Google announces Google Fiber for Communities

you are upset that they have expanded into other areas?

"unluckyluciano wrote:

you are upset that they have expanded into other areas?

I'm slightly worried that they seem to be intent on controlling not only what people see on the Internet via ranked search results but are now expanding into controlling how you get onto the Internet in the first place.

At some point, expansion becomes counterproductive. Look at how many markets Microsoft has its corrupting tentacles in that are unrelated to its core business.

"Desides wrote:

I'm slightly worried that they seem to be intent on controlling not only what people see on the Internet via ranked search results but are now expanding into controlling how you get onto the Internet in the first place.

At some point, expansion becomes counterproductive. Look at how many markets Microsoft has its corrupting tentacles in that are unrelated to its core business.

well look at how many markets ibm is in.
some tehy do well in some they don't. Same with microsoft. Same with other large companies. Its not a big deal to me.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

well look at how many markets ibm is in.
some tehy do well in some they don't. Same with microsoft. Same with other large companies. Its not a big deal to me.

IBM is mainly in the corporate support and supply business. That's pretty tightly focused. They've actually cast off areas of their business that didn't fit that mold: remember when they sold their hardware division to Lenovo?

In contrast, you can't really peg down what Microsoft is. You could say they're a software company, but their most famous product right now is hardware, the Xbox 360, and they've been pushing the Zune HD and Microsoft Surface and tablet PCs.

Google is transitioning from being an Internet company to The Internet.

"Desides wrote:

IBM is mainly in the corporate support and supply business. That's pretty tightly focused. They've actually cast off areas of their business that didn't fit that mold: remember when they sold their hardware division to Lenovo?

In contrast, you can't really peg down what Microsoft is. You could say they're a software company, but their most famous product right now is hardware, the Xbox 360, and they've been pushing the Zune HD and Microsoft Surface and tablet PCs.

Google is transitioning from being an Internet company to The Internet.

ibm also does software sytems, thats an entirely different animal then hardware.
hp also does software systems as well as hardware, and so on. Some of them also do outsourcing for businesses. Hp does also personal computers, cameras, etc.
Like I said its not all that odd what google is doing IMO.

Microsoft gets an image as the big bad guy in town and it's ridiculously unfair. They've done nothing worse or different than IBM, Dell, HP, AMD, Intel, Apple, or any other large hardware/software company.

Like Microsoft, Google is trying to capitalize on a market with something they thing the market needs and wants. So far Google has been received as "good guys" because everything seems to be free from Google to the basic end user. Microsoft is the "bad guy" because Windows has issues and cost tons of money.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

ibm also does software sytems, thats an entirely different animal then hardware.

Yes, they're a software company. They sold their hardware unit to retain their identity as a software company. That's my point.

hp also does software systems as well as hardware, and so on. Some of them also do outsourcing for businesses. Hp does also personal computers, cameras, etc.

HP is also not exactly setting the world on fire. At best you could describe HP as a "full service" business company, one that will outfit both your server room and your employee workstations.

Like I said its not all that odd what google is doing IMO.

Google isn't an ISP, so yes, it is odd. They might as well set up their own cellular towers for the Nexus One. (Another Google product that makes little sense, IMO.)

I think it's fine that Google is branching out. It might shake Comcast and the rest of the ISP's that have a choke hold on internet speeds and prices into actually getting better.

"Desides wrote:

Yes, they're a software company. They sold their hardware unit to retain their identity as a software company. That's my point.

Ibm does software across many different avenues as well. Government, state, enterprise systems, other types of system. They specialize in outsourcing. Not to mention at one point ibm did both hardware and software. :up:

"Desides wrote:

HP is also not exactly setting the world on fire. At best you could describe HP as a "full service" business company, one that will outfit both your server room and your employee workstations.

Thats not even close to true. Hp is a strong company with tons of cash and is very successful. And the fact remains they still do personal computers, as well as other gadgets. While they may not be a giant in their field, which proves my point, they still do it none the less.

"Desides wrote:

Google isn't an ISP, so yes, it is odd. They might as well set up their own cellular towers for the Nexus One. (Another Google product that makes little sense, IMO.)

May seem odd for a search engine to expand into an area like isp,but then again they were involved in the whitespace group, as was hp, dell,microsoft, etc. So this isn't even the first time they've ventured into the isp like area.

I like that this news breaks, and imo it's pretty big news. But only the three biggest nerds on the board are talking about it LOL

I think this is awesome. I love google. Good company.

"mor911 wrote:

I think it's fine that Google is branching out. It might shake Comcast and the rest of the ISP's that have a choke hold on internet speeds and prices into actually getting better.

That's the FCC's job, not Google's. If Google wants to do something useful to enrich my life, they can find a way to solve cable clutter that involves Lacey Chabert coming to my house.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

Ibm does software across many different avenues as well. Government, state, enterprise systems, other types of system. They specialize in outsourcing. Not to mention at one point ibm did both hardware and software. :up:

That's... my point, Lucky. They don't do hardware now. They sold their hardware division to Lenovo because it had nothing to do with their core business.

Thats not even close to true. Hp is a strong company with tons of cash and is very successful. And the fact remains they still do personal computers, as well as other gadgets. While they may not be a giant in their field, which proves my point, they still do it none the less.

HP is still recovering from the Fiorina days. They're nowhere near what they once were.

May seem odd for a search engine to expand into an area like isp,but then again they were involved in the whitespace group, as was hp, dell,microsoft, etc. So this isn't even the first time they've ventured into the isp like area.

Again, it's an unnecessary expansion. At this point they might as well set up their own porn sites and just change its name from The Internet to The Google.

"Desides wrote:

That's the FCC's job, not Google's. If Google wants to do something useful to enrich my life, they can find a way to solve cable clutter that involves Lacey Chabert coming to my house.

Dude if every company just stuck to what the originally got big for, we wouldn't have Xbox's, Playstations, HDTV's, VoIP, Gmail, or hundreds of other life altering pieces of over priced awesomeness at our disposal.

Moves like this help the world and technology as a whole progress. I don't understand why you're taking it so personally. Like they're out to get you or something... The only thing they're out to get is your money... And if this service is as good as they're preaching, then deservedly so.

"mor911 wrote:

Dude if every company just stuck to what the originally got big for, we wouldn't have Xbox's, Playstations, HDTV's, VoIP, Gmail, or hundreds of other life altering pieces of over priced awesomeness at our disposal.

Agreed. I'm not arguing against market expansion. I AM arguing against one company having too much control. A secondary point: eventually, a company can get so diluted that it can't sustain quality across the board. Again, reference Microsoft.

Moves like this help the world and technology as a whole progress. I don't understand why you're taking it so personally. Like they're out to get you or something... The only thing they're out to get is your money... And if this service is as good as they're preaching, then deservedly so.

Not sure why you think I'm taking it personally. But I'm definitely worried about becoming over-reliant on Google for all of my Interwebbing needs.

I love this and I hope that somehow my area gets in on it. We tend to get a lot of this kind of thing first (FIOS for example).

For the most part, Google isn't strong-arming the market like Microsoft has been accused of doing in the past. They're just doing a lot of things better. They're innovating. One key is that, unlike Microsoft or Apple, their products aren't proprietary, restrictive or expensive. They look to integrate. Their Android OS is open source. This fiber network will be 'open'.

My company competes with Google in a few areas. And I agree that there is danger with a company becoming too big and/or offering everything for cheap (or free). But as a business, the key is to embrace your role as a VAR and recognize how/why you can compete. You have to be nimble. And again, Google seems to be innovating and integrating.

That's the FCC's job, not Google's.

It may not be Google's job, but it is their right to compete in the market. And I think we all agree that competition is good, and tends to have a postive effect on this kind of thing.

Where I think they might be overreaching is with Buzz. They're trying to compete with Facebook here. Admittedly I haven't looked at it since glossing over it Tuesday. But that would appear to be be an uphill climb.

"Muck wrote:

It may not be Google's job, but it is their right to compete in the market. And I think we all agree that competition is good, and tends to have a postive effect on this kind of thing.

They can compete, absolutely. But I think if they're doing this simply to push fiber optic penetration rather than to actually provide a legitimate end service and make a profit, then they could have used industry clout and gotten much the same effect.

Where I think they might be overreaching is with Buzz. They're trying to compete with Facebook here. Admittedly I haven't looked at it since glossing over it Tuesday. But that would appear to be be an uphill climb.

Facebook is working on an email system to compete with GMail, so I can't really blame Google for Buzz. It's a preemptive strike.

"mor911 wrote:

I think it's fine that Google is branching out. It might shake Comcast and the rest of the ISP's that have a choke hold on internet speeds and prices into actually getting better.

This.

I've been waiting for my DSL provider to upgrade to fiber in my neighborhood for almost two years, and they don't. Why? No competition. Nothing to force them to make the investment.

They're talking about 1Gbps? I welcome it with open arms; even if my provider upgraded tomorrow, the most I could get would be 20Mbps, and it would be expensive.

It's going to take innovative companies like Google to shake up the status quo and make providers - which, in 99% of areas are STILL monopolies - to get their act together.

Yay Google!

"Desides wrote:

They can compete, absolutely. But I think if they're doing this simply to push fiber optic penetration rather than to actually provide a legitimate end service and make a profit, then they could have used industry clout and gotten much the same effect.

Why deal with the middle man when you're at odds with him? When you feel he's holding you back? Especially when you feel you can potentially innovate and improve upon his processes.

Google has always done things their way. This stuff about 'killer apps' goes right along with what they've been preaching for awhile now. As a software/applications company, it's in their best interest for the internet to be open and as fast as possible.

Google is a huge proponent of net neutrality. Part of the argument against that has been "sure, you software companies want everything fast and unfettered. You're not baring the cost of infrastructure."

Well, it appears they're putting their money where their mouth is.

New deployment techniques: We'll test new ways to build fiber networks, and to help inform and support deployments elsewhere, we'll share key lessons learned with the world.

This is very much the open source mentality. They have a vested interest in this technology becoming widespread. If they figure out ways to do it better/cheaper/more efficient, etc. and share it with the world, everybody wins.

It's in the 'experiment' phase now. So we really don't know what they're ultimately gonna do. They may end up as a regional ISP, who knows. They've got datacenters all over the place -- filled with custom form factor servers BTW -- and are constantly building more. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

As for Google DNS, I can understand the privacy issues and fear of a burgeoning monopoly. But overreaching? Again, they're attempting to innovate and do it better. They've got the infrastructure already. I may be wrong, but I don't think recursive DNS is big business. There are already major players out there doing it for free. And you won't ever have to use any of them. Not unless they become your ISP. But then your existing ISP already logs all of that stuff anyway.

"Muck wrote:

Why deal with the middle man when you're at odds with him? When you feel he's holding you back? Especially when you feel you can potentially innovate and improve upon his processes.

Google has always done things their way. This stuff about 'killer apps' goes right along with what they've been preaching for awhile now. As a software/applications company, it's in their best interest for the internet to be open and as fast as possible.

This is sort of like asking why Microsoft didn't start an ISP to facilitate the use of Internet Explorer. I simply don't see the connection between Google desiring people to use their services and Google starting an Internet connection service.

Google is a huge proponent of net neutrality. Part of the argument against that has been "sure, you software companies want everything fast and unfettered. You're not baring the cost of infrastructure."

Net neutrality is unfortunately anything but. That's another thread, though.

As for Google DNS, I can understand the privacy issues and fear of a burgeoning monopoly. But overreaching?

Google DNS' privacy policy is actually pretty good, and I have no problem with that aspect of the service.

I just question the need for its existence. OpenDNS is better in terms of features, and your ISP's DNS servers are almost always the fastest available, so there's no speed advantage. Google DNS exists just for the sake of existing, which is never a good strategy, IMO. In this instance, they would have been better served contributing to OpenDNS or improving on DNS technology and sharing that with ISPs.

I think its great news and much needed. If Google wants to spend cash to build a super fast test network you arent going to hear me complain, and yes, it does push cable and telephone companies a little.

I mean I understand not wanting google to gain a monopoly on all things internet but IMO more competition, or at least the threat of more competition in the ISP market is nothing but a good thing. Its unbelievable to me that many areas in rural VA where I live have NO high speed service outside of the super expansive satellite option that is useless for gaming. One of my buddies was promised DSL by the end of the year by Embarq...... And that was back in either 03 or 04 IIRC. He still doesnt have it. Its mind boggling to me how a tech culture like ours is lagging far behind many countries across the pond.

"Desides wrote:

This is sort of like asking why Microsoft didn't start an ISP to facilitate the use of Internet Explorer. I simply don't see the connection between Google desiring people to use their services and Google starting an Internet connection service.

Google makes money when you land on a page with Adsense. Microsoft didn't make any money by getting you there with IE. Those two companies have very different business models.

None of us know exactly what the actual roadmap looks like at Mountain View. All we know for certain is that they want ultra high bandwidth connections everywhere. I'm sure they have plenty of ideas on how to use them.

Google DNS' privacy policy is actually pretty good, and I have no problem with that aspect of the service.

I just question the need for its existence. OpenDNS is better in terms of features, and your ISP's DNS servers are almost always the fastest available, so there's no speed advantage. Google DNS exists just for the sake of existing, which is never a good strategy, IMO. In this instance, they would have been better served contributing to OpenDNS or improving on DNS technology and sharing that with ISPs.

There may or may not have been a demand for the DNS product, a lot of people are using it nonetheless. Like the fiber, Google seems to believe they can can offer improvements. And they have a vested interest in people getting to where they want to go, since a lot of those destinations use Google products. For example, if 1000 people are correctly directed to Site A by 8.8.8.8 instead of Site X by their ISP's newly poisoned DNS cache, that's a monetary victory for Google.

I doubt ISP's would shed a tear about a decrease in DNS query traffic to their servers.

They claim not to be sharing any of this data with other areas of Google. If they did, it would be yet another tool for tracking trends and activity.

Who knows. Maybe they're doing it for fun. ;)

"Muck wrote:

Google makes money when you land on a page with Adsense. Microsoft didn't make any money by getting you there with IE. Those two companies have very different business models.

Google will likely not make more advertising money because of Google Fiber. Almost all of the US already has Internet access, and Google.com is the most-visited site in the world. Faster access is just faster access, not necessarily more access.

Again, I fail to see how this fits into Google's business model, especially since they're only talking about 50,000 homes, most likely in California.

None of us know exactly what the actual roadmap looks like at Mountain View. All we know for certain is that they want ultra high bandwidth connections everywhere. I'm sure they have plenty of ideas on how to use them.

So does everyone else. That push was already well underway before Google announced this. It's not as if fiber penetration needs a kick in the pants: lines were being laid over a decade ago. I would posit that the biggest obstacle to fiber adoption is also the biggest obstacle to new cell phone towers: city governments.

I doubt ISP's would shed a tear about a decrease in DNS query traffic to their servers.

Some would, because their services are dependent on their DNS servers. AT&T U-Verse, for example, NEEDS to be routed through AT&T's DNS servers to work, because you've got multiple services coming in through that one connection. I really doubt they want to deal with the extra support calls from people who signed up for "Google Internet" and now their "phone and computer doesn't work."

Who knows. Maybe they're doing it for fun. ;)

Hah. Namebench is for fun, Google Fiber seems more along the lines of a total waste of resources to me.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

"Desides wrote:

Google will likely not make more advertising money because of Google Fiber. Almost all of the US already has Internet access, and Google.com is the most-visited site in the world. Faster access is just faster access, not necessarily more access.

Again, I fail to see how this fits into Google's business model, especially since they're only talking about 50,000 homes, most likely in California.

All I'm saying is that the business models are different in discussing the previous comparison. Google makes their money online. Microsoft largely doesn't.

How do we know they won't make more advertising money off fiber? If -- one way or another -- it enables them to launch new products that carry ads (or whatever else they want to make money on).....

So does everyone else. That push was already well underway before Google announced this. It's not as if fiber penetration needs a kick in the pants: lines were being laid over a decade ago. I would posit that the biggest obstacle to fiber adoption is also the biggest obstacle to new cell phone towers: city governments.

Is anybody offering it to the common folk at 1Gbps? That's what wets the whistle. If it's truly competitively priced for the residential user, that would be something.

It'll be 50,000 to start. Maybe they hit 500K and decide to keep going. Who knows.

Maybe it will end up being a waste of resources. We don't know where the fiber is going, what communities, etc. yet, so it's all speculatory at this point.

What's interesting is they did make reference to fiber in rural communities. We saw fiber being laid down thru the middle of the little town I grew up in in the late '90s (the main highway). Yet that area of the state was still on dialup until about 2002. Even now it's all DSL. Nobody is going to lay down anything else in places like that. Doesn't make sense.

To me, they have a ton of money to throw around. So I wouldn't care much either way. But they're also a publicly traded company. So you would think this fits in with the master financial plan somehow.

Some would, because their services are dependent on their DNS servers. AT&T U-Verse, for example, NEEDS to be routed through AT&T's DNS servers to work, because you've got multiple services coming in through that one connection. I really doubt they want to deal with the extra support calls from people who signed up for "Google Internet" and now their "phone and computer doesn't work."

Indeed, there are always going to be exceptions.

But I doubt ATT will field that many calls for the example above. How many 'regular' users are going to go fiddling around with TCP/IP settings?

Whether we agree or disagree, it's gonna be interesting to see where this ultimately leads. :)