Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Are Google and Verizon Up To?

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-aren't-they-up-to dept.

Google 120

pickens writes "Robert X. Cringley has an op-ed in the NY Times in which he contends that Google has found a way to get special treatment from Verizon without actually compromising net neutrality, by beginning to co-locate some of their portable data centers with Verizon network hubs. 'With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay,' writes Cringley. 'This would save space for other traffic — and money for both Verizon and Google, as their backbone bills decline (wishful thinking, but theoretically possible). Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced.' So why won't Google and Verizon admit what they're up to? 'If my guess is right, then I would think they're silent because it's a secret. They'd rather their competitors not know until a few hundred shipping containers are in place — and suddenly YouTube looks more like HBO.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google TV (4, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180280)

We can ditch the cableco and finally get ala carte programming.

Re:Google TV (2, Interesting)

thebagel (650109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180310)

Wishful thinking, but probably not the case as Verizon also supplies television service. It appears they also have a partnership of some sort with DirecTV.

Re:Google TV (5, Informative)

odies (1869886) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180316)

Well, I don't really understand what is so interesting about this. Akamai and other CDN providers have been doing this for 15+ years already. It's nothing new.

Re:Google TV (1, Insightful)

Linegod (9952) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180350)

And Google as well. At least up here in Canada. Google is leaps and bounds ahead of Akamai when it comes to setting things up though.

Re:Google TV (2, Insightful)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 4 years ago | (#33182964)

[Citation for your stupid opinion regarding Akamai being "leaps and bounds" behind needed]

Re:Google TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33183942)

so how do I sign up to use google's CDN for my web-based service? hmmm?

OTOH, I can sign up to akamai. it's not exactly the most streamlined processed, and required significant commitment financially - if you pretended akamai was simply expensive bandwidth that magically accelerated your server it's more than ten times the price of bandwidth at a colocation server, maybe a lot more if you're not buying in bulk!

Mod Parent Up (2, Interesting)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180366)

Odies pretty much nails it ... although one subtle difference is that presumably Akamai and the other CDN providers are available for all to use ... whereas Google's co-located servers may be primarily for its data/apps.

Re:Mod Parent Up (3, Interesting)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180654)

Google is probably looking at partnering much more closely with Verizon than you realize. VZ has thousands of CO facilities all over the country that are essentially empty -- the footprint of equipment needed to provide landline services is shrinking dramatically. Plus the wireless side has the best site placement of any of the carriers, and the backhaul internet connectivity for many of the cell towers runs through these COs.

Throw some Google clusters in these facilities... and you have an ability to deliver extremely fast application access without traversing the internet or having to increase bandwidth to the thousands of wireless sites.

You nailed it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180716)

This has nothing to do with being anothe akamai. This has everything to do with Google getting more detailed information on exactly who you are. I'm not a Google hater, but when Google and Verizon partner, they will know almost everything that was in your credit report, where you are right now, where you've been walking with your cell phone, which computer at home you're using (assuming you use their router), what you're watching on TV right now, and what type of porn you like on PPV.

Net neutrality remains, but your privacy most certainly does not.

Re:Mod Parent Up (1, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180764)

"without traversing the internet" is the key, all on private networks or near too it, the "exchange" to the user.
So google wants to test the water on a lock in deal. Super fast, instant on data, telco gets boasting rights to 'best ever' experience as the resolution and quality goes up.
Value add the same content and they both hope to lock in and win.
Think of the tracking too if google becomes the isp, your ip and real life stats could mix. Offering as a very nice non "individually identifiable" wink wink data set with long term tracking.

Re:Google TV (4, Informative)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180376)

Yes. In fact, if you watched the worldcup on ESPN online you were watching the stream coming from a local server hosted by your ISP.

Although, to be pedantic, not all CDNs host in every ISP's datacenter... only the really rich ones do. Everyone else just uses anycast to reduce latency. A good write up about anycast is here [kuro5hin.org]

Re:Google TV (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180446)

Yes, here I was thinking that google had been doing this for a long time too. No matter where I am, the latency of the pings changes as well as the ip address. Did this guy check before coming out with this article?
if you have enough money to house equipment on ISPs why would you do it?

Re:Google TV (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#33184192)

Google has a lot more stuff than either of those guys.

Those companies typically contract to host high demand stuff for short periods of time, such as new software roleouts or special feeds of major events.

Google on the other hand has far more stuff than will fit in any number of containers vans. Even hosting a single Gmail hub for that Verizon's local customers would exceed what you could fit in dozens of these portable data centers, and that wouldn't even address other google services such as search, ad serving, youtube, etc. They are way too big for portable datacenters.

Perhaps something to do with Android phones makes more sense.
But even that is huge now, and getting bigger all the time.

Re:Google TV (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#33184556)

It's interesting because Google has been such a proponent of "net neutrality."

i dont want ala nothng from isps and google (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180556)

p2p rules

Net Neutrality (-1, Flamebait)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180304)

This is just one more reason why "net neutrality" sounds great in theory, but would be a terrible, arbitrary, and unenforceable law.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180790)

I don't know that I necessarily agree about net neutrality, but I don't think this should be downmodded to flamebait.

Google presentation on their data centers (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180314)

None of this would surprise me. Akamai has been placing gear in ISP's premises (for free!) for over a decade now.

Here is a 2.4 Mbyte pdf on Google's approach to data centers [iepg.org] , and a video tour [youtube.com] .

Re:Google presentation on their data centers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180346)

Akamai has been placing gear in ISP's premises (for free!) for over a decade now.

"Just do it and ask for a shit-load of money."

Re:Google presentation on their data centers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180428)

This.

What Google are doing is nothing new in the slightest.
It is a good thing they are doing this because (some of) their services are one of the most popular uses of the internet next to P2P.
Whether it is Edge Server, or the more correct term, Content Delivery Networks. (CDNs)
CDNs [wikipedia.org] for all those who want to read up on it.

On a slightly related note, this would probably be the only realistic way that a company could create a digital distribution based console, with hubs at the nearest stores that allow you to transfer files over to the consoles via a temporary flash drive.
This could be done right now without having to sacrifice those without an internet connection.
The flash drives for temporary transfer would be the only expensive part.
Although, to cut those out entirely, they can build a custom hotswap bay for transferring files to HDDs. (typo'd as DHD while watching Stargate there)
Then they'd just need to make a decent HDD cover for the average person to handle it without breaking it.

Re:Google presentation on their data centers (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180782)

I guess we need the phrase "Application Delivery Network" now.

Re:Google presentation on their data centers (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#33184442)

The explanation of saving costs is also bunk, Verizon is a Tier 1 ISP and hence does not pay for transit. Since they still have to carry the same amount of data through their internal network this isn't saving them anything unless Google is actually net bringing the data closer to the user and hence causing fewer gigabit-miles of fiber to be needed.

What a question! (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180318)

So why won't Google and Verizon admit what they're up to?

Question is: Do they have to? I doubt they do.

Re:What a question! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#33182218)

Everyone keeps thinking it's some devious... but nothing I've seen has anything to do with the apparent tight relationship Google has with Verizon for the Droid...

Not special treatment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180320)

I would like to be the first to point out that google is not getting special treatment, google is simply locating their data near the users of said data (electronically and physically). Google has been doing this for a long time, no news here.

Youtube sucks on Fios (0, Offtopic)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180326)

I have Fios, and I used to have to get up and go make a sandwich every time I wanted to watch a youtube video. It was painful enough that I have given up on youtube altogether and don't bother...

The other factor that makes youtube too frustrating to deal with anyway is that they only seem to allow videos taken during major earthquakes...

Seriously folks, learn to hold a camera steady... sheesh..

Re:Youtube sucks on Fios (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180832)

Youtube is terrible on FIOS as of late (past year). It really got bad 6 months ago, but now you are lucky if a video even buffers properly.

The days of fast streaming video from youtube, over fios... were wonderful, but they're gone.

Not FIOS in general (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33181398)

I have FIOS (35/35) and get instantaneous play on even high-def videos.

Perhaps I'm located to a good POP on the FIOS network.

i don't think so (3, Informative)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180328)

The largest bottleneck is from Verizon to the customer. This means that putting google's servers at Verizon will not increase speed so much. It may reduce latency a little, but that is not so important.

Without affecting net-neutrality, Google could easily put bigger cables towards Verizon centers and accomplish exactly the same thing, namely, not so much.

Re:i don't think so (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180696)

True for PCs, but not for phones. One of the big complaints about AT&T regarding the iPhone is that while AT&T has the "fastest 3G network" many of their remote towers are connected to the internet with a couple of T1's, and don't have enough bandwidth to provide a satisfactory browsing experience to a few hundred iPhone users.

Re:i don't think so (2, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180794)

And putting Google "pods" (i.e. glorified cargo containers) at these sites with limited bandwidth (T1s or microwave backhauls to better connected towers) is going to be useless. You can't cache everyone's Gmail data at each pod (although you could make a fair attempt at doing so, across thousands of cell sites), and you can't cache all of Youtube at each pod. It'd be cheaper to drag fiber to the towers like AT&T is doing.

Re:i don't think so (1)

debile (812761) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180996)

Users tend to stay in the same area most of the time so they could cache the user's gmail account that is seen into the specific region. No need to cache foreign accounts locally. No need to cache the entire account, just the last 2-3 days of email... I rarely read my old stuff

You could also cache the most popular youtube videos at the resolution that is used on cell phones (that would save LOTS of bandwidth) thus freeing the available bandwidth for other needs. Don't need to cache everything.

There is a LOT of optimisation to be done without caching the entire internet. I think that if Google is doing it, it's because they calculated their stuff and it's benefical for the money invested.

Re:i don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33183186)

If only ATT was actually doing that. They drag fiber to a few towers in big cities and then pronounce that they have the fastest 3G network. It's only fast in a few places, and everywhere else it's just a 1 or 2 g. We all want more g's.

Re:i don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33183878)

You could cache GoogleMaps for the surrounding x square kilometers, the YouTube Top X videos, the gmail last accessed from that access point in y hours, etc. Is it perfect? No, but could it help directly and indirectly by freeing the traffic looking for these things? Yes.

Re:i don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33184082)

You wouldn't even have to come close to caching it all. To serve some "high enough" (I'd bet >90%) portion of your customers, you'd just need to cache (1) the most geospatially relevant info (gmail for users local to that tower) and (2) the most popular stuff. A good data-mining operation (last time I checked, they have that at Google) could definitely hammer that into a manageably sized chunk.

When there's the occasional "cache miss" you'll think "huh, hiccup" and be none the wiser.

Re:i don't think so (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180748)

Ok, there is a flaw here, which is that Verizon is serving thousands of customers, while there is potentially only one connection between Google and Verizon. Hence, it might help to put servers at Verizon, akin to what content distribution networks do, as posted elsewhere.

So this does not affect net-neutrality. But it does put the smaller website owner at a disadvantage.

Glass half full or half empty? (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183302)

While a google co-location may put a "smaller website owner" at some sort of absolute disadvantage, it also could make the smaller website load faster, simply because not as many google requests need to go over the link...

Re:i don't think so (3, Informative)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183184)

This means that putting google's servers at Verizon will not increase speed so much. It may reduce latency a little, but that is not so important.

Low latency is under-appreciated. Due to the way Internet congestion control and other connection establishment algorithms work, latency makes a big difference in how fast a connection starts up and how fast it recovers from any packet loss. Many web pages cause a half dozen connections to different sites to be established, and they don't all run in parallel, notably not the one that establishes the connection in the first place. DNS lookups and HTTPS make this all worse, as well, because both require additional network round trips.

I have a 7 mbps connection now with ~100 ms typical latency to most sites in the United States. If I had a choice between twice the bandwidth with the same latency or half the latency with the same bandwidth, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat. It would make a much more perceptible difference. ISPs just need to learn how to market the increased real world speed that comes with lower latency.

Re:i don't think so (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 4 years ago | (#33184726)

Mod parent up!

As a web site developer, I largely lost interest in bandwidth once we hit 1Mbps for most broadband users. Apart from video almost nothing in a web site makes much use of that bandwidth - and yet, even the best web applications can still feel "laggy" and experience slow load times because of network latency. Half the job of optimising a web site these days is figuring out all the points where latency occurs and either eliminating them or parallelizing them so they don't hold other things up. Cut latency in half and you'll make a much bigger difference to the web than doubling bandwidth.

Re:i don't think so (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183342)

Without affecting net-neutrality, Google could easily put bigger cables towards Verizon centers and accomplish exactly the same thing, namely, not so much

Assuming Verizon is willing to interconnect with them at those points, yes. This is probably more economical, however.

Verizon's bad psychology (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180336)

Verizon would have been better served all along by approaching this from a positive angle along the lines of "how we can get your content to our users, faster" than "you are screwing us by not paying us." Everyone likes a company that says "what can we do for you" a lot better than one that stamps its feet like a brat.

Re:Verizon's bad psychology (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181370)

Verizon would have been better served all along by approaching this from a positive angle along the lines of "how we can get your content to our users, faster" than "you are screwing us by not paying us." Everyone likes a company that says "what can we do for you" a lot better than one that stamps its feet like a brat.

They called them "baby" Bells for a reason.

None of them proved to be any more capable of investing in the future than big media has ever been.

Really? (4, Interesting)

Alcoholic Dali (1024937) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180344)

Has Cringely ever been right with one of his predictions/theories? I like the guy a lot, and his ideas are always pretty interesting, but somehow I never hear a follow up where someone says "Yep, he was right!"

Re:Really? (1)

Mabbo (1337229) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180678)

He never even says he knows anything, he just purely speculates. For all he knows, the Google-Verizon deal could be that they share catering for Friday lunch.

Yes he has, and he has been wrong too (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180766)

Cringley is a columnist, like many others, and he makes predictions based on the facts he has and his extensive experience in IT. He also makes annual predictions for the coming year in technology and then follows them up the following year with an article about how many he got right and how many he got wrong. So the first person to say he's wrong is himself and he is humble about it. He even has rough statistics on his percentage year to year. Someone who's willing to dissect his own hits a misses deserves your attention simply as a columnist with very interesting ideas that more than a few times are right. Compare that to asses like Dvorak who are 95%+ of the time wrong.

At the same time there are a bunch of monday morning quarterbacks on Slashdot...

Re:Really? (3, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180872)

He did talk about his work over the years eg
"As longtime readers know, the routine here is that I first review my predictions from a year ago and either revel in my brilliance (good luck, actually) or admit my failure (all failures are real, nothing is simulated and no special or computer effects are used)."
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080104_003787.html [pbs.org]

How does Google get the data to its servers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180352)

Seems to me that Google isn't "avoiding sending its data over the backbone", but is only doing it once per colocated datacenter instead of many times. Still a big win, but the article is a bit misleading on that score.

Re:How does Google get the data to its servers? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180718)

A changeset dump on a schedule is a lot better resource usage wise than general requests by end users - for one you can schedule the changesets for lull periods in backbone usages, and the same data doesn't need to be transmitted multiple times (while multiple requests by end users may not be cachable), plus you can always pause the changeset transfer if backbone usage picks up.

Also, Google has a lot of fibre available to it, so theres a good chance that it puts in a direct line to its servers when it colocates - thus the updates never, ever hit the public network, never affect the public network and are never affected by the public network. Wins all around.

So? (4, Informative)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180354)

This is the entire Akamai business model: It saves money for BOTH google AND Verizon, and improves latency for Google.

And unless the user is actually transferring data at full line rate (saturating buffers), does not penalize anyone else. (During full rate transfers, TCP dynamics cause short RTT flows to be favored).

Re:So? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180808)

Akamai's model only works for content, not full-blown applications.

Don't be evil? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180392)

A big secret deal with Verizon involving thousands of servers...

Evil.

Without "actually" compromising net neutrality (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180448)

Google has found a way to get special treatment from Verizon without actually compromising net neutrality

Why does the opening sentence imply that this compromises net neutrality in spirit? It has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is about ARTIFICIALLY restricting speeds based merely on who the data is coming from. In this case, putting your equipment closer to the end-user is less costly, due to physics.

Re:Without "actually" compromising net neutrality (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180998)

less costly, due to physics but it may become a 'its our network, our packets get a bump "welcome to our walled garden of speed and content"
Want in, ask google for local space and a deal.
Will the rest of the internet feel like a p2p app on a cost cutting isp?
The second you host on "their" servers, its all fine again.
Cringley had some thoughts on this from 2007
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070412_001931.html [pbs.org]

Re:Without "actually" compromising net neutrality (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183064)

Classic slippery-slope logical fallacy.

That they are doing something that decreases costs for both companies while increasing performance for their customers, while still being fair to their competitors, in no way suggests that they will next decide to be unfair to their competitors and decrease performance for their competitor's customers (who are also their customers as well).

Making that leap is stupid, because there are a number of significant disincentives for doing so. The most significant is the fact that Verizon's customers may choose a different internet provider if their favorite websites become slow, thus wasting all of Google and Verizon's investment/savings.

Re:Without "actually" compromising net neutrality (1)

Decessus (835669) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181120)

He wasn't implying that this deal would compromise net neutrality in spirit. Towards the end of the article he even states that the deal would not only keep net neutrality in tact, but it would enhance it.

"With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay. This would save space for other traffic — and money for both Verizon and Google, as their backbone bills decline (wishful thinking, but theoretically possible). Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced. "

Re:Without "actually" compromising net neutrality (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181354)

I saw that part, but the opening line "get special treatment without actually violating network neutrality" still implies violation in spirit. The fact is they aren't getting special treatment, unless you consider me to be getting special treatment from my landlord becuase I pay the rent on the place I stay.

peering and content (1)

anomaly65 (765909) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180452)

Discussions and business relationships with regard to peering arrangements are nearly always "NDA" material. All networks engage in such arrangements, and it both lowers costs and delivers stuff that consumers use (peering & engineering of such connections are always done in conjunction with "bulk" usage data/transit amounts between any two networks). I'd say this is much ado about nothing, but a normal activity that goes on all the time between networks (content, eyeballs, mixed networks) and isn't something sneaky to go behind anyone's back.

The info on traffic/transit amounts is only the business of the two parties involved. Given the amount of traffic google and verizon have, they likely have ongoing discussions about how to make things work well in a cost effective manner just about all the time. Most of the US based networks have private interconnects at many locations so I'd call this pretty much a "no-op" in terms of the net neutrality discussions happening these days.

Re:peering and content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180706)

now this would mean somebody is trying to tell a different story, a different headline, trying to set a new precinct, trying to make net neutrality seem contradictory to recent developements, it would amount to a pr lie for specific interests.

okay folks, nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180460)

Engadget already looked into it about 2-days ago and Google commented by saying that they have no plans to share any bandwidth with verizon, and that they still support net neutrality. If there's anything going on, perhaps they want a piece of that frequency band that is going on and off of auction. Just speculation

How is this different? (4, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180464)

I'm sorry, but how is this fundamentally different from the sort of tiered service that net-neutrality advocates worry about? Google pays Verizon a substantial sum of money, and in return Google gets preferential access to the network in the form of local datacenters. This gives Google an advantage over competing providers /provided that the bottleneck is in the peering or backbone connections/. Given that Verizon FIOS seems to have substantial excess fiber capacity within its network, that seems like a likely scenario. (Wireless less so.)

There's a finite amount of room at Verizon's data centers, so I imagine they'll be able to charge plenty of money for this, and that smaller providers will be locked out (or will have to pay fractionally, e.g., through an already-colocated service like Akamai). Verizon gets a new profit center and Verizon users pay for it invisibly through advertising and the cost of any services that Google eventually offers for pay. Which is the truly worrisome aspect of net non-neutrality.

Obviously this is only one step on the road to ISP-controlled, for-profit, tiered service. But it's in the same spirit, and it may be that Google has made it clear they're willing to pay for access to those networks.

Re:How is this different? (5, Insightful)

DwySteve (521303) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180566)

I'm sorry, but how is this fundamentally different from the sort of tiered service that net-neutrality advocates worry about? Google pays Verizon a substantial sum of money, and in return Google gets preferential access to the network in the form of local datacenters.

This is different in that Google actually paid for something physical and not just a 'It'd be a shame if your nice internet caught on fire' protection scheme. What *I* feared about a lack of net neutrality wasn't Google getting faster because they paid, but everyone else getting slower. These large communication companies have a history of trying to sell the same infrastructure as many times as they can. This is different in that new infrastructure was created instead of old infrastructure unfairly and arbitrarily reapportioned.

Re:How is this different? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180626)

The difference is that the favouring of Google's traffic isn't artificial. In the classical net neutrality scenario, speeding up one company's traffic requires little or no effort on the part of the ISP--the pipes must already exist that can handle such faster traffic, so in reality they're slowing down their competitors by denying access to these pipes. When you colocate a server, though, that actually *does* cost power, physical space, server insurance, et cetera, and the benefits aren't gained by preferential throttling on the part of the ISP. They can't really be held accountable for convenient network topology. It's true this is a little bit of a grey area, but I think my logic is pretty sound.

Re:How is this different? (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180722)

Well, Akami has been doing the exactly the same thing for a long time. Steam had been doing something very similar for a long time. In essence, any time you pick a nearby mirror for your Linux distro you're doing basically the same thing.

The key difference between this and net neutrality is that Google's service wouldn't degrade if they didn't stick a datacenter in. It stays as it was. But by cutting out 3-4 hops, Google's customers on Verizon get better latency and (perhaps) bandwidth, and Verizon pays less for backbone.

Google *already* has datacenters all over the world, in prime fiber locations, for the same reasons. What's new this time is that it's actually in a telco's datacenter. That's not that radical.

Re:How is this different? (1)

cacba (1831766) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180744)

There's a finite amount of room at Verizon's data centers, so I imagine they'll be able to charge plenty of money for this, and that smaller providers will be locked out (or will have to pay fractionally, e.g., through an already-colocated service like Akamai). Verizon gets a new profit center and Verizon users pay for it invisibly through advertising and the cost of any services that Google eventually offers for pay. Which is the truly worrisome aspect of net non-neutrality.

This argument is essentially

We should be equal, but you have something shiny. Destroy it, destroy it now!

Re:How is this different? (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181022)

I would ask what is wrong with tiered servicing?
Consumers can and should pay for different level of servicing.

What's wrong with the other end doing the same.
As long as all parties are treated/charged the same for their use, I see nothing wrong with it.

For net-neutrality supporters that oppose a move like this, they're basically wanting society to be worse off just for an idea.
Google putting servers inside Verizon only speeds things up. It doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.

As long as verizon gives all companies the same right to locate dataservers on premise, I see nothing wrong with this at all.

Yet Google-love is on a new time HIGH (1)

tiredoompa (1860384) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180492)

I can’t understand why ppl are so blind to love and praise anything Google does? They have an agenda, like all big corporations do. Pity ppl are so easily misled.

Re:Yet Google-love is on a new time HIGH (1)

geek (5680) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181220)

If by agenda you mean offer the fastest free services possible then yes. I don't understand why people such as you feel the need to tear down anything they see as successful. You are under no obligation to use Google services. Don't like what they offer, there are plenty of alternatives.

This is just smart business practices by Google. Every company I know tries to do this exact same thing to limit latency and speed up services. It's just the smart thing to do. Pity you're unable to see that and instead rant on about the evils of big companies. Must really suck being you.

Backbone an issue? O_o (1)

saur2004 (801688) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180494)

Why the heck is the backbone even an issue? I used to work for a (now-defunct) company that made fiber optic equipment and I know first hand how much dark fiber is out there and how much optic equipment going for pennies on the dollar. This is just the owners of the buried fiber trying to work up the case against net-neutrality and squeeze as much mon.....987(^&^ [connection lost]

Re:Backbone an issue? O_o (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181068)

Why link up a network for millions of $ and then offer it to any telco or isp for millions of $. You could spend millions with 1 national telco and lock down the network for billions of $.

Re:Backbone an issue? O_o (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183306)

(1) Because it is illegal
(2) Because the Internet has always operated on the end points pay their provider, providers use part of that revenue to pay interconnection costs principle, just like (wait for it) every telephone network in the country. The word is "common carrier".

Seems like a great idea (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180510)

'With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay,'

I think that seems like a great idea. It at least pays token respect to net neutrality and is a win for both companies.

It's also not a stretch they'd want to keep this quiet. The move would vault Google/Verizon out ahead of the competition and put Google at an advantage for content delivery. You could almost hear the giant sucking sound from AT&T.

Could also be a move to stave off potential regulation. Or acceptance that, sooner or later, the FCC will be in a position to enforce net neutrality. Google is still in a good position either way.

Sounds like good business to me.

Re:Seems like a great idea (1)

ldconfig (1339877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180550)

How close a server is don't mean diddly. Fine let google put intel atom servers next door to special customers. While they feel good about it the rest of us will just giggle at them :)

Re:Seems like a great idea (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183274)

Or acceptance that, sooner or later, the FCC will be in a position to enforce net neutrality

The FCC already is in a position to enforce network neutrality. The question at this point is whether Congress is going to take that right away, by exempting Internet access providers from existing laws.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180582)

So Google is basically creating their own subnet? I'm sure Comcast et. al. is sure to follow.

Buyout (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180588)

Google buys Verizon, spins off what they don't want.

Re:Buyout (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180858)

Just what the world needs, more corporate consolidation!

So they DO get preferential treatment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180672)

All Verizon has to do now is not invest in external network capacity. Google is local to them now, screw the small guys.

Re:So they DO get preferential treatment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33181366)

All Verizon has to do now is not invest in external network capacity. Google is local to them now, screw the small guys.

So because Google's servers are local, Verizon can not invest in connections to peers and all the rest of the internet? Not a lot of people just go to Google and never follow Google links to other servers. This is actually providing real benefit to both Google (faster cheaper routing to Verizon customers) and Verizon (lower peering costs) as well as end users. Verizon isn't about to not invest in keeping 85% of their customer's internet use adequately fast. Google is a "little guy" in terms of what percentage of traffic they are a destination for. There is no one with dominance such that there is any danger in that regard.

don't trust me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180680)

it won't ever happen: a p2p video service with better availability and better quality.

TFS (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180738)

Am I the only one who doesn't know what HBO and shipping containers have to do with anything?

Re:TFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33180986)

Am I the only one who doesn't know what HBO and shipping containers have to do with anything?

The reference to HBO was comparing u-tube video to cable video. The idea being that u-tube performance would approach cable-tv performance with this new setup.

  Google also has mobile data centers housed in shipping containers.

"Air doesn't discriminate" (2, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180816)

And just last night I saw a Verizon commercial that insisted "Air doesn't discriminate, it carries my words, my ideas the same as anyone else's." &$@!ing liars.

Re:"Air doesn't discriminate" (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183088)

How are they liars?

I'm sure they'd be perfectly fine with Microsoft installing a pod at each of their ISPs to reduce traffic and increase customer's performance.

They'd be cool if AOL did it too, or the NY Times, or whoever the hell else wanted to.

Where's the discrimination? I see none.

Enhanced? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 4 years ago | (#33180896)

Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced.

I don't think you understand the concept of neutrality. Either you're neutral or you're not, there is no neutral scale, so you cannot "enhance" net neutrality.

If google is getting premium internet service because they're paying more money, that's not neutral, period.

Re:Enhanced? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33181132)

It is different because they are paying for something physical, which is co-location on Verizons network. BTW this is something that has been in practice by CDNs for years, so it isn't really radical.

The principle goal of network neutrality is not to allow ISPs to double dip on the bandwidth charge with protection racket scheme veiled by tiered service. Which is to say, Verizion can't make google (or anyone else) pay for bandwidth or be throttled, which is something the requester (i.e. the consumer) has already paid for (internet access).

It would be beneficial for you to not confuse the two issues, as the first one is business as usual and actually beneficial to us the end user and the content providers (Google) and ISPs (Verzion). Win-Win-Win

The second issue is the one you want to speak out against because end-users lose, content-providers lose (google) and only the ISPs win.

Re:Enhanced? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33182788)

Obligatory car analogy:

Renting a garage for your car

vs.

Paying a "fee" to the local gang, because "It's a a really nice car, it would be a shame if something bad happened to it."

Re:Enhanced? (2)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183114)

If google is getting premium internet service because they're paying more money, that's not neutral, period.

How is it not neutral for Google to move their equipment closer to the customer, thereby reducing bandwidth costs? Google isn't paying Verizon a dime to do this, they are simply leveraging their size to reduce their overall bandwidth consumption. This helps Verizon and Google both without restricting any of Google or Verizon's competitors in any way.

Exactly how is this not neutral? It's the very fucking definition of neutral! I know the education system in this country is complete and utter shit, but there really is such a thing as "mutually beneficial". In order for things to be easier on one guy, things do not have to be made harder on someone else. In fact, I'd wager Google will be wanting to set up these pods near all ISPs, and Verizon will welcome any similar setups from any other major source of internet bandwidth. The idea that they wouldn't is simply idiotic (though if that happens, you'll then have a weak but valid point).

Re:Enhanced? (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183368)

If google is getting premium internet service because they're paying more money, that's not neutral, period.

I am afraid you don't understand what network neutrality is all about, namely acting like a common carrier. Tiered or other special services offered at the same rates to all comers is perfectly neutral. Singling out a customer (or even worse a non-customer) and deciding they should pay you more money because they have a successful business model is not.

covering bases (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181096)

google might just be covering their bases in case the net-neutrality stuff doesn't happen.

Non Verizon (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181118)

So, what about all the users on systems other than Verizon? Is their throughput going to suffer?

In related news, Verizon is dumping quite a bit of their infrastructure (they pulled out of my neighborhood, selling their POTS and FiOS to Frontier). What happens to their mobile network customers when they become 'orphans' in a region?

Re:Non Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33182608)

So, what about all the users on systems other than Verizon? Is their throughput going to suffer?

No, their throughput is going to improve. Now that Verizon customers get a large part of the data from caches, the servers in Google's data centers will be less loaded and have more capacity to server everyone else.

Re:Non Verizon (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183140)

It won't be any different than before, and in fact if you are close to a Verizon network you will almost certainly see a speed bump. All Google is doing is putting their equipment closer to the customer, which eases the stress on the network. This good for Google, because their service becomes faster, and good for Verizon, because they have to send less data over the backbone. The closer you are physically to a Google pod, the faster your Google experience will be.

It's smart infrastructure and physics voodoo they are exploiting here, not dirty rotten scoundrel voodoo.

It's really no different than what companies have been doing since the inception of the internet. It's just that it seems strange to people that a website has a large enough network infrastructure to make such a move worthwhile.

Expect Google to be expanding this to other ISP's as well, and expect other large web services to do the exact same thing Google is doing.

Newsflash: This is common practice (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181556)

I'm not sure why this is news, this is and has been common practice for at least the last 15 years that I've been involved with Internet infrastructure and it wasn't really new then either.

Regardless of 'net neutrality' issues, this is just common sense and good network design. If you're going to need a new datacenter putting it as close to the users as possible has always been 'good design' practices. The traffic not only gets to its destination faster, it also unloads links that previously carried the traffic. Its a win for everyone involved.

This is no different than mutual peering agreements or the Akamia and iTunes hosting that pretty much every major ISP does already anyway. I haven't ever downloaded a song from iTunes or an app or movie that didn't come from the TWC datacenter a few miles down the road. Surprising this is the first we've heard of Google doing it actually. Its a safe bet this isn't actually new for them either.

The only downside is that Verizon may not put as much effort into their backbone connections so external sites end up suffering, and thats a problem, but you can only legislate so much, shitty businesses will always figure out a way to rip you off unless they have competition.

No one here has suggested (1)

twoears (1514043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33181914)

No one here has suggested that Google might be thinking of buying Verizon. Would such a buyout make sense?

mord 1down (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33182120)

daablers.? In truth, Play area Try not

peering (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 4 years ago | (#33182136)

So basically Verizon has decided it's sensible to peer directly with google?

Maybe Google is finally... (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183092)

..implementing this. [youtube.com]

This is routine (2, Informative)

Simetrical (1047518) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183826)

With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay

Does anyone seriously believe Google is sending data to Verizon over the backbones? There's a little thing called peering [wikipedia.org] . ISPs go over their traffic records, find the data centers they're paying the backbones the most to ship traffic to, and run direct lines instead when that would save them money in the long term. IIRC, even Wikipedia only pays for about half of its bandwidth – the rest is peering. Google must use orders of magnitude more bandwidth, so I can't believe it's paying for practically any of it. It wouldn't be worth it for any significant ISP not to peer with Google.

RE: What Are Google and Verizon Up To? ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33184828)

Indeed!

Google's server farms, i.e. "The Cloud" hold the internet their hands.

Meaning, when someone in Germany retrieves a web-page and data from "www.amazon.com" they are actually retrieving web-page and data from a server farm in Germany. When someone in the United States of America, retrieves a web-page and data from a site, they thick is in Japan, they are actually retrieving a web-page and data from a server farm in the U.S.A.

Google wants to sell their indexing service, as a service to a customer, this customer being Verison.

This has nothing to do with creating Ghettos on the internet, i.e. internet neutrality.

Creating Ghettos on the internet is what ICANN and Barak Hussain Obama are all about.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?