course, free in this sense means that there aren't any payments between peers in the system. When MIT connected to Harvard neither of them paid each other for the privilege, but they both had to share the cost of the wires.

      Now with WiFi there are no wires. There's still a cost, since it takes energy to broadcast a signal, but we still call it "free".

    11. Re:Pricey? by module0000 · · Score: 1

      What was ricochet?

      --
      Trackball users will be first against the wall.
    12. Re:Pricey? by miro2 · · Score: 1

      Do you feel that way about free roads? Or do you think every block should have a toll? In this case, I think the Information Superhighway will soon be seen as fundamental infrastructure and just as necessary for commerce as the real highways. So maybe government *should* be paying for it.

    13. Re:Pricey? by cheesebikini · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When people say "free" here they don't mean "something for nothing" -- they mean "something paid for in aggregate".

      Like electric light. When you walk through Union Square at night you don't have to put quarters into little meter-boxes as you walk along, to make the streetlights turn on. When you go into a cafe you don't expect to be charged separately for the plumbing or the lights. These costs are built into the taxes (in public places) or the cost of the food/coffee/etc (in a private establishment).

      The concept of charging people for electricity or wi-fi per-person and per-transaction is ridiculous, not just because it's an extra hassle for the users, not just because it's usually accompanied with absurd overcharges, but also because the extra transaction costs of tallying and collecting all those tiny line-item uses can be bypassed by charging in aggregate.

    14. Re:Pricey? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      From actual physicists

      Impedance (electric resistance) -> Ohm
      Capacitance -> Farad
      Inductance -> Henry.

    15. Re:Pricey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When MIT connected to Harvard neither of them paid each other for the privilege, but they both had to share the cost of the wires."

      This got me thinking. Could a "free" service be established if the people using it were required to purchase hardware that repeats the signal? Maybe a special high powered router or maybe requiring special wifi cards that boost the signal to other users. The ISP could sell this hardware.

      Basically the structure would be, a users would pay to get the hardware to use the service and that hardware will make the service better for everyone. However, you don't pay for the service it self, and the ISP makes money (or hopefully breaks even) on hardware sales...

    16. Re:Pricey? by macemoneta · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I too would like to know how it can be paid for if no fee is charged especially given the high cost of infrastructure.

      You mean like the free air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter that folks expect when they go into any commercial building? Or the electricity? Or adequate lighting? Or the water fountains? Or bathrooms? Or garbage cans? Or escalators/elevators?

      All these things have an enormous infrastructure cost (as well as ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs), and were once considered luxury items. Now they are just a cost of doing business or element of the standard of living, paid for by customers and tax payers. Everyone pays their small share, and the standard of living goes up.

      The other day I was in a store looking at a piece of PC hardware. I wasn't sure whether it was supported in Linux, and the sales droid was mindless as usual. If I had a WiFi connection, I could have checked the web on my WiFi enabled PDA. It turns out it was supported, but since I was at home by the time I found that out, I ordered from an online retailer. Access to information can drive sales.

      The other point is that folks loiter where there is free WiFi, specifically because it's not ubiquitous. If it were, they could be almost anywhere and there would be no reason to take up space in little coffee shops during peak hours.

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    17. Re:Pricey? by NoMaster · · Score: 1
      The thing that bugs me is the entitlement mentality that some have about this. If it is "WiFi" then it should be free.

      I think the mentality is that if it's the internet then it should be free.

      I put it down to the lack of a visible, physical aspect. With a computer, you buy a box. With teh internets, you buy a modem. With ethernet, you buy a nic, router, and cables. Wireless is different - no wires = no physical aspect = no pay.

      Same goes for MP3s - no CD, no pay. My theory falls down a bit when you consider iTMS, but the iTunes app seems to have gained a sort of pseudo-physical solidness - probably due to its (a) Mac-ness, (b) cool factor [yeah, OK, I know it sucks dogs balls on Wintel, but it's quite nice on the Mac], and (c) its tie-in with the physical iPod.
      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    18. Re:Pricey? by Gnutte · · Score: 1

      How about one? The russians made a transmitter en the ELF which used the whole earth as a bipole antenna. Sadly you can only communicate very few bits per minute...
      From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_su bmarines

      Electromagnetic waves in the ELF frequency range (see also SLF) can travel through the oceans and reach submarines anywhere. However, building an ELF transmitter is a formidable challenge, as they have to work at incredibly long wavelengths: The US Navy's system (called Seafarer) operates at 76 hertz, the Soviet/Russian system (called ZEVS) at 82 hertz. The latter, for example, corresponds to a wavelength of 3658.5 kilometers. That is more than a quarter of the Earth's diameter. Obviously, you cannot build a usual half-wavelength dipole antenna, as it would spread all across a large country.

      Instead, one has to find an area with very low ground conductivity (a requirement opposite to usual radio transmitter sites) and dig two huge electrodes into the ground at different sites separated by about 60 km, and feed-lines (just wires on poles) reaching them from some station in the middle. Although other separations are possible, 60 km is the distance used for the ZEVS transmitter which is located near Murmansk. As the ground conductivity is so poor, the current between the electrodes will penetrate deep into the interior of the Earth, basically using a large part of the globe as antenna. The antenna is very inefficient; to drive it, a small dedicated power plant seems to be required although the power actually emitted as radiation is only a few watts. But its transmission can be received virtually anywhere: Even a station at Antarctica noticed when the Russian Navy put their ZEVS antenna into operation for the first time.

    19. Re:Pricey? by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      When did the Tesla mailing list decide that inductance should be specified in farads instead of henries? I'm pretty sure Nicola would not approve...

      Actually, that was what made me think it was so funny. I googled for impedance of the earth, and came up with a tesla list post that stated the "fact" and I thought....Cool!

    20. Re:Pricey? by beef3k · · Score: 1

      How many thousands of hotspots would it take?

      12,115,678 hotspots exactly. And you can quote me on that!

    21. Re:Pricey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If each Wi-Fi access point has a server, it would help Google with their hundreds of thousands of servers to expand their server farm.

    22. Re:Pricey? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      There's still a cost, since it takes energy to broadcast a signal, but we still call it "free".

      Also, the signal has to get to the AP, generally meaning wiring, the cost of buying and setting up the AP, and the cost of buying the data service to the AP.

    23. Re:Pricey? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      no wires? no connections? no uplinks, no downlinks?

      sure I could see how they would offer a free wireless LAN, as it wouldn't cost much, but it wouldn't be that useful.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    24. Re:Pricey? by hexed_2050 · · Score: 1

      In other news, Google begins development on GOELF. GOELF is GOogle's Extremely Low Frequency Global Communications system. It will deliver messages to the entire globe to begin the apocalypse in the event of MSN or Yahoo gaining more than 50% of search engine traffic. Original plans were to have 3400 miles of cable, but a revised plan only includes 84 miles of cable.

      --
      Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
    25. Re:Pricey? by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Here are some reasons for this:

      • Electricity is 'free' in various places like coffee shops. You pay for the wireless with your coffee.
      • Having to pay 50 different service providers $20/mo so you have wireless access wherever it is that they have a hotspot is pretty ridiculous.
      • Going through some silly sign-on screen for wireless whenever I open up my laptop isn't reasonable. I should be able to just crack it open wherever I need data. It would be incredibly useful, for example, to be able to get some of the nice realtime traffic maps while on the freeway.

      Those are basically the reasons. Wifi is just structured all wrong for a subscription system to work. Maybe if there were several different competing systems of providers that all blanketed a city with hotspots it would work. Then you could just pay one fee to one of the providers and have it automatically sign you in via IPSEC or something.

      But the current system where I have to pay 5 different people a monthly fee so I can have coverage in the few places I sit down every month isn't reasonable.

    26. Re:Pricey? by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. On the other hand, how would you charge the population for the Internet equivalent of road and fuel tax?

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    27. Re:Pricey? by drakaan · · Score: 1

      It is...I said "inductance", though. Just trying to do my best to add to the confusion ;)

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    28. Re:Pricey? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Sure there'd be connections, and everyone would provide an uplink and a downlink. Not useful? It's called the Internet.

    29. Re:Pricey? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's called a mesh network, and it'd work fine for low bandwidth stuff, for short distance connections, and for static content which can be readily cached (think Coral Cache).

    30. Re:Pricey? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Also, the signal has to get to the AP, generally meaning wiring, the cost of buying and setting up the AP, and the cost of buying the data service to the AP.

      You're not thinking peer-to-peer. There is no need for wiring or buying any data service to a central AP. Every client is also an AP.

    31. Re:Pricey? by SMitra72 · · Score: 0

      Anyway, google will surely turn the Earth into a giant WiFi hotspot.

      Then we all get cancer and die...

  16. not in rural areas, I assume :( by Newbreedofnerd · · Score: 0

    If this did happen, it of course wouldn't reach the more rural areas. Stuff like this always has us missing out. :( Looks like I'll be moving into a city when I'm older if I don't want to miss out on nifty technology...

    1. Re:not in rural areas, I assume :( by Gyga · · Score: 0

      Obviously, to much distance to build a hot spot reaching into the center of even 3 properties (my 12 my neighbors 300 and my other neighbors 400) and none of us would enjoy a large tower placed on our land (image a bunch of southeners with guns/trucks).

      --
      I don't preview or spellcheck.
  17. new category: google rumours by ltwally · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lately there have been so many newly announced (and shortly there-after: denounced) rumours concerning Google, I'm proposing that Slashdot create a new category just for Google related rumours.

    Seriously... are there people out there that have nothing better to do than speculate as to what new thing will come out of google's labs next?

    And people say that I need to get a life...

    --



    /dev/random
  18. Air Tight Buisness Plan by Quick+Sick+Nick · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Step 1. Blanket the entire nation with free internet access, costing the company millions.

    Step 2. ?????

    Step 3. Profit!

    1. Re:Air Tight Buisness Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 2. Collect underpants.

  19. What would free WiFi mean? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The first and most obvious question is how Google would manage to support a huge wireless network without charging for service. Perhaps they'd sell ad space and coffee near the hubs?

    The second question I had was how much damage such a network would do to existing local internet companies. If Google moves in and essentially gives their product away, how can the current ISPs cope?

    As a user, I'd be glad to have reliable, free wireless service available. A country where the service was ubiquitous, much like the electrical system and water system, would be a dream (probably the network administrator's worst nightmare, though).

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:What would free WiFi mean? by jeaton · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As a user, I'd be glad to have reliable, free wireless service available. A country where the service was ubiquitous, much like the electrical system and water system, would be a dream (probably the network administrator's worst nightmare, though).


      Neither electrical service nor the water system are free (nor are they really ubiquitious). Why would you expect wireless internet service to be so?
    2. Re:What would free WiFi mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first and most obvious question is how Google would manage to support a huge wireless network without charging for service.

      The internet is inherently a peer-to-peer network. In theory they could just organize things and let the locals bear the actual costs.

      If Google moves in and essentially gives their product away, how can the current ISPs cope?

      Wifi is unlikely to perform as well as wired in the near future, so there's some advantage there. But in the longer term, the only ISPs that are likely to survive, Google or no, are the ones providing the long distance trunks. Communication within a city is bound to be nearly free eventually. Intercity communication, on the other hand, now we're talking really long term.

  20. Google Earth, no kidding. by luckynoone · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope this happens. Google rocks.

    Once they get big enough, I hope they will overthrow the governments of the world.

    When they do, they will make it simple, basic, and easy to use. In addition they will offer free healthy lunches daily, plenty of fun activities, free healthcare and dental onsite, free gym access, a free gmail account, and the best ever... a Microsoft-free world. Whoops, I spilled the news about their secret G-OS

  21. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweet now just load a sniffer on which ever router im connected to and start capturing all login information!

    Seriously. What the fuck are you thinking when you deploy a wifi network with it's security risks. It's going to be abused then there would be articles posting of "Hackers use sniffers to steal personnel information on public networks." I suggest go back to the drawing board.

  22. Seriously by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First it was VoIP, then it was IM, now it's Wi-Fi? Why does the news media keep reporting these *completely* unsubstantiated rumors about Google as if they were actually news? Why not wait until Google actually announces what it is going to do? It's not as if there won't be an interminable beta period between announcement and public release anyway. This rampant Google speculation that has gripped the tech media has moved past the "annoying" phase to the "just plain stupid" phase.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    1. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about Google Browser and Google OS.

    2. Re:Seriously by DarthTaco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a stock market thing. Buy a bunch of google stock (if you can afford much), and start a rumor that google is curing cancer. Take your 5% and do it again next week.

    3. Re:Seriously by vwjeff · · Score: 1

      It's a stock market thing. Buy a bunch of google stock (if you can afford much), and start a rumor that google is curing cancer. Take your 5% and do it again next week.

      Google is curing cancer.

      I need to post this on /. so the mindless Google slaves will do my bidding...I mean spread the Google News, I mean good news.

      Regards,

      Google

      Sponsored Links

      Kill Yahoo
      Find great deals on Kill Yahoo-
      Shop on Ebay and save!
      www.eBay.com

    4. Re:Seriously by krunk4ever · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's because if they predicted right, they'd be able to say:
      *insert nelson's laugh* told you so

    5. Re:Seriously by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      "Why does the news media keep reporting these *completely* unsubstantiated rumors about Google as if they were actually news?"

      I don't know about the VoIP or IM things, but this was reported on Business 2.0. Considering them part of the news media is like considering Slashdot... um, part of the news media.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    6. Re:Seriously by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Why does the news media keep reporting these *completely* unsubstantiated rumors about Google as if they were actually news?

      Because if they didn't, someone else might get there first.

    7. Re:Seriously by Cobblepop · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not unsubstantiated; it's on slashdot.

    8. Re:Seriously by Das+Auge · · Score: 1

      '"annoying" phase to the "just plain stupid" phase'

      Go to Ludicrous speed...I'm mean, reporting!

    9. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      Because people like us read read it.

    10. Re:Seriously by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Why not wait until Google actually announces what it is going to do?

      How else will "news" sites generate readership if not through controversial and unsubstantiated rumors so that they can gain a membership and sell the ability to display ads to those members? You see, by posting stories like this, Slashdot generates a lot more traffic and makes money because they can turn to advertisers and say "See? People just like nacturation and Spy Hunter come to this site and you can show your ads to them. Only $X per thousand unique."

      So the thing to take home here, kids, is that if you dislike a topic the best way to combat it is to just not click through to the story or post at all. Deny websites the advertising statistics that they need to fund the site to further peddle trash to you. Slashdot editor "michael" may have been hated, but what better way to increase the ad impressions than by having him make flamebait comments? Sure, it may anger some but in the same way that Microsoft considers legal challenges the cost of doing business, Slashdot makes more money from people like him (despite a few who may leave) than they would from being a level-headed, objective source of typo-free, edited news.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a software services company and can confirm at least one of the first two you mentioned...

    12. Re:Seriously by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. If you're not going to give any real information, you might as well not post. It's not like anyone can trace you posting as an AC on Slashdot. I'll bet you don't even have any real information, just more hearsay. Without hard information, I'm not going to believe this stuff until it's on Google Labs.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    13. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but that seems a bit childish to me. I would prefer not to disrespect my co-workers by revealing information they deliberately asked me not to. I'm not trying to fan the rumor flames, I'm just trying to tell you that it's not so absurd to think Google may enter into these markets. They have a massive R&D budget and can get into any market that they feels may help their bottom line by getting more people to use Google. This article sounds like that sort thing.

    14. Re:Seriously by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      To me it seems a bit childish to parade around claiming knowledge of something cool that you won't reveal. If you're not willing to reveal it, which is perfectly fine, then keep your mouth shut about it. And I'm not claiming it's absurd to think Google might do these things. I'm saying it's absurd for the news media to go crazy reporting every single unsubstantiated rumor like it was a revelation from on high, without providing a shred of hard evidence other than the reported-to-death fact that Google has bought some dark fiber.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    15. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " It's not as if there won't be an interminable beta period between announcement and public release anyway"

      You mean, like gmail ?

    16. Re:Seriously by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Google doesn't need that army of PhDs anymore. They have all these reporters thinking up ideas for them.

      Out of curiosity, why does it have to be Google that invents all this stuff? Is Google the only company these reporters know about? There was a time when if someone came up with what they thought was a good idea they would find a VC to fund a startup and try to become dot com billionares, now they just offer up everything they have to Google.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    17. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To anyone who thinks this is stupid, it's not. It's actually how many including myself made a ton of money "playing" the stock market. Follow the hype and jump off early....

    18. Re:Seriously by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

      Really? tell me more please.

    19. Re:Seriously by andrelix · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't understand HARD HITTING journalism! These are the kinds of stories that need to be broken early because of the plain and simple fact that Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson have not released any porn in the media in quite sometime!!! ;)

  23. What's next? by nutshell42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The first few lines of the article:

    What if Google (GOOG) wanted to give Wi-Fi access to everyone in America? And what if it had technology capable of targeting advertising to a user's precise location?

    And it doesn't sound like the author hasn't any further proofs or even rumors.

    What if Google wanted to install cameras all over the world and call itself Big Google henceforth? What if Google launched a Mars mission and secured themself exclusive rights for the whole planet? What if they bought Blizzard and released the MMORPG World of Google where virtual elves can search a virtual Azeroth-Net for magic potions?

    What if Google didn't anything that would cost more than their market capitalisation, instead concentrated on remaining a search engine with new searches for kitchensinks and lost pets and perhaps a cooperation agreement with some other companies (Apple, publishers for their library project, etc) along the way? Or is that last one too far-fetched?

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    1. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The incumbents would probably call each of these "communism".

    2. Re:What's next? by terpri · · Score: 0
      What if Google launched a Mars mission and secured themself exclusive rights for the whole planet?

      Hey, not bad! You should consider submitting some of these - with any luck your exclusive Google news will make it to the front page two or three times...

    3. Re:What's next? by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

      What if Google wanted to declare itself eligible for the NBA Draft, play as a center, and refer to itself as the "Big Aristotle?"

    4. Re:What's next? by TwoScoopsOfPig · · Score: 1

      I love your sig.

      --
      #include <disclaimer.h>
      #include <beer.h>
  24. Makes sense by bloggins02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For those wondering how offering Free WiFi could possibly make sense from a business perspective:

    From TFA: Google could stand to save millions of dollars by having an end to end network of its own instead of carrying its traffic over major ISPs (TFA states that Google is also buying up dark fiber).

    Now, there are also some interesting ways Google might earn revenue from this system:

    1) Imagine having to view a short ad before full access is granted

    2) Imagine a special browser or access program you would need to download before use. The program could show ad words content or other ads

    3) Of course, there's always "Get 24 hrs DOUBLE THE SPEED for only $9.99!"

    Anybody have any other ideas for how Google could generate revenue from this?

    1. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this guy can't put his links right 403, after a brief look at the computer that he owned, well, everything makes more sense.

    2. Re:Makes sense by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1) and 2) didn't work for NetZero or any of the other dot bombs. Why would it work for Google?

      Besides, Google tries to be non-obtrusive with its advertising. Most likely if they ever implemented this they'd make their revenue by increasing their reach in the services they already provide. What that also means is that service will probably be crippled to some extent. Free web browsing through a proxy, maybe, but I doubt you'll be able to use Kazaa (or whatever the current P2P app is, I haven't been following).

    3. Re:Makes sense by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Imagine having to view a short ad before full access is granted

      No need. Google's existing ad system is a cash cow already. Getting more people online means more people stumbling across their ads means more $, and if there's a direct path from their ad servers to the enduser, so much the better.

      They could make those ads a bit more targeted with an authentication system. Login with your GMail account before proceeding? Would you like to do a Google search while you're at it? Maybe make the bandwidth limits for nonauthenticated users a bit tighter (64Kbps?) instead so software other than web browsers can use the service prior to the user firing up a browser. Maybe that's what you had in mind, now that I reread your message.

      Upping the bandwidth limits for paying users is probably a given.

      Of course, the whole idea of a nationwide Google WiFi system is probably someone's hallucination anyhow. WiFi is too short range and WiMAX is vaporware until I see a finished working system.

    4. Re:Makes sense by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      1) and 2) didn't work for NetZero or any of the other dot bombs. Why would it work for Google?

      It'd work for the same reason that banner ads (and popup ads and whatever else in the advertising arms race) didn't work for the dot bombs, but AdWords is Google's main source of revenue.

      All they have to do is show targeted text ads in a frame, a la Gmail.

    5. Re:Makes sense by Caseyscrib · · Score: 2, Funny

      4) You piss on a Urine powered battery, supplying the GoogleGrid with power, which it resells to California.

    6. Re:Makes sense by JahToasted · · Score: 1

      How about: Track everything you do online and sell that information to marketers?

    7. Re:Makes sense by tumbleweedsi · · Score: 0

      How do they make money of this? Pretty easily... same way any search engine does... they get all the consumers and then charge the companies to access them.

      The model is pretty simple and can be compared to adwords... they created something that the public wants to use and give it away free (google search, gmail etc) and then they charge companies modest fees to place ads in front of the consumer.

      So how about they get all the consumers using this free wifi access to the googlenet where they have unlimited access to google services and content but then they charge other ISP's and hosting companies to peer to them... saving themselves money and generating revenue.

      Whoever has the users IS the internet.

      --
      Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
  25. Googlenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems likely that you can only use Google, and Gmail, and you will constantly be monitored and sent targeted ads.

  26. Getting worried by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like Google. Excellent search engine, great news aggregator, webmail done right. But I'm getting more than a little uncofortable about the reach of the company. I have been cutting them a good deal of slack, but I'm gradually coming around on that. They have enough data on me and my habits that they probably can map my relationships better than I can myself. They can know my interests, my taste, my foibles, probably what I'm working on, and the only thing standing between potential knowledge and actual mining of it is a non-binding, pretty vacuous "Don't be evil" statement.

    And while free Wifi is great and all, that risks becoming another chokepoint - who will be able to compete in practice if the lazy, easy way is to connect to Google Wifi to access your Gmail account and get the latest news in the Google aggregator or perhaps do some comparison shopping with Google. And finding the store is easy - just click the Google maps link and you'll see exactly where it's at.

    If the company ever does decide to be evil, they have a huge amount of subtle control over their users at their disposal.

    Oligopolies or monopolies are bad, no matter who is holding it.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Getting worried by div_2n · · Score: 1

      If the information is out there, someone will do it.

      To satisfy your paranoia, might I suggest 1) Working on a cash only basis, 2) Spending only cash, 3) Never sign anything, 4) Never own anything and 5) Live off the land.

      Welcome to the digital age.

    2. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IMO, once google went public then "Don't be evil" lost all value. As a private company, you can have goals like that. As a public company, you can wind up in court (and your officers in jail) if you aren't acting to maximize shareholder value.

      Now, I don't think they're evil. In fact, I think they're a pretty good business at serving my needs. But when it gets down to it, they're just a business.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    3. Re:Getting worried by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Excellent search engine

            It's an appalling search engine. But it's better than the competition.

            Searching on the internet for anything meaningful (and I mean academic searches with sources and references) is almost useless and involves a lot of time wasted, but this is not Google's fault. It's the fault of information providers who classify their information incorrectly, or abusers who take advantage of the system to make their site appear to contain the information you seek in the never ending quest for hits.

            If Google were so successful we would have no need of specialized, moderated databases, like medline, or wiki, etc.

            Oh it's great for surfing or your kids' high school homework though. Click on this link. Nope. Click here. Nope. Click...ahhh!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Getting worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theory provided in the prospectus is that promising not to be evil and fulfilling that promise is the best way to maximize shareholder value in the long term. Surely no judge would rule an officer of Google to be breaking the law for not being evil, especially since the shareholder should have read the prospectus before investing in the first place.

    5. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Sure. But you aren't allowed to get away with intentional failure to maximize shareholder value by adhering to a philosophy that was thought years ago to be good for that end, but is now not thought to be so.

      The "don't be evil" thing in a private company can be a long-term guiding principle. In a public one, it's at best a statement of what seems to be a profitable approach now, but is subject to change without notice.

      You're still better off, IMO, investing in a company that shows some awareness of the long-term consequences of its actions. It probably shows that current management has some sort of vision beyond the next quarter's earnings. But in a privately held company, faith in the owner's morality can be extended to faith that the company won't be too evil as long as the owner is around. In the public company, shareholders can vote out the board at any time, CEOs leave, etc; not a dramatic difference in kind, since the owner of a private company could be hit by a bus tomorrow and his/her heirs might not continue the philosophy. But a significant difference in degree, because private owners of stable corporations are generally far more time-stable than corporate leadership of stable public companies.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    6. Re:Getting worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a public company, you can wind up in court (and your officers in jail) if you aren't acting to maximize shareholder value.

      Why the hell does this crackpot theory keep coming up? A publically owned company must do what the shareholders tell them to do. No more, no less. This is done by voting, and each share gets you one vote. Now it's true that most shareholders are in it to have their shares increase in value, this is by no means an absolute or some sort of "law". If 51% of the shareholders decide they want to diversify into selling bagged ice to Inuits, then that's what the company does. Period. And no one "goes to jail" because they did something stupid to not "maximize shareholder value."

    7. Re:Getting worried by transiit · · Score: 1

      part of me feels compelled to mention Google's Academic Section

      And part of me feels compelled to say that there was a better time when I could search for specific strings and get something other than "Buy %s here!"

      when "-order -buy" became ingrained in the muscle memory, it made me sad.

      -transiit

    8. Re:Getting worried by Surt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, all they need is a good faith belief that do no evil maximizes shareholder value in the long run. Which conceivably it does.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:Getting worried by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a public company, you can wind up in court (and your officers in jail) if you aren't acting to maximize shareholder value.

            add to the above "while not breaking the law and behaving as a responsible member of society", a small detail many boards of directors forget in their quest to dupe- uhh convince - the shareholder that their stock is worth what they paid for it.

            Funnily enough the shareholders have more control over the stock price than the actual corporation. Share price is a function of what people THINK it's worth and has little to do with the company after the IPO.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Getting worried by TheZax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMO, once google went public then "Don't be evil" lost all value...
      ...As a public company, you can wind up in court (and your officers in jail) if you aren't acting to maximize shareholder value.


      I see this line about shareholder value thrown around quite often. While it might be the law, we have a hard enough time trying to throw the officers in jail that are truly evil . So, I don't see this law really having any impact on people's actions...
      --

      JWall: GUI client for IPTables
    11. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1
      As a public company, you can wind up in court (and your officers in jail) if you aren't acting to maximize shareholder value.

      Why the hell does this crackpot theory keep coming up?


      Because the crackpot courts keep enforcing it.

      A publically owned company must do what the shareholders tell them to do. No more, no less. This is done by voting, and each share gets you one vote. Now it's true that most shareholders are in it to have their shares increase in value, this is by no means an absolute or some sort of "law". If 51% of the shareholders decide they want to diversify into selling bagged ice to Inuits, then that's what the company does


      Nope. The most famous case involved sale of the company; Revlon Inc v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986) held that the company officers were obligated to maximize shareholder sale price without regard to the effects on employees, customers, etc--even if the shareholders had a majority vote to the contrary.

      There are plenty of other cases out there supporting this; shareholders votes form a consensus as to the best way to achieve the goal of maximizing value, and are binding in that sense. But there are plenty of areas where 51% of the shareholders can't put some personal goal (possibly a moral principle, possibly not) ahead of that end and intentionally minimize (or not maximize) the minority holder's share values.
      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    12. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1

      No. But if Google determined that they could make a gazillion dollars without hurting long term prospects by a combination of a massive popup ad campaign and nightly telemarketing calls all across the nation, they'd be legally remiss if they failed to act--and if some shareholder found out about it, a lawsuit could be possible.

      And people are more likely to sue for big monetary loses than for moral lapses.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    13. Re:Getting worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only know what you tell them. If you don't want them to know details about your personal life, don't make those details publically available on the internet. :)

    14. Re:Getting worried by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      But you aren't allowed to get away with intentional failure to maximize shareholder value by adhering to a philosophy that was thought years ago to be good for that end, but is now not thought to be so.

      You can if it's in your stated purpose in your incorporation papers, but I don't know if that's true with Google or not. But are you implying that not being evil is not thought to be a good idea? I'm not sure I'd agree with that, and even then, it'd have to amount to I believe gross negligence to be actionable, and I just don't think not being evil can be considered gross negligence.

      In a public one, it's at best a statement of what seems to be a profitable approach now, but is subject to change without notice.

      Sure, if the board or the shareholders vote to change it.

      In the public company, shareholders can vote out the board at any time

      Considering that the three founders control nearly 50% of the votes in the company, I don't see that happening.

    15. Re:Getting worried by aaza · · Score: 1

      Your sig works so well for this story...

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    16. Re:Getting worried by xigxag · · Score: 1

      if you aren't acting to maximize shareholder value.

      Frankly, it's disingenuous to keep throwing around that old meme without adding the rest of the phrase, "...in the long term." And without mentioning that management has almost complete discretion in deciding how to accomplish this goal. It would be practically unheard of, outside of actual malfeasance, for a corporate officer to wind up in jail because of share performance. Bankruptcies don't usually wind up with the officers in jail, after all.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    17. Re:Getting worried by degraeve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have the same feelings about Google. Google is remarkably powerful. I've been blindly using their free beta software and have let all sorts of information about myself, my data and my interconnections be harvested. I worry that the Google rug is about to be pulled out from under me.

      I should start finding other options to cover my bases. Diversify.

    18. Re:Getting worried by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      They can know my interests, my taste, my foibles, probably what I'm working on, and the only thing standing between potential knowledge and actual mining of it is a non-binding, pretty vacuous "Don't be evil" statement.

      How are they "evil" if this is what their users want them to do? Google's popularity has still a base on free choice, and I doubt this would changet that. They aren't forcing services on people by special hardware manufacturer deals, and so on. If the majority wants them to make these services, it's only the minority who thing it's "evil".

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    19. Re:Getting worried by shirai · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are a public company and yes they are accountable to the public but that doesn't mean that going public means "Don't be evil" lost all value.

      Think about this:

      (1) The company was based on Do No Evil and much of their success has been attributed to it.

      (2) If they become associated with Evil then all the time and money spent earning this good-will is lost.

      (3) There is an enormous cost associated with losing this good will. Think of all the money that IBM and Novell are using to back up Linux in what seems, at least partially, to gain the trust of the tech community.

      In other words, there is a great monetary incentive to be known as the good company. That they are in a public company that has banked on this trust they have with the community means that breaking this trust has a huge cost and that is NOT maximizing shareholder value.

      The public company may be the best thing Google has for keeping it from becoming Evil. Okay, I may be going too far now, but you get my point. Not being evil is just a valid business position as being evil.

      Now that's my economic argument.

      My personal argument goes like this. Regardless of what you may think, I believe the leaders have a strong influence on the direction of a company, public or private. I honestly don't think it will be that easy to change Google so long as the old leaders are still in the position of control.

      Yes, they are growing bigger and people point to that as an indication of Google becoming evil but it isn't. EVIL is the indication that things are becoming evil. Not OPPORTUNITY to become evil.

      --
      Sunny

      Be my Friend

    20. Re:Getting worried by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Dosn't that really depend on their Corporate Charter?

      There are many intentionally non-profit corporations, I don't see anyone sueing PBS for not maximizing monetary gain.

    21. Re:Getting worried by m50d · · Score: 1

      The day they became evil in my book was when they sued that guy for offering RSS feeds of Google news. I still use them to search, but I won't use any other google products. There are better alternatives for just about everything they offer, they just have the name and apple-style adoring zealots.

      --
      I am trolling
    22. Re:Getting worried by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      Actually, all they need is a good faith belief that do no evil maximizes shareholder value in the long run. Which conceivably it does.

      How many shareholders look to enlightened long term best interest corporate policies rather than year over year growth rate in EPS?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    23. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Dosn't that really depend on their Corporate Charter?

      Not really.

      There are many intentionally non-profit corporations, I don't see anyone sueing PBS for not maximizing monetary gain

      I also don't see PBS (or other non-profits) being publically traded.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    24. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1

      You can if it's in your stated purpose in your incorporation papers.

      AFAIK you cannot. Stock trade is one of the most highly regulated markets in our economy. It is very far from an open market, and you cannot contract away your statutory obligations. I would be interested if you know of decisions to the contrary, though.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    25. Re:Getting worried by Surt · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter how many. Matters whether or not you can defend your policies in court. Shareholders don't control corporate policy by threatening lawsuits they can't win, or I'd buy a share of RJR and have them stop selling tobacco.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    26. Re:Getting worried by Cabby · · Score: 1

      It would start getting interesting if they did manage to sucessfully manage to link-up the location information they could gain from the WiFi hotspot with the rest of that data and then used that to drive targeted advertising and searches.
      They've obviously got the capabilities required, particularly with their Google Local services taking shape recently.
      Push based advertising/information to your terminal could well be the next big marketing target in their mind.

    27. Re:Getting worried by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why do you think it's an obligation in the first place? Your obligation as an officer of the corporation is to perform the duties for which you were hired. Your obligation as a director is to perform the duties outlined in the corporate bylaws and incorporation documents. Most corporations are set up with a purpose which is to make money, but not all are.

    28. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Why do you think it's an obligation in the first place? Your obligation as an officer of the corporation is to perform the duties for which you were hired. Your obligation as a director is to perform the duties outlined in the corporate bylaws and incorporation documents. Most corporations are set up with a purpose which is to make money, but not all are

      This is simply not true of publically traded companies.

      To take an example (I use sale of the company because it's one where value per share is explicit and there are no possible arguments about future growth or whatever; it's the end-game where the final value is determined):

      Let's say that you have a company that has a corporate charter saying that they will not sell to Big Tobacco. And you have the same clause in your bylaws. Then the shareholders vote to sell the company, and vote not to sell it to Big Tobacco.

      As soon as the vote is made to sell the company, the corporate officers have a legal obligation to sell the company at the highest value they can get. If Big Tobacco puts the highest offer on the table, the corporate officers will be criminally accountable if they don't take that offer.

      The only time this is not true is with unanimous shareholder consent.

      The majority of shareholders can't vote to screw the minority shareholders. Otherwise as soon as one person acquired 51% of the company they could vote to sell it to themselves for a dollar--or some group that had 51% could collude to sell the whole company to themselves for pennies on the dollar.

      Or a company whose employees owned a large percentage of the shares might vote to sell to Company A (who isn't going to eliminate jobs) at a lower price than Company B (who wants to downsize), in effect forcing the minority stakeholders to subsidize their jobs.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    29. Re:Getting worried by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      This is simply not true of publically traded companies.

      I'm not sure what it is you're claiming isn't true, but whatever it is maybe you could point to an SEC ruling which says so. Honestly though, I doubt the SEC would have any say in such a matter, as such corporate governance matters are generally handled by the state, and have nothing to do with whether or not a company is publically traded.

      As soon as the vote is made to sell the company, the corporate officers have a legal obligation to sell the company at the highest value they can get.

      First of all this assumes the vote is going to be made to sell the company in the first place, which is extremely unlikely in a case like Google where three people control nearly 50% of the votes and have all stated that they aren't interested in selling. Then, you assume that the vote is made to sell, stating who not to sell to, but not stating who to sell to. That's simply not the way it ever works. What would happen in reality is that the buyer would be chosen first, probably by the board without even letting the public know, and then the deal would be submitted to the shareholders for approval. In fact, I seriously doubt it's legal in most states for the shareholders to approve dissolution without first having the terms of the dissolution made clear. Finally, you make an assertion about what is not legal without backing it up in any way. I don't think you're right, the corporate purpose is the overriding concern here, not purely making money.

      The majority of shareholders can't vote to screw the minority shareholders. Otherwise as soon as one person acquired 51% of the company they could vote to sell it to themselves for a dollar--or some group that had 51% could collude to sell the whole company to themselves for pennies on the dollar.

      What you're referring to here is a breach of the "duty of loyalty". But the duty of loyalty is owed not to the shareholders but to the corporate purpose (see http://www.mackrell.net/papers/duties.htm). Further, in your example the director received an "improper personal benefit", which completely changes the situation from one where a director merely chose not to cause the corporation to be evil. This link was to a description of Florida law, but I seriously doubt that any state would have a law against a director or officer working in direct fulfillment of the corporate purpose in a way which is reasonably believed to maximize corporate profits anyway. In fact, if anything would be illegal it would be for a director or officer to work counter to the corporate purpose. If a corporation is formed "to make money without being evil", then it is illegal for that corporation to make money in any other way. This is why most corporations are formed "to engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of [insert state here]", and in fact Delaware Corporate law specifically states that "by such statement all lawful acts and activities shall be within the purposes of the corporation, except for express limitations, if any".

    30. Re:Getting worried by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The majority of shareholders can't vote to screw the minority shareholders. Otherwise as soon as one person acquired 51% of the company they could vote to sell it to themselves for a dollar--or some group that had 51% could collude to sell the whole company to themselves for pennies on the dollar.

      By the way, I just noticed you were referring to the shareholders here, and not the directors. In fact the shareholders can vote any way they want, but such a vote would not be binding in any way upon the directors, who are the ones that would actually be responsible for selling the company. In fact, such a vote to act in opposition to the corporate purpose would never be held, because the directors of the corporation would never bring it up in the shareholder meeting, because to do so would be illegal.

    31. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1

      By the way, I just noticed you were referring to the shareholders here, and not the directors. In fact the shareholders can vote any way they want, but such a vote would not be binding in any way upon the directors, who are the ones that would actually be responsible for selling the company. In fact, such a vote to act in opposition to the corporate purpose would never be held, because the directors of the corporation would never bring it up in the shareholder meeting, because to do so would be illegal.

      Because in almost all companies the shareholders can vote to change the corporate charter at any time.

      But the corporate purpose is irrelevant once a sale decision has been made, anyway. The director's duty is to maximize sale value even if it means acting contrary to the corporate purpose, and doing otherwise would be illegal.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    32. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure what it is you're claiming isn't true, but whatever it is maybe you could point to an SEC ruling which says so. Honestly though, I doubt the SEC would have any say in such a matter, as such corporate governance matters are generally handled by the state, and have nothing to do with whether or not a company is publically traded.


      I pointed to the Revlon case elsewhere in this thread; it's the most famous of many court cases upholding this POV (in this case, the Delaware Supreme Court, but other states have had similar rulings). There's nothing here that hasn't been standard corporate governance law for going on 2 decades.

      One excerpt:
      The Revlon board's authorization permitting management to negotiate a merger or buyout with a third party was a recognition that the company was for sale. The duty of the board had thus changed from the preservation of Revlon as a corporate entity to the maximization of the company's value at a sale for the stockholders' benefit. This significantly altered the board's responsibilities under the Unocal standards....The directors' role changed from defenders of the corporate bastion to auctioneers charged with getting the best price for the stockholders at a sale of the company.

      What you're referring to here is a breach of the "duty of loyalty". But the duty of loyalty is owed not to the shareholders but to the corporate purpose...I seriously doubt that any state would have a law against a director or officer working in direct fulfillment of the corporate purpose in a way which is reasonably believed to maximize corporate profits anyway.


      Corporate purpose is irrelevant once a sale has been approved, and the duty of loyalty lies with the shareholders (see the Revlon excerpt above). In addition to the excerpt above, Revlon held that:

      obtaining the highest price for the benefit of the stockholders should have been the central theme guiding director action...when the Revlon board entered into an auction-ending lock-up agreement with Forstmann on the basis of impermissible considerations at the expense of the shareholders, the directors breached their primary duty of loyalty...The Revlon board argued that it acted in good faith in protecting the noteholders because Unocal permits consideration of other corporate constituencies. Although such considerations may be permissible, there are fundamental limitations upon that prerogative. A board may have regard for various constituencies in discharging its responsibilities, provided there are rationally related benefits accruing to the stockholders. Unocal, 493 A.2d at 955. However, such concern for non-stockholder interests is inappropriate when an auction among active bidders is in progress, and the object no longer is to protect or maintain the corporate enterprise but to sell it to the highest bidder

      And, in such a case, there's no "reasonable belief" about share value; you get actual bids that really determine the market value

      That is, in fact, the key difference between a sale case and running the course of business; it would be very unlikely for the courts to hold that anyone truly acted criminally if there was any way they could reasonably have believed that their decisions were in the shareholder's interest. And it's very unlikely that the people running a corporation will turn down a deal or course of action that it would be really unreasonable to turn down. But if they did, "don't be evil" wouldn't protect them.
      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    33. Re:Getting worried by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      But the corporate purpose is irrelevant once a sale decision has been made, anyway. The director's duty is to maximize sale value even if it means acting contrary to the corporate purpose, and doing otherwise would be illegal.

      The thing is, exactly the opposite is true. The director's duty is to ensure that the corporation does whatever the corporate purpose says it should do, and doing otherwise would be illegal.

    34. Re:Getting worried by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Corporate purpose is irrelevant once a sale has been approved

      Even if this is true, and I seriously doubt it is (the Revlon case didn't touch upon corporate purpose as far as I can tell), this presumes that a sale is approved in the first place!

      So, fine, I'll give you that corporate purpose might not matter in the case of a sale of a for-profit corporation. But barring a sale (which requires shareholder approval among other things), it still is the primary concern of the directors.

    35. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1
      But the corporate purpose is irrelevant once a sale decision has been made, anyway. The director's duty is to maximize sale value even if it means acting contrary to the corporate purpose, and doing otherwise would be illegal.


      The thing is, exactly the opposite is true. The director's duty is to ensure that the corporation does whatever the corporate purpose says it should do, and doing otherwise would be illegal.

      You can keep stating that all you want, the courts have ruled otherwise consistently over the last 20 years. See Paramount v. QVC for another statement of the theory.
      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    36. Re:Getting worried by pthisis · · Score: 1

      So, fine, I'll give you that corporate purpose might not matter in the case of a sale of a for-profit corporation. But barring a sale (which requires shareholder approval among other things), it still is the primary concern of the directors.

      No, it isn't. Maximizing shareholder value is the primary concern, and it's illegal for the company to fail to do so. They are _not_ obligated to maximize short-term share prices, but they must act in the interest maximizing value to the shareholders (meaning long-term share values, or end-game share values in case of sales/mergers/etc).

      The corporate purpose is a statement of how to achieve that goal--it is illegal to have clauses in it actively working against shareholder value, and if there are such clauses then the company must choose share value over corporate purpose.

      However, in practice it would be very unusual for a company to have clauses that had no reasonable interpretation that coordinated with this standard--and in the absence of unreasonable clauses, the courts will typically let the purpose stand.

      The _only_ reason that company sale is any different is because there is no need to figure out if a particular course of action is a reasonable one to maximize share prices; you know absolutely from the offers what the share values are. When there's a bright-line test that the courts can look at (such as offer sheets) then are much more willing and able to make the call that a corporate policy has failed the core obligation to maximize share value.

      But the general principle that maximizing share value is the preeminent concern stands even in non-sale cases*--it's just that the courts are unlikely to intervene unless a company has unreasonably acted against that goal.

      *Things are slightly different in states (e.g. Pennsylvannia) which have constituency clauses, but Delaware, Nevada, and other common states of incorporation are not constituency states.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  27. This is a bit worrying... by swaic · · Score: 1

    This is truly starting to worry me a bit here. Google seems to be giving away quite a bit of good stuff for free. Nothing is free so they must want something back in return. Are we potentially just selling our souls to the devil in disguise?

  28. this is sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    so, a delusional blogger made an entry about a nonexistant relation about a slide, and his own fantasies and this shit is published, for god sake, looking the bio confirms that he is a moron.

  29. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    >Google to colonize Mars!
    >Google to build moon base!
    >Google to cure cancer!!!! OMG!!!
    >I'll believe it when I see it.

    Actually, one seems to be "true":
    http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html

  30. Finally - private companies, not government by acoustix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is what I've been waiting for: private companies providing free access instead of tax payers paying for it.

    Capitalism does work!

    -Nick

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  31. Brilliant Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By supporting a variety of products and exploring countless different potential businesses, Google keeps its core nebulous. Anything is a potential target for Google to diversify into. This gets them a lot of free coverage for products they may or may not even be associated with, but the "Gee-Whiz" factor is still there.

    Whether or not its an actual strategy per se, or pleasant happenstance, I don't know, but it's done damn well in either case.

    --mOperandi

    1. Re:Brilliant Strategy by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1

      Which degree earns one the right to speak in bullshit?

  32. Also in New York City (Bryant Park) by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Wifi access in NYC's Bryant Park is sponsored by Google. From the official park webpage:

    Special Thanks To
    The Bryant Park Wireless Network is proudly sponsored by Google.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Also in New York City (Bryant Park) by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Today Bryant Park! Tomorrow, THE WORLD . (Evil laugh.)

    2. Re:Also in New York City (Bryant Park) by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

      Google also has an office a block away. Bryant Park's services are sponsored by many companies around the area (HBO, Verizon, NYPL, etc.)

      Not suprising.

      HBO runs movies in the park during the summer. Doesn't mean they plan to buy netflix.

  33. A rose by any other name is still a rose... by Jettamann · · Score: 1

    Google is to 'Rumours' as Microsoft is to 'F.U.D'

    Given enough time, resources, money and good old Greed and Google will become just as evil as WalMart, Microsoft and Apple.

    Eventually google will offer so many 'free' things, that it will eventually suffer from a 'God Complex' and demand payment for service, or we will take away what we created!

    --
    - No Sig for you!
  34. Re:new category: google rumours by Seumas · · Score: 1

    OMGWTF! Google sponsored one wi-fi hotspot in a tech-heavy city! This must mean they plan to roll out free wifi all over the country!!!!

    I am failing tos ee the logic.

  35. Don't Be Evil? by pmbarth · · Score: 1

    Google's http://www.dontbeevil.com/2004_05_09_arch.htmldon' t be evil culture is something we hear less and less about. While I'd like it to be true their privacy policies leave a lot of openings for them. This is the next logical step for them -- they're already tracking a lot about you so why not take the last step and literally track everything everyone is doing with free Wi-Fi.

    I use Google but the more I read about these types of plans I wonder if it is time to start thinking about an alternative.

    --
    Paul Barth
    1. Re:Don't Be Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

    2. Re:Don't Be Evil? by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1
      I use Google but the more I read about these types of plans I wonder if it is time to start thinking about an alternative.

      Apparently that should read:

      I use Google but the more I read about these types of plans I wonder if it is time to stop thinking.

      The day public speculation sways my judgement, kill me.

  36. Trickle down economics by tankd0g · · Score: 0

    It's socialism, actually, and yes it does work as long as someone with deep pockets pays for it. Google gives nothing away for free, between the ads they cram down your throat and the consumer information they collect, the money never stops streaming in.

  37. Why not real news such as no more book scanning? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1, Redundant

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,392132 95,00.htm

    For those of you that were hoping to read more than some author's wild speculation here's real google news... They've suspended scanning books due to copyright issues. It sounds like they're giving everyone a chance to respond that has a copyright on whether or not they get their books included.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  38. Negativity on this board... by mollog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The negativity on this board is a little depressing. I, for one, am tired of getting gouged by; baby bells, cable companies, cell phone companies, etc., etc. The hope that Google, of all companies, will come in and save us from the ongoing rape of consumers of communications, is something that makes me hopeful. I know without a doubt that all these services can be provided by one vendor instead of three, using one communications technology instead of four or more.

    Europe, Japan, and other countries have better services for less money. If Google can shake up the status quo in the United States of Greed, I'm right there with them. Hooray for Google.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Negativity on this board... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      If you call it the United States of Avarice, you don't even have to change the initials. USA! USA! USA! Yeehaa!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:Negativity on this board... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hope that Google, of all companies, will come in and save us from the ongoing rape of consumers of communications, is something that makes me hopeful.

      No. It merely makes you look like an idiot.

      1. Google sucks
      2. The author of the article knows very well that his story is bullshit; like every blogger, he counts on fucking morons who still believe this iss possible (like you)

    3. Re:Negativity on this board... by Cromac · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The hope that Google, of all companies, will come in and save us from the ongoing rape of consumers of communications, is something that makes me hopeful.

      Right, because Google - a billion dollar corporation - is going to behave so much differently than every other billion dollar corp. They are all out for the bottem line, period. Just because Google hasn't raped the consumer yet (and there are those who would disagree with that) doesn't mean they won't eventually when their middle managers start looking strictly at this quarters profit/loss statements.

    4. Re:Negativity on this board... by ryanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That site really sucks. All it is is a list of negative news items about Google, or in the case of the positive things that Google has done, a weak-ass sarcastic negative spin on something good. I'm not in Google's pocket or anything (though full disclosure would require me to tell you I am applying for a job there), however it seems to me that some manner of balanced reporting would be more beneficial to society than some whiny site such at this one.

    5. Re:Negativity on this board... by jimmydevice · · Score: 0

      Our area didn't have ANY local net access until 1998. Finally a ISP decided to POP our space, It was $25.00 a month for dialup. Now, in 2005 We have another at $20.00 a month, dialup. These guys serve customers that not even AOL will touch. Problem, These ISP's get most of the income from populated areas, Not the wind blown barrens. What the fuck am I going to do when they dry up and blow away? $300 a month satellite?, Dialup at 10 cents a minute? Screw that. Unless the GOV or Google or Intel comes up to the plate and agrees to give everybody/everywhere free wi-max for the cost of a card, I'm target shooting towers. Is that TOO FUCKING NEGATIVE FOR YOU? PS: I never read the OP, Bwahahahah

    6. Re:Negativity on this board... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      The hope that Google, of all companies, will come in and save us from the ongoing rape of consumers of communications, is something that makes me hopeful.

      Right, because Google - a billion dollar corporation - is going to behave so much differently than every other billion dollar corp.


      Luckily we have this thing called capitalism and supply and demand. What happens when the supply increases greatly (e.g. by a new competitor entering the market)?

  39. I know whats next.... by Cylix · · Score: 1

    Google to offer free sandwhiches...

    Some pudgy guy was quoted as saying, "If google is doing it, I will eat it and I'm sure they will destroy the competition."

    Subway was unavailable for comment, but an anonymous source said they were on the verge of releasing a competing search engine to combat this new competitor in their own arena.

    The pudgy guy was no longer available for comment as he was stuffing his face with google sandwhiches.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:I know whats next.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I like more than a google sandwhich is a google sandwich!!!

  40. Re:Getting worried - (About Google?!?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Stunned look]
    Your worried about ... Google?
    What OS are you using to type this?!?
    I hope it is Linux or your hypocracy is unbelievable!
    Thank goodness we have you to warn us. Now please
    shut off your MS based PC and go relax with an XBOX game.
    Oh, but don't forget to record ATHF with your MS DVR system.
    Your saftey from the oppressive Google will be ensured by the benevolent Bill!

  41. Re:new category: google rumours by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Funny
    Seriously... are there people out there that have nothing better to do than speculate as to what new thing will come out of google's labs next?

    Yes, there are.

  42. Domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sergey - Skynet is fully functional.
    Larry - Time to take full control over the unwashed masses.

    1. Re:Domination by stienman · · Score: 1

      Sergey - Skynet is fully functional.
      Larry - Time to take full control over the unwashed masses.


      So... The great washed are ok then?

      -Adam

  43. Don't be evil by winkydink · · Score: 1

    I always find myself thinking that there's a little 1-pt font trailer on that message that says "until we decide otherwise"

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  44. Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only google offered free porn.. then I wouldn't have to ever leave the computer

    They already offer free porn. Enjoy.

    (PS: Turn off Safesearch or you won't get anything decent.)

  45. I cant remember where... by TooncesTheCat · · Score: 1

    I read this, but somewhere I read that Google will be the biggest company in the entire history by the year 2007 ( might be 2010+, cant remember )

    Anyone know where I heard this?

    1. Re:I cant remember where... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I read that Google will be the biggest company in the entire history by the year 2007

            Amazing, for a company that doesn't actually produce anything apart from an extremely inefficient way to organize publicly available information. It's the miracle of the stock market I tell you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:I cant remember where... by CaptainTux · · Score: 1
      Amazing, for a company that doesn't actually produce anything apart from an extremely inefficient way to organize publicly available information.

      So when can we expect your new search service to be launched? I can't wait to have a more efficient way to search and organize information!!

      --
      Anthony Papillion
      Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
      "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
  46. Let's apply the "Google Lens"... by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 1

    Let's look at this through what I like to call the Google Lens: nothing that Google does is mysterious, unexplainable, or even particularly charitable. They are a business, and they are interested in only two things in the pursuit of profit: (1) organizing and searching large quantities of information and (2) advertising. Nothing else.

    So where would this fit in? I'm not saying it wouldn't, or that they aren't planning something like this...I'm just saying that some derivation of this would have to intersect with their business interests at some point.

    1. Re:Let's apply the "Google Lens"... by joelsanda · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that some derivation of this would have to intersect with their business interests at some point.

      I think an idea like this makes a tremendous amount of sense for Google. They would know where most people surf - assuming most people would grab free WiFi when they can.

      Google would obviously require a user to authenticate, and then they simply note where people surf. It's like the old Matchlogic model - instant demographic information tied to Internet use habits.

      Their database would be worth what ever people spend on advertising directed towards people online - a lot of money.

      --
      The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  47. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1, Troll

    The best explaination I've seen is that the USA is the only country that uses "America" in its name, so really, it makes sense as a shorthand.

  48. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States of America is the only country with America in its name. There is no other place called America, there is North America, South America, Central America, and the Americas, but no other place which is just referred to as America. Do you get pissed off at other people for only using part of a countries name, like people referring to the People's Republic of China as China? Hell, there its at least warranted since there's another country with China in its official name.

  49. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF are you on about? You must suck a lot of cock because I can't understand a word you're saying.

  50. Love to see it happen for the following by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all the other wireless carriers shit a brick once it's launched. But don't worry instead of doing something like this they'll spend their money on lobbists to get laws passed when nobody is up outlawing free access.

  51. BE GOOD by alucinor · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't the motto have been

    "Be Good."

    --
    random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
  52. the word "consumer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sick of the word "consumer". Why does the post use this word? Why not "customers" or "citizens" or "people"? The word shows disrespect. It puts the world into two categories: corporations and consumers. I am not a consumer! Now even /. posters have been trained to use this word! ...FUCK! WE'RE FUCKED!!! FUCK YOU!!!

    1. Re:the word "consumer" by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am sick of the word "consumer".

            I agree. Not only that but haven't you noticed how business has moved away from the term SERVICE in the past decade or so? Now it's "support". Or "Customer CARE". I laughed my ass off the other day on a plane as the CEO of Continental Airlines explained on the recording how he was happy that Continental could offer me a "product". Yeah, air travel is a "product" now. Maybe I can re-sell it. What do I do if it breaks, can I take it back?

      SERVICE as in SERVITUDE as in the CUSTOMER is the important part of the equation here.

      But no, you are a "consumer", a mindless statistic that only exists to fulfill the income projections of the business. I'm glad I only work here, "stealing" a US job.

          end of rant.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  53. Re:America?? You mean USA! by syrinx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's take a quiz. Which of these countries has "America" in its name, and would therefore be most likely to use "America" and "Americans"?

    Dominion of Canada
    United States of America
    Estados Unidos Mexicanos
    Republica de Guatemala
    Republica de Honduras
    Republica de El Salvador
    Republica de Nicaragua
    Republica de Costa Rica
    Republica de Panama
    Republica de Colombia
    Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela
    Co-operative Republic of Guyana
    Republiek Suriname
    Republica Federativa do Brasil
    Republica del Ecuador
    Republica del Peru
    Republica de Bolivia
    Republica de Chile
    Republica del Paraguay
    Republica Argentina
    Republica Oriental del Uruguay

    I believe that covers everything on the two American continents (French Guiana not being a country). I can go through the island nations in this hemisphere too, if you'd like.

    Not that I expect you to even read this, being a troll and all. But still.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  54. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this POSSIBLY flamebait? This is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint relevant to the story. Moderators, please mod this comment up.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      How is this POSSIBLY flamebait?

            You must be new here...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by cataclyst · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's only flamebait to "freedom haters"... er, um, I mean wussy liberals like the media...

      --
      E = m * c^(Hammer)
  55. Re:If this actually happens and doesn't kill AOL.. by kkovach · · Score: 0

    Yep, AOL and the roaches will be the only things to survive nuclear war. :-)

    - Kevin

    --
    The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
  56. Unlikely by sentanta · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Unlikely.

    --
    The Big Yuan - tracking mainland China
  57. This is what M$ will do: by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    M$ will do something similar, very fast. Of late, I have noted that M$ has been playing "catch-up" on several fronts. Google could be in trouble since M$ is bigger and more present than Google in many markets. But I also know that being bigger does not necessarily mean better or even relevant.

  58. Umm by axonal · · Score: 1

    Is it me or does it seem everyone speculates Google will do all these different services? IM, WiFi, Bill Pay, electronic transfer of money, etc... ...where are they getting all this info?

  59. TANSTAAFL by sheldon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's an old saying... The most expensive gift you can get someone is a Free Puppy.

    Similarly speaking... I'm not sure I can afford to get "Free" Wi-Fi access from Google.

    I'm just a whee bit tired of being innundated with advertising, and the cost of product purchases going up to pay for all of it. You know, I'd be willing to spend a little bit of money to just get the things I want and need, rather than paying for everybody else to get stuff they never asked for.

    1. Re:TANSTAAFL by ID000001 · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. A puppy is expensive cause it is one extra creature to support, but getting internet access doesn't suddenly create extra mouth to feed. One thing you buy from those advertising can means one thing you -don't- buy from somewhere else. You just do the same thing differently. It doesn't necessary be more expensive, in fact, with more information, you will save money because you are better informed.
      Don't blame advertising blindly please. Just cause there are billions of spams doesn't means all advertisiment are evil.

    2. Re:TANSTAAFL by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The most expensive gift you can get someone is a Free Puppy.

            Unless of course, it's a dead free puppy.

            It was starting to smell, too. Say thank you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:TANSTAAFL by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think there's a distinction between sponsorship and advertising, and I think Google tends to be closer to the sponsorship side of things. With sponsorship, a company doesn't have to raise prices, the increased exposure provides them with the economies of scale so they can charge the same price, make more money, and still donate some of it back. Is it wrong for a sporting goods store to donate money to a teen basketball league, and for the basketball team to return the favor by printing their logo on the back of their shirt? It's a win-win-win situation. The kids get to play basketball, the store gets more customers, and the customers get lower prices due to the economies of scale (it's cheaper on a per unit basis to make or buy 1000 hockey sticks than 10.

      Where it gets to be bad is when the ads start really getting forced upon people. Television and radio ads are the biggest examples, although many websites are getting there too. Google so far has been pretty good this way. In fact, if I had the choice to turn off Google ads on its search engine I'd still leave them on. I'd consider them more beneficial than they are annoying. Gmail ads are somewhat less useful, perhaps because they don't show up when I'm actually searching for something, but they're relatively unobtrusive.

      If you want to buy things from places that don't advertise, that's your perogative, of course. And if Google does offer free Wifi there's no reason you have to take them up on it.

    4. Re:TANSTAAFL by sheldon · · Score: 1

      How do you think your FREE internet is being paid for? Easy... they gotta jack up the prices on all the rest of us who pay for our internet connections.

      I'll blame advertising blindly because it's gotten overboard. Today when I go to a movie, I get 15 minutes of commercials in addition to my 15 minutes of previews. yet the price of popcorn is still going up, and so are the ticket prices.

      Naw, it's way overboard... There's so much, and the only way to differenitate themselves in the noise is to advertise even more, which just makes the problem all the worse.

      This post has been brought to you by Mountain Dew. DO THE DEW!

  60. Actually... by Momoru · · Score: 1

    Google is a major investor in one of those Internet-over-power-lines companies. Perhaps someone got their rumors mixed up, but there may be some sort of Google internet coming your way (Or at least Google will have their hand in it)

  61. Whatever you do... by swaic · · Score: 1


    Just don't click on the Pi symbol in the bottom right hand corner of the screen.

  62. Wait, what? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Google goes all this amazing stuff... it really does.

    Free Wi-Fi *tear* god bless you lil Google.

    Can daddy have his complimentary hookers and an 8-ball?

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  63. I got a Feeva by miracle69 · · Score: 2, Funny

    And the only prescription is MORE COWBELL!!!

    --
    Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
    1. Re:I got a Feeva by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the only prescription is more wi-fi don't you?

  64. Big enough by gkozlyk · · Score: 1

    At least Google is big enough in recourses to accomplish something like this. I wonder if their free wifi comes with AdSense?

    --
  65. Isn't Starbucks already doing this? by Milo77 · · Score: 1

    I could be wrong. ;)

    1. Re:Isn't Starbucks already doing this? by Doom+bucket · · Score: 1

      No. It is free the first time you use it, and every time after that you are charged.

  66. It's hard enough to cover a single building by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to put up so many access points to cover even an average sized office building, nevermind a whole city. You'd practically have to deploy one on top of every street light or telephone pole, and even then it wouldn't cover everything.

    Unless, of course, they got a license to use high gain antennas and transmitters, which they wouldn't because Verizon and Friends (c) would cry.

    To cover anything but the top 8 big cities would take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of WiFi access points.

    New long-distance wireless tech shows some promise, but we'll see how well it works and if anyone deploys it. In my opinion, until any broadband technology starts to reach into the rural areas, it's not successful. NYC and San Fran already have so many broadband options that adding one more doesn't even count.

    Plus, this whole article is silly anyways. Just because Google sponsers a hotspot doesn't mean they are planning on deploying WiFi on a wide scale.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:It's hard enough to cover a single building by vida · · Score: 1

      To cover anything but the top 8 big cities would take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of WiFi access points.

      at 100 bucks a pop (and I am pretty sure you can get decent ones for a heck of a lot less. And actually why not, you know, make them?), that's really not a lot of money for a company valued at aprox 80B with 3B of cash in the bank.

    2. Re:It's hard enough to cover a single building by Arthemys · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not just the coverage that's an issue. Think of collisions on older networks that used hubs, WiFi access points are just wireless hubs and are extremely prone to collision. Even if you have collision detection / avoidance, it will still happen and degrade the signal quality, and eventually make it very polluted.

    3. Re:It's hard enough to cover a single building by mpeg4codec · · Score: 1

      The old and multiple times dead Ricochet used to have repeaters at every major intersection, with supernodes with a T1 [or something to the effect] interspersed.

      It's a great idea, but look where it got Ricochet.

  67. I'm Feeling Lucky by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, a 14-year-old daytrader announced today that Google is giving out free blowjobs.

    Really, this kind of vapid rumormongering is tapping out all the useful wishful thinking that a real Bubble can harness to fund real companies. Indulging every possible fantasy just proves that we've learned nothing from the Bubble Pop, and very little from its inflation. Do we really need Jim Clark to run everything, just so some real engineers can just get paid for a few years?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:I'm Feeling Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't know if I'd want a corporation to give me a blowjob. Aside from awkward, it seems kind of... dirty.

  68. Google is also... by duniyadnd · · Score: 1

    And one Google employee bought some fish and put them in an aquarium. Rumour has it that Google is going to have a BableFish (literally) online very soon, so that humans can converse in fish language. Or are they creating a new breed?

  69. Re:If this actually happens and doesn't kill AOL.. by JamesD_UK · · Score: 0

    me too!

  70. Why do I RTFA? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Informative
    Google has to pay as much as $60 per megabit in IP transit fees.
    How do we interpret this nonsense? Taken literally, it would mean that every 100KB mail you read on Gmail costs Google $60. Lol. The most likely interpretation, I suppose, is that Google pays $60 per month for every decicated 1Mbit per second between the Internet backbone and their servers. This would be a bit high for an individual and Google, with its immense purchasing power, must do better than that. Otoh, $60 per year for 1Mbit per second dedicated seems too low. Guess I should just follow standard ./ practice and ignore TFA: basing my understanding on the article's headline.
    1. Re:Why do I RTFA? by CatGrep · · Score: 1

      Google has to pay as much as $60 per megabit in IP transit fees.

      Poor Google. They must have already burned through their IPO money by now and be $Billions in debt given these onerous data transmission fees. It's just amazing, I don't know how they stay afloat.

    2. Re:Why do I RTFA? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has occured to me: shouldn't it be the other way around? The nature of the internet as I understand it is thus:

      peers negotiate for links between each other
      big guys charge little guys for links
      little guys pay big guys for the privilage of access.

      Surely google by now is a pretty big player and further, what ISP could afford not to have a connection to <cue creepy voice>The Search Engine </cue>? They should be charging for people to hook up networks to their servers.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Why do I RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because a company gets to be a certain size, people don't just magically start paying them for internet service. To get paid as an ISP, one usually has to actually be an ISP. Funny how that works.

  71. OMFG GUYS by Bastian · · Score: 5, Funny

    OHMYGOD I just heard that GOOGLE is about to come out with a new CPU ARCHITECTURE and it's going to run their own OS and it's so ungodly fast it's like a quad Xeon box but the basic model's only going to be like $500 or you can lease it for a year for the cost of having it shipped to you and it's so damn amazing and after they're done with that they're going to come out with their own distribution of Linux that will be a lot like Google's OS but faster and open source. Oh, and they're going to be giving away free cars in Central Park on September 4, so totally be there, and they're going to use the proceeds from all of this to bring back the dinosaurs - I swear to God! - and it's so cool because they're giving all this shit away for absolutely nothing but they're still making money hand over fist from it. Honestly, this is all true. They're like the coolest company in the world or something.

    1. Re:OMFG GUYS by dmccarty · · Score: 1
      it's so cool because they're giving all this shit away for absolutely nothing but they're still making money hand over fist from it.

      That's because they can make up all that loss with their sheer volume. It's a like totally new business model now on the internet.

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
  72. How does the Big G plan to turn a profit? by distantbody · · Score: 1

    Sure, giving away free wifi is sure to make your customers like you very much, but if Google continues to provide these free services, they're going to encounter a proportional backlash when (if?) it comes time to charge for some services. Yes, Wifi services are cheap to set up, but sooner or later shareholders are going to demand more than just advertising revenue.

  73. Free Wi-Fi? For the entire US? From Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I just came in my pants...

  74. Business 2.0 by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    ...the Weekly World News of the grey suit set.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  75. And people bash Microsoft? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Oh noooooo, it's the evil Google trying to take over the world instead of microsoft......call congress, call a lawyer, get some lawsuits started quick!! (if you don't figure that the above was meant as a joke, then...nevermind)

  76. your second question by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    is completely ignorant of the 'free market' theory (but then, so are all politicians)

    if someone offers a better product, or better price, the original company should wither and die.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:your second question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shall all competitors die to the point where the remaining company which has used predatory pricing to kill off its competition ought to be crowned with a monopoly?

      Maybe it's just the communist in me, but I think I prefer a little competition in my industries.

    2. Re:your second question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem, it's precisely competition we're talking about killing off the small ISPs that can't compete. As wifi improves and becomes even cheaper to setup, the barrier for running local ISPs will further diminish making it easier to compete. If even after all that, they still can't compete with Google, then they don't deserve to.

    3. Re:your second question by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      Yes, and if they abuse the monopoly, someone else should be able to fill the new need, of the same service or product/without the abuses.

      it's capitalistic evoloution.

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  77. Re:If this actually happens and doesn't kill AOL.. by Rirath.com · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Free wifi isn't going to kill AOL by a long shot, sadly. The grandmothers and computer newbies who think AOL IS the Internet will still continue to think this, even if the highly unlikely chance they figure out what WIFI is and how to access it. And remember AOL protects you from nasty spam and viruses out there on the intarwebs!.

    What would kill AOL? Easy... T$$#!!NO CARRIER.

  78. try http://wifi.google.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    i'm getting this:
    "Server Error
    The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.

    Please try again in 30 seconds. "

    1. Re:try http://wifi.google.com by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I just tried http://wifi.slashdot.org/ and even got a page! Slashdot is going to offer WLAN hotspots!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  79. I doubt this will save much money for google. by NickCatal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From what I understand, Google already pays next to nothing for transit. It seems like everybody peers with them anyways. If anything they are using the new dark fiber to link up their datacenters and for internal uses to ensure that they can get more data to the enduser with less hassles. Google Earth alone has to eat up an insane amount of bandwidth.

    --
    -nick
  80. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the tech community sees Google as the end-all of benevolent companies, seeking to create the world that geeks want to live in.

    Bullshit.

    While they may 'do no evil', Google is still a public, profit-driven company that happens to produce some cool tech that we geeks like. However, can ./ please stop posting these bullshit columnist pipe dreams.

    Yeah, I would love it if Google gave us free WiFi and broke the IM lock-in, and brought world peace, but it's not going to happen unless they can make a buck or two (billion) from doing it.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, and the best description of the draw most folks have to Google. Google's geek-friendly tech and "Don't Be Evil" motto make all us normally cynical geeks dream that one day, somehow, someone might make this place into somewhere we'd actually understand and want to live in. *shrug* Of course that spawns rumors. Now if they can only get their work done on the GSO (Google Significant Other), all us Geeks would be set.

  81. This will put a damper... by sfled · · Score: 1

    ...on Comcast's plan to Rule The World.

    --
    I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
  82. Hold your horses. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 2, Funny

    That was reported here on August 13th. Which means, we'll have to wait for another day for it to be reported.

  83. Well by LowbrowDeluxe · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how companies base at least some decisions on what the customer wants, allow me to go on record here as saying if google gives me free internet, I will gladly have as many little google babies to support their googmatrix as they want.

    Let's face it, they're google. If it's on the internet and they care, they'll read it. Google is already watching you, comrade. Embrace it.

  84. Google to Offer Free Steve Vai? by fyrie · · Score: 1

    Now that would be flexible!

  85. Willie Google's going to open up his factory!!! by rindeee · · Score: 1

    All right, all right, all right, what's it going to be? A new instant messenger for Christopher. A VoIP service for Otis. An Internet based OS for June Marie. And listen! Google's got a new one today. Free WiFi for everyone. Just watch out for the Billmicious Knid (and Grandpa...he kind of gives me the creeps...and while we're at it, so did that "freak-out" boat ride).

  86. In cahoots with Nintendo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nintendo has already said they are having nation-wide free Wi-Fi for the Revolution and DS. Clearly these two companies are in cahoots.

  87. Com'on... by Unsus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article is rather bad at proving anything. It is really just speculation -- poorly thought out speculation at that. Some of their facts seem wrong as well. $60 per megabit!? No way it could be that expensive. Also, saying Goggle will provide FREE Internet all across America is really presumptuous. They have a duty to their stockholders, you know...

    1. Re:Com'on... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You know, the internet access will be free as in speech, not free as in beer :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  88. Slashdot Abstractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot writes about how meaning writes about how Business 2.0 writes about how Google may or may not be doing something based on circumstantial evidence.

    Sign me up!

  89. Re:America?? You mean USA! by cabjoe · · Score: 1

    By that logic South Africa could be referred to as Africa.

    --
    If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor.
  90. Talk about effective advertising! by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is place a coffee machine next to it, hell make that free too, put "em outside of Satrbucks, and imagine the crowd gathered around an access point in an airport! This is about the most effective use of advertising dollars that I could ever imagine...

  91. Re:If this actually happens and doesn't kill AOL.. by kloidster · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This is not a rumor. I have a friend who works at Google and he's been talking about this for at least 8 months now. The question is, how will the phone companies respond? They are losing their phone business to VOIP, now their ISP business is being threatened.

  92. The scariest thing about Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is that everybody's routing for them.

  93. Imagine the anonymity of it all .. by bizitch · · Score: 1

    If this isn't vapor - just imagine how you could use it for the pure anonymity of it all.

    Imagine the p2p possiblities!!!

    also

    I wonder if they would serve up private or public ip addresses? Imagine the number of public numbers they would need - are there that many left to have?

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    1. Re:Imagine the anonymity of it all .. by MaynardJanKeymeulen · · Score: 1

      Public adresses with IPv6!
      6x10^23 adresses per square meter on earth!

      --
      "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."
  94. Re:America?? You mean USA! by shinyplasticbag · · Score: 1

    On an unrelated note relating to the confusing North /Central/South America and folks from the USA generally getting called Americans, I suggest we rename the continents North/Central/South Mexico. Mexico, being in the middle, makes a better reference point.

  95. Beware ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Business 2.0 reports on the possibility of Google
    > building a national broadband network and giving
    > Wi-Fi access to everyone in America.

    Okay, now I *know* that Google is just a CIA, FBI,
    NSA, front.

  96. NDA anyone? by spir0 · · Score: 1

    surely if this was going to happen, wouldn't the person in the telecom company that 'leaked' this info have signed an NDA? They have managed to give out very specific information, which I imagine would be announced by Google themselves, or released as a 'quiet' beta like GMail, Groups, and we would have found out from people actually using it.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  97. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Malicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not to defend a troll, but using your own logic, what would you call the whole of the following combined parts?
    North America
    Central America
    South America

    Parent was correct, whether your fuzzy logic likes it or not.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
  98. Good business? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1


    How do you make a small fortune giving away free Internet access?

    First, start with a large fortune...

  99. If they track where you browse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then they can use that information to provide more relevent searches. What better way to find out what people are really looking at? Maybe this would be an extension of their Google Web Accelerator.

  100. Google Takes Over the World By 2014 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  101. You know it's coming. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
    Noodgle: All the world's cuisines at your fingertips.

    Or perhaps,

    Gnoodle: Food that's free-as-in-beer.

    I mean, considering that they have been searching for a Chief Food Officer (or whatever)...

    1. Re:You know it's coming. by CaptainTux · · Score: 1
      Gnoodle: Food that's free-as-in-beer.

      Wouldn't that be GNUdle?

      --
      Anthony Papillion
      Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
      "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
  102. Re:America?? You mean USA! by aywwts4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Uh, I would call that "The Americas" Plural...

    Ever get to that point where you have seen a word so many times it begins to stop looking like a word, Or at the very least, looks spelled incorrectly?

    --
    Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
  103. Re:America?? You mean USA! by loconet · · Score: 1, Troll

    So if you follow the same logic Uruguay can call themselves Oriental Republic? I don't think so.

    Everyone living in any of the American Continents, with the exception of the US and Canada, know that America refers to South/Central/North America and not just The United States of America. They simply refer to it as The United States. If America refers to The United States, then what does Americas refer to but collectively North, Central and South America? two or three United States? This is yet another self centered "American" standard. It may be standard to call the United States "America" but America had been used to refer to the continents since 1507.

    The confusion is such that they had to come up with "Americas" to refer to the continent to prevent the term from getting confused with the good ol USA.

    From Wikipedia:

    " The use of the term America for the United States of America in English and colloquially in other languages is seen by some as politically incorrect (it may be seen as cultural imperialism). By some interpretations, this is also illogical (for example, it would place South America outside America), although the context usually makes clear which 'America' is meant. This led to the emergence of the term Americas to take away the ambiguity (in English), if not the illogicality."

    So to please the people who call the United States "America", they had to rename a whole continent?

    --
    [alk]
  104. Will this also be Windows only? by joelsanda · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Google has some great products, many of which I can't use at home because I use a Mac. In looking at the list below I'd venture a guess that Microsoft has more Mac compatible apps than Google, which strikes me as real funny.

    Google Applications that require Windows:

    • Google Earth
    • Google Video
    • Google Web Accelerator (currently unavailable and not likely I'd use anyway but it's still Windows only)
    • Google Deskbar
    • Google Desktop Search (probably can't touch Mac's Spotlight but it's still Windows only)
    • Google Compute

    Basically - anything you need to download (outside of a web browser) requires MS Windows.

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  105. Re:If this actually happens and doesn't kill AOL.. by wdr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    me too!!!!

    --
    SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
  106. Washington? by floamy · · Score: 1

    Washington D.C. or Washington State?

  107. Re:America?? You mean USA! by switcha · · Score: 3, Informative
    By that logic South Africa could be referred to as Africa.

    No, your example sucks. Just like there is no country of South America, there is no country called Africa. Shortening the United States of America to America doesn't lead to confusion with a continent.

    Maybe the original ranter would like it more if when referring to North and South America, people just said the Americas. I'm fine with that. North, Central and South, all in one tidy name.

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  108. Interference? by Elequin · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am, of course, assuming that they would use 802.11.

    How would they get around the problem of interference? I work for a small wireless ISP, and we have enough problems with interference in very small towns. I can't imagine dealing with the amount of interference in a large city.

    Of course, I don't know how Ricochet was able to do it using just unlicensed frequencies, so I guess with enough money and the right technology it could be done. However, didn't Ricochet use proprietary client hardware?

    1. Re:Interference? by navyjeff · · Score: 1

      I am, of course, assuming that they would use 802.11.

      How would they get around the problem of interference?


      In short, they wouldn't.

      If they used the 802.11b/g band, and through some miracle they were able to blanket the US with their signals, my cordless phone, bluetooth adapter, and wireless Xbox controller would pretty much all stop working. I get enough trouble as it is putting my router on top of my other 2.4 GHz equipment.

  109. Here's something interesting... by Fortyseven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...wifi.google.com. Yes, it returns an error. But the host resolved, as opposed to, say, porn.google.com.

    Interesting.

    1. Re:Here's something interesting... by ryanov · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here's something funny. All the parent had to do was say "here's something interesting" and he was modded interesting, whereas the chap that posted the same thing several comments earlier received nothing. Brilliant. :)

    2. Re:Here's something interesting... by Fortyseven · · Score: 1

      I did a quick search of the root of the comments before I posted, but I guess I missed it. I'd gladly hand over whatever score my post receives if I could. :P

    3. Re:Here's something interesting... by arethuza · · Score: 1

      Looks like we are OK for now: big.google.com doesn't resolve.

    4. Re:Here's something interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pinging wifi.google.com [216.239.57.123] with 32 bytes of data:
      Reply from 216.239.57.123: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=244
      Reply from 216.239.57.123: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=244
      Reply from 216.239.57.123: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=244
      Reply from 216.239.57.123: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=244

      Ping statistics for 216.239.57.123:
      Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
      Minimum = 80ms, Maximum = 83ms, Average = 81ms

      Tracing route to wifi.google.com [216.239.57.123] over a maximum of 30 hops:
      1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms
      2 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms
      3 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms
      4 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms
      5 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms
      6 21 ms 20 ms 24 ms
      7 20 ms 27 ms 21 ms
      8 43 ms 42 ms 42 ms
      9 60 ms 52 ms 52 ms
      10 59 ms 58 ms 59 ms 64.124.229.173.google.com [64.124.229.173]
      11 46 ms 46 ms 45 ms 216.239.46.153
      12 82 ms 82 ms 83 ms 216.239.47.128
      13 82 ms 86 ms 82 ms 216.239.47.128
      14 82 ms 82 ms 82 ms 216.239.49.250
      15 94 ms 82 ms 82 ms 216.239.49.250
      16 81 ms 81 ms 81 ms 66.249.94.163
      17 81 ms 81 ms 81 ms 66.249.94.227
      18 89 ms 81 ms 81 ms 66.249.94.227
      19 81 ms 81 ms 84 ms 216.239.49.97
      20 89 ms 84 ms 95 ms 216.239.57.123

      Trace complete.

    5. Re:Here's something interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMAZING! Good job!

    6. Re:Here's something interesting... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Hey, it works! See?! ;)

  110. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why do US-poeple NEVER get it?? USA != AMERICA! DAMN!!!!

    Nice troll.

    Fag.

  111. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Skidge · · Score: 1

    What do you call the whole of:
    Europe
    Middle East
    Africa
    ?

  112. Re:America?? You mean USA! by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

    Because the niponese call their country "Nipon", not japan. Japan is just a weird bastardisation of "Nipon", just like Morocco is a bastardisation of Maghreb.

  113. Don't be evil by psiph · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From their latest Quarterly Report:

    "the main focus of our advertising programs is to provide relevant and useful advertising to our users, reflecting our commitment to constantly improve their overall web experience, and therefore steps we take to improve the relevance of the ads displayed on our web sites, such as removing ads that generate low click-through rates, could negatively affect our near-term advertising revenues."

    Just because they're a public company, doesn't mean they can't run an ethical business. Especially if its part of their image. And considering their shareholders have realized gains of 300% over the past year, they don't have very much to complain about, do they?

    In fact, when it gets down to it, maybe - just maybe - you can run an ethical and a profitable business.

  114. A financial calculation, and why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) finance:
          yes this is a stuipd calculation.
          The US has about 9M sq km of land (or about 1 x 10^14 sq ft )

          An average AP can do about $.005 / sq ft. (Hardware costs). Figure go solar/battery and you up your costs to $.01 / sq ft.

          1 x 10^14 * 1 x 10^-2 = 1 x 10^12

          1 Trillion dollars. Or in Google's case, more than Chump change for hardware. Or about $300 / American.

          Now realize that the vast expanses of open land in America need not be covered. The Elk of the ANWAR have little use for wireless. More than 1/2 of Callifornia is government owned... Most of Alaska is vacant, Wyoming, Utah, most of the west, etc. etc.

          Now figure you get better than average APs with some good antennas, on polls, or assume that people who want free interent can setup a repeater and a canetta.
          Suddenly the $.01 / ft drops way way down to something more like $.0001 /sq ft. That hardware cost is down to $10 Billion. Which google can do.

          Now realize that the vast expanses of open land in America need not be covered. The Elk of the ANWAR have little use for wireless. More than 1/2 of Callifornia is government owned... Most of Alaska is vacant, Wyoming, Utah, most of the west, etc. etc. That probibly brings the price down to $1-2 Billion.

          Installation could be done cheaply in many places. Do deals with locals, 'free internet' for shipping and handling costs.

          Back haul bandwith would of course be expensive, but some good peering software, and some wire connected nodes and you are good to go.

    2) Why:
          There search engine needs better and more data.

          There are lots of places where googles spiders dosn't go, for whatever reason. Most traffic is in the clear. By snooping a large cross section of the network you can get a tremendous amount of info for the search engine and page rank from actual user traffic. Responsivness would increase, and in many cases the spiders wouldn't have to run at all.

            Many of the tricks people use to get higher page ranks would nolonger work so well, or could be effetivly combated.

    Result ) : A few billion dollars to have asustainable advantage over a fair number of competitors. Sounds like a steal. About $5 / American.

  115. Re:America?? You mean USA! by aywwts4 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Way over there.

    --
    Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
  116. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So to please the people who call the United States "America", they had to rename a whole continent?

    Not really, no. The Wikipedia entry isn't really correct when it suggests that usage of the term "Americas" is simply disambiguation. There is no single continent named "America". There are two distinct continents differentiated by the prefixes "North" and "South". When referring to both together, the only logical form to use is the plural "Americas". When one says "America", it's patently obvious that one is not talking about the pair of continents. About the only argument that can really be made over the appropriation of the term "America" by the USA is that the dominant country in South America should have had an equal chance at it-- but then, which country would that be?

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  117. reading the signs wrong by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm fairly certain they're reading the signs wrong here:

    Any WiFi involvment on google's part is most likely some sort of GoogleMaps-intergrated hotspot finder for finding other (free and 3rd-party-commercial) hotspots.

    On the other hand, TFA mentions google acquiring bits of dark fibre. IMO, this makes very little sense for building a WiFi ISP, as I would imagine that the fibre isn't exactly located in the sorts of places you'd want to put a hotspot. This could be some sort of project to connect their datacenters using private lines.

    On the other hand, this could simply be a capital investment on their part. It could be an attempt to spark some life into the dormant telecom markets. Sure, the fibre's cheap now, but the increased attention Google will get from this will drive up interest, thus driving up prices, allowing google to sell the lines at a nice profit.

    That said, AT&T left a heck of a lot of dark copper and fibre lying around. It'd be a shame to see it not put to use.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  118. Insanely great idea! by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    If they next hire heidi to do switch adds, very soon they will chown all our base!

  119. Better than the other guys by Danger+Stevens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google may be a $billion+ company but they seem to do things differently. I'd rather have them as my ISP than Qwest (the shitty provider who's DNS servers are down five minutes of every hour).

    Frankly, they have shown time again again that they appreciate innovation and a new business model. Keyhole used to charge for satellite picture - Google bought them and gives us the service for free. It's the same with lots of other products.

    Telcos have gotten used to raping us on prices. DLS subscriptions have maintained their $40/month price for years now while the product just gets cheaper to provide.

    Franlky, I'd take anybody who wasn't one of the current telcos.

    --
    World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
    1. Re:Better than the other guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So, if you run *ix, install a caching DNS on localhost.

      If you run Windows, do as I did, install TWDNS (www.ntcanuck.com) for the same functionality, as I did when my provider had DNS issues.

  120. They can't be mixing this up with Nintendo? by tonejava · · Score: 2, Funny
    could they?

    Google - Nintendoogle....err I guess not.

  121. Shareholder Value by AntiCopyrightRadical · · Score: 1

    'Don't be Evil' is completely consistent with shareholder value. A good name is worth something, not incuring congressional hearings is worth a lot. Microsoft is dealing with alot of trouble in US and Europe because of their business practices, and it is probably not over.
    'Make as much money as possible' might be what the theoretical market shareholder wants, but it is not a business plan. EVERY business plan must include ethical considerations, for legal reasons, PR reasons, and employee recruitment reasons, among others.
    You think a jury would convict a CEO for NOT being evil? We have corporate officers because the optimal strategy is not always clear, and officers have to weigh different options and values. Yes, it is good financial sense to forclose on the orphanage, but it will be bad for business in the long run. Google codifies it's strategy as 'Don't be evil' It is a winning strategy.
    And frankly, real world shareholders have values other than making money. They express these values through voting. Now, if the Google shareholders vote to recind the 'do no evil' policy, then we can worry.

    --
    Abolish Copyright. Restore Freedom.
  122. WiMax by cold+wolf · · Score: 1

    Ignoring the improbability of Google actually doing this...

    you'd think Google would be smart enough to deploy it's network with WiMax (which has a range of 30 miles). So, basically one node per average-sized city. Then if they could require mesh functionality on every client to keep the load light... this would keep costs way way down (make the nodes solar-powered for even less maintaince cost).

    If anyone did this, it would be nothing short of revolutionary. Free wireless broadband everywhere? Kick ass.

    1. Re:WiMax by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      WiMax (which has a range of 30 miles)

      Um, I don't know what crap you've been reading, but WiMax range in the unlicensed spectrums (what most people think of) will have range not significantly different than WiFi in the same spectrum. It will have better throughput and noise handling capabilities, but it won't get you any further. The "30 mile" figures are all with licensed spectrum and transmitters 300 times or so the power of what would be allowed for WiMax in a licensed spectrum. Hell, if you are going to just toss out random claims based off pre-deployment and unusable numbers, why not quote the 100+ mile record ranges gotten with WiFi? Then we can "prove" that WiFi has better range than WiMax...

  123. Alright, who leaked the pony plan. by chrisd · · Score: 3, Funny
    Damn you! ixnay boutay the onypaes.

    --
    Co-Editor, Open Sources
    Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
  124. Idiots With Mod Points by loudgazelle · · Score: 1

    I can't decide which is stupider- the weekly reports of Google doing something earth-shattering or the fact that someone modded the parent "Informative"...

  125. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Pollardito · · Score: 1
    what would you call the whole of the following combined parts?
    more importantly, WHY would you even need to refer to the whole of those combined parts? seriously, how often does anything come up that generically involves those areas, since they have so little in common. the fact that they are connected by land only means so much, as i don't see people scrapping around for a word that applies specifically to the people in Turkey and Greece. if such a situation arises that you need a term for those continents together, i suggest that you continue to use terms such as "The New World", "The Americas", "The Western Hemisphere" or my favorite "North and South Americans"
  126. two ways to work it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    google gets the dark fiber, some decent antenas and a few hacked routers gives away the smallish wifi stuff sells the the fiber as a 'postitive externality' to killing the need to depend on ISP's. or it's a rumour, or they may just decide to do a a jew cities with some kind of richochetish stunt.

  127. Re:America?? You mean USA! by rynthetyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, as I was informed by my college Spanish professor who spent several decades living in Columbia, calling the USA "The United States," or "Los Estados Unidos" in Spanish, is not a particularly useful term, because there is more than one "Estados Unidos"--Mexico being Los Estados Unidos de Mexico, or The United States of Mexico, if you prefer.

    --
    Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
  128. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Surye · · Score: 2, Informative

    You mean Nipponjin, not "niponese" right? And even there it's not rock solid. In almost all casual situations, it's Nihon, not Nippon. And how many Germans in Germany do you know call it Germany?

  129. The next day on slashdot: Google not to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google won't do this, and that's not even the worst...
    Remember the post of bbc comercialising on WikiPedia? To me this sounds just about the same... Scary huh?

    Google MIGHT do much, so just wait untill they DO something before informing us about it.

  130. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's take another quiz. Which of these organization has "World" in its name and would therefore end up in a championship called "World Series".

    a) American League of Professional Baseball Clubs
    b) Major League Baseball
    c) National League of Professional Baseball Clubs

  131. Unemployed telecom workers write for Business 2.0 by JehCt · · Score: 0

    A company is going to provide free information and research to the entire planet. How on earth could that be possible?

  132. Now that's just crazy talk by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    Nobody that works at Google is so poor as to have to step foot in Modesto. Or so compelled to be murdered, either.

  133. Ugh. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Okay.

    So Google is kind of like if the Yellow Pages and the Phone Book were published under one cover with the one subsidizing the production costs of both.

    Whether or not they're making enough through ad sales to pay for the whole parade as it currently stands is questionable, but if you can convince enough investors that Google is worth pouring zillions of dollars into, then fine. Whatever.

    So basically, Google is sitting on a big pile of investor money at the moment, with perhaps a modest ad based revenue. However, Google has also hired a lot of programmers and project leaders and they're doing a lot of interesting and expensive stuff, which I suspect isn't quite covered by Google Ad revenue. The water leaking in is more than is being bailed out. Google right now sounds a lot to me like one of those tech-boom start-ups swimming in IPO cash.

    This means, I suspect, that expansion into new sources of revenue is probably fairly high on the To Do list around Google's board room at the moment.

    How they do this is up to them. I doubt somehow, though, that it involves 'free' microwave pollution to every corner of the U.S. --Though, doing that certainly sounds reminiscent of some of the dumb things those crazy tech companies tried back in 'The Day' when investors were insane and huge gobs of IPO cash were free to any who asked.

    I just hope they don't set up any microwave hot spots in my neighborhood. Cell phones are already a plague which I never agreed to.


    -FL

    1. Re:Ugh. by spamfiltertest · · Score: 1

      Let's see (04 numbers): GOOG modest revenue: 3 Billion Cash / Short Term Investments: 2.1 Billion Debt: 0 Net Profit: 400 Million Right... Looks like "one of those tech-boom start-ups swimming in IPO cash" seems to be a bit off the mark. I'm not saying that they won't fail, nor am I saying GOOG is the end all, be all, company that will cure the worlds problems - but give them credit here. If you look at the 05 numbers Rev, Cash Flow and Cash on hand have increased...

  134. MOD PARENT FUNNY :D by ShakiirNvar · · Score: 1

    While it is somewhat way over the top, it is amusing anyways, so if someone has a spare mod point or two, could you mod the parent "funny"?

    --
    "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." - HL Mencken
  135. Seriously? Seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Google is curing cancer." As a matter of fact, that's true. From the Folding@Home website: "What happens if proteins don't fold correctly? Diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, BSE (Mad Cow disease), an inherited form of emphysema, and even many cancers are believed to result from protein misfolding. "

  136. Imagine the impact this could have... by Michael_Munks · · Score: 0

    Both economically and culturally... Economically - many houses having an extra 10-80 dollar lying around every month.. - That's a lot of money to be spent on products and services from other sectors. Talk about a tipping point. Then if *everyone* was connected - Look how much society has changed in 10 years with the interenet or even the last 5 years - and thats like with only 40-80% of the population connected. I'm sure it's been asked, but how would google benefit from this besides building it's brand identity?

  137. Previewing reaction? by NetSettler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why does the news media keep reporting these *completely* unsubstantiated rumors about Google as if they were actually news? Why not wait until Google actually announces what it is going to do?

    Are you completely certain they're false? It's common in politics for people to deliberately leak what they're thinking of doing just to test public opinion about a controversial idea in a deniable way.

    It's also possible that the occasional idea is leaked by an employee or ex-employee who doesn't like the proposed strategy and wants to raise alarm bells early enough to do something about it.

    I'm not saying either of these is in play in the various situations with Google we've seen recently. But they are ever-present possibilities.

    --

    Kent M Pitman
    Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    1. Re:Previewing reaction? by mjh · · Score: 1

      He didn't say it was false. He said it was unsubstantiated.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    2. Re:Previewing reaction? by NetSettler · · Score: 1

      He didn't say it was false. He said it was unsubstantiated.

      Indeed, but it seemed to me that there was an implication that things are not worth discussing if they are unsubstantiated, as if this makes them non-issues. Sort of like saying we shouldn't discuss terrorist activities if there's only an unsubstantiated rumor that we might confront a particular situation. Always better to be blindsided, one might say. Well, one might, but I wouldn't.

      All other things being equal, I'd rather discuss political and commercial impact in advance of it occurring, rather than being simply reactive.

      --

      Kent M Pitman
      Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

  138. it makes sense if by moria · · Score: 1

    it makes sense if you are required to use a mechanism which will allow Google to collect your browsing habit etc. to use this service. Google needs information about this to further refine their search engine and probably other similar service. The google-layer above (or below) normal web will also allow google to insert ads. Think about TV broadcasting signal, which is also free.

  139. Google allows limited time-travel! by Ferox · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Announced late today, Google is teaming up with Travelocity to offer patrons trips back in time, Developers for the site say they will use a form of thier cacheing service to allow visitors to physically travle to the past. Financial reports of this venture are expected to raise the google stock 14 points late in the 3rd quarter..."

    Is it just me, or does google seem to be the breeding ground for all rumors and half-baked ideas???

    --
    I drive WAY too fast to worry about cholesterol!
  140. No one, eh? by Osmosis_Garett · · Score: 1

    I guess its just a coincidence, but having this topic immediately followed with "FCC Wants to Track Wireless" seems to say so much more than either of these articles do on their own.

  141. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada -> Canadian
    Mexico -> Mexican
    USA -> USAnian ?

  142. Slashdot by akeyes · · Score: 1

    That is why /. keeps us in line... ...oh wait, nevermind.

  143. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're speaking in English and/or happen to be standing in the United States -- preferably, being a part of it -- then yes, I suppose that is so.

    Since when did the USA decide North and South America are different continents? Pretty much everyone else in America seems to think otherwise. And I'm referring to the continent, by the way.

  144. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *shhh* don't upset him. He was feeling all good that he knew 'nippon' and 'niponese'... I mean, since it isn't what everyone else says, it must be right.

    Come to think of it, i'm hard pressed to think of one instance where I've seen nipon used instead of nihon.. though admittedly I'm only at a lower intermediate level of study.

  145. DON'T PANIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is what we need to hear.

    And when Google figures it out (if they figure it out), I do honestly believe they're entitled to a patent or two..

    (when is OOO going to remember my corrections to the spell-checkers' mistakes)

  146. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up as insightful

  147. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you suggesting that we start calling Americans "US-poeple"?

    You are right though, Americans insistence on short handing their nationality as Americans is clearly because they are imperialist pigs and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there is not another nation in the world with the word America in it, but dozens with the words United and States.

  148. Google to offer free candy! by gomel · · Score: 1

    Candyoogle?
    Googandy?

    --
    Fight Frist Psoting!
    Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
    1. Re:Google to offer free candy! by Fishsticks · · Score: 1

      Candoogle?

  149. meaning of free (are you going to pay for my AP?) by fantomas · · Score: 2, Interesting
    For sure, I think we're back down to "what does free mean?" - an agreed free exchange of data over a network, where each peer pays for their part of the infrastructure, and agrees to pay for their share of the communal infrastructure, perhaps?

    If it's free as in free beer, does that mean you will give me an antenna, an AP, a laptop with a wireless card so it's free to me? probably not. You'll ask me to pay for my kit, pay for a share towards the central infrastructure (backhaul costs, your server etc), and once we've got this in place we can exchange packets for free, this is probably what I think we mean by "free".

  150. here's the real reason google is buying networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An even more compelling reason for Google to build its own network is that it could save the company millions of dollars a month. Here's why: Every time a user performs a search on Google, the data is transmitted over a network owned by an ISP -- say, Comcast (CMCSK) -- which links up with Google's servers via a wholesaler like AboveNet. When AboveNet bridges that gap between Google and Comcast, Google has to pay as much as $60 per megabit in IP transit fees. As Google adds bandwidth-intensive services, those costs will increase. Big networks owned by the likes of AT&T (T) get around transit fees by striking "peering" arrangements, in which the networks swap traffic and no money is exchanged. By cutting out middlemen like AboveNet, Google could share traffic directly with ISPs to avoid fees.

  151. like all other servies from google by soman · · Score: 1

    Like all other servies from google, everything will be logged and ensured you get "great" ads just for you. And if you complain an GMAIL privacy issues, use encryption.

  152. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    being a CAC (Canadian Anonymous Coward), and living in Europe, I have noticed that Europeans commonly use the word Americans to mean the people living west of Europe but not as far as Asia.

    Being CAC and speaking my own native and culturally blurred form of English, I say Americans live south of the border.

    Continental Europeans may speak a trillion languages, but sometimes they don't get the nuances.

  153. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North and South America were first described as separate continents on European maps of the 16th century. And the usage "American" to refer to anglo-Americans living in the land which would one day be the USA goes back to the 17th century (soon after the usage "American" to refer to native Americans gave way to the less correct, but older, "Indian" in English). In English, "America" was always shorthand for "the English colonies in America," and so the usage "America" to refer to the USA is purely an anglophone phenomenon, and one that originates in Britain, not the States. Usage of "America" to refer to the entirety of North and South America is more a Spanish-language usage, as "America" was used in Spanish to refer to the Spanish colonies in the Americas.

  154. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Urgoll · · Score: 1
    Since when did the USA decide North and South America are different continents? Pretty much everyone else in America seems to think otherwise. And I'm referring to the continent, by the way.

    Amen to that. That's what I learned in school: America is a continent, USA is a country. I just checked in the dictionary: My French Larousse 1996 agrees, America is a continent made up of three regions (north, central, south). However, the Encylopedia Britannica doesn't agree, and list South America and North America as separate continents, with no indication on where's the separation.

  155. why do /. techies hate the idea of free broadband? by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    why do slashdot technophiles hate the idea of free or cheap broadband?

    free or cheap is like the holy grail of technology? Why is it every time it comes up we have so many supposed technophiles slamming the idea here?

    Peculiar.....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  156. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Overseas". It's a mythical place that exists only to provide exotic locations for holidays.

  157. One list entry from your "Kill Yahoo" link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There already is Welsh Google.
    http://www.google.com/intl/cy/

  158. Pony mares??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Pony mares???

    What's better:

    (a) Free WiFi

    OR

    (b) Free sex with a pony mare
  159. try this by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    Google Cosmos as next upgrade to Google Earth;
    Google Prophet -- in beta at their web site -- enter an ethical or lifestyle dilemma and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky" for an answer;
    Google Clippy to help you fix up all your word processing and spreadsheet problems;
    Google Slashdot interface with automated trolling and moderation (plus layout fixed for Firefox);
    Google China is a new crockery set for house and home. Not to be confused with Google China, the upcoming communist state bought out by Google last Thursday.

    You might run out of things to say because the jokes wil soon get out of hand as each week's episode has to better the previous one.

  160. Re:America?? You mean USA! by zsau · · Score: 1

    Just for the record, Canada doesn't take the style 'Dominion of' any more. They're just Canada.

    --
    Look out!
  161. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like you were misinformed by your professor in "Colombia"

  162. Honestly... by nighthawk127127 · · Score: 0

    I've gotta tell you, I used Yahoo in the pre-gmail days and I could't stand the big, bright, flash-based ads. With Gmail however, the text-only ads fit into a small column on the right-hand side. I can literally go for weeks without even remembering that they're there. In the search engine itself, it's almost the same way - small, unobtrusive, etc. As far as it concerns me, Google might as well be ad-free.

    --
    10100111001
  163. Re:America?? You mean USA! by zsau · · Score: 1

    Umm... Pardon me, but firstly, I take exception to your presumption that places outside of America are also America. This is part of a European short-sightedness that leads them to believe that all parts of the world not in Europe are either America, or do not exist. I, as an Australian who has never set foot out of this country, am most certainly not an American, but I still refer to America as 'America'.

    Secondly, where else in the world is called 'America'? I can find nowhere. There's a continent called 'North America', another called 'South America'; there's even a region called 'Central America'. Perhaps you wish to take the sum of them? Then you have many options: the Americas (there is, after all, more than one of them!); the Western Hemisphere; the New World.

    Using 'America' in its conventional and long-standard way of referring to originally the British Colonies there, and now the United States, is also very useful. There's no word for people who hail from the US other than 'American'. Its a damn fine adjective and derived noun for things coming from the US.

    If you don't allow us English speakers to do what we want, you're taking away a word (leaving something with no clear and simple way to be referred to) to make it a member of a set of already three synonyms.

    (Any argument that because 'South America' has the word 'America' in its name, it must be a subset of 'America' is sadly mistaken, and does not fully understand the English language. If that were the case, it would be 'southern America'. Being called 'South America' means it's a place, that's South, which derives its name from 'America' (in a less specific definition). Such can be seen in many place. New South Wales was not so named because a section of the Bristol Channel was reclaimed for Wales; on the contrary, it's in a very different part of the world. The North Island wasn't so named because it's the North part of Island; on the contrary, it's an Island that's South (of what? who knows?). This is not a hard-and-fast rule that no-where named North (Place) is simply the northern part of (Place), just that you cannot infer from a name North (Place) that it is the northern part of (Place).)

    --
    Look out!
  164. But it will only be available to Windows users by jocknerd · · Score: 1

    Just like Google Earth and Video.

  165. Why not same fears for muni wifi? by mjh · · Score: 1

    Why is universal wifi a problem when it's provided by a private company, but a Good Thing (TM) when it's provided by municipalities and paid for with tax dollars?

    --
    Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  166. News or Rumors? by wgray8231 · · Score: 1

    What's the point of this post? Is there anything new to report? We all knew about the Google Hotspot months ago and the article just presents speculation. What ever happended to "Stuff that matters?" Has it been changed to "Stuff that doesn't matter and rumors that appear to be news?"

  167. Doable by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    Imagine:
    Google contracts with WiFi router manufacturers to provide repeater capabilities (there was a /. article a few months ago to this effect). Why bother plugging every router into a cable/DSL/other-wire line when there are enough overlapping wireless routers to support each other? Only a few need be actually wired; there's enough overlap among the rest to share the network entirely wirelessly. The hardware already exists, just someone needs to persuade the router makers to include repeater software and have it turn on by default.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  168. Important missing functionality from Outlook. by argent · · Score: 1

    neither one offers as much funcitonality as Outlook

    Such as being the #1 software for virus and worm distribution in the world?

    I banned Outlook and IE (the #2) at work around 1997, based purely on my reaction to the whole design of Active X, Active Desktop, and the rest of the Active culture.

    The biggest difference between our email environment and the rest of the company's email environment was that the only way we knew when another email worm was galloping about on the Internet was that we got a bunch of infected junk mail from people at other sites.

    We had zero virus infestations. We occasionally had a single infected box, and most of those were people who were running Outlook despite our ban, but I never had to clean more than one box at a time.

    I did once have to argue with a contractor over the policy while I was sitting there digging through his files to clean a particularly nasty virus out of his box.

    I don't care what the capability of the rest of Outlook is: until they rip the HTML control out of it or implement a version of the HTML control that has no mechanism to run "Active Content", I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot asbestos pole and I would strongly recommend using it unless you do something horribly desparate like MAC-lock every port and put everyone on a separate VLAN with their own external hardware firewall that QOS-throttles SMTP and scans for surges.

  169. Free wifi??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever hear of NetZero?

  170. Google wants to own all information by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    baaaa... I love google... baaaaaaaaa *bleat*

  171. Re:Pricey? - - - Going OT... by Enzo1977 · · Score: 1

    That's the one thing about Terminator and Terminator II that upset me. The day Skynet became self-aware was on my birthday in August. Although I don't recall the exact date ever being mentioned in T3.

    Speaking of Arnold, the U.S. has had two State Governors to come from the movie Predator. In following with that phenomenon I predict Carl Weathers will become the next Governor of Louisiana.

    --
    I hate all sigs, even this one.
  172. Re:America?? You mean USA! by ACORN_USER · · Score: 1

    It actually boils down to the Americans being totally brain dead to the fact that there are countries outside of their borders; if they grasp the concepts of borders in the first place. That said, it would not realy be in Google's interests to set up a chain of wi-fi hotspots in countries where most people are still on dial up.

  173. How will the phone companies respond? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thats easy.
    1) Buy a few Senators
    2) Buy some more Congressmen
    3) Continue campaign to outlaw public wifi
    4) Buy lots of lawyers
    5) Patent the air we breathe and a method of transmitting data through it (f**k marconi etc)
    6) Buy/Bribe a President or two
    7) Sit back and go down with the titanic

    The only Phone Co to survive would the the one that got into bed with Google and did the deal to be the carrier of choice.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  174. Don't do evil. by kutuz_off · · Score: 1

    Advertise it instead!

  175. Re:Pricey? - - - Going OT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My birthday, too. My 21st birthday, no less.

  176. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Since when did the USA decide North and South America are different continents? Pretty much everyone else in America seems to think otherwise. And I'm referring to the continent, by the way.

    The question swings both ways. Since when does Latin America get to decide the definition of a continent? The isthmus of Panama is 20 miles narrower than the isthmus of Suez, yet Suez is enough to demarcate two continents and Panama isn't? With the exception of Japan and Iran, the rest of the world sees the Americas as two continents. Calling it one continent makes about as much sense as calling Europe and Asia two continents. The problem is that it's an issue chock-full of politics rather than one of simple geography. By the strict definition there are technically only 4 continents (Afrasia, Antarctica, America, Australia), but that one clearly over-generalizes.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  177. Re:America?? You mean USA! by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    HE FORGOT POLAND!!!1!

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  178. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Jose-S · · Score: 1

    I know most "Americans" (US citizens) don't know this, but there's actually no country called America. America is a continent, and is composed of North America (Mexico, US and Canada), Central America, and South America. When Columbus discovered America, he did not discover the US, as many people assume.

  179. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, what about residents of the "Americas" (South, North, Central) wouldn't it be correct to call them all americans?

  180. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Western Hemisphere?

  181. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    Well, what about residents of the "Americas" (South, North, Central) wouldn't it be correct to call them all americans?

    Sure, but only if it's clear that we're talking about pure geography and not nationality. The default frame of reference for identity is essentially culture-based, which in the modern world roughly translates to nationality. The fact alone that there are no less than four official national languages and dozens of indigenous "unofficial" languages found across the Americas make it unlikely that someone would really have reason to identify themselves so unspecifically as a "resident of the largest contiguous landmass in the western hemisphere".

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  182. Re:America?? You mean USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, "Japan" is a corruption of "Jipangu", a much more ancient word for the area that presumably was in use when westerners first encountered them.

  183. So after Google does this you could say... by Good+Sumerian · · Score: 1

    Everybody's got the Feeva?

  184. edit by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    First it was VoIP, then it was IM, now it's Wi-Fi? Why does the news media keep reporting these *completely* unsubstantiated rumors about Google as if they were actually news? Why not wait until Google actually announces what it is going to do? It's not as if there won't be an unending beta period between announcement and the heat death of the universe. This rampant Google speculation that has gripped the tech media has moved past the "annoying" phase to the "just plain stupid" phase.

    Had to proof read your post a bit...

  185. Re:America?? You mean USA! by larkost · · Score: 1

    To refer to the combination of North and South America (and Central America if you are so inclined to divide it that way) as a single continent is rather silly. It does not really make any sense from a geological perspective (then again neither does the Europe and Asia divide), a watershed one, a geopolitical one (unless you are talking about the Monroe Doctrine and that style of thinking), or a environmental/biological perspective.

    The term "Americas" makes so much more sense. Once you are to that understanding, then it is no so far to shortening the USA to "America".

  186. Three Billion. . ??? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Okay, I'm serious here.

    Where the heck is Google getting that kind of cash?

    If it didn't come from investors, then where???

    What the heck are they selling? Ad spots are making three BILLION dollars in revenue?

    Did they figure out "Step 2" in that Profit! joke?

    And if it's just investor cash, then, yes, it's very similar to one of those tech bubble companies swimming in IPO cash.


    -FL

  187. Of course it can be done, silly people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All they would have to do is contract with some major cell phone provider to handle the backend the way Yahoo contracts with SBC to provide dsl.

    Will it happen? I doubt it. Could it? Yes, of course it could.

  188. Air travel refunds by freeweed · · Score: 1

    air travel is a "product" now. Maybe I can re-sell it. What do I do if it breaks, can I take it back?

    Well, your estate can try...

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  189. what about Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they going to announce the same thing next week ?

  190. Missed one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot Belize.

  191. It's the "information highway" metaphor at work by jc42 · · Score: 1

    I think it's very similar to the way we view roads. Most of them everywhere are "free" in the obvious sense that you don't have to pay a toll to use them.

    This doesn't mean that it doesn't cost money to use on a road, of course. Vehicles cost money; fuel costs money; insurance costs money. Some places, you even have to pay extra for a parking spot. Part of your taxes, especially on fuel, go to maintenance of the roads.

    Still, it makes sense to say that the roads are "free". You don't hand out money when you use most roads, except for a very few toll roads.

    It wouldn't be surprising if the Internet ends up "free" in the same sense. You'll have to buy your comms equipment, and/or pay a monthly rent. But, except in some special spots with special controls, you'll be able to communicate from anywhere without paying a toll to a local ISP. Like the roads, the Net will be accessible if you have equipment able to use it.

    Perhaps your monthly rent will be for bandwidth. You pay $N per month, and get B bytes/second of access. Pay $2N and get 2B bytes/sec. Or something like that.

    We're nowhere near that yet, of course. Most of our comms are like a road system where you have to stop and pay a toll every few blocks, and each road owner can decide whether your vehicle is allowed on the road, what sort of freight you can carry, etc. for his little stretch of road. But there are signs of change

    Actually, a number of science fiction writers have already used this idea as a plot gimmick. Several have considered the effect on society of a guaranteed Right of Communication. The ones I've read have been centuries in the future. Maybe we'll live to see the start of it.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  192. Re:America?? You mean USA! by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Funny how this confusion keeps coming up, and how few people see the obvious answer.

    Similarly, we refer to the Estados Unidos Mexicanos as "Mexico", and the República Federativa do Brasil as "Bra[sz]il". I wonder why people don't object to those shorthands? Maybe because they realize that there is no other country with "Mexico" or "Brazil" in its name. You'd think people would be smart enough to see the same explanation for the "America" shorthand.

    Then there's the case of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. It takes a bit of convoluted linguistic history to explain why we call it "Germany" in English. Most people would fall asleep some time during anything like a detailed explanation.

    Anyway, "USA" is also a city in Japan, so using it alone is ambiguous. ;--)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  193. Re:America?? You mean USA! by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Depends on your field of study. I've seen a number of geological discussions. That 4-continent definition is included in the wikipedia definition,
    but few if any geologists would agree. Thus, Africa really is a separate continental plate, which just happens to be bumping up against Eurasia.

    Similarly, there are distinct North American and South American plates. The North America plate's southern edge is a bit fuzzy, but it actually ends roughly at the southern edge of Mexico. The isthmus between Mexico and Columbia, "Central America", is really a recent (10 million years) volcanic development, like Cuba and the Antilles. It was produced by plate tectonics, but isn't part of a continental plate.

    But this is just for geology. For other fields of study, other definitions make sense. Though it has always been a bit odd to classify Europe and Asia as different continents. This is partly historic confusion caused by the fact that "Asia" used to mean what we now call "Turkey", and what we now call "Asia" wasn't known to Europeans. Somehow "Asia" got extended to all the land to the east of its original definition, and since the fastest way there from Europe was by boat, people decided it must be a separate continent.

    It can be hopeless to try to straighten out terminology when it's as confused as this. Especially when people in different fields are using a definition that makes some sort of sense to them, but not to anyone else.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  194. Re:America?? You mean USA! by spewey · · Score: 1

    In the same way that most Americans refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as "England."

  195. Re:If this actually happens and doesn't kill AOL.. by Popcorn+Dave · · Score: 1
    Yes but the problem that I see from the AOL adverts on TV is that you have to bring them cookies in addition to sending them money on a monthly basis. I'm sorry, but my kitchen just isn't capable of baking enough cookies for all the people protecting me "from nasty spam and viruses on there." Besides I'd rather deal with an ISP that has *Technical Support* not a series of 3 X 5 index cards in a recipie box with things like "You need to re-install windows" or "I don't know what Firefox is. We only support Internet Explorer".

    No thanks!

  196. Re:America?? You mean USA! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    By that logic South Africa could be referred to as Africa.

    No, because there is some other entity named "Africa." There is nothing else named "America." There is "North America" and "The Americas," but there is no "America" other than as use as shorthand for USA. With a complete lack of ambiguity, "America" has one and only one meaning. The only people confused by that use are people without sufficient grasp of the English language to get the nuances which result in the unique use of "America." Of course, that doesn't prevent people that don't like it from claiming confusion, but none exists.

  197. Here's a troll ... by jc42 · · Score: 1

    (Just thought I'd test your theory.)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  198. Re:America?? You mean USA! by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1
    Uh....last I checked, that was Eurasia.

    Excluding Africa, since it is not considered to reside in the same continent.

  199. Re:America?? You mean USA! by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1

    US-people Yeah, that's a hell of a lot easier to say than American. :lol: