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?"
Come now, Google don't do evil.
I love my sig.
Maybe Google will run fiber to my home out here in sunny Ridgecrest, CA. Verizon sure isn't going to any time soon.
Quit your whining; at least your roads are paved.
I've been waiting for something faster than dial-up for ten years!
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
At least the blurb makes it sound like the author of the article thinks actually USING your bandwidth is a BAD thing. I think that if google (or anyone else, even microsoft or apple) gave people reason to use more of their bandwidth (like more streaming content, more stuff to download that appeals to joe sixpack without taking even as much effort as going to the pirate bay or another site to try and find a torrent) is a GREAT thing. At first it may cause the internet to have some pains (if its a sudden surge, most likely it'll be a slow acceleration), it'll be only temporarily before the ISPs upgrade their network's capacity (which several are already doing anyways), which would mean EVERYONE would end up with higher speeds much quicker.
How exactly would that be a bad thing (or did my not reading the article mean I completely missed the point? If so, I'm sure many a slashdotter will be correcting me)
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
We know with almost 100% certainty that if Microsoft where doing something like this, there is no possible way it would benifit the consumer. With Google, that's not such a sure thing. Maybe it's bad, maybe it's not. But with Microsoft, it's sure to be bad.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
For serious. I've seen more credible conjecture come from 13 year olds arguing over who would win in a streetfight between Batman and Wolverine.
I'll make a prediction: you didn't read the article. Also, Cringely tracks his own predictions, and every year he gives a summary of how he did. He tends to hover around 70-80% accuracy.
But don't let things like facts and background reading stop you from being angry. Grrr! That darned Cringely! Grrr!
Anybody who has ever planned a large network (meaning .0000000000001% of Slashdotters) already knows that getting users to hog MORE bandwidth doesn't require an evil plot. All it requires is a network and attached computers.
If you build it, they will come. If you offer something for users to use, they will use it.
It's simple reality, no evil plot required.
Remember that the big beneficieries of the end of net neutrality will be the "last mile" owners, the ISP's. But yes, if Google has many data centers around the country, they could just provide free wireless for everyone, or at least threaten to if the ISP's don't play ball. They've done it in San Francisco, even got some city money for it. Since they wouldn't have to pay bandwith costs (they own the network), hardware fix-it and installation guys (it's wireless), and billing/customer support staff (it's free), they might keep their costs low enough to really make it worth their while to give it away. In any case, it's smart of them to be buying "real" property while there's still money to go around.
Batman.
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
After RTFA, here's a summary:
- Google owns (leases) tons of fiber, they control the bandwidth market.
- Google plans to build a lot of large data centers in rural areas.
- Google anticipates a massive growth in bandwidth usage due to p2p, youtube, etc.
- ISPs will be faced with buying tons of new bandwidth OR contracting with Google to use / connent to the nearby data center directly.
No sir. Google needs a lot of servers for their services. Sure they profit from their local data centers as edge proxies the same way Akamai does, but the whole theory about controlling ISPs, targeting contracts with your local ISP etc. is BS. These data centers are used for their CPU / memory power and then to minimize latency.
Did he ever think. . .?
No.
KFG
And if someone wanted to create a successful 'unofficial' TLD google would be the people to do it. Unless a website is indexed by google it effectively doesn't exist (unless it's big/well known already). If google started returning .ggl sites I'd be adding their root servers the next day.
Sorry, I have acutally work on the Net Backbone in several locations: New York, San Jose and Illinois. With respect to them causing a shortage; not likely. The Incumbant LEC's control most of the fiber with some others being run by small companies. If there is an issue; people can lay more fiber or go through various competing CLEC for bandwidth.
Also, I have worked in the same datacener with Google; they have over 30 GigE feeds over dark fiber. As of a couple years ago; they had something like 60 strands per data center. Well, 60 for the larger data centers. As for tapping SBC (my current region) not likley. As for Chicago; downtown? They might give it some trouble; the city and the county have told SBC to maximize their fiber usage. The City and the County (cook) basically spanked SBC for putting too much in? How can you put in too much? Simple they put small end electronics on it; something like a chincy OC-12 or an OC-3 ring; instead of a OC-48 which is using (TTL's) Tight Transmission Lasers; ofcouse with those TTL's being sent over a DWDM system. If true; downtown is screwed; but not the state.
Now that my NDA has expired; I feel like saying:
1) Google in their data centers and beyond use Gig-Ethernet; and my suspicions is that it goes back to the Googleplex in California. Currently; they use your standard "Wester Digital HD" with Gigabyte MOBO's; using Penitum III IV proc's. Their network is done by Force 10. Each rack has between 20 and 40 servers; depending on MOBO. Each rack is seperated by an HP switch. Their core switch used to Juniper M20's and they have upgraded to T320's.
2) funny clip of the telecom industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj1Mtv9cD0I they forgot Pacific Telesis in the video.
People, please RTFA article first before confusing the biased story summary with what Cringely actually said. It is a very interesting column, and of course quite speculative. I didn't get the impression that Bob was suggesting anything sinister on Google's part, certainly I don't think he was suggesting that they would create a bandwidth shortage. What nonsense.
Cringely didn't call it sinister or even imply that it was. He just suggested that google was positioning itself to take advantage of the coming bandwidth shortage. The only passage that even suggests sinisterness was his aside that maybe gathering up leasing deals should trigger government scrutiny and that seemed to be only a remark on policy not google's plan.
It's only the tinfoil hat slashdoters that added the word sinister.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I have to snail-mail cassettes from my Vic-20 just to get posted on /.
Do you believe that?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
oooh I can't wait to see it come out in beta!
I love my sig.
I take exception to that remark because Cringely is just a tool whereas most people recognize Art Bell as a serious investigator of the paranormal, a professional respected by collegues in his field. Art Bell has uncovered and revealed many dark secrets about google on his show, including their plans to harvest energy from the unborn. A caller to the show who only identified himself as "Mr. X" claimed to have been part of a team that designed the amorphous bio-pod that the unborn would be stored in, in a semi-concious state of dreaming stasis whereby quantum energy guides would capture excess xeon particles for current generation. I'm sorry if you missed it because the truth about google's plans will blow the lid off of civilization once it's known.
I've never paid Google a cent in my life, yet they have for a long time provided me with services that truly make my life easier. I will more than happily put up with a few ads for the use of their search engine, Google Maps, Gmail, and Google Earth alone.
Microsoft, on the other hand, treats me like a criminal, writes software that is designed more to line their pockets than help the user get things done, and has now weaseled me into paying for XP three times over because of their shady OEM deals. And frankly, I don't even like the software very much, I only use it because of lock-in.
If someone has screwed you in the past, you expect the worst, whereas if someone has treated you well you give them the benefit of the doubt. Google has my trust until they show me that they no longer deserve it; Microsoft has already convinced me that it's up to no good. So yes, you are right, people would be up in arms if Microsoft was pulling this stuff, because people quite reasonably expect Microsoft to rip the customer off as much as possible, while taking all possible steps to force them to remain customers. People expect Google to make a damned killing off of this while actually creating a valuable service at a reasonable price. To me that goes way beyond being "not microsoft."
Of course, there are many nutjobs (rhymes with star-heft-miberals) that will always look at big business with shifty eyes.
And apparently there will always be a nutjob that rhymes with moehoward who will insert random attacks on his preferred group to hate so that when he does actually make a good point, reasonable people will wonder if he really is insightful or just lucky in the same way that a broken watch still tells the correct time twice a day.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Google is tarnishing their image with the "buy your domain through us" thing. Check out the google boards and read the many responses from people with problems.
I bought a domain for a friend as an Xmas present. I wanted to forward it to a blog (blogspot, which is owned by google). No go. Can't get an answer out of google, it's automated. I just want to cancel it and re-register the domain with another company. Google used GoDaddy for registration, and GoDaddy said they can't help me because the domain I bought is owned by Google. Sheesh.
It drove me up a wall and I'll end up letting the domain sit blank for a year and then expire and die.
$10 for the domain and 1 hour 15 minutes on the phone being bounced around GoDaddy. When Google really decides to go evil, we're all doomed. Doomed, I tells ya'. Doomed.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Godless heathen.