Slashdot Mirror
Google's Sinister(?) Plans
puppetman writes "This week, Robert X. Cringely makes some interesting observations as to what Google's up to next. He theorizes that Google is looking to create a bandwidth shortage that will drive ISP/cable/telephone customers into it's open arms (often with the blessing of the ISP/cable/telephone company). The evidence: leasing massive amounts of network capacity, and huge data centers in rural areas (close to power-generation facilities). The shortage will only occur if the average bandwidth consumption by individual consumers skyrockets; think mainstream BitTorrent, streaming moves from NetFlix, tv episodes from iTunes, video games on demand, etc, etc. Spooky and sinister, or sublime and smart?"
Maybe Google will run fiber to my home out here in sunny Ridgecrest, CA. Verizon sure isn't going to any time soon.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Google only buys/own fiberoptic backbone. They have bought this beause it has been for sale really cheap, because there is a *huge* surplus of it.
Also, Google needs this for its long term strategy of delivering search functionality to the world without beeing controlled other fiber providers.
The bandwidht limitation is largely artifical and created by ISPs, as a revenue generating business model.
ISPs could open up the valve on all DSL lines, and not need any more fiber to support it. Maybe some cheap equipment upgrades here and there.
Example: A fiber cable may consists of a few hundred fibers delivering from 10Gb to 10TB for a total of 1-100Tb. A city like San Jose, CA, with 100k households, this gives 10Mb-10Gb per household. (And there are actually more than 1 fiber cable)
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Frankly, I'm sick of commentators and "analysts" proposing outlandish theories with no hard evidence to back them up. Someone should create a website that tracks the accuracy of such predictions...
Who here remembers Williams Communications and their bandwidth exchange, back during the height of the bouble? This is simply an extension of commodity hedging in the absence of a liquid market. The only way you can achieve such commoditization in the current environment is to invest in the related infrastructure. Much as any company hedges against the cost of key input commodities, critical to thheir business -think airlines investing in oil futures- Google anticipates increasesing commodity costs. There's absolutely nothing sinister about about this. It does however, seem to tip Google's hand with regard to their expectations of Net Neutrality. Vint has probably realized that his quest for net neutrality legislation will fail, and Google will face significant changes in network monetization through a vastly expanded peering fee structure. Where previously, peering fees were (and are typically now) paid by smaller network providers, to larger providers for the right to connect to their networks, in the future, such fees will be structured not based on network size but relative volume of traffic sorted by type. Google wants to minimize the impact of such peering fees (passed from colo provider to colo clients such as Google) by leasing as much network infrastructure as they can acquire. The simple point here is the fewer connections to foreign networks, the smaller the overall cost of peering under any model, regardless of the outcome of the net neutrality debate, but especially if it gets shot down. The point is, there's nothing sinister here. It's simple corporate risk management. Google would be negligent if they didn't do this.
-- CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
In the past decade, a lot of big firms with serious computing needs have been building huge off-site compute centers. Cheap power (a nearby power plant) and cheap cooling (a nearby river) tend to be the driving factors. Now and then you find a great site (mainly because the power plant will commit to providing lots of off-peak power,) and when you do, you often find a "facility" (think 100 ft underground, huge water-cooling system built) available for lease or sale nearby. Go figure, people have been doing this for a long time!
No. I wouldn't want Google to do an ISP. No matter what, ISPs are always stuck with idiots who have no idea how to fix things. No sense tarnishing Google's reputation due to the inevitable.
Blizzard useto have a great reputation. Now they incorporate a ton of spyware that looks at your computer's every process, in the name of "reducing cheating." And their customer support is sub-par at best, banning paying users at a whim.
I mean, these are the guys who made the Starcraft, Warcraft, and Diablo series! They invented (or at least implemented one of the first major) online multiplayer gaming matchmaking network! But they got stuck doing some "evil" things, even if they are "necessary evils."
-nick
If you google those rural facilities, say 'Google Ann Arbor' a google jobs link is the first hit. When you click on the job descriptions you'll notice they are looking for people to scan books, an IT staff for infrastructure needs, and HR for staffing.
I bet the bandwidth they're leasing is for hosting this among many of their other possibly unannounced projects. Which will have their own facility. Now imagine if they had some sort of cache synchronization routine between these facilities. And each one were devoted to cataloging the web servers hosted by that and neighboring ISPs, you think that might improve the performace of their search engine? Sorry, while I doubt all of Google's motivations are benign, they are supposed to make money after all, I seriously doubt they are planning to create a bandwidth shortage.
Mod this up! It is all about the motive. Google has none: they only stand to loose if someone controls the traffic. They have no content of their own, they make money because the Web is neutral. When the content providers will push for non-neutrality, they will in fact be asking to make the Net into Cable, which would make Google completely irrelevant. I have no doubt that Google would kill its own mother to increase the margins, but at the present moment they are on people's side: their entire strategy depends on the presence of neutral, ubiquitous, slightly chaotic Internet.
Cringley's MO is to come up with some sky is falling scenario. Plausible or not it is discussed ad infinitum and therefore he is more well read.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Thats the problem with their motto, that it's not "do good." What if instead of evil they decided to be bad, reckless... or whatever else that might be considered negative but not "evil"?
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
Cringley's tone always has a sinister tinge but that is just his style. I think you could equally interpret the article on the face of the facts as Google being poised to save the world from bandwidth addiction. My personal view - purely speculation - is that Google sees a future world where more of the essential computing infrastructure that is currently on our desktop will be part of a better controlled network of servers. This could actually be a good thing and maybe 25 years from now we will look back and say, "what were we thinking, putting all that hardware in an uncontrolled environment where it became subject to the vagaries of botnets, viruses, and blue screens from running buggy software.". They are the only entity with the capital and vision to get us there.
I'm sorry, but I think Google is one of the best businesses I have ever seen. From everything I hear, their work environment is awesome. They have honestly good products (buggy, fine, but much less buggy than M$FT products, so don't complain about the annual bug in Gmail). Google doesn't force things upon users. Google doesn't make secret agreements with other companies to have exclusive control over an aspect of their sales (M$FT does). Google wins by having a good product, not by handwaving and using legalese to trap customers. Google caters to average users as well as advanced users. Google supports the open source community. Google funds a lot of cool projects. Google's projects support and promote the idea of free information and knowledge, and making information more accessible.
What more could you ask for?
And why would Google want or care for a shortage of bandwidth? Shortages of bandwidth are not likely to happen any time soon. While processors are starting to see speed limits before we turn to physicists for help, communication lines are nowhere near the bit rate limits that are possible with current technology. Moore's law will still hold for the coming years in terms of bandwidth, at least.
The simple answer is that Google is trying to end-run MS and destroy their monopoly. Anybody who takes MS head-on, loses. So they are increasing the value of the net to the end user. I suspect that by 2008, we will see a free Google OS. It will be Linux. At this time, I do not fear Google or the ppl that currently run it. Problem is that they will not be in charge all the time. In addition, as they say, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If nothing else, look at MS. 25 years ago, BG was a good guy. Now, he is the epitomy of absolute evil (except for the foundation which was designed to get ppl to think that he is a good guy).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think it has something with Plato's philosophy. The only thing you can do is to "do no evil". If you want to do good, you'll end doing something evil, even if you intended good. So it is better to try and avoid doing evil, than proactively trying to do good.
It might also have something to do with the fact that Godaddy (as well as quite a few other merchants who started accepting payments via google checkout *cough* ritz camera *cough*) don't know their head from their ass on a good day, toss in the usual bit of substandard customer service by people who don't speak English and a new payment system and everything goes to hell.
I know the google checkout thing is sort of secondary, but goes to show how badly companies can fuck up.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Google is not creating a bandwidth shortage. It's predicting future demand and preparing for it. They know there's not going to be enough for everybody.