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!

Can Google Save Us From Slow Internet

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the quicken-my-pipes dept.

Google 240

CoveredTrax writes "As part of the beta test of their new gigabit fiber network, Google has provided Stanford University with mouthwateringly high-speed Internet. Since the program was announced, the service, which is now being provided free to students and faculty in the Palo Alto area, has got a lot of people to asking (sometimes begging) that their city be next on Google's list for communication salvation. But can Google save us all from inferior web access? And more importantly, is it a good idea to let them?"

cancel ×

240 comments

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

I don't care about download speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199760)

I just want a provider that doesn't drop me every 30 minutes, unlike some I could name *cough* Veri--zon DSL

No and no. Next? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199766)

See subject.

God knows... (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about 3 years ago | (#37199770)

AT&T can't.
Comcast won't.
Verizon could, if the could afford it, eventually.

Otherwise I'll be waiting on Sonic.net.

Actually power utilities in my state would have (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 years ago | (#37200404)

But that unholy trinity sued, and then sponsored a law to prevent it, saying PUDs may not compete for telecommunication services. The only counties that got grandfathered in have gigabit fiber to the premises, for cheap. Two of the least dense counties in the state, and the PUDs are making so much money at it they have to lower power rates to compensate. But somehow those three don't see a profit in it in the most densely populated CITIES, let alone counties.

Somebody needs to explain to Google's wizards that Mountain View, CA is nice, but Cow Country isn't as close to Oakland. And for about the price you can get for your suburb five-bedroom conversion on 1/6 acre in California you can get almost 4.5 SQUARE MILES [landwatch.com] of ranch property with over a mile of major river frontage, countless trout and salmon ponds and streams and so on. And if you've got gigabit internet and HD telepresence software, who needs to go in to the office anyway?

Give us the Fiber Google, and the world is yours.

Re:Actually power utilities in my state would have (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 3 years ago | (#37200450)

Don't forget TDS v. Monticello.

Re:Actually power utilities in my state would have (-1, Offtopic)

Crazy_entertainer (2442572) | about 3 years ago | (#37200654)

Well this guy [clownsong.com] has no trouble at all handling large tubes and chunks of thick cable. It most certainly can be done.

YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199790)

Can Google save us from slow YouTube videos?

Re:YouTube (3, Funny)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | about 3 years ago | (#37199830)

It should be quite easy to implement a fast forward button...
.... Oh I see, that was not what you meant, was it?

I'm desperate for fiber (1)

mrxak (727974) | about 3 years ago | (#37199808)

Unfortunately the local phone company (Frontier) has a mortal lock on telecom, and of course the usual shitty cable provider (Time Warner) prevents any competition. So we won't be seeing fiber in my area, probably ever.

Re:I'm desperate for fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199912)

And I'm desperate for fast WiFi

Re:I'm desperate for fiber (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37200260)

Really? I have Frontier, and it's fiber to my house. Of course, they bought it already set up from Verizon.

Competition is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199828)

Google should get into the ISP space. AT&T and the lot keeps on complaing about how Google use a lot of bandwidth and have not paid for it. It's time for Google to show those major ISPs how things are done.

Re:Competition is good (2)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37200062)

I'm sure nothing could go wrong in encouraging the gatekeepers of the web with a closed-source monopoly platform on search and advertising, as well as a history of privacy issues, to become your ISP.

Re:Competition is good (2)

Skinkie (815924) | about 3 years ago | (#37200072)

The point is obviously why is the bandwidth set at a fixed position. Is this technically sound? Probably. Is it sales wise sound? Mostlikely. If any cable or DSL operator decided to increase the bandwidth at a competing price others will follow. But it seems Google tries to do something else: what is the maximum achievable bandwidth given an acceptable end-user investment in hardware. If this applies to cable: the maximum Docsis3 rate would apply, and to DSL: the maximum VDSL2 rate would apply. Given that in the spectrum of telephone lines and hfc-networks maximum offers tend to be read as: "I demand for what you maximumly promised me" opposed to: "this is the maximum we can technically do" results in understanding the technical argument for a safe margin that helps sales keep their promises. But usually this safety is no more than a sales cap, thus any competition could offer a better deal, get customers and others will have to compete.

There's still hope... (0)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | about 3 years ago | (#37199838)

...that the US will remain a first world country in terms of internet access yet. Now if we could only fix healthcare accessibility. And college accessibility. And income inequality. And the incredible hunger and unemployment rates.

Re:There's still hope... (3, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 3 years ago | (#37199888)

all those problems you mentioned, comrade Lenin has already addressed. Please go see him.

Re:There's still hope... (-1, Flamebait)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | about 3 years ago | (#37199944)

Rather than arguing that America should encourage profiteering on infrastructure, perhaps you should move someplace where it's all about the profiteering and quit holding us back. Like Somalia, Zimbabwe or Nigeria.

Re:There's still hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200532)

Yes, because there are only two ways to do things.

Re:There's still hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199972)

Now if we could only fix healthcare accessibility. And college accessibility. And income inequality. And the incredible hunger and unemployment rates.

Tax Law fomented this mess.

Tax Law can also fix it.

When things get bad enough, pens will move. Some people won't like it. But it will be required to avert mass social unrest.

Right now, Tax Law rewards hoarding. When Tax Law is written to reward sharing and job creation, it will happen.

Its all controlled by the Pens of the Congressmen. They make the Law. We will follow it.

The bus driver can steer us safely home, or off the cliff. The bus follows the law of the bus driver, as we follow the Law of Congress. Steer us safely.

This is off topic, but I felt I had to say it.

Re:There's still hope... (4, Funny)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37199974)

If only America would elect a liberal supermajority for Congress followed by a liberal president so that all that stuff could easily get solved. Oh, wait...

Re:There's still hope... (1, Troll)

stinerman (812158) | about 3 years ago | (#37200244)

Call me when it happens. We've got a moderate President and the 111th Congress was center-left at best.

If you really want a *liberal* supermajority (friendly reminder that Democrat != liberal), we'd need a lot more folks like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders replacing the Heath Shulers and Mark Pryors of the Congress.

And then of course, you'd need this liberal supermajority to actually *do something* instead of sitting around being scared of their own shadows.

Re:There's still hope... (0)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | about 3 years ago | (#37200412)

Call me when there's a liberal in congress other than Bernie Sanders.

Re:There's still hope... (2)

shentino (1139071) | about 3 years ago | (#37200474)

Call me when special interests don't hold the media hostage and force politicians to dance to their tune to get any air time during election season.

Re:There's still hope... (0)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | about 3 years ago | (#37200408)

When has that happened in my life? Remember, the Democrats are a conservative party. Bernie Sanders is the only non-conservative member of the house or senate.

Re:There's still hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200512)

When did we have a liberal president?

Difficulty: don't lie.

Re:There's still hope... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200644)

I'm sure things would be better under a conservative president and conservative congress. Oh, wait...

Yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199860)

But can Google save us all from inferior web access? And more importantly, is it a good idea to let them?"

Probably. Yes.

Google has a very excellent track record of awesomeness. Let them save us.

Rife (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199862)

Just wait till Google starts building rafts in the Pacific.

There will be a time... (5, Insightful)

pasv (755179) | about 3 years ago | (#37199864)

when google gives us free high-speed access and tons of other services to which we will all benefit greatly! But the cost will always be our privacy. Understand google's profit comes from advertising and then piece together how they will benefit. I'm not in favor.

Re:There will be a time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199906)

We don't *have to* use google. We just need them to force other ISPs to compete, or at least to break the lawyer-powered lock the major telecoms have on providing internet.

Re:There will be a time... (0)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37200078)

Why would Google be any better?

Re:There will be a time... (2)

monkyyy (1901940) | about 3 years ago | (#37200416)

google tends to have wonderful stuff where ever they go, comcast verisoin etc. cant do a good job at the one thing they do

Re:There will be a time... (4, Insightful)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | about 3 years ago | (#37200444)

Because it's to their advantage to provide fast internet - fast internet = more youtube(etc) watching, more of their ads shown.
Comcast(etc), on the other hand wants exactly the opposite: They make no money off of providing fast internet, and lose money as people watch less TV.

So, yes, google would be better.

Re:There will be a time... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37199926)

Could be, but more likely they'll profit as a result of the increased number of pages that we'd be viewing in a given length of time. That and that we wouldn't need to block ads to get decent speed. I've noticed a ridiculous number of times when a page won't load that it's spending all its time contacting a slow ad server.

Re:There will be a time... (1)

jsdcnet (724314) | about 3 years ago | (#37200212)

google's high speed fiber will not speed up the slow ad server.

Numbers are shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200420)

Could be, but more likely they'll profit as a result of the increased number of pages that we'd be viewing in a given length of time.

No.

Eventually, advertisers want to see value for their money. You can have all the benchmarks, numbers, dead chickens, and any other benchmark you can think of to "prove" your worth. Then the advertiser - the customer - asks, "So, where's the bump in my numbers?! I'm not seeing much of an increase in sales."

Unless you can prove your value to your customers, your numbers are shit.

Re:There will be a time... (1)

Xenkar (580240) | about 3 years ago | (#37199928)

Let's let Google roll out fiber across the United States and then have the government break them into two or more companies.

Re:There will be a time... (2)

stms (1132653) | about 3 years ago | (#37200008)

If they gave me fast affordable internet speeds then I could hopefully get my own privacy with a nice affordable VPN.

Re:There will be a time... (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37200034)

I don't think people realize how much that web advertising drives Google. If you look at their financial reports, it's the majority of their revenue. They're not so much an IT company as they are an advertising company that happens to use IT.

This is also why you get things like Google refusing to implement the Do Not Track feature in Chrome [computerworld.com] as well as the absence of anonymity on Plus.

Re:There will be a time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200182)

Google are the spyware everybody wants...

They really are no different to the things people have bent head over heels to rid their machines of, but they're not perceived that way, as an advertising company, but instead they're seen as an IT giant and search provider. Very clever trick.

Re:There will be a time... (3, Insightful)

Jessified (1150003) | about 3 years ago | (#37200094)

Do our current ISPs offer better privacy? As long as the US has legislation like the PATRIOT ACT and the federal courts are fine eroding the 4th amendment, there will not be better alternatives.

Re:There will be a time... (4, Interesting)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37200220)

I have to agree with this statement exactly. Google is never perfect, in general it is only significantly better then the alternative, and it forces the alternative to work for the better. When features are sitting in the "we'll get around to it" pile for years, google steps into a market, and in the end whether you take googles option or not, the competition is better for it. Iphone users who enjoy multitasking, google says you are welcome. facebook users enjoying the actually functional groups, google says you are welcome, web mail users of anything who like having space measured in gigabytes, google says you are welcome. Trust them or not, google throwing their hat in the ring in any market, usually turns out well for the consumers, even if the consumers don't use touch google's products

Re:There will be a time... (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | about 3 years ago | (#37200106)

All I want is for Google to scare the ISPs into competing again. Or maybe Google can lobby for better government regulation/lack of regulation (no more locally-granted monopolies). Google only benefits so much for being your ISP- they just want to make sure you're using the internet a lot.

Re:There will be a time... (2)

ksd1337 (1029386) | about 3 years ago | (#37200194)

That may be, but the ISPs are probably already selling our information to advertisers.

The only way a Google ISP would be different in this regard is that people would just become more aware of it.

Re:There will be a time... (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | about 3 years ago | (#37200210)

If you care about privacy, you use encryption to communicate and you obfuscate tracking no matter who your ISP is.

The internet is not private.

Re:There will be a time... (1)

msheekhah (903443) | about 3 years ago | (#37200368)

So, Google has famously said... It doesn't care about what individuals do, it cares about statistics of what masses of people do. I personally don't care if Google has the ability to read my email and web searches so they can find out what products and services I'd like best. What I care about is them sharing that information with Uncle Sam or other corporations. If it turns out that's the case, then I'll end my relationship with Google.

Re:There will be a time... (1)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | about 3 years ago | (#37200434)

My last ISP in the states served up ad pages for every bad DNS request.

We are already under communications dictatorship, when someone comes along appearing to be a benevolent dictator, the worst it could be is a lateral move.

Re:There will be a time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200662)

In Google's privacy policy [1] they have no provisions which allow your information to leave their grasp. Compare to Facebook [2], Amazon [3], Microsoft [4] and many others. Each of these companies have provisions which allow them to share your information with "third-parties", "affiliates", or other entities for purposes other then the originating company's needs. Google giving your data to another company is not in Google's interest. Your data is what allows them to be so good at what they do. Why give that away to anyone else? They know they can make more money by keeping the data and using it to its full potential rather then selling it off to other companies.

It is worth noting that Twitter seems to have a decent policy [5].

[1] http://www.google.com/privacy/privacy-policy.html
[2] http://www.facebook.com/policy.php
[3] http://aws.amazon.com/privacy/
[4] http://privacy.microsoft.com/
[5] https://twitter.com/privacy

Hop In, L'il Girl. I've Got Candy. And Bandwidth. (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 3 years ago | (#37199900)

is it a good idea to let them?

No, of course not. Obviously. It's kind of like a neighborhood that's had a spot of high crime deciding to let policemen with cameras station themselves inside each bedroom 24/7.

"Oh, gee, I dunno about that... but maybe it'll be okay if their badges are really, really shiny. I like Shiny...

SELL: AAPL !! SELL NOW OR LOSE IT ALL !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199908)

It's heading for the tank, then it's headed for the bottom. MSFT !! Move Over !! AAPL Is Coming Down !!

Slow Internet is not the problem (1)

guspasho (941623) | about 3 years ago | (#37199914)

Slow Internet is not the problem. The problem is that we (or rather, our applications) demand more and more data. When 480p video used to suffice, now 1080p is all-important, and soon some 3D variation of that. Where text used to be just fine now it's necessary to watch a Youtube video. Where you used to get animated GIF banner ads now you get full video ads. Where before our preferred content format was local files saved on our hard drives and distributed via home networks, now we store everything in "the cloud" and stream it through our Internet connections. It would be nice if Google tried to do something about that. (I know, I know, get off my lawn and all that. But still, each of those trends irritate me for various reasons, more irritating and bandwidth-consuming ads, less ownership of your stuff, being forced to watch videos when text would be faster to load and read, and not require speakers or interrupt your music.)

Re:Slow Internet is not the problem (2)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | about 3 years ago | (#37199966)

Every problem you name has a technical workaround that your average Slashdotter could name off the top of their head.

Don't buy what Google is selling if you don't want it.

Re:Slow Internet is not the problem (1)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37200120)

The problem is that Google has a search monopoly and is leveraging it in more and more services to lock people in. Google is practically the gatekeeper of the web, and it's not even an open source search engine. It's surprising that there isn't more outcry from the FSF crowd over the fact that a closed-source platform now drives almost all web traffic.

Re:Slow Internet is not the problem (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 years ago | (#37200222)

It's surprising that there isn't more outcry from the FSF crowd over the fact that a closed-source platform now drives almost all web traffic.

Because it wouldnt work. Even if you release only parameters (and not the values you set them to) and people will still manage to game the system.
 

Re:Slow Internet is not the problem (1)

guspasho (941623) | about 3 years ago | (#37200216)

More bandwidth is great, it's awesome, really. But the problem is really bandwidth creep and a bigger pipe doesn't solve that. It's the same problem hardware manufacturers and highway builders have, the capacity gets filled uselessly. Those workarounds are always janky and require technical expertise, time, and don't always work, and inevitably become unrealistic as you try harder to cling to what becomes your more and more outdated notions of what is enough bandwidth.

A more generalized approach is needed, more generalized in the way that urban planning has mitigated the problem with highways, and I'm not sure how it's been solved for hardware.

Re:Slow Internet is not the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200022)

I too miss morse code.

Re:Slow Internet is not the problem (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 years ago | (#37200230)

-- . / - --- ---

Go away filter error!

Finland can ! (1)

Oasiz (1017554) | about 3 years ago | (#37199920)

Currently on a 2year contract for 200/10 Mbit internet with 4.95e/month for the first year and 24.95e/month for the second. 29.95e/month after that.
No caps or that silly stuff. Oh, and I've topped 19.7Mb/s down and around 1Mb/s up with ideal conditions.
*hides*

Re:Finland can ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200026)

I assume you mean 19.7MB/s down and 1MB/s up? (ie bytes not bits)

Re:Finland can ! (1)

Oasiz (1017554) | about 3 years ago | (#37200048)

Yes, too late to correct that one. Always mixing up those two.

The first one is always free (4, Insightful)

pedantic bore (740196) | about 3 years ago | (#37199936)

Anyone who thinks that Google is doing this out of the kindness of their hearts is silly.

Google doesn't care whether you have high-speed access. They want to be able to trace your browsing and other internet usage habits, and they want to make sure they can serve up their ads in a way that minimizes the requirements on their resources.

Re:The first one is always free (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37200142)

Google doesn't care whether you have high-speed access.

Well, they care to the degree that it drives more Google ad views. However, their PR department has been quite successful in convincing techies that everything they do is in the name of engineering and open technology rather than driving their core business of web ads.

Re:The first one is always free (1)

quickgold192 (1014925) | about 3 years ago | (#37200338)

You know, maybe everything Google does doesn't have too have an ulterior motive. Maybe they were just sitting one day thinking "Gee, we have shitloads of money. What if we just developed something out-of-this-world amazing just for the heck of it?" Maybe there are corporations out there who do some things just because it's a cool thing to do, not because they're twirling their evil mustaches in greed.

I'm not saying Google's not evil, and we should still be suspicious of free goodies, but maybe we should consider the possibility - for once - that they're doing something awesome for awesomeness's sake.

Re:The first one is always free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200650)

How does that Kool-Aid taste?

Re:The first one is always free (2)

nine-times (778537) | about 3 years ago | (#37200520)

Well I need decent Internet and no one else seems to be able to provide it. Verizon won't, Time Warner can't, and the government can't afford to because we need to give ever-increasing kick-backs to rich people. If Google's willing to do it because it's in the best interest of their business, then I don't mind.

I mean, who do you think *is* going to provide fast Internet out of the kindness of their hearts?

Delicious Possibilities (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 3 years ago | (#37199958)

Thank you, Google!
Just in time!
I have been working on a project that would need to pump massive amounts of data through the pipes.

We live our lives mostly in the fleeting moment... but there is a way for that to change...

I'm In (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 3 years ago | (#37199970)

And more importantly, is it a good idea to let them?

I'd go with SatanCo and their service powered by burning babies for a gigabit fiber.

A camera at every traffic corner. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199976)

If this happens, Google knows every where you go online.

Story's wrong (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37199988)

As a current student and network admin of a small fiefdom at Stanford, I can tell you that the story is partially incorrect; Google is currently installing their fiber in the "faculty ghetto," a large Stanford-owned neighborhood by the school's foothills. They are not providing fiber to students - all student housing, academic buildings, and the campus core have separate mouthwateringly fast internet, Internet2, and wireless (via the SUNet).

More importantly, though, Google is *not* installing fiber in Palo Alto. One of the things that likely helped Stanford's case when we were selected is that the school owns *all the land* and even, as far as I know, all the utility lines on our campus. When you buy a house at Stanford, you actually only buy the building – you only lease the land. Because of that, when Stanford says "we're gonna install fiber," it's probably not tied up in regulatory messes, multiple contracts, competitive bidding, or the like. It takes the school's approval process, which may or may not be slow, but that's the only one; we don't have to ask the county, the city, or AT&T if we can do something - something that definitely speeds our adoption. I'm kinda scared that those kinds of facts might hurt further development of Google fiber.

Re:Story's wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200282)

I'm hoping that showing how awesome it is in Stanford and Kansas City will encourage other cities to grant right-of-way. Although I wouldn't expect the cable and telcos to allow it without a fight. It's important that the people living in each community stand up for increased choice and competition when that happens.

LoC? (1)

cashman73 (855518) | about 3 years ago | (#37199990)

How many Libraries of Congress can Stanford now download per second?

Re:LoC? (1)

yotto (590067) | about 3 years ago | (#37200162)

How many Libraries of Congress can Stanford now download per second?

14,400 Toyotas' worth

Re:LoC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200448)

Japanese or American Toyota's?

There is a considerable difference in the aggregate, to the point of a 25% swing at your scale.

Don't even get me started on the racing Toyota's!

Google? Possibly. What we need is competition. (2)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 3 years ago | (#37199996)

I live in a rural backwater 100 miles from nearest large metropolis. The ILEC Bell won't even put a DSLAM in my CO.

Fortunately, they missed buying up one of the local CLECs in the 1980s when they were on a spending spree, and said CLEC acquired a large mom-and-pop ISP around Y2K.

The CLEC moved into my area, put a DSLAM of their own in my CO, and gives me 5Mbps ADSL 2+ service (we tested to 16, but I didn't want to pay for more than 5). This uses the ILEC's copper from CO to NID but everything else is done by the CLEC/ISP.

Next month or so, the CLEC will be burying fiber in my yard -- for free -- and the yard of anybody else in the neighbourhood that already has underground services and wants it; whether they are a current customer or not. This is because they just strung fiber on the pole and have a crew in the area that can just go down the street and bang-bang-bang get er' done. Unlike Verizon FiOS, said CLEC is also NOT ripping out the existing copper infrastructure.

So, about 2 months from now, I expect to be running 20 Mbps fiber service from these guys; 6 months or a year later, I'll also have Internet TV through them (they just bought a small traditional cable company in the area). In a rural village. And a few years from now, I bet they'll be pushing a lot more than 20 Mbps through the fiber.

So, no, we don't need Google to get fast internet. We need competition!

Re:Google? Possibly. What we need is competition. (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | about 3 years ago | (#37200232)

ILEC? CLEC? ISP? CO? ADSL? DSLAM? Y2K?

OMG!!!

Jokes aside, you are right. What we also need is a tighter grip on telco powers, so that municipalities can roll out their own broadband or wireless systems.

Oh man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200024)

I can't wait.

"Hey Comcast. Fuck you, Google's here."

No one can save you from slow internet. (2)

amanicdroid (1822516) | about 3 years ago | (#37200032)

Back in my day, 14.4 kbs was blazing but there were always those malcontents that wanted images too.

Our expectations will probably always outpace available bandwidth.

Re:No one can save you from slow internet. (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37200298)

Back in MY day, we took 300 baud and LIKED it. You could almost play Rogue! ("Worms" would overrun the buffer.)

Re:No one can save you from slow internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200530)

That dial up sound should be a ring tone... lol

Does't matter who makes it fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200046)

Whether it is your cable or phone provider, somebody will give you faster internet and make money doing it. I'd rather that be free from Google than and additional $50/month from my ISP.

They are only a few miles away (1)

bell.colin (1720616) | about 3 years ago | (#37200058)

According to http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/ [google.com] they are headquartered in Mountain View, CA and they are providing "high speed" internet access for free to Palo Alto (only a few miles away)

Attaching a high-speed link like this is relatively easy (and cheap), now if they do this for free to some uni on the opposite coast or very far away I will be more impressed.

Kinda pointless? (1)

saikou (211301) | about 3 years ago | (#37200074)

Experiment is nice, lovely, news-worthy and, I think, kinda pointless.
Mostly because Universities never seemed to have suffered from the lack of or "slowness" of internet connection in the first place (though any amount of bandwidth can be readily consumed by students doing whatever students normally do ;) ). Have you seen one that'd be disconnected? Not that it would lack fiber to every dorm room, but rather a complete lack of connectivity? I thought so.

The more important experiment is that Google Fiber in Kansas. Wiring residential area is way more difficult and costly. Plus most residential areas lack any sort of substantial ISP competition, and a proof of working, profitable (at least a tiny bit) alternative means of connection that gives local telco/cable run for their money would make more difference than wiring any university. Unless you're planning to move into a dorm and live there.

Re:Kinda pointless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200148)

Chattanooga, TN offers 1 Gig internet access to any of its 160K+ customers. Have offered it for almost a year.

Http://epbfi.com

Re:Kinda pointless? (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | about 3 years ago | (#37200254)

Experiment is nice, lovely, news-worthy and, I think, kinda pointless. Mostly because Universities never seemed to have suffered from the lack of or "slowness" of internet connection in the first place

Well, if it's successful, Google will get a LOT of good PR out of the thing. And what company doesn't like to get good PR?

wget *.xxx (2)

PPH (736903) | about 3 years ago | (#37200102)

Just waiting on Google to press Enter.

So... (0)

Jorl17 (1716772) | about 3 years ago | (#37200114)

So, by "us" you mean "world" by which you mean "the US". I like that.

Back to my fifth-world Portugal. I hear it's seen as a province of Spain!

Google knows your needs (1)

formfeed (703859) | about 3 years ago | (#37200134)

They have probably figured out by now what web pages are the most popular according to time, demographic group, previous searches. Add a few shows from hulu and you can pretty much pre-seed the cache. Heck, give them a couple years and they'll send you the content a second before you click on it.

My biggest problem is ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200226)

Ads are my biggest problem. Waiting for adblock to deny them, waiting for them to render, etc. What are the odds that Google will help with this?

Think it's time to play the lottery, since my chances are better.

Reason for no competition (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 3 years ago | (#37200252)

You get poor service/quotas/high prices because a profit oriented company will make more money by jacking up rates and lowering service than in competing. The lack of real competition in internet is because of the last mile problem. The only way around that is to already own right-of-ways to all the houses or spend massive amounts of money to make a new one. Existing: Power, gas, water, wireless, telephone, cable, roads. Either one of these must offer competition or a really big company must put money/leverage to work to beat a path to your door.

Why wait on Goog? (3, Interesting)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | about 3 years ago | (#37200262)

Chattanooga achieved 1Gb/sec on EPB's network [engadget.com] without any help at all, and both AT&T and Comcast fighting them every step of the way. The fight went well on up the court system hierarchy but the end result is that the fastest service in the U.S. is now here in tiny Chattanooga. I'm proud of that, and can attest firsthand for the quality and cost savings of their service. We went from roughly 600.00 for phone and internet on our business to 100.00/month. Now, why should we wait or expect to burden Google with this, when the very power to attain this resides in your very own communities.. Takes a little doing tho. Good Luck@!

Re:Why wait on Goog? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 years ago | (#37200454)

You seriously want the government to be your ISP? It's bad enough that ATT just hands over your info when they ask for it... but in your case they don't even have to ask for it.

Re:Why wait on Goog? (1)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | about 3 years ago | (#37200498)

There will always be watchmen. Watchmen of watchmen even. Personally a bird in the hand is worth two in bush.. jmho...

Re:Why wait on Goog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200504)

And even smaller Wilson, NC did something similar, altho lower speeds (50-100Mbps I am thinking?) since Verizon and AT&T could not be bothered to cover the town very well, if at all. But when Wilson actually got it going, the telcos went crying to the legislature about "lack of competition" (never mind their record there...), and got some stiff conditions imposed on Wilson to "open" it up - yeah, right, crybabies.

My Internet is blazing fast. Browsers are slow. (1, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | about 3 years ago | (#37200354)

My Internet is plenty fast. Browsers are slow. OK, the browser combined withe the web site is slow. Chrome does JavaScript really well, blazingly fast. That's only half the problem though. The other half of the problem is that YOUR WEBSITE DOESN'T NEED THOSE SCRIPTS. Yes, I'm shouting. If I were a web designer, I would have embedded a video of a guy shouting using Javascript, along with 10 ads and several other embedded videos, and some Flash. At least half the embeds would contain exploits for IE/Windows and attempts at exploits for other browser/OS combos.

Anyway, plenty of bandwidth. We don't need a fatter pipe. We need less shit being flushed into the sewer that the Internet has become.

What about Buffer Bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37200364)

Considering how bogged down the "regular" 'Net seems to be by buffer bloat (how about a project to unlock the existing 'Net, and rectify that, Big G?), have to wonder what all those over-buffered devices on this net will do.

For free internet access? (1)

Berkyjay (1225604) | about 3 years ago | (#37200482)

I'd let Google collect all the marketable data they wanted on me if they provided free high speed internet access and they make sure that there are no shady tactics like throttling.

really? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#37200492)

And more importantly, is it a good idea to let them?"

Because letting Comcast and Verizon do it is so much better?

Why Google? Why not municipal broadband? (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | about 3 years ago | (#37200508)

Just a few months ago I read this post on a different "help us Google!" thread:

Sigh....Can't we solve problems anymore without pining for a benevolent Google dictatorship?

I'm not sure I can say it any better myself. You have municipal broadband, you have playing hardball with your current provider (which isn't actually that difficult; you just never find county commissioners with the knowledge and spine to do so), you have broadband cooperatives. You have a half-dozen options that are simpler and more palatable than holding out the naive hope that a *different* multinational corporation will ride in to save you from the one you presently do business with.

They can't even deliver Profiles to Google Apps (0)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 3 years ago | (#37200548)

Let's just let them focus on delivering profiles to google apps customers first. All they seem to be able to say on this topic is "soon".

I'm a little worried... (0)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37200632)

Back in 1949, George Orwell wrote about TVs that could also watch you, and a government that would use them to keep an eye on their citizenry.

A little later when cable TV came out, a few really paranoid friends said that was the start of 1984, and I said no, the communication is only one way, and to make the connection two way would be too difficult. And then in the 1980's I got involved with the fledgling internet, and I said no, it *still* wasn't anywhere near fast enough or with a high enough penetration to make 1984 happen, and wouldn't be any time soon. And besides, the sheer volume of information would not be manageable.

And then we got fiber to the last mile, and TVs with network connections built-in, and toys like Kinect, and massive, relatively cheap supercomputers, and huge leaps in facial recognition technology, and now a huge leap in network throughput, all presided over by a government that believes they have the right to fondle my nutsack before they let me on a plane.

And I'm starting to get worried.

I'm not saying that Google is evil, necessarily. Often the people creating the technology don't necessarily know or believe what evil to which it could be put.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>