So Much For Google The ISP, Huh? > lol

lol

No they didn't. They're just not interested in becoming a broadband provider. Don't blame 'em to much...building out their own last-mile network would be rather spendy.

Though Google has a nice national backbone at this point. So if any ISP wants to peer with them, generally speaking they can.

reply to brianiscool

reply to brianiscool

reply to brianiscool
Google never intended to become an ISP. Instead, they're much more interested in throwing around rhetoric about how other ISPs should be more consumer friendly and open so that they can jam their ads down the throats of additional netizens at little to no cost without stepping up to the plate themselves to provide a viable last mile solution. Google's position was cemented very clearly in the last spectrum auction IMO. Google very much reminds me of a little kid that is great about whining that Little Jimmy is picking on other kids in the class without stepping forward to actively do something about it.

reply to openbox9
Building and maintaining that last mile is an expensive pain in all the Grand Broadband Plans. Other then this project Google wants a free ride on the other networks.

I get as upset with all spying Google as I do when the US Gov does it. I don't think most people realize almost every web site has a java script that reports back to Google.

reply to morbo
I expected that response. I view Google as a cocky teenage; so much potential, but it's mostly wasted by jaw flapping and little follow through. The old saying, "put your money where your mouth is" goes a long way and so far Google hasn't done that on the broadband front. So what's your perception of Google and providing broadband service?

reply to brianiscool
I prefer my content companies separate from an ISP

reply to WhatNow

reply to WhatNow

reply to openbox9
jaw flapping and little follow through? it's like you're in your own world there.

The only ones that may view google as a teenager are the old farts at telco. They're used to setting the market pace and price -- they've never quite shook the entitlement they feel they deserve back when they were the monopoly. And who can blame them, really? It's difficult to give up total power. Anyways, here comes a new player that is playing according the rules and the old farts start their belly aching trying to CHANGE the rules, saying it's not fair. That the new guy isn't playing the game according to THEIR rules.

It's great fun to watch the old guys get mad at the new guy. I do feel sorry for them though. They don't have the talent to be anything other than a dumb pipe. Deep down, they know it. Which is why they are fighting so hard against net neutrality and waging the smear campaign against google.

Wait.... is it 1997 again? I swear I've heard all this before.

reply to morbo
So what was your perception of Google as an ISP? My point is that Google is great at trying to tell other ISPs how to run their networks, but doesn't do anything to back their argument. Google's antics would be akin to the ISPs demanding that Google open their advertising system so that others' ads can glow freely their their advertising network.

Don't get me wrong, Google does some good and innovative things and has a lot of talent, I just don't believe they've done anything overly productive on the ISP front for consumers. They're great at spelling out what others should do, but that's about it....

Apparently you are unable to make accurate comparisons. ISPs don't need to demand that Google open up their advertising system. ISPs are free to sign up and create their own ad campaigns within the existing system Google provides. That's just what Google has done: create products people use under the existing internet framework. AT&T hates this because they want a cut of the truckloads of money so now they claim that Google is getting a free ride and kills babies and supports al qaeda. Really ridiculous claims that anyone in the technology field knows is bullshit. But, they are used to getting their way so they fund astroturf organizations and pr campaigns against Google. They also continue the legislative lobbying. Thy are really good at that part.

Google isn't an ISP. They marked their territory in the city where their headquarters is by offering free wifi. It was a slap in the face to AT&T/PacBell (I believe), but that's about it.

reply to morbo

reply to rawgerz

reply to morbo
As someone working from the belly of a Telco today, I think you are making some valid points about Google and Telco's.

Maybe Google is trialling the Mountain View wifi service so they can learn how to do it properly before going national. True its been a a while but maybe they are willing to spend the time to do it right!

I know this is a foreign concept to telco bell heads because they remember a time they had unlimited budget, unlimited resources and no competition. That day is dead. Time to play ball and put customer experience before profit OR collapse and die.

Cough = GM. Lol.

reply to openbox9
Pray tell, exactly WHAT demands is google making to other ISP's? I mean, they support net neutrality, but guess what, EVERY OTHER CONTENT provider does. I think what you are complaining about is that google is vocal about making sure that ISP's are exactly THAT. INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. I don't WANT comcrap to sell me tv shows, or music, or books, I want comcrap to provide me with the ABILITY to purchase tv shows, music or books from WHOMEVER I want. I want comcast to allow me to search google. I think the problem you have with these google 'demands' is that google is DEMANDING that the ISP's provide what they are selling. If I WANTED a walled garden internet, I would sign up with AOL. If I WANT an ISP, and the megacorps are ADVERTISING they are ISP's, then the ONLY thing I want from them is an IP address, and the ability to use MY connection in the manner I see fit.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!

reply to MyDogHsFleas
Yeah -- AT&T wants content and application service providers to pay them to reach their ISP subscribers, as does anyone else who is anti-neutrality (mainly broadband ISPs, and people like openbox9 who either have a stake in the ISPs, or have drunk the kool-aid). We call this "double dipping."

Google, as a content and application provider, does not want to do this, for obvious reasons, as does anyone else who is pro-neutrality. (mainly, companies who aren't broadband ISPs)
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox...