  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | How? So they have a big network. But how does that translate to them being the third biggest ISP if they were an ISP? Are we assuming that they would have ran individual lines to every residential home to provide them with Internet access?
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
 |  AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3 | Re: How? No. It is assuming % of total internet traffic. | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by Rob:So they have a big network. But how does that translate to them being the third biggest ISP if they were an ISP? Are we assuming that they would have ran individual lines to every residential home to provide them with Internet access? What Google is doing is not competing with consumer ISPs like Comcast; Verizon; AT&T; etc. who provide last mile access.
Who they are really taking traffic from is providers like Level3 and their ilk - the inter-domain transit networks. Those are the ones that should be concerned about Google's growth in building their own content delivery networks(CDNs). Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc are doing the same things - building their own CDNs and putting caching servers on the consumer end mile nets like Comcast; Verizon, etc.
The ISPs are getting lower inter-transit costs; and companies like Level3 are losing business.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® | |
|
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero. Welcome to the New Net Very interesting. Thanks.
I like Google's problem oriented solutions, not typical telco-like begging and misleading consumers into handing over their hard earned cash. While Google is a business and isn't giving consumers anything for "free", for now they are still on the good side of the town, with AT&T and Verizon entrenched and pissed because Google is playing a new game that they don't know how to play yet. | |
|
| |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero. Welcome to the New Net Simply put, Google is working on a model of "How can we improve our products so more people like us better?" while the cable and phone companies are still working on their historical model of "How can we extort more money from those people who have been fooled/required to use our service?"
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Except that the title is misleading since Google's bandwidth bill is NOT zero. They do pay for a fairly large amount of IP transit from AT&T and Level3. | |
|
|
| | People are glossing over the policy side of this Google may not wish to get into the ISP business, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not interested in being a player in the infrastructure. A big portion of their 1 Gbps fiber project will be to test out policy and deployment ideas in addition to to technical ideas. This is huge and isn't getting the attention it should.
Here's a scenario for you. What if Google were to get into the fiber business? What if they were to own companies who's sole purpose was to get franchise agreements to lay a fiber infrastructure and create an open access network for other ISPs to use? They're not concerned with pricing and billing, customer service, or additional bundled services, these are all left up to the ISPs. Their only concern would be providing an even playing field for all ISPs and a fast enough pipe to provide whatever services those ISPs which to sell. It would be in their best interest as a content provider to keep ISPs from limiting choices consumers have, and to keep ISPs from playing favorites with the speed throttle. | |
|
| Nesis
join:2009-06-12
Apollo Beach, FL
1 edit | Re: People are glossing over the policy side of this Great point. Something like this might be an easy way to force the cable and telco providers hand when it comes to opening their networks. In this scenerio the ISPs that use Googles infrastructure would possibly provide speeds well beyond what providers like Comcast and AT&T offer at the same or even a fraction of the price. | |
|
| | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: People are glossing over the policy side of this Yes, but isn't it fairly clear that the business of providing the bottom layer(s) of the architecture is widely believed to be the low-margin side of the business?
To justify such a large investment, you have to have some business model where it makes at least as much money as the guys who can leverage the access to favor chosen (i.e., expensive) content as so many of us worry cable and telco will.
It looks like Google is launching test networks to find just this information out. Personally, I hope that they find this model and I wish them luck.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | Re: People are glossing over the policy side of this Even if Google sold access to their network at cost, this would still be a win for them. Hell, with the money they earn from advertising, they could operate their network at a slight loss if needed and still be profitable.
The irony is that Google would be taking a play out of the cableco's playbook, you know, the one where they hedge their losses in their video business with profits from their Internet business. | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Michael C:Here's a scenario for you. What if Google were to get into the fiber business? What if they were to own companies who's sole purpose was to get franchise agreements to lay a fiber infrastructure and create an open access network for other ISPs to use? They're not concerned with pricing and billing, customer service, or additional bundled services, these are all left up to the ISPs. Their only concern would be providing an even playing field for all ISPs and a fast enough pipe to provide whatever services those ISPs which to sell. It would be in their best interest as a content provider to keep ISPs from limiting choices consumers have, and to keep ISPs from playing favorites with the speed throttle. If your scenario played out, then I could sign up for any ISP that I wanted. My ISP could limit my choices if I wanted them limited (such as a family-friendly TV & network access bundle). But my ISP would be unable to monopolize the relationship because I had 7 or 8 other choices on the same wire.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: People are glossing over the policy side of this said by funchords:said by Michael C:Here's a scenario for you. What if Google were to get into the fiber business? What if they were to own companies who's sole purpose was to get franchise agreements to lay a fiber infrastructure and create an open access network for other ISPs to use? They're not concerned with pricing and billing, customer service, or additional bundled services, these are all left up to the ISPs. Their only concern would be providing an even playing field for all ISPs and a fast enough pipe to provide whatever services those ISPs which to sell. It would be in their best interest as a content provider to keep ISPs from limiting choices consumers have, and to keep ISPs from playing favorites with the speed throttle. If your scenario played out, then I could sign up for any ISP that I wanted. My ISP could limit my choices if I wanted them limited (such as a family-friendly TV & network access bundle). But my ISP would be unable to monopolize the relationship because I had 7 or 8 other choices on the same wire. And this is exactly what Google outlined as would happen with their fiber infrastructure. They only want to provide the fiber to the premises and have other companies connect to their fiber to provide the Internet access, IPTV, etc. | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | so, UTOPIA? | |
|
| | | | Re: People are glossing over the policy side of this Well it won't get me laid or make me a millionaire, but Google doing this in key markets may just crack the dam a little more, and show the rest of the country how much better Internet access can be. Trust me, if the folks in large metropolitans like NYC and L.A. could get 1 Gbps service for say $30 a month, the rest of the country would riot for it. | |
|
| | | Thank you! That was very informative and interesting. | |
|
|  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | said by Michael C:What if they were to own companies who's sole purpose was to get franchise agreements to lay a fiber infrastructure and create an open access network for other ISPs to use? At first blush a plausible speculation with overwhelming appeal.
It fits Google's M.O. like a glove: disrupt entrenched, bad business (and failed regulatory) realities with friendly deployments that can only garner public support. Contrary to popular discourse, Google's success is couched in social disruption more than nuts & bolts technology disruptions. This would be no exception.
An enjoyable picture to ponder. Thank you for posting. | |
|
| | With all this money(traffic) One would think they would have better lobbyist than the telcos and cablcos | |
|
|
 thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
2 edits |  I can see it now.
I don't look forward to a future where one single company is in control of, and able to access information in my email account, on my phone, and general internet connection. The reason for this is because their primary source of revenue is the creative and questionable use of private data.
People have no idea how much they'd be giving up. It'll be laughed at in history books that we let a company whom makes their billions utilizing users' private data to be at the forefront of convergence.
--
Macbook repair in NYC | |
|
| | For America's Sake I hope Google goes beyond the "trial" business and actually gets involved as an ISP or something of the like. The United States desperately needs a change, a change for the better. Having a 1Gbps is a wet-digital-dream! | |
|
| | Only along the Pipe line? Well my question is I'm with comcast, I'm on the east side of the valley while my connection comes from Federal way (west side) I have Comcast or dial-up. How would this open up for other ISP's to be able to proved for me? The cable still belongs to Comcast doesn't it? an ISP has to be able to reach me. | |
|
| | | Re: Only along the Pipe line? said by JerryTongue:Well my question is I'm with comcast, I'm on the east side of the valley while my connection comes from Federal way (west side) I have Comcast or dial-up. How would this open up for other ISP's to be able to proved for me? The cable still belongs to Comcast doesn't it? an ISP has to be able to reach me. True the cable belongs to comcast but think of the possibility of a new provider linking into Google's network but giving you a Wimax feed instead. Nice. | |
|
| | pipeline They should just become a isp also. The more areas you own to the internet the more you get your foot into the door of being what everyone needs. They want to push 1gb internet also so i am all for it  . We need more competition anyways. Its so dried up right now. We could be getting 300mb cable/fiber internet but they just won't flip the switches just yet. Political crap and all that causes us to be so slow. 1gb internet should be the standard already. The server hardware is there. It has been there for years. | |
|
|
1 edit | Re: pipeline I think you both miss-understood my question, or I didn't understand your answer. I am not to interested in the speed but more of a better run network. With the cable being owned by Comcast how could I get anything other than DSL from anyone else? Even if they were able to throw a switch at the end I would still be running through all of Comcast's lines to get to a different provider wouldn't I? Even if that was possible. Which means the same amount of people or traffic would be on the same line or pass through the same hubs, ect. And lets just say we have 1g at the pipe who is to say an ISP would offer more speed? We already have way more at the pipe to allow more speed but our ISP or there network wont or cant handle or give more. I still don't see how it would provide a direct impact for me or the possibility of something better if Google was involved. | |
|
 atuarreHere come the drumsPremium
join:2004-02-14
College Station, TX | RE Any time Google makes an announcement people get all excited. Google is not getting into the ISP business and if they did, rest assured, there would be gross violations of privacy (Buzz being a prime example). | |
|
|
|
·
YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero. Welcome to the New Net
