×

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!

Could Google Fiber Save Network Neutrality?

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the your-my-only-hope dept.

Google 230

nmpost writes "Could Google Fiber, set to launch next week, be the savior of network neutrality? Some speculate that the program is Google's answer to attacks on network neutrality by the big internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. These companies complain about the price of upgrading and maintaining their network, and want to charge websites like Google extra money to allow customers fast access to its sites. This practice would violate the long held spirit of the internet, where all data traffic is treated equally. Google may be out to prove that fast networks can be built and maintained at reasonable prices."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

230 comments

Dibs (3, Funny)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#40692147)

Dibs on first run to my house!

Re:Dibs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692169)

Google fiber farts out of my fuck!

lmao!

ISPs have become oligopolies (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40692541)

At the beginning of the "Information Superhighway" - at least that was what they called "Internet" back then - there were a lot of people pulling cables and starting local ISPs

At that time, competition was fierce, and everyone tried to one-up each others, on price, on service, on usage, et cetera, to attract new customers

While the competition was fierce, there was a feeling of comradery and responsibility amongst the ISPs, and they did respect the "Freedom & Equality" spirit of the Net

But that golden era was not to last, for big and established players from the telephone and cable industries (AT&T / Comcast), with deep pockets, out-maneuvered the smaller players - and that's what we have today, an oligopolistic structure of the ISPs

As oligarchs go, the big players got so much power that they get to do almost everything they want to do - and as we have all witnessed - not even the government has power to reign them in
 

Re:ISPs have become oligopolies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693673)

not even the government has power to reign them in

Argh! The correct word in that phrase is rein, not reign. Reigning is what a monarch does, and has nothing to do with curbing or slowing something down. Reins are what you use to guide a horse, and are also used for slowing the horse down and/or bringing it to a halt - which is where the phrase "rein them in" originated.

Not likely (5, Insightful)

bearded_yak (457170) | about 2 years ago | (#40692151)

Even the best efforts tend to become commercialized. Look at Google Shopping's new upcoming direction.

What is to stop them 3 years later from creating a paid class system? And who would be able to honestly blame them? After all, it would be THEIR network.

Re:Not likely (2)

noh8rz5 (2674523) | about 2 years ago | (#40692193)

More likely, they'll track every packet of your data in order to build. Profile of you, then sell it to the highest bidder. Scary!

Re:Not likely (2)

drpimp (900837) | about 2 years ago | (#40692231)

Pfft! You act like telecoms are not already doing that.

Re:Not likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692259)

The difference is that Google is [relatively] competent

Re:Not likely (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#40692287)

Just use a VPN.

Re:Not likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693643)

VPN has bandwidth limitations that would negate having a gigabit.

Re:Not likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693651)

Just use a VPN.

Then all your traffic gets poor QoS

Re:Not likely (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 2 years ago | (#40693289)

Sell what, the data? No way, that will be closely guarded... and utilized to do better ad targeting... Honestly, I don't mind it so much when google keeps it all in-house... unlike all the others who sell all of said info to "partners"

Re:Not likely (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693457)

It actually has helped I think.
Almost every Google ad I see is unobtrusive, Many are somewhat relevant, once in a great while clicking on the ad takes me to what I was looking for.
And Google gives me a detailed list of my history with them and allows me to remove the stuff I do not want saved. (Umm...Assuming I would ever do anything that I would want removed. Which so far has ummm never happened.)
Google, So far, has been the best massive, money making corporation I have ever come in contact with.
I am beginning to trust that they are smart enough to make a lot of money and not have to fuck their customers in the ass to do it.

Re:Not likely (5, Insightful)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 2 years ago | (#40692529)

Yeah this supposes that everyone in the world puts money above all other values. In reality, that only describes a subset of humanity. If it described everyone then every opportunity to commit a financially advantageous criminal act would be taken by everyone every chance they got.

The reason civilization holds together isn't because we pass laws and intimidate people into obeying them. The reason civilization holds together is because most people want to live within the boundaries society sets. In fact, the generalized will of the people is where those boundaries came from in the first place. Even draconic enforcement just couldn't coerce a population into overcoming impulses that assail them every hour of every day.

What we have in America and elsewhere is a economic system which fails to punish sociopathy early on. In fact, it does just the opposite, it rewards it differentially with career advancement. The people at the top ARE different- they're worse, much worse, than the average person.

I heard some woman talking on BBC a couple nights ago about how the CEOs involed in the LIBOR scandal are really no better or worse than you or I, they just have bigger opportunities. That is exactly wrong. The bigger the potential to wreak damage on larger numbers of people,. the MORE earnest and conscientious the average person becomes with dispatching his or her duties. That's called "having a conscience"

Of course from a sociobiological point of view, we can forgive her for talking this way. Having been selected as a commentator on the behaviour of the executives of banks means she has had and likely continues to have some opportunities for socializing with them. So of course she's going to use this interview as an opportunity to signal her willingness and availability for copulation with the powerful males in her tribe. Still, if anything other than her limbic system had had control of her mouth and behaviour, any of the above facts might have popped into her head and resulted in a smarter and more insightful interview.

Not everyone is a sociopath and consequently not everyone prioritizes the accumulation of personal wealth above all other values. I count the execs at Google amongst the more morally normal people in business.

Re:Not likely (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#40693277)

Yeah this supposes that everyone in the world puts money above all other values. In reality, that only describes a subset of humanity. If it described everyone then every opportunity to commit a financially advantageous criminal act would be taken by everyone every chance they got.

But it describes pretty much 100% of all for-profit companies, they're not a person and they don't as such have a conscience. Whatever things they claim to do for charity and the environment and whatnot is usually a PR exercise that's ultimately designed to bring them even more money. No matter what those executives want they have shareholders who want profit. They have employees that want to make profits to get their bonuses. Any corporation rewards those that make money for it, it's the essence of capitalism which means that's what you get from top to bottom and the sociopaths that care about nothing else floats to the top. It might not be how people act, but it's how corporations act and Google definitively is one of them. Don't expect those executives to keep it from turning into just like every other big company.

Re:Not likely (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693599)

Any corporation rewards those that make money for it, it's the essence of capitalism which means that's what you get from top to bottom and the sociopaths that care about nothing else floats to the top. It might not be how people act, but it's how corporations act and Google definitively is one of them. Don't expect those executives to keep it from turning into just like every other big company.

In the case of Google, though, the top executives are also the largest shareholders and have so much money that financial rewards are effectively meaningless to them. Of course, many CEO types still keep trying to increase their net worth even after they've got more money than they could possibly ever spend, because it becomes the way to keep score, and they're all about winning. But Larry Page isn't a typical CEO type, his degrees are in computer engineering and computer science, and you just have to listen to him for 30 seconds to realize he's a geek to the core. He claims that he's motivated by the opportunity to do great things that make the world better, and that the need to make money is just a means to that end. You can call him a liar, but there's really nothing in his history to support your claim.

Of course, that's now, and Google probably will eventually come under the control of a bean counter, or of a leader whose focus is on "maximizing shareholder value" in order to maximize his own net worth. But I think that's really not what's going on now, and it won't be the case for many years.

Re:Not likely (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 2 years ago | (#40692651)

What is to stop them 3 years later from creating a paid class system?

Why would we want to prevent that?

Seriously... as long as there is no discrimination based on source (i.e., everyone gets the same pricing), what is the problem with tiered services?

To me, that's the crux of net neutrality, to have it similar to common-carrier status. Anyone can pay for different service levels, and the volume discount is formulaic, not negotiated.

Bust the Trust (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692153)

Force AT&T to share the right of ways taxpayers own!

Re:Bust the Trust (1)

dgreer (1206) | about 2 years ago | (#40692511)

Then tell you PUC to decrease the regulatory hurtles to become a carrier.

Of course, you still have to lay 20,000 miles of duct, but, it's a step in the right direction.

A better solution: stop passing laws that favor AT&T and the other big incumbents. That's what drove the small ISPs out of business.

Re:Bust the Trust (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#40692521)

Actually, tax payers usually don't own the rights of way. Rather the rights of way is over land owned by private people and leased or taken by easement either voluntarily or involuntarily by government for utilities. Tax payers have little to do with it.

I know a little bit (re-read "lot") about this as I own a a fair bit of land with rights of way for the utilities over it. The joke is, for much of it, most of it, I'm the only one it serves since I'm the last mile and a half.

Re:Bust the Trust (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40693021)

So who are these people who own property and aren't taxpayers?

Re:Bust the Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693571)

Corporations and sufficiently wealthy individuals who know how to hide their finances.

Fast Networks (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#40692187)

CAN be built fairly inexpensively but it has to be done with a purpose.

I've long proposed that Municipalities build their own networks, and then lease the management and fiberplant with specific parameters about things that are important to them. THEN that would provide the impedus for competition.

They could do FIBER, CABLE and Copper in one bundled set and pull it to each home. Competition from the start.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40692221)

Or better yet: The state could run 100-fiber bundles under all the state-owned roads, and let the customer decide. If you want Comcast connect to the Comcast fiber #1. If you want Verizon choose fiber #2. If you want AppleTV or MSN or Time-warner connect to fiber 3 or 4 or 5. Et cetera.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#40692281)

Exactly, but why do that at the house, why not run ONE cable set to the house and everything else goes back to a CO somewhere, where it is a simple cross connect by a skilled technician.

Re:Fast Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692355)

Because having the state run that one fiber to your house would be SOCIALISM!!!!1! Anyone else would charge you for the service. Unless, of course, you opted to have their skilled technician plug it into fiber # x, where x = their own service. That's free.

Having anyone else do it just leads to finger pointing and problems (see also: DSL in places where deregulation hasn't caused the phone companies to kick the competing DSL providers off their phone lines... "Hello? Qwest? My DSL is down!" "Must be SBCs fault!" "Hello? SBC? My DSL is down!" "Looks good here, must be Qwest's fault!")

Re:Fast Networks (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#40692345)

Or better yet: The state

And with those words, you would drive half the people of this country into hysterics. We can't even agree to a public option...I doubt highly that enough of us would agree to fund something like that no matter how beneficial we all know it would be. Look at what they're doing to NPR... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Fast Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692393)

Or better yet: The state

And with those words, you would drive half the people of this country into hysterics. We can't even agree to a public option...I doubt highly that enough of us would agree to fund something like that no matter how beneficial we all know it would be. Look at what they're doing to NPR... [wikipedia.org]

Yes, because broadband internet in places where companies don't want to provide it, why, that's exactly as complicated as healthcare!

Look you got an agenda and want a "public option" for healthcare, fine, good, but don't pretend it's exactly as simple.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#40692489)

Yes, because broadband internet in places where companies don't want to provide it, why, that's exactly as complicated as healthcare!

Sarcasm aside, it actually does seem to be that way. There are even people on here who don't think municipalities should be able to create their own networks. They feel it should be private all the way, even in the face of evidence that the private providers don't want to do it.

Re:Fast Networks (2, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#40692749)

Here's the difference between Municipal run Media/Internet and my solution which is FREE ENTERPRISE. IF your municipal "Cable" sucked, who could you turn to? Nobody. IF the Comcast/Time-Warner/Roadrunner/Verizon/ATT who got the 5 year lease on the plant sucked, you could fire them and replace them with someone else.

Competition is good.

The problem with Liberals AND Conservatives alike, they don't know where the boundries ought to be. The Plant to the house (last mile) is just like the Road in front of my house. It is Infrastructure. I does need to be maintained and improved from time to time. However like a road, I'm suggesting that it is available for anyone to use.

Read my reply to one of the earlier posts in this thread, I said everything could be run to a CO where a tech would manage the connections for the providers, and switch you to the new provider etc.

The problem is that we need to think OUTSIDE the "Nationalized" model and the "unregulated" crap both sides seem hell bent on moving towards.

Net Neutrality would not be an issue if we weren't hostages to the "Local Monopolies".

Re:Fast Networks (1)

hondo77 (324058) | about 2 years ago | (#40692913)

Here's the difference between Municipal run Media/Internet and my solution which is FREE ENTERPRISE. IF your municipal "Cable" sucked, who could you turn to?

My municipality's elected representatives.

If my "free" enterprise cable internet sucked, who could I turn to? Nobody because the local cable is a private monopoly, which is the opposite of "free".

That road of which you speak, the one that is available for anyone to use, was built by the government.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#40693181)

Monticello tried it already and they got their asses sued off.

By the time they won the incumbent telecom had already built their own network right out from under them.

By no means am I against municipal internet btw, I cite this as an example of just how greedy an incumbent monopoly can get.

Re:Fast Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693221)

The "private monopoly" that was created by the local government's grant of an exclusive "right" to provide a service to paying customers? Hmmm... Sounds like I'm still stuck talking to my elected representatives.

Ever see the process of granting a cable company a monopoly? I have -- twice -- and it's every bit as bad as you can imagine (or maybe worse, given your advocacy of the government solution.)

Re:Fast Networks (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#40693361)

see the problem is there is no competition on cabling infastructure is there is no real choice. Its not feasable for more than one company to run more lines

A good analogy for what they are doing is if the phone companies started charging more for dial up connections to known ISPs, or blocked them altogether back in the day.

we tend to work OK with the majority of roads being public, I think we could do OK with public infastructure for electricity, gas, water, and now internet. Not to say that the.

As for so called "unregulated". it will be very regulated alright, just by whatever company owns the infastructure. I am very much for a free market, and I like the idea that more competition reduces problems. But in some areas, private ownership won't breed competition, and cannot be voted upon.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 2 years ago | (#40693597)

Its not feasable for more than one company to run more lines

That doesn't prevent them from doing it on occasion. Amusingly, my house has cable TV drops from both providers here. They were both installed before I moved in, so I could not give you specifics as to why they are installed, but there you have it. When I chose one provider, the guy who came out to activate the lines informed me that neither carrier would run to the other's lines, so only half my cable drops could be activated.

Re:Fast Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693149)

Here in Jackson, WI, the village decided to start a telecommunications utility. After spending a fortune, they had a service with nearly no subscribers that cost more than private alternatives, offered crappy service and lost money. Eventually, they decided to sell it off. The word "fiasco" barely begins to describe it.

Tell me again how municipalities are the solution.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

Trilkin (2042026) | about 2 years ago | (#40693479)

Mismanaged, poorly advertised and people entrenched in their existing service because if they break from their Triple Play packages, their other services go up in price.

If they offered free VOIP service that would allow customers to use their existing phone number to go with the internet service and actually made that service competitive, then it might've worked. Problem is, private companies tend to have a -HELL- of a lot more money to spend on things than a municipality does.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#40692699)

The excuses against it are precisely the same as the excuses that would be trotted out against this, and you know it: "Why should I have to pay for it? Government only gets in the way! If the free market won't do it, that probably means that it's gonna cost too much anyway!! It's regulations, regulations are why those people can't get internet! ARGHGHGHG!!!! BARGGHGGHGHLLE!!!!!"

If you've missed the selfish, asinine streak in people these days when it comes to anything involving government doing any fucking thing, you're either blind or deliberately obtuse. You could probably get people to vote down public water utilities in some parts of the country right now...that's how batshit retarded it is getting.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 years ago | (#40692643)

Sure you could. All you have to do is use precisely loaded words in carefully constructed sentences. And lie. A lot. People will buy it. People will buy anything if you lie to them long enough.

Lying works. Lying is a growth industry. Lying is the most successful sales technique the world has ever seen. It began with organized religion thousands of years ago and ended with Fox News (which is nearly indistinguishable from organized religion).

It could be done. Not ethically, perhaps, but it could be done.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#40692781)

Let me guess, you're into Porn and Hookers and drugs? No, those things don't lie to you at all ... NOOOOO.

I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls.

Re:Fast Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693341)

We can't even agree to a public option...

Putting fiber optic cable into the ground is much harder to screw up than running a medical system. Heck, George W Bush could do it.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

ExploHD (888637) | about 2 years ago | (#40692405)

I've long proposed that Municipalities build their own networks, and then lease the management and fiberplant with specific parameters about things that are important to them

Like Utah's UTOPIA [utopianet.org] ? It's on the Utah's republicans hit list, btw.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40692473)

Thats pretty awesome! One of the providers has a 100 mbps connection for $50. I get 12 mbps connection from comcast for the same rate.

Re:Fast Networks (1)

butlerm (3112) | about 2 years ago | (#40693137)

UTOPIA is great, if you can get it. The problem is that your city needs to sign on, and you and preferably several of your neighbors need to each agree to pay ~$30 a month to lease a fiber connection (or purchase the the right to use one indefinitely for ~$3000). Then you pay your ISP / IPTV / telco provider to deliver service to you over the shared Ethernet network. Build out has been relatively slow, in part because they originally projected that most customers would sign up for Internet, television, and phone service over the network, where in reality most want just plain Internet service.

Utah is a heavily Republican dominated state, and UTOPIA is certainly not on the Republican hit list. It is mostly on the hit list of lobbyists for CenturyLink (Qwest) and Comcast. They tried to have the state prohibit such networks several years ago and failed. UTOPIA is now a fait accompli and the chances of it being shut down by legislative action are non-existent. They need those revenues to pay the bonds back. The only question is can UTOPIA succeed enough with its new revenue model to make new cities want to sign on. I sure hope so.

I want a pony (5, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#40692443)

I've long proposed that Municipalities build their own networks,

And the Big Operators have fought that. A few early adopters have slipped by them. Tacoma, WA built the Click Network [click-network.com] through their power PUD. But the commercial operators have put legislation in place in many jurisdictions to prevent the further spread of public networks. Where this hasn't been possible, they have recruited astroturfers to scream about the horrors of public infrastructure to frighten the public away from supporting such projects.

Re:Fast Networks (4, Interesting)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#40692487)

Yes, it really isn't that expensive. I put in my own fiber network for our farm, home and business. Small, but then we're smaller than Google (surprise!) and I had a very good reason. Fiber is immune to lightning strikes which are a huge problem up here on the mountain. Next I would like to lay fiber the mile and a half down to the phone company. It pushes the lightning strike problem that much further away from us.

Re:Fast Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693285)

rock bottom prices on fibre transceivers too!

Re:Fast Networks (1)

InsaneMosquito (1067380) | about 2 years ago | (#40692507)

How does one go about convincing a municipality to do this though? We've seen stories here about some high speed networks being built, but what is that first step that convinces a city council to say "Yup, we need that"?

Survey:What's the oldest person you've slept with? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692199)

In full disclosure, mine is unknown - but I believe to be upper 30's. It was a drunken night after bar close and I called in sick to work the next day. Your story?

What? (4, Insightful)

BitHive (578094) | about 2 years ago | (#40692219)

The solution to network neutrality is to buy up tons of dark fiber in the wake of a bubble and use it to build your own national network? Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692237)

Sure. Now Google gets to track you more.

Re:What? (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#40692531)

Yup, even if they mean right at first, their revenues will start to hiccup. Once fiber maintenance becomes a problem and the share price sours, the Page wing will make Google pull a Slashdot and want to use it to push their video (YouTube) and their "social" network (+) Mad-Crazy Fast(tm) at others' expense, while they generally continue to marketer-ize and RIAA-tize the services.

So no I don't think this will help netneut at all. Maybe it will help netneut die; it's easy to miss that last word, I guess.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693401)

Yup, even if they mean right at first, their revenues will start to hiccup. Once fiber maintenance becomes a problem and the share price sours, the Page wing will make Google pull a Slashdot and want to use it to push their video (YouTube) and their "social" network (+) Mad-Crazy Fast(tm) at others' expense, while they generally continue to marketer-ize and RIAA-tize the services.

So no I don't think this will help netneut at all. Maybe it will help netneut die; it's easy to miss that last word, I guess.

What's your solution then, smartass? You act like Comcast and AT&T aren't already pulling that shit (Hint: they totally are). I don't know what's wrong with you that you believe more competitors in the marketplace will somehow make things worse than they already are getting anyway.

Re:What? (1)

blakelarson (1486631) | about 2 years ago | (#40693519)

Well, we shouldn't overreact, but you need to keep an eye on Google. They are a publicly-traded company, and if revenues start to hiccup, there will be a change in management. Then, as far as Google's assets are concerned, *anything goes*.

Since when... (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 2 years ago | (#40692265)

Google does something inexpensively? Hah.. They treat a missing million dollars in cafeteria budge as an inconsequential rounding error.

The real test (4, Interesting)

Trongy (64652) | about 2 years ago | (#40692269)

If Google becomes successful with this, the real test will be whether they offer their competitors equal access to their network.

Re:The real test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692307)

If Google becomes successful with this, the real test will be whether they offer their competitors equal access to their network.

Yeah like the way they strictly locked down Android right?

If Apple starts buying up dark fiber, BE AFRAID. Open access is not their business model no matter what else you happen to like about them.

Re:The real test (4, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#40692401)

Bing will be replaced by Google and Microsoft websites will load half as quickly.

If you call and complain they'll disavow any knowledge of problems on the network and it must be Microsoft's fault.

FUCK NO (-1, Troll)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#40692327)

First of, this question is pedestrian -- any techie over the age of 25 knows that Google has been buying up Dark Fiber for several years and has already been expecting the obvious outcome.

Secondly, there's been considerable success in keeping Google OUT OF the ISP market due to their intent to work with Municipalities -- which AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have successfully sued to prevent happening.

Thirdly, Lastly and Not Least, Google would be the most invasive and scary ISP of all.
They quite literally would do everything they could to bring every device into search index as possible
down to your shitter.

Google has backed off a bit in the last couple years, but their intentions are clear -- to know, index and predict everything about you. And if they were to become an ISP, they would do all the same shit AT&T, Verizon and Comcast does, but with far worse breaches of privacy.

Google pulled an Larry the Salesguy just before their IPO -- they said they would not be Evil.
When at the time, they knew full well they already were.

Funny how not so many people talked about their assrape of Safari Users -- guess that's what they get for being Apple Faggot Fanbois huh?

Google so good? Yeah right.

They are slime and make their products as a means to collect info -- effectively the most pervasive spymaster ever.

But hey -- don't let me dissuade you from the Free Google internet when it finally does come.
I mean hey -- they probably already know about your man on chihuahua anal rape fetish.

Re:FUCK NO (2, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 years ago | (#40692597)

This has nothing to do with the dark fiber they bought. They bought dark fiber in order to become a national backbone provider so they qualified for free peering agreements with all of the existing providers. Otherwise paying for transit for Youtube would have bankrupted them.

This is about brand new fiber they've installed in Kansas City, fiber to the premises. Yes the whiny telcos have sued to prevent some municipalities from pulling fiber. They failed to prevent Kansas City from allowing Google to pull fiber. I'm not sure they even tried. Kansas City's municipal authorities actively solicited Google for the privilege of getting Google fiber. AT&T probably saw the writing on the wall and knew better than to whine in court about it, knowing that the sentiment of the entire region was radically in favor of the proposal.

If AT&T/Verizon/Charter/Comcast and all the rest had done their fucking JOBS, Google wouldn't be doing this and you wouldn't be sitting there with a plug up your ass to prevent Google from examining your colon.

As for the rest of us, we know that every giant corporation already collects just as much information on us as they can possibly acquire, so Google is no different from any of the rest in that respect. Where they appear to be different is in their willingness to actually cater to us. My ISP collects everything they can get their hands on, and is then moronic enough to send me email about their bullshit Battle of the Bands that I could give a fuck less about. So not only do they massively invade my privacy with their DNS interception, they fail to actually do anything useful with the data they stole from me.

Thanks, but I'd take Google any day, over that shit.

Re:FUCK NO (1, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#40693125)

"Thanks, but I'd take Google any day, over that shit."

WTF -- I've been ranked a lowly Troll for speaking my mind against Google You do know they want to know what's in your fridge, they wat to know what's in your closet and they want to know what you read and what you do.

And if you can sit there and tell me that's preferable -- THEN FUCK YOU.
Frankly -- maybe we need a civil war, where we can discuss this shit OFFLINE.

To me Freedom from unlawful searches and freedom to seek my own knowledge and conduct my business is freedom from an OPPRESSIVE REGIME CONTROLLING IT ALL.

So fuck you -- I am for being anonymous, for being free and NOT for some asswipe "Not Evil Larry's" Corp trying to control me and use me to their ends.

And FUCK YOU for saying that we should just trust some CITIZEN that has NOT MASTER, NO OVERSIGHT, NO ONE TO JAIL for their actions and that we should call them Master.

Google has made it clear for several years that KNOWLEDGE ABOUT US is their product and commodity.
But in USA 2012 I AM A TROLL. Maybe in USA 2020, I can shoot to kill fucktards like you off my lawn.

Oh yes, I am passionate about this.
I love freedom from Hall Monitors and Snoops.

Fuck you slave, I will lovingly kill thralls who try to enslave me to their master.

Re:FUCK NO (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#40693147)

And I'm not saying Comcast or AT&T is any better.
But it least they don't publicly productize it.

To them, the beholder is the Gov't, who are nasty enough.
Google has no Masters and the Gov't protecting them as a Private Citizen.
So they have no one to answer to as an authority to mortally fear.

Re:FUCK NO (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 years ago | (#40693353)

Wasn't me that moderated you, so I dunno what you're yelling at me for. I replied, so I can't moderate (even though I currently have mod points).

Answer me this. Do you have a cell phone? 'cause I don't. Do you have a television? 'cause I don't. Do you read a newspaper? 'cause I don't. Do you listen to the radio? 'cause I don't. Do you have credit card debt? 'cause I don't. Do you have student loans? 'cause I don't. Do you have a car loan? 'cause I don't.

I have very very few corporate masters, both in absolute terms and compared to the average American. And you want to get up my ass about an internet service provider that I can't even choose? I don't live in Kansas City. I don't live anywhere near Kansas City. Google is unlikely to ever offer their service to most people in Kansas City, let alone me, because Google is famous for starting something, then giving up on it when it doesn't sell more advertising.

You're busting a blood vessel for a purely theoretical service you can't even buy, probably will never be able to buy, and you're doing it using a connection you're paying some CURRENT monopolistic corporate overlord for the privilege of using.

You need to chill, dude.

No, thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692343)

So I'm supposed to use Google's network, and in doing so, give them access to snoop and mine 100% of my Internet traffic.

No, thanks.

Last mile (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#40692395)

There is no dark fiber in front of my house. Google might be able to get within a mile or so, but AT&T/Comcast/Verizon aren't going to let them get any closer.

The amount that the last mile providers will charge is unrelated to their cost of providing service. If all Google had to do was to cross the street, their fees would be the same. In fact, the Google Fiber project stands to provide windfall profits to the last mile operators. It will relieve them of the need to maintain their backbone infrastructure. Your monthly bill will be the same, but now it all goes in these operators' pockets.

Re:Last mile (4, Informative)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 years ago | (#40692527)

I gather you don't know anything about the Google Fiber project. They pulled last mile fiber. That was the whole point of the project: that the existing last mile was ancient, unupgraded, substandard crap, raped and abused and ignored by cable companies and telcos for the last half century, in the certain knowledge that when people decided it needed to be better, they could go crying to the government, get a HUGE handout, and pay every last dime of it out to shareholders as dividends, leaving their cable plant in exactly the same miserable state. Wash, rinse, repeat.

How do we know this? Because they've already done it [newnetworks.com] successfully.

So Google did get to the front doors of all the people in Kansas City, and Charter and AT&T couldn't stop them, because the city agreed to it. Charter and AT&T's wires are still there, but they're going to lose 90% of their customers in a day. And they deserve to. Read that link. It will make you truly angry.

Re:Last mile (3, Interesting)

Kargan (250092) | about 2 years ago | (#40692753)

// So Google did get to the front doors of all the people in Kansas City, and Charter and AT&T couldn't stop them, because the city agreed to it. //

As a Kansas City-area resident, I'm afraid this is not the case. I don't know anyone that lives in Kansas City, KS that currently has access to Google Fiber services, or that has seen any trucks or workers in their neighborhood.

Google has been very short on public details with this entire project, and this launch that the article is referring to has to refer to a very limited and localized deployment.

Keep in mind that physical installation did not even begin until this past February: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytjn-5_li-I [youtube.com]

'A Google spokeswoman would not say whether the announcement actually means somebody in Kansas City will finally get a light-speed connection next week.

"We're excited to announce more information Google Fiber next week," said Jenna Wandres. "We haven't elaborated on what arriving means."'
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/18/3711326/google-fiber-to-make-july-26-announcement.html#storylink=misearch [kansascity.com]

I'll be curious to eventually find out who has access to it, exactly, and how long it'll be before any significant portions of the city are lit up.

Fiber? (2, Insightful)

jblb (2639331) | about 2 years ago | (#40692403)

It hurts my eyes to read fibre spelt that way.

Re:Fiber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692495)

Yeah I'm the same, except with the word tire.
When I see written "Tyre" I cry, but I get over it.

Re:Fiber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692681)

bah - Kerb your emotions whiney one

Re:Fiber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693267)

I've switched to fiber, every day. Makes me poop like a bear. Its awesome!

Um why do I have your service? (1)

theexaptation (1948750) | about 2 years ago | (#40692457)

Sites like google and netflix are good reasons why I have a data access in the first place and thereby the ISP my business.
The shameless money grab based on our increasing dependence on network technology by ISPs is despicable.
If we followed their logic we would all be on dial-up forever because it "cost too much" to provide what we were sold.

Reasonable price != market-building price (3, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | about 2 years ago | (#40692483)

We are still in a mode in many areas where ISPs are trying to build market share, especially with DSL. DSL took a big hit when the equal-access provisions were found to be unworkable - technology passed them by and nobody noticed - but you still see offers for $14.99 DSL service.

Look at "business rates" for DSL or cable and you will see what the real costs are. Nobody is interested in competing on price for business customers, so they do not. The result is the prices are 3-4 times the residential rates and in many areas they will not give you a "residential" (i.e., cheap) plan at a business address.

On the residential front, most of the ISPs are trying to compete on price because the service is pretty well known. What is the difference with business service? Certainly nothing that changes the real cost structure, in fact things are added which cost more for the ISP.

Where most of the "network neutrality" flap has come from is the ISPs are offering below-cost service to residential customers in an effort to still build market share. Of course, any residential user that is doing more than web surfing and reading email is costing them more in peering than they are getting from the customer on an Internet-only plan. Should be obvious why they want you on a bundled plan with cable TV and phone service. The business customer is in a market-building mode so they are charged full cost plus.

So why are the ISPs screaming? Because they boxed themselves in with below-cost pricing for residential customers. The same residential customers that are doing much more than just web surfing and reading email. They can't raise prices to their customers - they are building market share. So where are they going to recoup their real costs? You guessed it - the other end of the connection, the one with no options and the one with the deep pockets.

Could Google come in an offer service to residential customers? Maybe, but they are far more likely to offer service on their own terms to ISPs - perhaps with no peering charges at all. Google is paying nothing or almost nothing for the existing fiber - they bought it already. So their costs are already sunk into it. Would an ISP sign on with Google? If the other option is to continue to pay someone else for traffic to Google... maybe it makes sense.

Could Google compete on a residential service level? Sure, I suppose. But they would have the same costs as the ISP does for customer service (script readers in India) and physical plant maintenance (outsourced to independent contractors) and they would have to make a huge investment into local terminations - nodes where the connections to homes would be. It makes much more sense for them to offer independent Google connections bypassing the current peering arrangements to save the ISPs rather than paying the ISPs for the privilege of having eyeballs.

The advantage for Google is with a completely independent pipe to each and every ISP they can do a much better job of geographic data mining. And traffic analysis so they know the Detroit suburbs aren't going to Amazon as much as the folks in Scottsdale. There are probably hundreds of other things they can collect this way with a tap into every ISP. Probably with a router running custom Google code to facilitate this tap. It makes paying for the fiber a rounding error on the balance sheet compared with the value of the information they can collect.

Re:Reasonable price != market-building price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692695)

I don't know your sources for cost of residential services, and the service fees for users in your area. What I do know is that my costs for a commercial hosting account was ~$80 per month for 1000Gb of monthly bandwidth and an overage charge of $0.15 per Gb. So without further numbers from your experience I don't really see how ISPs are providing services at a loss in order to build market share.

Re:Reasonable price != market-building price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693013)

Look at "business rates" for DSL or cable and you will see what the real costs are. Nobody is interested in competing on price for business customers, so they do not. The result is the prices are 3-4 times the residential rates and in many areas they will not give you a "residential" (i.e., cheap) plan at a business address.

Most companies that offer business plans only charge about 2xs the cost, but you get:
1) No data cap
2) Static IP
3) BGP support
4) On-site 24/7 support. I've heard stories of Comcast/Charter rolling a trucks after mid-night because someone's cable internet went down.
5) Personal representative with no-wait tech support
6) Your local traffic is QoS'd above residential traffic and you use a separate long-haul with dedicated bandwidth.

That extra $30-$50 gets you a lot of "features"

So why are the ISPs screaming? Because they boxed themselves in with below-cost pricing for residential customers.

Right... below cost. They're making money hand-over-fist. Internet brings in more net-profit than TV, but less revenue.

Re:Reasonable price != market-building price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693015)

Business lines are usually for guaranteed bandwidth while for residential lines you won't get the bandwidth you paid for if the neighbor is doing a big download so it's not the same product being sold. Even if it were the same product, segmenting the market is a good tactic no matter the actual costs. Even if there WERE no costs ISPs would benefit from charging higher prices to businesses if businesses were more willing and able to pay more. It's the same reason that Amazon once tried charging different prices for the same product depending on your account's buying history with them. Many countries are far ahead of the US in terms of having access to cheap broadband that is faster than what you can get in the US. How is that possible if the US ISPs are already charging less than what the whole thing costs to run? What are your sources for this information, or are just you making it up?

Re:Reasonable price != market-building price (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 2 years ago | (#40693215)

The bigger problem with DSL is that many ISPs either limit the speed so much that its useless or they have given up altogether and ceded the market to the cable companies.

If ISPs who offered ADSL actually offered the latest technology (ADSL2+) and at "maximum speed" (i.e. the best speed you can get based on how far from the ADSL kit you are) AND had DSL in more phone exchanges, it might be a better option.

Re:Reasonable price != market-building price (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#40693381)

Respectfully, I don't know how much of that I am willing to buy. I recall a news story on the excess dark fiber laid in anticipation of continued meteoric growth during the dot com era. Why not light up this dark fiber and use it to make money instead of lay dormant?

Re:Reasonable price != market-building price (2)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40693625)

Could Google come in an offer service to residential customers? Maybe, but they are far more likely to offer service on their own terms to ISPs

The Google Fiber under discussion is residential service, launching next week in Kansas City. It's supposed to ultra high-speed connections to residential consumers at an affordable price.

Some packets are more equal than others (3, Insightful)

dgreer (1206) | about 2 years ago | (#40692649)

May I point out that all packets are NOT treated alike, and haven't been for over a decade. Controlling priority and limiting heavy services are common procedures in all major networks, and users should be darned thankful for it.

The original argument that started all this nonsense was complaints that TWC and Comcast were ratcheting down services like eMule and Torrent. Then somebody speculated that they may start doing it to people like google (followed about a month later by Comcast and Verizon floating just such a plan ... probably suggested to them by somebody reading the original discussion here on /. BTW) and the /.ers went crazy and started demanding that somebody in government regulate those evil ISPs.

My advice now is the same as then: let the market work. If you drag the pols into this, you will get results that you REALLY don't want because they will do what their donors (who are NOT you) want them to do. Unintended consequences will surely follow.

Google buying dark fiber to take TWC, AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon on head-to-head is what my suggestion looks like. If they are successful, other investors will smell the blood in the water and we may find ourselves sitting in 1999-type network growth again (only this time, nobody will be dumb enough to say that profit doesn't matter).

Regulation will be the death of the break-neck innovation that has gotten us where we are. Is it fast enough yet? Of course not, but it isn't going to get faster if every decision has to go through some bureaucrats in DC.

Re:Some packets are more equal than others (4, Insightful)

Altrag (195300) | about 2 years ago | (#40692943)

let the market work

That's only a viable option whenin markets with meaningful competition. Which in most jurisdictions, is just not there in the isp market.
Without competition, the only remaining control options are regulation or crossing your fingers for corporate benevolence (pretty likely, right?)... Or well, just giving up your net+phone+tv... And if you're willing to do that then power to you, but there's not enough people willing/able to make that sacrifice for the isps to care.
Government definitely fishes things up a lot.. but I'd rather a well-meaning half measure than an intentional fuckover..

Re:Some packets are more equal than others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40693119)

Controlling priority and limiting heavy services are common procedures in all major networks, and users should be darned thankful for it.

I for one am not thankful. There is no reason to limit heavy services. What should be happening is to limit users in a reasonable way. If there are N users sharing a bandwidth of W then each user should get W/N bandwidth guaranteed plus whatever extra is left over from other users not currently using their allotment (in reality probably W/N should be weighed by what people are paying, but let's keep it simple). Trying to achieve a similar aim by limiting certain activities is just an incredibly harmful way of doing it. Paying X$ to use bittorrent is no less or more important than paying X$ to use Skype - bandwidth should be just bandwidth. Also, the number W/N should be included in all advertisements.

If you drag the pols into this, you will get results that you REALLY don't want because they will do what their donors (who are NOT you) want them to do. Unintended consequences will surely follow.

The politicians are already dragged into it by, as you call them, the evil ISPs. It's a question of advocating good regulation or ending up with bad laws because the voices of reason were quiet. The unfettered markets wouldn't do a good job running the roads and it isn't doing a good job with internet access for the same reason.

Regulation will be the death of the break-neck innovation that has gotten us where we are. Is it fast enough yet? Of course not, but it isn't going to get faster if every decision has to go through some bureaucrats in DC.

Internet access speed innovation is the purview of other countries than the snail's-speed US so I don't know what you are talking about. No one is suggesting letting all decisions go through bureaucrats in DC so that's a strawman.

Toilet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692835)

I dropped my fiber optic cable into my toilet still waiting for google to hook me up.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692869)

This is the same Google who, along with Verizon, last year proposed that wired connectivity should adhere to net neutrality, but that wireless was fair game... smells like a crock.

I don't know about Network Neutrality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40692965)

...but Google fiber may definitely help reduce Google constipation and lower your Google colesterol.

What would you do for a Google Connection? (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about 2 years ago | (#40692975)

I'm pretty sure I'm ready for that brain implant Google is working on as long as it means I get a dedicated trunk connection to my house(brain).

John Scalzi had a pretty interesting concept in "Old Man's War" and the "The Ghost Brigades" with the "Brain Pal" implant. In the second book special forces clones were literally born (adult sized) and able to talk within minutes with the implant and the net connection handling the heavy lifting, feeding information and concepts to the brain until it could do it on it's own.

Of course most of us would immediately be stabing ourselves in the head with the nearest pointy object once the tsunami of Facebook games requests hit ten minutes after gaining conciousness.

It's about time (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#40693351)

I'm glad to see a company stepping up to begin breaking the telecom oligarchy. If this is a success and Google doesn't add any kind of bandwidth caps, this could force Big Telecom to go back to the unlimited, all you can eat bandwidth for wireline communication. My only concern is that how much is this service going to cost, not only in terms of actual dollars and cents but in terms of privacy. Google has been known for playing a little fast and loose with privacy.

The first step... (1)

y86 (111726) | about 2 years ago | (#40693587)

Really the first step it to just buy a cellphone company and build out the 4g and use that. Google could buy a lame wireless company like Sprint and totally use the spectrum for good. A quick cash infusion for a low end wireless provider could result in a major tower build out that would beat verizon.

Fiber is SOOOO expensive, I don't see how build a terrestrial fiber network could ever have the impact of wireless anchored by fiber (as far as reaching customers.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...