Slashdot Mirror
Google to Create a Private Internet Alternative?
dbucowboy writes "Times Online UK reports that Google is working on a project to create its own global internet protocol network, a private alternative to the internet controlled by the search giant, according to sources who are in commercial negotiation with the company. Should Google successfully launch an alternative internet, it is theoretically possible for them to block out competitor websites and only allow users to access websites that have paid Google to be shown to their users." We discussed this topic during summer last year.
And who knows? Maybe they will do it. But just because they can doesn't mean they will.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Google to create its own Internet? Unlikely. The whole reason that Google is an important company is that it crawls through the publicly-accessible parts of the Internet in order to index its contents. If Google is to retain its premier position in the search engine market, then it will very much so remain firmly connected to the existing Internet. This is why I agree with the parent post: It is quite reasonable to believe that Google might require this bandwidth for its own purposes. There is nothing at all wrong with this. The Internet, after all, is merely a network of networks. All this means is that behind Google's accessible IP addresses lurks a mammoth network of its own.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
I almost can't wait for Google's facade of goodness to slip.
Already done, in my opinion, the moment I first saw a Google Flash ad for McDonalds.
I use adblocking plugins and specifically left Google ads unblocked due to their nature. No longer. Ugh.
I see lots of obvious things to be worried about, but at the same time, I see a few things that're actually not so bad. If Google were to go this route, the only question is how far they'd go. Could this network simply be a way for Google to slap down enough bandwidth for the "Google Cube" rumors, or would it be a wider-access thing intended for Total Domination? So far, Google hasn't gone evil despite the best efforts of many to try and call them out on it, and as long as there's a way to make any money and not be evil, I'm pretty sure Google would do it long before they'd consider anything else barring a stockholder revolt. (The only thing I can forsee being a true evil-catalyst)
Now on the other hand, with the Telcos getting all bitchy about Google and others using "their pipelines", I've been wondering just how long it might take for someone to start up an "OtherNet" so to speak, restricted to non-commercial use like the old days were. It might be slow, but you -can- get an unlimited-long-distance line and slap modems together, and combine that with a meshed wireless, etc.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Google isn't a common carrier, so who cares? My old school district created it's own private network and ran fiber to each school back to the central office and IT hub. They controled traffic on their fiber and they could block what ever they wanted, because they were not a common carrier.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Isn't this how AOL started. You had access to the "internet" but most of what you saw was their own content. "Use AOL Keyword..." It seems to me that Google is rapidly switching gears from "Don't be evil" to practices more similar to one of the most evil companies on the planet.
This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
They forget the flip side, which is that Google could also use this separate internet as a refuge from the "tiered internet" asshattery we've been hearing about.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Hey, I've heard of that before...isn't it called AOL?
I love google though. The average googler is smarter .
-TLAY
Google has known for a while.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Instead of another version of the internet, imagine browsing a 100% google cached version of the current one. Instead of hopping 15 nodes across the globe to get Europe's sites (for example) you just get the most recent version off google's cache. Once google cache works out some of the wrinkles (out of date sites, postback issues, etc) in its system, I would use it for almost everything.
Nail on the head. So many of the awful things we're stuck with today on the internet are because of design decisions made when resources were scarce, or problems were not envisioned - I've always said that the only way to fix it is to throw most of it away and start again. TCP, IP, all old and flawed.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Flash and image ads in themselves are not evil things.
Yes, they are, they consume my bandwidth and CPU! And there's no way to switch them off!
As a general rule i had to close my browser so i can start compiling my C++ programs, otherwise the flash steals the CPU and my compilation times multiply.
That was, Of course, before adblock - but i find that a bit counterproductive for sponsors. Well, it's their loss now.
Actually, it's run by people who are arrogant and megalomaniacal. Two unspectacular guys were in the right place at the right time and are vaulted to the top of the tech industry for an idea that is incredibly easy to copy, and they know it. Google has mindshare, but everybody knows how quickly that can change. (Is it starting to, already?) Now they have to race to justify their status. The very fact that they made such a big deal out of "do no evil" is the biggest warning sign that their ego is leading the way. In the end, it's all about people, and the people in charge here don't have the maturity to match their market cap. Eventually, this will all end badly.
That's a good question, actually. I just emailed Google AdWords support to see what the stance on audio in ads is. The use of audio in flash ads (at least, auto-starting and hover-triggered audio) is definitely one of the most vile things to be unleashed on us in years. Now, ads that had relevant audio that played (and stayed under the 50K limit to load) when you explicitly click on it, wouldn't be that bad - though I wouldn't be likely to click on any of them, personally.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Resource hog? My 400Mhz Pentium II can handle both flash and animated gifs just fine; this machine doesn't have a lot of memory or a speedy internet connection, and I've never seen flash or animated gifs present a perceivable delay, slowdown or whatnot in my browser or overall system performance. I can't imagine newer machines being worse.
Usefullness/annoyance factors are another issue...
Maybe they're just rolling out IPv6 for the masses?
Dreaming,
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Really? I block Flash ads. Yet I still see plenty of ads on Slashdot that I do not block. It would seem that Slashdot does fairly well without Flash.
....like Anonet?
Get your own free personal location tracker
What's evil are the ones that are large sizes,
You are absolutely correct! All my ads are 2x2 gray-white "chess-board" GIFs, and I just love them that way (thanks to privoxy).
Eventually, while Google is busy buying the town of Mountain View, CA free wireless underwear warmers somebody will come up with some some search software that is truly revolutionary. Probably based on some clever machine learning with human feedback, or something. Then people will drop Google with the same amazing speed they adopted it.
Google knows this. That's why they are so quick to buy anything that gets within missile range of Mountain View. They look big, but in the end they simply make money from advertising on a website (so far I don't think Picassa is cash flow positive) and their entire business can shrivel up as quickly as people can change their bookmarks. That would scare the hell out of me if I were them, and I'm guessing it does. The smartest thing the two founders ever did [even smarter than PageRank(TM)] was selling a shitload of their shares to the teaming masses shortly after the IPO.
People are confused into thinking Google is a traditional business. Google's invention is going to be as important as the invention of capitalism. Google does for information what capitalism did for trade.
Google is capitalism 2.0, and this means completely new industries worth billions or trillions of dollars will be based off Google. Google is so important for the future of capitalism that many people are fans of Google simply because their business depends on Googles success, and the success of capitalism 2.0
Capitalism 2.0 is peer to peer, Capitalism 1.0 was client server.
This goes back to the open source debate, by making the software open source, it broke us out of the dot com crash. By moving to capitalism 2.0 it will bring trillions of dollars into the industry, and this site will be a billion dollar business when billions of viewers are going to slashdot, or even hundreds of millions. Slashdot could literally create a new industry around this site, but this can only happen if Google exists to allow people to find this site. This can only happen when the information is organized enough, and access is cheap enough for it to happen.
Because trillions of dollars are at stake, this is not going to be something that is easily solved. How do you convince Slashdotters to go against their cash cow? How do you convince Richard Stallman to go against Linux? How do you convince Microsoft to give up Microsoft Word?
It's impossible to convince these big companies to ever give up their future plans to make trillions of dollars, too much money is at stake. The consumers will be given stock and herded with incentives. In the end, this new internet war, or whatever you can call this situation, will be good for the economy. Everyone benefits from conflicts like this because the Telecoms and Internet companies will be investing billions in the USA to pay lobbyists, to give stock to blogs, or whatever other methods they choose to use to get their way. This creates jobs. When Google or the Telecoms decide to actually create their new internets, this will create millions of jobs.