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!

Google Replaces AT&T At Starbucks

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the new-and-improved dept.

Google 100

coolnumbr12 writes "A new partnership between Starbucks and Google hopes to improve the lives of freelance writers around the country. Starting in August, Google plans to make Internet speeds at all 7,000 Starbucks locations in the U.S. 10 times faster than the current AT&T-powered service. For people in a city equipped with Google Fiber, Google says the speed in Starbucks could increase as much as 100 times."

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

This was definitely needed! (5, Interesting)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year ago | (#44442971)

It's about freaking time!

Whenever I go to Starbucks I often find myself turning OFF my Wi-Fi because my (also AT&T, strangely) LTE cellular connection is several times faster than the Wi-Fi there. Sometimes I even have trouble sending something as low-bandwidth as a freaking tweet!

I think Starbucks uses slow consumer-grade DSL connections, because that's what it feels like. Upstream capacity is severely limited, and downstream is only slightly less so. I remember attempting a Facetime call and getting less than one frame per second in both directions and constant reconnecting...turned off Wi-Fi and it was smooth as silk.

Meanwhile, my experience in Starbucks in Canada (where they don't use AT&T) is far superior.

Re:This was definitely needed! (3, Informative)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#44443081)

Same here except substitute Verizon for AT&T and hotels for Starbucks. One time, I was staying in a motel in the middle of a large city and their internet service felt as slow as satellite. Huge latency, mediocre speeds. When I went out to the car, I saw a friggin' DirecWay dish at the end of the building. I could only assume that they had some ridiculous contract that required they put satellite internet at all of their locations. Another hotel limited their free internet to 1mb down. If you wanted 10mb, you had to pay something like $10/day. Ridonkulous.

Now I just fire up the hotspot on my phone and get service almost as fast as my cablemodem at home and nobody else can [easily] access the data on my WPA2 connection. If I was really paranoid, I'd use wired tethering. Even if I'm really out in the sticks, I still get 3G and that's plenty good for surfing.

I was on vacation in Thailand (1)

voss (52565) | about a year ago | (#44445167)

My guesthouse in bangkok had 16 mbps connection, free for guests. My internet connections in my hotels in Thailand and Cambodia were faster and cheaper than in the US (none of my hotels charged for internet [even the 4* had free internet]). The idea that hotels should be able nickel and dime us for internet is nuts.

Re:I was on vacation in Thailand (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44447149)

Wifi in my Beijing hotel is fast, free, and slightly filtered. Company VPN takes care of #3.

Re:I was on vacation in Thailand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44449047)

The idea that hotels should be able nickel and dime us for internet is nuts.

But, that's the American way.

All things are for profit, and whenever possible, ridiculous profit.

What are you, a communist or something?

Re:This was definitely needed! (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#44445519)

Hotel wireless is universally crappy in my opinion. You either have to pay some ridiculous fee for it ($10 per day), or its so slow and spotty that I'll have trouble Googling restaurants just to find directions.

Lately I too have taken to simply tethering my phone to the laptop whenever I'm in a hotel room. The connection is more stable, fast, and never costs extra. I do the wired tether not for security reasons but I like the fact that by connecting it I'm both using my phone and charging it at the same time.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44447797)

Hotel wireless is universally crappy in my opinion. You either have to pay some ridiculous fee for it ($10 per day), or its so slow and spotty that I'll have trouble Googling restaurants just to find directions.

My experience has been different - the $10/day Hilton has a content filter, traffic shaping and captive portals with DHCP servers that are sometimes down and unreachable. The manager at the La Quinta ordered a DSL connection, plugged in the box that came in the mail and never did anything else, so it works. I sometimes think that the big hotels wish they could get you to agree to an EULA to plug in your shaver to charge. That crap needs to die.

Lately I too have taken to simply tethering my phone to the laptop whenever I'm in a hotel room. The connection is more stable, fast, and never costs extra.

Me too, though I often pay for data.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year ago | (#44456901)

> I sometimes think that the big hotels wish they could get you to agree to an EULA to plug in your shaver to charge.

It is so refreshing when I join a Wi-Fi network somewhere and I'm immediately online, without any stupid web pages to click "agree" on.

Every time I find one of these networks in the wild it's like striking gold. Also they are almost invariably fast, since they're not laden with stupid filters and throttling.

Re:This was definitely needed! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443529)

Of course it's slow. High speed internet is expensive. Starbucks are locally owned and can't just splurge on faster internet for the freeloaders. The question is how is Google actually going to get higher speeds. They can't just wave a magic wand and suddenly the wires improve. They're going to be eating a lot of cash to upgrade stuff.

But sheesh, it's coffee. Buy your drink then LEAVE.

Re:This was definitely needed! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443555)

Starbucks isnt coffee. I have no idea what it is, but it's not fit for human or animal consumption.

Re:This was definitely needed! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443973)

Starbucks coffee is pretty good. It's not the absolute highest end fine european coffee, but it's far better than the swill most americans drinks. Starbucks actually tastes like coffee, not just milk. I can drink starbucks black, it isn't bitter at all, because they extract it correctly. For most people, Starbucks is the best coffee around. Snobby fancy local coffee shops serving on fair-trade, organic, single origin, specialty coffee, are far and few between.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44444641)

Starbucks coffee is pretty good.

It tastes no better than that bile from Dunkin Donuts that comes in 5 litre boxes. Ugh.

I can drink starbucks black, it isn't bitter at all, because they extract it correctly.

Every bean is scorched so that it tastes the same worldwide. That's certainly not 'extracting' it correctly, it's called 'burning the beans' and it's what makes it bitter.

Re: This was definitely needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44448215)

Except in France. They refuse to drink the charbucks swill that is accepted everywhere else.so
Had to alter offerings or be shut out of the local market.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a year ago | (#44452285)

But he said it's not bitter.

Re:This was definitely needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44444649)

People actually buy actual *coffee* at Starbucks and the like? I thought they just bought coffee-flavoured whipped cream drinks with sprinklings and a 99 [wikipedia.org] sticking out of the top.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year ago | (#44446425)

Good? If you consider the cheapest grade of Columbian bean that's then over roasted to be good. I've paid the same and gotten a better grade of bean, grind and roast from a custom shop then I've ever had from Starbucks. Simply put, Starbucks coffee is not fit to drink plus it's over priced. Not bad from a business standpoint but sure as hell useless from the consumer standpoint and yes, it doesn't take that much effort to locate a place with much better grades for the same price per pound that Starbucks charges. Even Gevallia is better and it's no more expensive.

All coffee is bitter (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#44446733)

I can drink starbucks black, it isn't bitter at all, because they extract it correctly.

I periodically see people claim that this or that coffee "isn't bitter" and they are invariably wrong. ALL coffee is bitter and starbucks is no exception. It is merely a question of degree. I have a very low tolerance for bitter tastes (prob genetic) and I have NEVER tasted any coffee that wasn't bitter. Only way you could claim it isn't bitter is if you aren't sensitive to bitter flavors. I love the smell of coffee but the bitterness makes coffee unpalatable to me without a lot of sugar.

For most people, Starbucks is the best coffee around.

I don't regard starbucks coffee as any better than McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts and those aren't exactly hard to find.

Re:All coffee is bitter (1)

Monoman (8745) | about a year ago | (#44447989)

IMHO Starbucks coffee tastes burnt and most of my friends agree. I call it Charbucks.

Re: This was definitely needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443673)

> Starbucks are locally owned

Uh, where is this true? The only "licensed," non-corporate Starbucks locations I've seen are all owned and operated by other huge corporations (Target, Safeway, etc.) The only exceptions I can think of are airport locations, which are usually owned and operated by one of the bigger concessioneers at that airport, in which case again, fuck them.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44443975)

But sheesh, it's coffee. Buy your drink then LEAVE.

They want you to stay so they can sell you more stuff. And while I don't do it very often, it is a really handy spot if (for example) you want to hang around someplace for 60-90 minutes rather than drive 30 minutes home and then turn around and drive 30 minutes back because your daughter has an appointment and hasn't seen fit to get her drivers license yet... theoretically...

Re:This was definitely needed! (4, Insightful)

Zenin (266666) | about a year ago | (#44444709)

Starbucks are locally owned and [...]

No, they aren't. With few exceptions they are all 100% company owned (at least in the 'States).

Starbucks is not a franchise, which is why they've been able to push out so many local coffee shops. With the weight of the entire corporation able to be brought to bear at any single location, they've been able to run locations at a loss for years right next to mom & pop shops. The "genius" here is that they don't need to do better then the mom & pop to win...they simply need to reduce the income of the mom & pop shop enough to make them unprofitable...and then wait them out until they leave. Then with the location clear of competition they get all the business.

NOT being locally owned is the key to Starbuck's domination.

Re:This was definitely needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44446983)

Just a correction, Starbucks are NOT locally owned. They are not a franchise and are a corporate store. This is part of the reason for ubiquity of stores as competition too close doesn't put their franchise owners up in arms.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

Sabah Arif (830070) | about a year ago | (#44448059)

Starbucks is also selling a pleasantly decorated space where its coffee can be enjoyed while surfing the internet. Otherwise, they wouldn't have tables, just a bar in the Italian-style.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year ago | (#44443805)

I think Starbucks uses slow consumer-grade DSL connections

No, they were probably using business class. I found out that AT&T Business class DSL has only about 1.3Mbps downstream, which is less than worthless and no higher speeds. This is because they want business class customers to go to Leased Lines, which is an absolute Joke.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

Zibodiz (2160038) | about a year ago | (#44445799)

Bingo. I've serviced them plenty of times... it's just ordinary DSL, with a router that gives priority to the store PC (if they choose to use it, many don't), and the best speed test I've ever seen is less than 2Mbps when I was using the 'store manager' Ethernet jack. Pretty pathetic when you split it between 15 customers. Heck, that's pathetic just going to one person.

Re: This was definitely needed! (1)

lymond01 (314120) | about a year ago | (#44446745)

The year was 1996. The place, New York City, center of the known universe. I spent my time solving Quickmail issues at a growing ad agency. 80 users on three floors, all fed through a single 56K modem. It would dial up as needed if no one held the connection open, so sometimes there was a 40 second pause, and if you sat close enough to the server room, you'd hear the tell tale beeps and whirrs of the modem dialing.

Soon after we upgraded to ISDN, doubling our speeds. Then to a quarter T1. Finally we had Bank of America as a client and they bought us a T1 for the Internet, and a secure T1 from NYC to SF for business with them.

It was the pinnacle of Internet access for me and my time at the agency. We had 150 users by then, an interactive department focusing on web design. Of course, with our connection maxing out at around 1 megabit per second, they were still concerned with keeping animated gifs under 6K.

And we liked it. We loved it.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

MSG (12810) | about a year ago | (#44443949)

I've experienced the same from time to time, and typically what I find is that someone in the cafe (or more than one person) is/are streaming hi def video and ruining the entire network for everyone.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44445829)

..if they are streaming and not watching a local video.

multiples can't ruin it for everyone since they wouldn't be able to stream it themselves even..

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

adolf (21054) | about a year ago | (#44444391)

Neighbors, perhaps?

My local coffee shop (not a Starbucks, thankfully) has had free Internet since before WiFi became a thing that was useful -- there are still Ethernet jacks next to the tables.

Once WiFi went from useful to commonplace, the speeds slowed to a crawl.

What changed? The neighbors' ability to easily steal bandwidth.

But lately it's been fast enough: For the past year or so, they've used WPA with a passphrase that changes daily. It's posted on the chalk board with along with the drink specials, so it's not exactly a well-kept secret, but it does seem to keep the freeloaders at bay.

(Although I must say: One of these days I should approach the owner with a WRT54GL loaded with Tomato, and see if he'll let me install it. Net neutrality be damned: Good and forceful QoS at that level is a godsend on a heavily-burdened DSL pipe, and can allow everyone to do what everyone wants to do while still being responsive and fast.)

*And as an unreferenced footnote: I've seen LTE speed tests on my phone be in the 25/25Mbps range. Which sure is cute, but it is not exactly affordable for any length of time, and latency still sucks: If I want to watch a video or play a game, I want to use free WiFi if I can.

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about a year ago | (#44446849)

I think Starbucks uses slow consumer-grade DSL connections, because that's what it feels like. Upstream capacity is severely limited, and downstream is only slightly less so. I remember attempting a Facetime call and getting less than one frame per second in both directions and constant reconnecting...turned off Wi-Fi and it was smooth as silk.

You, sir, are correct (source: I used to work for Wayport/AT&T).

Re:This was definitely needed! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#44448451)

We are here at Starbucks, where we've secretly replaced the fine wifi they usually serve with Google. Let's see if anyone can tell the difference!"

That'll be great until... (5, Insightful)

David Betz (2845597) | about a year ago | (#44442985)

...Google decides to cancel the service all the sudden.

Re:That'll be great until... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443085)

Says the man logging in through Google.

Re:That'll be great until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445469)

Says the man logging in through Google.

Until his life gets cancelled by Google

Re:That'll be great until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44446567)

Notice how he couldn't post a reply comment? I think google just proved his point ;-)

Re:That'll be great until... (1)

phrostie (121428) | about a year ago | (#44445083)

this is really an evil ploy to make ATT look good.

give it time.
you'll miss our old imperial overlords.

Uh oh.. (4, Insightful)

fred911 (83970) | about a year ago | (#44443047)

Please sign in with your Google+ account and accept our TOS!

Re:Uh oh.. (2)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#44443123)

You spent real money for your latte. Now cough up your real name for YouTube!

Re:Uh oh.. (3, Funny)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44444039)

My name was already written down and shouted through the room by that guy behind that effing huge coffeemaker...

Re:Uh oh.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44444727)

You use your real name? I know people who give superhero/superheroine names because the Starbucks staff can't get the names right.

Re:Uh oh.. (2)

rthille (8526) | about a year ago | (#44446957)

Yep, Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg, your coffee is ready.

Re:Uh oh.. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44449353)

What kind of paranoid person would give their real name to people at the counter?

For the record, my name isn't actually George P. Burdell.

Re:Uh oh.. (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#44449699)

Yeah, but nobody said that had to be your real name, so long as you get your order.

Re:Uh oh.. (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | about a year ago | (#44443593)

Please sign in with your Google+ account and accept our TOS!

Which to be fair, is probably several times less abusive than the AT&T TOS that Starbucks accepted on your behalf.

Re:Uh oh.. (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#44445209)

Read them and weep. Google owns your information. Best reason to find a VDI or proxy provider, ever.

The fools that believe in Google's majesty will live to regret it, IMHO. Not that AT&T is anything nore than Southwestern Bell with lipstick and a stuffed jock.

Re:Uh oh.. (1)

chauc3r (3004719) | about a year ago | (#44448541)

That is hardly true. This isnt coming up to much in conversations but Google is a HUGE advocate of taking your data and making money off of it. They are going to do the same thing at Starbucks. You will have no right to privacy connecting to a Google provided network.

Re:Uh oh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44444199)

Everything has a ToS not really sure what your point is unless it refers to that stupid wired article that overreacted with, "Google won't let you host a server will thousands of users going to it. OMG they're trying to ban minecraft, bit torrent and SSH!!".

Re:Uh oh.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44446831)

Don't forget to read our special PRISM TOS as well. By denying it you still agree to PRISM's TOS and the denial will be logged and flagged for suspicion.

Yep, I knew it (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#44446959)

Anything on slashdot about Google, draws ms shills like flies to shit.

Okay, all together now: " GOOGLE IS EVIL!!!! EVIL!!! EVIL!!"

Correction: (2)

bengoerz (581218) | about a year ago | (#44443069)

Google demonstrates ability to rapidly expand their carrier services nationwide through partnering with established carriers. Passersby injured from falling bricks shat from oligolpolistic ISPs atop their high horses.

More bandwidth for them (1)

cashman73 (855518) | about a year ago | (#44443087)

It more than likely will not mean faster Internet speeds for customers, but they will have mow bandwidth so more customers can get online. Most free wi-fi hotspots cap bandwidth at 1 MBPS. That gives enough for basic web surfing and email, and maybe the occasional short YouTube clip. But it's not enough for heavy use, like watching Netflix or BitTorrent. Places like Starbucks probably want to keep it that way, too -- more customer turnover = more money. More happy customers that can access wi-fi easier = mow returning customers.

Re:More bandwidth for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443135)

You mean except for where TFA actually says:
"Google plans to make Internet speeds at all 7,000 Starbucks locations in the U.S. 10 times faster than the current AT&T-powered service."
?

Re:More bandwidth for them (2, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#44443279)

It is possible that Google will use this opportunity to collect data, track the users across networks, This will probably be very valuable. Hooking up directly to Google hardware will likely allow them to snoop and collect data not accessible through generic hardware. Last time I was in a Starbucks I had to click through an advertisement, so clearly Starbucks and ATT are not seeing a lot of inhernet value in the current arrangement.

This value may translate into allowances for higher speeds. They could also offer a free slow speed, upgrade speed if you log into you Google accounts, offer day passes, or simply limit the downloaded content. It does seem unimaginable that Starbucks would find value creating a high speed location to look at pr0n.

I don't find anything wrong with the current ATT situation. It has changed over time, gotten better and worse, but right now it is good. It is probably a expense that Starbucks wants to get rid of. I find fewer coffee houses that gives free and open internet. I find department stores has better broadband, you know surf on the ipad while the others shop.

Wait... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443115)

If the ISP isn't google fiber, who is google contracting to provide the service?

Re:Wait... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44447321)

AT&T :)

Soon they'll make hamburgers too (1)

joesteeve (2002048) | about a year ago | (#44443127)

From "search" to "mobile" to "telecom" .. Way to go?

Re:Soon they'll make hamburgers too (5, Funny)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44443815)

Would you like spies with that?

leeches (3)

p51d007 (656414) | about a year ago | (#44443159)

Well, at least all the starbuck leeches will have another reason to sit in starbucks all day long. Free wi-fi. Never been in one, but friends say that they sometimes see the same people with their laptops & phones just sitting there all day long leeching off their wifi. Typical...to cheap to pay for it themselves, so they just leech off someone else.

Re:leeches (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44444149)

I am a Starbucks customer. Yes, I leech too.

I have to face it. I am single. I cannot economically justify the expense of a personal high-speed internet connection, and the way web pages are coded these days, using a low speed connection is next to useless for anything but google searches.

I do buy their coffee while I am in there, and consider the markup on the cup of coffee about right for providing me access to the net. Yes, there are some leeches, but most I see are people who really need this... college students just looking for a place to socialize and study, and I note some homeless people using it. I just feel fortunate I have the means to buy the coffee. I feel Starbucks is doing a better job of supporting my area than most when it comes to what they do with the dollar that goes across their counter.

The library and local college have wifi access too. So does McDonalds, but McDonalds is not quite the kind of place to sit back and contemplate things like Starbucks is.

Re:leeches (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about a year ago | (#44444963)

I live too far out for high speed, & until I got a personal hotspot, I would use McDonalds & Starbucks a lot. What I noticed was that I got more personal space at McDonalds. Most of their money seems to be made at the drive-through, and so long as I'm occupying a table, that's one they don't have to wipe when they pass through the place on their rounds. They seem relieved that I don't want to talk to them. Something about Starbucks always makes me feel like I'm being rude by ignoring everyone and focusing on my browsing.

Re:leeches (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year ago | (#44445211)

It's hard for me to call people spending 5 dollars on a cup of coffee, leaches.

Re:leeches (1)

NF6X (725054) | about a year ago | (#44445871)

I'm one of those leeches. I leech WiFi at Starbucks because my best network connectivity option at home is tethering through my cell phone. I'm too far from the telco switch to get even basic DSL, and cable TV is not available in my rural area. That's just the price I pay for wanting to live on a large property instead of in a suburban tract home.

mer me me oh please god me (2)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year ago | (#44443169)

please please come to my starbucks. Oh god please let them come to my starbucks.

Re:mer me me oh please god me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443299)

Nah, you wouldn't want that... causes too much CO2 emission anyway.

Go sit in the dark wearing your hair shirt and pretend that AGW is something besides a fantasy. That's what you really want, isn't it, you misanthrope...

Re:mer me me oh please god me (3, Informative)

MSG (12810) | about a year ago | (#44443957)

You don't even have to read the article. The summary says that Google will replace AT&T at all US locations.

Re:mer me me oh please god me (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44449395)

mer me me oh please god me [] please please come to my starbucks. Oh god please let them come to my starbucks.

Duuuuuude... Decaf. Now.

McDonald's too? (4, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | about a year ago | (#44443259)

I wonder if this also includes McDonald's, which has the same WiFi contract with AT&T?

Re:McDonald's too? (2)

adolf (21054) | about a year ago | (#44444435)

"Same contract" as in "one stack of paper with both Starbucks and McDonald's listed at the top of it"?

Possible, but extremely doubtful.

Much, much more likely: A minimum of one contract per entity. Srsly. Get out of your bubble once in a while.

Re:McDonald's too? (1)

Evro (18923) | about a year ago | (#44448391)

Are McDonalds and Starbucks affiliated somehow? Why would something at Starbucks affect McDonalds?

I'm rather shocked... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443285)

at the unbridled "love" people have for a company that has proven over and over again to have zero respect for privacy, net-neutrality, etc. Slashdot seem to give Google the pass no matter how much they do. Google is so pervasive they have become big brother. Enough with the love of Google and their silly fibre networks, their real name policy, their disdain for ad-blocking and privacy. I'm looking forward to the day when Google become an also ran company. Of course, someone equally evil will be replacing them.

On a side note and somewhat related:
What is it with the sudden (last few years) desire to make everything known about ourselves online for anyone and everyone to see? No one has an interesting enough life for me to care. This drive to monetise everything is rather banal and evil. Blocking all these ads, beacons, trackers, etc. is the duty of all that care about their privacy -- or what's left of it. What with Google getting into TV now and everything else, they have become what George Orwell feared. Google are not your friend. Flame me all you wish, but you know what I wrote is spot on -- even if you think you're getting a good deal or a great service -- you are the product.

Re:I'm rather shocked... (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44443319)

A company, some of whose practices we don't like, has other practices and services many people do like.

Re:I'm rather shocked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443327)

their real name policy

If invalids and dead people can vote, surely they can get a Google account too. Make friends with nursing home staff and/or have a talk with granny if it really bothers you. Granny might even get a kick out if it, and she's probably not using the 'net anyway. Let Google east our (ashes to ashes) dust.

Re:I'm rather shocked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443395)

Now all they have to do is get involved in viral weaponry research, and then they can rename themselves to Umbrella.

GOOGLE IS EVIL!!!!! EVIL!!!! EVIL!!!! EVIL!!!!! (0)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#44447007)

All the MS shills on slashdot know this.

FYI: MS is, by far, a worse privacy violator than Google.

As to "net neutrality" I doubt you even know what you are posting about.

Any excuse to piss and moan about Google, I guess. Really consider the article in question, what is google doing that sooooo very horrible?

So it'll be even less likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443307)

that you'll be able to find a table, and more likely that someone wearing Google Glass will upload video of you standing in line and maybe saying something that can be criticized by netizens worldwide.

Re:So it'll be even less likely (2)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44444063)

Well... nowadays, everyone's a critic.

But never forget:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;

Sounds like already Shakespeare saw the comming of Google Glass....

Current Starbucks wifi is a dog (1)

redmid17 (1217076) | about a year ago | (#44443367)

Even when I go to a 24 hr location that isn't packed, I get ridiculous ping times (why yes I have checked. This is ./). That wouldn't bother me but sometimes I like to work outside of the house and drop some cash at the nearest Starbucks, and I need a usable internet connection to do my work.
Also fuck AT&T.

Possibly a bit tinfoil hattish, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443403)

So, Google opposes net neutrality [slashdot.org] and in addition to being the sole broadband provider for certain areas, is now becoming the sole provider in Starbucks as well. Is it unreasonable to suspect that their next move in 2-3 years will be to start lowering "quality of service" to web properties that compete with theirs?

So, you can search on Duck-Duck-Go, but it takes twice as long as Google, because your packets are given lower priority. And you can watch videos on Netflix, at half the bandwidth of YouTube. After all, the service is free, so why should they subsidize their competitors?

No Just deliberately misleading (4, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#44443469)

So, you can search on Duck-Duck-Go, but it takes twice as long as Google

Only because Duck Duck Go is slower. The Net Neutrality part (as described in the article) means you can't run your business servers inside Starbucks. Nothing to do with prioritising one web-site over another.

Re:No Just deliberately misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44447213)

Net Neutrality part (as described in the article) means you can't run your business servers inside Starbucks. Nothing to do with prioritising one web-site over another.

Yet.

att rockets to the bottom of the barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443677)

meanwhile ggle cherry picks its markets based on where people will spend a fortune on a latte

who knew att couldn't put one and one together

i smell a monopoly accusation in the offing

he took my ball and all the high dollar customers too, it ain't fair judge

Oh well I guess that's it then (1)

Taantric (2587965) | about a year ago | (#44443799)

And this brings to a end my ever using the free internet at Starbucks. It was fun while it lasted but Privacy & Not being tracked the packet level > a few bucks saved. Go Fuck Yourself Mr Do No Evil. Citizen 165258 does not agree with your corporate plan. Google can pry my privacy from my cold dead hands.

I would like to thank The Academy, my family and fans. Thank you and Good Night.

Re:Oh well I guess that's it then (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443825)

Awww, wook at this cutsie-wootsie who thought AT&T wouldn't think to twack him "at the packet level" at Stawbucks! Who's my pwecious naive sillyhead? You are, yes you are!

Re:Oh well I guess that's it then (1)

macbass (868593) | about a year ago | (#44444995)

At least AT&T was honest about it, whereas "Do No Evil" Google is only slightly more transparent than the NSA. I agree with Taantric that Starbucks is off my list of places to go for WiFi.

Re:Oh well I guess that's it then (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#44447087)

Consider the article in question. Specifically what is google doing that is sooooo very "evil?"

BTW: MS is far worse privacy violator than Google.

Re:Oh well I guess that's it then (2)

Chrontius (654879) | about a year ago | (#44443999)

Actually, aren't you "Citizen 2587965"?

asdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44443971)

to undo mod

Google not providing the network most places... (4, Informative)

Rhyas (100444) | about a year ago | (#44443981)

It will be Level 3 equipment/network [denverpost.com] instead of AT&T for this deal.

100 times? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year ago | (#44444235)

I'd like to have a word with their upgrade team. Seems very inefficient to make that many call-outs just to upgrade one location.

Now if they could only improve the coffee! (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year ago | (#44444931)

Seriously. Starbucks is about the best example of the 'Emperor's Clothes' syndrome in the fast food market. Their burnt, overroasted coffee is atrocious!

Re:Now if they could only improve the coffee! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44445839)

Coffee boderline sucks and prices as-if they are serving gold... no make that ink-jet refills. The most excellent coffee at best price is fresh ground at home from whole bean. I know some place even add salt to cut bitterness, no thanks! Starbuck puke coffee as most other fast food joints isn't even drinkable. Wake up people!

Re:Now if they could only improve the coffee! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44448513)

Buy your own roaster and burn your own beans, you can't get good cup any other way. If you don't want to go that route then go to Starbucks and work with the people and tell them to stock AT second crack for full city. As for the WiFi/Internet dumping anything AT&T is an improvement. Even a string and cup router would be faster.

Does this mean Linux will connect at Starbucks? (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about a year ago | (#44444997)

Or, will I still have to find "Wayport Access" at McDonalds? If I remember correctly, the Google sponsored WiFi at SeaTac airport is Linux friendly.

Free Apps/Music change also? (1)

Jedi Holocron (225191) | about a year ago | (#44445081)

So, with this change, will Starbucks now be offering free apps/music through Google Play for Android devices or only continue to offer through iTunes/iOS?

Make large larger. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44445313)

Can they replace Starbuck's at Starbuck's while they're at it?

There must be something in the water... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44445531)

to improve the lives of freelance writers around the country. Starting in August, Google plans to make Internet speeds at all 7,000

If your writing requires more baud than a dial-up BBS to upload, you're doing it wrong... That or your caffeine has been replaced by amphetamines.

Re:There must be something in the water... (1)

NF6X (725054) | about a year ago | (#44445927)

That or your caffeine has been replaced by amphetamines.

Well, we are talking about Starbucks coffee after all...

Google must be drooling... (1)

cjjjer (530715) | about a year ago | (#44446031)

A data bonanza, all that traffic going through their pipe, using their DNS it will be glorious....

open a Starbucks in my house!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44448033)

Dear Starbucks:

Please open a store in my kitchen. I too use AT&T (UVerse) for internet and would like the shitty connection replaced by Google with 10x capability.

Thank you

goodbye privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453301)

great, now the bigG can gather even more data about me :-)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?