×

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 to Create a Private Internet Alternative?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the they-will-also-create-a-starcrusher dept.

Google 347

dbucowboy writes "Times Online UK reports that Google is working on a project to create its own global internet protocol network, a private alternative to the internet controlled by the search giant, according to sources who are in commercial negotiation with the company. Should Google successfully launch an alternative internet, it is theoretically possible for them to block out competitor websites and only allow users to access websites that have paid Google to be shown to their users." We discussed this topic during summer last year.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

347 comments

Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (0, Redundant)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636403)

I almost can't wait for Google's facade of goodness to slip. They're just like any other large company who are more concerned about their stock price and making money - than about taking care of their end-users. For example, they still don't have an email service that isn't plastered with advertising (even for a small fee) - which ought to be a clue that they're an advertising company first, functionality is secondary. If Google went dark tomorrow the extent would be to click Firefox over to using Teoma or Yahoo as the default search engine. I'd barely notice. As reluctant I am to admit it, Yahoo is still the single most important suite of web services to me, and I'd be lost without it (if I was stranded on a desert island and could only pick one website to bring with me, Yahoo would be it). (And now that I think about it, I wonder how many of these "Google is doing X" posts are purely to try and keep their stock price artificially inflated.)

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (3, Interesting)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636470)

I almost can't wait for Google's facade of goodness to slip.

Already done, in my opinion, the moment I first saw a Google Flash ad for McDonalds.

I use adblocking plugins and specifically left Google ads unblocked due to their nature. No longer. Ugh.

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (5, Insightful)

TellarHK (159748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636631)

Flash and image ads in themselves are not evil things. Let me restate that.

Flash and image ads - in themselves - are not evil.

What's evil are the ones that are large sizes, that encroach on the rest of the page, and that are designed to try and subvert your control over either the design of your website or the functionality of your browser. Google has some very interesting guidelines [google.com.au] in place to prevent the obnoxious features of flash or image ads from being used through their system.

Images must be under 50K - and this includes Flash ads.

Nothing can extend outside the proscribed space given to the ad.

Text and images need to be clear and distinct.

The user bar offering links back to the site will be provided by Google (probably so they can keep accurate track of the clicks)

Still no links to pop-up spawning pages allowed.

And one of my favorite lines in the list:

"Your ad should not contain universal call-to-action phrases such as 'click here,' 'link here,' 'visit this link,' 'this site is,' or other similar phrases that could apply to any ad, regardless of content."

It seems to me like Google is actually trying to take the evil -out- of flash and image-based ads.

It's just them protecting themselves from Telcos (4, Insightful)

gmezero (4448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636734)

From what I know of Google, this is more likely an effort to insulate themselves from the nut bags at Qwest, SBC, etc... who are throwing around the idea of charging a premium price for high-speed packet priority over the Internet. I wouldn't worry about it. Go Google!

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636474)

I almost can't wait for Google's facade of goodness to slip. .


It hasn't already. With their political sillyness last month, I can alread see the announcement of this big new network.

"Google builds a big new network, where only China's censorship laws are obeyed and the US Government is locked out."

My bet is that the US Government slaps them down for kissing up to china the same week they told the US government to kiss off.

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636521)

I for one welcome our new alternet overlords.

Seriously though, I beleive google has a great sense of humour. It's really funny how rumors like this come out and you have your microsofties trembling, your googlies cheering, your cynics howling "evil!", and your stockholders buying! Google is better than SNL!

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636572)

If you think gmail is plastered with advertising i would seriously hate to see any plastering that you have done

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (2, Funny)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636585)

if I was stranded on a desert island and could only pick one website to bring with me, Yahoo would be it

Seems like Yahoo has found a new way to advertize ;)

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636606)

if I was stranded on a desert island and could only pick one website to bring with me, Yahoo would be it

I for one thought of Jessica Alba and a Swiss Army pocket knife. Not necessarily in that order.

Although I will admit that checking my Yahoo! calendar for TPS report deadlines would be mildly amusing.

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (5, Insightful)

JasonKChapman (842766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636649)

- than about taking care of their end-users.

Actually, they are taking care of their end users: The advertisers.

To quote from Blade Runner: "I'm not in the business, Mr. Deckard. I am the business." We who use Google products aren't the end users. We're the product that Google sells to the advertisers. It's the same with any other advertiser or advertising-supported medium.

I don't understand why that's so hard for people to figure out.

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636689)

We who use Google products aren't the end users. We're the product that Google sells to the advertisers. It's the same with any other advertiser or advertising-supported medium.
Very profound :) Deserves up-modding in my opinion.

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (5, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636681)

I almost can't wait for Google's facade of goodness to slip. They're just like any other large company who are more concerned about their stock price and making money - than about taking care of their end-users. For example, they still don't have an email service that isn't plastered with advertising (even for a small fee) - which ought to be a clue that they're an advertising company first, functionality is secondary. If Google went dark tomorrow the extent would be to click Firefox over to using Teoma or Yahoo as the default search engine. I'd barely notice. As reluctant I am to admit it, Yahoo is still the single most important suite of web services to me, and I'd be lost without it (if I was stranded on a desert island and could only pick one website to bring with me, Yahoo would be it). (And now that I think about it, I wonder how many of these "Google is doing X" posts are purely to try and keep their stock price artificially inflated.)

Where did you get this information, or did you make it up?

I have heard nothing from Google employees about them caring about their stock price, and I posted this yesterday [slashdot.org] :

"The funny thing is that Google's owners and employees are probably the least concerned with their profits. Sergey that is one of the original two founders of the company works for a $1/year, drives a lavish Toyota Prius, lives in a small apartment, usually wears blue jeans, and is _personally_ worth $7 to $11 billion dollars."

Oh, and you want to compare Google's ads to any other company on the net? Take a look at the plain text ads, then go to any other website, including Yahoo!, and get dizzy from the animated gifs and/or flash ads. Oh, and while your at it, check out Google's philosophy:

http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html [google.com]

I have not heard, nor seen any deviation from those 10 things, and I've never seen annoying ads on any of Google's services. Aside from the daily free ads that Slashdot gives Google, I've never heard some goofball yodeling "Google!" on TV, but have that for Yahoo!

Nice troll.

kneejerk reactionaryism at it's whackiest (2, Insightful)

JourneyExpertApe (906162) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636720)

Gmail isn't "plastered with ads"; I don't even notice them because they're just text. Compare that to the free Yahoo! Mail with picture adds that take up half the page. Gmail was one of the first webmail programs to make full use of AJAX, and it has a bunch of great features. So you're saying you main complaint is that they're not charging you money yet? Yeah, that makes sense.

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (1)

Junky191 (549088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636742)

I love how this boils down to the exact same thing as previous stories about companies creating a tiered internet, but those companies were derided as evil. When Google does it, we use words like "alternative" and "private", because they are a magical pixie dust company that rains sugar and lollipops across the whole world. I'm seriously starting to wonder if Slashdot editors hold stock in Google or something, this is just absurd.

Re:Google Fanboyism at it's whackiest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636804)

I can't believe I've lived to see someone attack Google for their commercialism and then see them talk about how important Yahoo is to their pathetic existence.

Newsflash: Yahoo is already the Evil Empire. They have their fingers in a lot of stuff around the world.

left out (2, Insightful)

ThisIsForReal (897233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636405)

Oh great, here's another way us geeks can be left out of the social circle, and in our own backyard.

Re:left out (2, Interesting)

kpwoodr (306527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636527)

Isn't this how AOL started. You had access to the "internet" but most of what you saw was their own content. "Use AOL Keyword..." It seems to me that Google is rapidly switching gears from "Don't be evil" to practices more similar to one of the most evil [dansherman.com] companies on the planet.

Other reports (4, Funny)

OYAHHH (322809) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636413)

Credible,

Sources report Google is starting it's own religion that will effectively replace all of the other religions in the world. Thus saving the world from itself.

And while they are at it reports are that each new coco-crisp cereal grain will contain a Google branded RFID device which will bring immediate live streaming video to the small intestines of those who eat it.

Brought to you by Google Rumor Central

Re:Other reports (4, Funny)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636494)

Google is also reported to be setting up several small sovereign nations, strategically placed near backbones around the world. Google will provide its own infrastructure, including custom and open-source electricity distribution, custom wall sockets, and custom rules of the road for drivers.

Re:Other reports (2, Funny)

ENOENT (25325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636625)

Will Google be using the RFC 3251 standard for electricity distribution?

Re:Other reports (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636517)

But you forgot the most important: Google Universe, the replacement world for all who are fed up with this one. Free due to targeted advertising, of course.

Here are some features of this new universe:
  • Built-in searching. Never lose your key again!
  • Telepathic internet access. Just think of a page, and you'll see it.

Re:Other reports (1)

dw09577 (933167) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636701)

...or, more appropriately:

"...each cache of cookie crisps..."

'GooOOoogle CooOOookie Crisps' says the feloniously-dressed dog...

Oh my good grief (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636418)

Could we possibly have *any* more Google stories every day on Slashdot? I mean, could we really?

I am _so_ sick of seeing every studid Google rumor, tidbit or otherwise get posted here. Geez.

Re:Oh my good grief (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636461)

I'm one more google story away from having a Googasm!

Riiiight... (5, Insightful)

jehnx (556498) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636420)

"...it is theoretically possible for them to block out competitor websites and only allow users to access websites that have paid Google to be shown to their users." I don't see why this matters, or why it's worded how it is (seemingly to be scary or something). No one is going to force you to join this new protocol for their Internet, and if they develop it, what they do with it is their choice. I don't understand the seeming "concern" in the topic description.

Re:Riiiight... (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636469)

Concur. No need for concern. I mean, it couldn't eliminate WWW, so even if there are webpages that do a ggl.search.com thing, it'd just be a different way to content, or a new, more expensive method of making exclusive content. Which could only be cool, as I see it. I mean, if I don't like it, I'll stop going to it.

OT, but that "related stories" thing is pretty cool, but it would like nicer with a green bottom, IMHO.

Also (3, Interesting)

LeonGeeste (917243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636528)

They forget the flip side, which is that Google could also use this separate internet as a refuge from the "tiered internet" asshattery we've been hearing about.

Google planning to launch it's own rumour site! (3, Insightful)

StToast (222470) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636426)

Every day is another "Google planning launch it's own...."

They'll decline, and state that the new protocol is for internal use only, much like their OS

...reports... ...that Google... (1)

art6217 (757847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636427)

Does Google have a secret controlled gossip leakage department staffed with PhDs? ;)

Time to take a deep breath, Google (1, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636428)

Their arrogance and egos are growing even faster than their revenues.

-Eric

Re:Time to take a deep breath, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636482)

Good to see that someone still accepts bizarre rumours uncritically!

Re:Time to take a deep breath, Google (0, Redundant)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636601)

Their arrogance and egos are growing even faster than their revenues.

Out of curiosity, how is this "arrogant?" If you had the talented staff, plenty of resources (financial, social, temporal, etc) and knew you had an approach to serving up vast amount of networked stuff while (I'm guessing here) truly dealing with some security issues, spam/noise problems, etc., and knew that you'd have a potential audience in the tens or hundreds of millions... wouldn't you pursue it? "Ego," in this sense, translates to "awareness of one's self and one's capabilities." They've got a definite self, and the horsepower to try thing like this. You don't have to do squat, or care, and they know it. That's not arrogance, that's them having the ability to try some things. Relax.

Google, the best thing for my wallet evar! (1)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636437)

Google plans to offer free universal wifi. Al Gore plans to help create the next internet, and bring internet TV to the masses with current TV. Apple plans to offer Itunes over the new internet, through Googles new internet based linux operating system. Now all we have to do is bring Sony into the fold and get some of the gaming companies involved. I look forward to the day where I can play games online through wifi from anywhere. Here are some URLs to back up my statements. Al Gore, Google, Current TV, free wifi for all [webpronews.com] Information on who Google is hiring Google Hiring [google.com] Google will hire all the best Phd students from the elite universities first. Once Google becomes so large that they run out of Phd students from elite universities, then they will begin hiring us! So I'm now in love with Google. Google if you are reading this PLEASE PLEASE give me a job, even if I'm just doing something completely stupid, I'm sure with all the millions of jobs you are creating that you'll find something for me. I hope Google continues to innovate because these innovations are creating jobs by the millions. Building a new internet would create millions of jobs for all of us. Building a new OS would create thousands of jobs. I hope Google gets involved with the gaming industry and lets me have access to a video game search engine. I hope they let us gamble and bet on games. I hope Google creates a new video game stock market where we can bet on the success or failure of games. GIMME MONEY DAMNIT!

Re:Google, the best thing for my wallet evar! (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636578)

Once Google becomes so large that they run out of Phd students from elite universities, then they will begin hiring us!

Or just start its own elite university :-)

Intranet? (5, Insightful)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636439)

Sounds like a non-virtual private network, or perhaps an intranet.

Re:Intranet? (1)

The Rabid Panda (951579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636547)

No it would still be an internet.

Internet (n): An interconnected system of networks.

Re:Intranet? (0)

user317 (656027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636634)

i have my own internet. two wireless networks on oposite sides of my house on different subnets. when i noticed someone was hogging all the bandwith i used dnshijacker to resolve all their requests to tubgirl. i always wondered if thats legal.

Did you already cover it? (-1, Offtopic)

null etc. (524767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636441)

This is totally offtopic... but how come slashdot editors seem to love to bask in saying things like "We covered this topic last year", but they don't bask in saying things like "We duped this article last week"?

Are they? Really? (5, Interesting)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636445)

Actually, I think that Google is simply trying to explore different possibilities for new business. This doesn't mean that they will come to pass, but at least they looked into the cost/benefit of the idea.

And who knows? Maybe they will do it. But just because they can doesn't mean they will.

Fortunately.... (5, Insightful)

ZoneGray (168419) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636449)

Fortunately, Google is run by people who are a little sharper than your average reporter.

Sure, Google could set up their own network, and only allow paid access to it. That is, assuming they learned nothing from Compuserve and Prodigy's attempts to do the same.

More likely, they want to build their own global back end.

Re:Fortunately.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636769)

yo mama so fat, she got her own global back end

Rumors greatly exagerated.... (3, Interesting)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636457)

Google to create its own Internet? Unlikely. The whole reason that Google is an important company is that it crawls through the publicly-accessible parts of the Internet in order to index its contents. If Google is to retain its premier position in the search engine market, then it will very much so remain firmly connected to the existing Internet. This is why I agree with the parent post: It is quite reasonable to believe that Google might require this bandwidth for its own purposes. There is nothing at all wrong with this. The Internet, after all, is merely a network of networks. All this means is that behind Google's accessible IP addresses lurks a mammoth network of its own.

Re:Rumors greatly exagerated.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636571)

Google to create its own Internet? Unlikely. The whole reason that Google is an important company is that it crawls through the publicly-accessible parts of the Internet in order to index its contents.
That's the reason it's important, but not the reason it's profitable. The reason it's profitable is because their search engine is sufficiently good that lots of people use it, and they can leverage that to serve up targetted ads. The whole "King of Search" is a red-herring; it's the fact that Google can provide services that people want to use but where they can slip in lucrative targetted ads - services such as gmail, for example. With this in mind, think again about whether Google would want to snag the awesome captive audience that being a desirable ISP would bring.

google earth (2, Informative)

gnujoshua (540710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636460)

We all know there real secret plan is to completely buy out AOL and then time warner, and then the movie industry, and then all government anyhow. And then once everyone has downloaded google earth, a virus will be leashed upon us. Imagine the Ring and Snow Crash combined with a beautiful Siren singing to draw you to the nearest monitor, cell phone, or television. And then they can have ultimate control and we will have a perfect utopia with no evil anywhere on earth.

evil? (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636464)

If they went down this route it would be very easy to slip into being an evil monopolistic company, i don't know exactly how the rules work but if the shareholders thought that the execs were working against the interests of the company (ie. letting other people in for a low amount) then there could well be a move to oust them... Then google will be just another evil face in the crowd (assumuing they are not already)... It seems like it would just be easier to avoid this...

I can't wait (3, Insightful)

null etc. (524767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636465)

I, for one, can't wait. Google will tell the big telcos to go shaft themselves, will give us all 6MB internet pipes for free, simple for agreeing to use the Google Browser which contains targeted ads. Yes, I would much rather trust my Internet in the hands of Google, than Comcast who is just itching to find a way to increase my monthly cable modem fee 5x the rate of inflation, and ATT whose CEO just want everyone to pay him for everything, regardless of whether he actually deserves it.

Re:I can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636513)

will give us all 6MB internet pipes for free

Null Etc, meet Reality.

Hopefully you two can get to know each other.

Re:I can't wait (1)

eldoo77 (817524) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636648)

...will give us all 6MB internet pipes for free, simple for agreeing to use the Google Browser which contains targeted ads...

Yeah, unfortunately you will be served 7MB of continuous streaming ads and charged $10/hr for your 1MB overage...

Re:I can't wait (1)

TallMatthew (919136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636794)

Google will tell the big telcos to go shaft themselves, will give us all 6MB internet pipes for free, simple for agreeing to use the Google Browser which contains targeted ads.

And how exactly do you expect them to do that? Google has money, but enough money to pull fiber to every household in America? Um, no.

It's possible they could resell services via the CLEC route but that would be DSL and unless they want to add a crusty telco division and postulate on dry pairs and bridge taps, that's senseless.

There's no reason to become an ISP. Unless you have preexisting cable plant, the margins are too slim.

Private backbone/VOIP (5, Insightful)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636483)

This actually sounds more like Google wanting their own private backbone then a new internet protocol.

Google needs to transfer large amounts of data through out the world and is probably looking for ways to reduce latency across the world. We have a private DS3 line from our office to our co-lo, wouldn't google want the same kind of thing at a large scale, and without having to deal with Sprint, Verison, or AT&T.

They could also use this for an VOIP solution as well, which to me is more likely. That way they can ship the voice calls on to the local phone switches throughout the country. I wouldn't be suprised to see Google offices going up all round the nation.

Going last mile and creating another internet is a huge endeavour that I don't think even google could take on. Leave that up to the telcom who are already in bed with the govt agencies required to do something like that.

Re:Private backbone/VOIP (1)

bitplayer (236632) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636656)

With all of the news/rumors lately of the big carriers enforcing tiered access (pay for play), wouldn't google having it's own backbone make them less vulnerable to the machinations of other companies?

Re:Private backbone/VOIP (1)

toetagger1 (795806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636783)

I think you make a good point, for 2 reasons:
1) The major Telco's are trying to get a cut of Googles value chain. This step would proactively prevent that from happening.
2) While google doesn't have a "last mile" distribution system like the phone, cable, or electricity providers, I wouldn't be surprised if they started their own wirless ISP service as an alternative to a physical connection.

Just my 2 cents.

Useful? (1)

optisonic (202402) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636485)

What is the benefit of such a network? I've been planning to build an advertisement free network for public access and am not clear on how Google's concept improves the experience for anyone but them.

Re:Useful? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636665)

I've been planning to build an advertisement free network for public access and am not clear on how Google's concept improves the experience for anyone but them.

But you are clear on how they managed to rack up the billions and billions of dollars they have to work on this sort of project, right? By not running a charity or a non-profit. You've been planning, they've been doing (because they can afford to, even if it's a miserable failure). And their work will reach hundreds of millions of people (like everything else they do).

What is the benefit of such a network?

Why do you care (unless you're a shareholder)? They have an interest in doing it, and that's all that matters. If it's a poor gamble, then it's a poor gamble. They're not dumb, and clearly see something in this (like their own backbone? like avoiding the tiered-net issues we've been talking about recently?) and can act, so they have. If they were worried that the billions of investors' dollars that they're playing with might piss off investors, they'd probably not do it.

Note TFA author's day job (1)

writertype (541679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636487)

"Benjamin Cohen is a regular contributor to Times Online, writing about the internet and commerce. He is the CEO of pinknews.co.uk".

PinkNews is a GBLT site. Not that I care about the sexuality of the author, but Cohen apparently serves as 1.) a CEO of a separate media company, and 2.) one that deals with alternative lifestyles (NTTAWWT*).

My question is, does either of those two attributes make him more or less qualified to comment/report on potential Google plans, do you think?

*(Not That There's Anything Wrong...")

Re:Note TFA author's day job (1)

RobbieGee (827696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636575)

WITPOUAIYHTSTURATNP?*

*(What is the point of using abbreviations if you have to spell them out right after the next paragraph?)

Re:Note TFA author's day job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636711)

Not to go all HRC on your ass, but gay is not a lifestyle. It is a sexuality.

Collateral damage (1)

broothal (186066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636505)

I hope this doesn't get too popular. I remember last year when I placed adsense on my site. After a while I got banned from adsense, and "due to security issues" I couldn't get an explanation. I can live with that - it wasn't important. But say all the "good stuff" was on GoogleNet, and you, for some reason or another, got booted off there. It would be like getting your internet connection cut, and not being able to re join. Scary thought, eh?

But would this be -bad-? (3, Interesting)

TellarHK (159748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636514)

I see lots of obvious things to be worried about, but at the same time, I see a few things that're actually not so bad. If Google were to go this route, the only question is how far they'd go. Could this network simply be a way for Google to slap down enough bandwidth for the "Google Cube" rumors, or would it be a wider-access thing intended for Total Domination? So far, Google hasn't gone evil despite the best efforts of many to try and call them out on it, and as long as there's a way to make any money and not be evil, I'm pretty sure Google would do it long before they'd consider anything else barring a stockholder revolt. (The only thing I can forsee being a true evil-catalyst)

Now on the other hand, with the Telcos getting all bitchy about Google and others using "their pipelines", I've been wondering just how long it might take for someone to start up an "OtherNet" so to speak, restricted to non-commercial use like the old days were. It might be slow, but you -can- get an unlimited-long-distance line and slap modems together, and combine that with a meshed wireless, etc.

As long as they keep the MPAA out :-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636515)

... and their hired goons - let P2P be the order of the day

Not a common carrier (2, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636522)

Google isn't a common carrier, so who cares? My old school district created it's own private network and ran fiber to each school back to the central office and IT hub. They controled traffic on their fiber and they could block what ever they wanted, because they were not a common carrier.

-Rick

This is getting silly (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636530)

Wouldnt it be easier to run storys about what google isnt doing?

Google Cube Collective (2, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636544)

However, industry insiders fear that the development of a network of Google Cubes powered over a Google-owned internet network will greatly increase the power that Google wields...

You mean a network of Cubes like this? [stguardian.to]

They are busy on their robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636545)

Everyone knows that google is to busy on it's hamburger cooking robot to work on this.

Private Internet - ??? - Profit!! (2, Interesting)

tlay (793463) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636556)

Hey, I've heard of that before...isn't it called AOL?

I love google though. The average googler is smarter [infoworld.com] .

-TLAY

Al Gore and Google (1)

canning (228134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636559)

So Al Gore serves as an unofficial advisor to Google's senior management and now they want to create their own Internet?

Maybe the stories are true?


google speed (1)

slysithesuperspy (919764) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636587)

Sorry, a bit off topic, I was assuming it was my ISP being slow, but I noticed google searches say they take ~0.5s now. I'm sure they used to take ~0.02s before. Is this because they have been continuously adding features (however minor some maybe)? Well, just a bit of a rant, it's just not quite as instant as it used to be. I just tried Yahoo, took 0.15s, and MSN took 0.03s, that used to be one of the advantages of google because it was faster I assumed (maybe because it didn't have some useless portal like Yahoo did then).

Or The Real Security 2.0... (5, Insightful)

SecretAsianMan (45389) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636595)

Yes, they could create an internet where competition is stifled and Bad Things happen. Easily.

Or they could create an internet where:
  • Standards compliance is required.
  • Secure protocols are not only the norm, but required.
  • P2P and multicast technologies are the norm.
  • The name system cannot be abused.
  • Spam is impossible or economically unfeasible.
  • Many current black hat attack methods are impossible.
  • The government cannot trace your data traffic.
  • The common language and its development model are suitable for delivering richly interactive applications (rather than a series of kludges bolted onto a hypertext document language).


I, for one, welcome our potential Google overlords. They can't stifle competition too much, or there won't be businesses willing to populate Google's new internet. Commercial acceptance would be necessary for such a thing to even hope to supplant the Internet. The Internet won't live forever. I'd be more happy with Google engineering the replacement than with some of the other big players of our time.

Sad (3, Insightful)

luckynoone (775973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636596)

It is sad how people get paranoid over Google. Just because they are huge, have tons of money, and great ambition doesn't mean that they are going to abuse their power.

Argue all you want about Google in China or anything else. Simple matter of the fact is that if the paranoid stand in the way of a company's ambitions, they risk destroying a beautiful advance in technology and living. If they don't stand in the way and Google starts censoring the competition, people will switch back to Comcast or Time Warner and Google will lose a ton of money for the costs of starting up the service but not making enough revenue off of it.

This reminds me of the paranoid trying to stop the government from putting Fluoride in the water supply. Can't they spend their time in a more productive way than fighting progress?

It's incredible (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636621)

It's incredible how people are putting a bad spin on anything Google these days.

If Google were to introduce a plan for peace in the middle east, the commentary would be
"Google only wants peace so that it could gain more political influence
to change privacy laws world-wide so that they could control all of their users information."

Did you ever think that with all this extra capital after the ipo, they have
money to spend on interesting, maybe even theoretical projects, their own version of the Bell labs,
hoping that something will stick?

Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636652)

FTA:

"Last month, Google placed job advertisements in America and the British national press for "Strategic Negotiator candidates with experience in...identification, selection, and negotiation of dark fibre contracts both in metropolitan areas and over long distances as part of development of a global backbone network"."

Google currently used dark fiber to feed their data centers back to their HQ in California. And before anyone says who is this guy; I work in their data center where they lease space; no, I don't work for Google. But I do have to trouble shoot their friggin problems.

"Dark fibre is the remnants of late 1990s internet boom where American web companies laid down fibre optic cables in preparation for high speed internet delivery."

Dark fiber wasn't laid down by web companies; it was laid down by the Bells and CLEC's. It was called deregualation and competition. Once companies could compete; they need to build their own backbone and fiber was being laid ever since. I know because I used to work for CLEC's, SBC (called currently), MCI during the Net boom.

"Late last year, Google purchased a 270,000sq ft telecom interconnection facilities in New York. It is believed that from here, Google plans to link up and power the dark fibre system and turn it into a working internet network of its own."

Yeah, they are going to build their own net. Currently Google has half of my data center and they take up 250k sq ft. So, no, it isn't a big deal; they have data centers all around the country.

""Google hired a pair of very bright industrial designers to figure out how to cram the greatest number of CPUs, the most storage, memory and power support into a 20- or 40-foot box" Robert Cringely wrote. "The idea is to plant one of these puppies anywhere Google owns access to fiber, basically turning the entire Internet into a giant processing and storage grid.""

Each data center has approx 20k worth of servers; well, at least the larger data centers. Do you realize how much space and power costs? Like I said; 20k worth of server and 250k worth of sq footage. That isn't cheap.

"Should Google successfully launch an alternative network, it is is theoretically possible for them to block out competitor websites and only allow users to access websites that have paid Google to be shown to their users."

So, now Google builds this private Internet; now they have to attract various people:
1) Dial up and broadband users
2) Companies to put up web pages.

And people apparently get paid to be high.

Theory (1)

oskard (715652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636666)

"it is theoretically possible for them to block out competitor websites and only allow users to access websites that have paid Google to be shown to their users."

It's also theoretically possible that they won't allow images to be displayed on their pages unless they include one or more primates and their monkey genitalia.

It is theoretically possible that a lot of things could happen. We know, if you can control something, you can create all the possibilities in the world. That doesn't mean that any selection from the infinite possibility space will actually occur.

question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636667)

If Google follows the trend then their internet would be free but why would they block out other sites causing them to loose advertisement revenues???

misunderstood (2, Insightful)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636692)

I don't want to speculate too much on why google is doing this, but i hardly think it's for what the journalist thinks.

the internet is awesome because it is open and free. if a company tried to cut out websites, people would use the unencumbered (i.e., the current) internet. nobody would switch to googleNet.

if anything, google is creating a backup network to cut down costs, create redundancy, and increase speeds. and if they really are making a second internet, it probably won't differ much from I2, essentially a faster way for google data centers to communicate with end users of their access points.

but i re-iterate: google is not going to be filtering the internet. that would be shooting themselves in the foot.

I bet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636699)

That will be smaller than IBM's network.

But *oooooooh* if it's Google we call it a "private internet". Humph...

And tomorrow... (2, Insightful)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636704)

Google to make alternative planet Earth?

Seriously people, the Internet is world wide, no matter how sophisticated you believe Google to be I highly doubt they are going to create their own Internet, their own OS, their own Itunes, their own government, their own worldwide banking system... Let's keep it in perspective, they are just a search company... Nothing is saying any of these moves could even work financially.

Hasn't this been tried before? (2, Insightful)

rahrens (939941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636707)

I thought AOL tried to create their own network - and were pretty successful for a while until the content on the Internet in general got bigger than what they could create themselves. then their attempts to monopolize people's internet connection started pissing people off, and they started leaving in droves (especially after their failure to provide a stable online connection!)

So unless Google has something very different in mind...

Google layer (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636710)

Instead of another version of the internet, imagine browsing a 100% google cached version of the current one. Instead of hopping 15 nodes across the globe to get Europe's sites (for example) you just get the most recent version off google's cache. Once google cache works out some of the wrinkles (out of date sites, postback issues, etc) in its system, I would use it for almost everything.

AOL (0, Redundant)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636730)

it is theoretically possible for them to block out competitor websites and only allow users to access websites that have paid Google to be shown to their users.
Didn't AOL do this already?

FINALLY!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14636737)

Finally, some real competition for AOL and PRODIGY.

I was afraid those two were going to dominate the internet forever. (snicker, snicker)

Great strategy, though. Recycle business concepts that were discredited even BEFORE the tech bubble burst. Ingenious!

A completely new protocol wouldn't be so bad... (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 8 years ago | (#14636798)

I'm sure this'll never happen, but if it did, and they implemented their own protocols, it could be a really good thing. The protocols we use now are old and weren't designed for the types of networks and security issues we have now. TCP/IP just fell into place as the most common, even though there were better protocols out there (or so my instructors told me). A complete rewrite, considering todays types of networks and security issues would be a good thing, instead of the massive stovepiping we have now. It's be one hell of a job to do and enough tougher to actually make "catch on", though.

---John Holmes...
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...