Slashdot Mirror
Google Explains ISP Rumors
WindozeSux writes to mention a Wired article explaining why Google bought all that dark fiber, the event that spurred rumors they were planning an ISP. From the article: "When asked by Wired News whether Google was buying up dark fiber, a company spokesman replied that 'Google has and will continue to invest in the equipment our company needs to give our users around the world the best and fastest search results.' Rumors of Google as an ISP were also fueled by the company being granted a large block of new IPv6 addresses last year." They plan to restrict their role as an ISP to the Mountain View and San Francisco areas.
"They plan to restrict their role as an ISP to the Mountain View and San Francisco areas"
Don't think of this as a restriction to that area think of this as Google ISP Beta, which will be rolled out around he world within the next 3 years but will stay as an invite only beta
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
I wonder if this is partly a response to sugestions that Google is trying to do too many things and not enough of them are working well (in a money making sense) which was mentioned here http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/30/125221 5. If I was an investor I would want to see that they could start getting projects like this right first before I would be happy to keep my money in a company trying to become an ISP... (even if the story mentioned is FUD - which some people sugested it was - it won't stop google wanting to be cautious about it, perception is everything)
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Local businesses are cooncerned when Walmart sets up shop in much the same way. Gooooooooogle could be formidible competition to established ISP's and they know it based on a track record of success. The consumers generally win though.
You have to network the AI's computing nodes somehow.
Here's to super-intelligence!
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
So first they rename mountain view to "Google Land," then Google Land continues to grow untill it covers the entire planet and we all have Google Internet.
Well, with a better name, I hope.
Scott Swezey
google found a way to not pay to others if the whole net neutrality thing goes along, their becoming "one of the guys" with the big badass routers
Maybe this has to do with some contingency plan for dealing with the impending doom to net neutrality. And why would they want to get into the ISP business if all they need to do to cut telecom at the knees is lower the barrier for entry for ISPs?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
They say no current plans and that can mean anything in business-speak. And Google has and will continue to invest in the equipment our company needs [...]
What if another 'need' is to become their own ISP? Could be a very good reason for it, e.g. the fact that the connection to them could be cut down, because TelCo's want to get money twice.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Google is in a unique position to expand its own infrastructure required to provide the best overall search capabilities around. In fact it can turn around and overdevelop that infrastructure then sell things such as off-site backup (reliable mass storage), Internet services that compete with other ISPs offerings, and (distributed) supercomputing power for companies that wouldn't or couldn't dream of using a supercomputing facility.
I've mentioned elsewhere that with the telecoms and cablecoms doing everything they can to protect their ability to make Internet users pay twice (or more) for bandwidth that has already been paid for at both ends of every 'Net connection, Google ought to look into competing in the global ISP market -- one way for it to do so would be to offer fiber connections to people's door. How would that get paid for? Well, I imaging that they could do just what the cablecoms do with their fee-based subscriptions, but provide more reliable service (fibre doesn't care about electrical storms as much as copper wires do).
All Google need do is be as good as current telecoms and cablecoms are at delivering content and providing N-way communications (all kinds of phone services) to convince increasing numbers of people to switch to equivalent services from Google, if Google delivers those services via fibre and charges competitive rates. People talk. Most people I know hate their current phone companies. Many aren't thrilled with their cable services. (My ISP is a cablecom and they do a good job, IMHO, but I'm not so loyal I wouldn't switch if I got fiber to my home as part of the deal.) If it starts in a few cities on the Left coast, I can't blame it. They are close to home. If things work out well at those "beta sites", it will probably have other cities begging it to compete with telecoms and cablecoms in other locations.
The problem would be "the last mile". Most of us have four or more physical connections to our home from outside organizatons: power, gas, water, sewer, telephone, and CATV are the main ones that come to my mind. Is there room for another? Yes, especially if it replaces two existing ones with better technology. The rights of way are already in place everywhere that matters, but Google (or anyone else wanting to run fibre to the doors of everyone in your neighborhood) would have to gain access to (permission to use) them.
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
Personally, I'm not sure how much I'd like to trust Google as my ISP. Considering that deleting email from my gmail account doesn't automatically mean it disappears from their servers, I'd be interested to see how long they'd store my browsing habbits.
Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but I just don't like the idea that my browsing habbits from today could bite me in the ass in a few years time.
Yes, Google are still riding on the backs of their 'do no evil' mantra, but something has gotta give. Given the current political climate in the US, I'd rather not leave a nice handy log trail for someone to follow.
That said, I think I trust Google more than anyone else right now.
I think it's a smart hedge against current infrastructure owners who are trying to make certain ones and zeros cost more than other ones and zeros. They say buying bandwidth isn't enough, they also want more money for certain ones and zeros depending on the aggregate meaning of certain groups of ones and zeros.
Google, benefitting in general from flat-rate fees for bandwidth regardless of content, only naturally would like to keep this from happening. In the event that they fail in the courts and in congress, it would make a whole lot of sense for them to simply own a LOT of the basic infrastructure themselves. This gives them leverage in two ways - first, they can sell this bandwidth at whatever fee structure they find fair, enhancing their business by catering to their customers. Second, they can use their infrastructure as a bargaining chip to ensure that other carriers do not levy additional content-based and company-specific fees. Try to charge google and google customers extra fees, and get cut out of google's search engine and lose access to their fiber.
The carriers have been entrusted with a national resource and have benefitted from huge government concessions and subsidies for decades, but now that they have a little wiggle room they're turning around and trying to gouge more money out of both the average consumers, but also content providers on a deliberately biased basis. Some customers are simply going to be charged more for their bandwidth than others, and some customers will find themselves throttled or cut off entirely if they don't pay the proper extortion fee.
The phone system was supposed to be equally accessable by EVERYONE in the nation. That's why the govt set up the telcos the way they did from the beginning. Minor variations by region and based largely on actual costs aside, it cost about as much to get a phone in new york city as it did in the middle of Arizona. And calling from California to Nevada or California to Maine cost the exact same amount per minute. But now the data carriers are going to take this nationally funded infrastructure and make it inherently unequal.
That's abuse of a national resource, but knowing that congress is hopelessly in the pockets of lobbyists and big business, it makes complete sense for google to bank away some insurance against this sort of thing.
I hope Google catches the telcos with the same timing they took on Microft. Everyone was starting to get irritated with IE6, the Microsoft Monopoly, all of the little M$ gotchas. Then a savior, GOOGLE and open source! Hurrah! Now they get the same opportunity. Telcos getting greedy, making front-page headlines on cnn, the Telco Trigopoly (or whatever), charging my ass 60 bucks a month for cable internet alone. Time for Google to step in again. Can't wait to see the telcos try to fend them off like M$.
Development notes at http://devscribbles.blogspot.com
Becomeing an ISP might give them more standing for law suits on the net-neutrality frount. Small and local ISP have as much to loose from neutrality being taken away as google does but for different reasons. This might allow google anouther avenue for law suits against the big carriers and a seccond chance to stop all this BS in the courts, before congress gets a chance to really screw things up.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Signing up for Google as ISP? Don't think so... They'll peek into your traffic to better get a picture of what kind of personality you are, so that they can more accurately target ads. And did I mention handing out a nice dossier about you when your favorite government agency asks for it.
Cheers to Google Skynet.
One thing that the might Google will need to address is their (lack) of Customer Service.
Totally ignoring people just does not fly.
The folks they have assigned to Google Adsense are a prime example.
"I'm not ashamed I can't function in society like I'm supposed to." - Paul Westerberg
Google hasn't beaten MS in anything but search. Google is just the latest in a long line of media-proclaimed MS killers including Lotus Notes, Netscape, Java, Network computers, Linux etc.
Google continues to encroach on the services that their advertisers are supplying. They will need to get a strategy that will support a long-term downward spiral of those advertising dollars from this cannibalism, and are recognizing that recurring revenue is the way to go. It is pretty clear that they will turn to service to accomplish this, but there will certainly be a revolt in the process, and they WILL suffer deeply. The ancillary services are clear indicators that they are concerned about "stickiness"--well warranted concern.
It is just a matter of time before two kids with a Packard bell in a garage set there sights on the 10,000 pound gorilla and do more damage than Google could have ever thought they could.
Well, if google is running a "beta" ISP somewhere I can quickly imagine them becoming a real ISP. I mean, look at google mail. It is still in "beta" but it functions 100 times more usefully than most of the webmail services I have used, and is quickly becoming popular. Just because google claims something is beta doesn't mean it isn't actually working, is what I am trying to say. I am also not sure of the needs that google has with fiber to begin with. I work at a small private college (5k students) and we use thousands of miles of fiber. I would imagine google would need a little more than us. How much did they actually buy?