

Why Google makes the perfect ISP - doc4t
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133547-why-google-makes-the-perfect-isp

======
pwny
Whether they succeed or not with Fiber, whether it expands to every American
city or not and whether they get sued because of antitrust laws (which I don't
believe they will), the fact is that they're changing the status quo. Even
only scaring the telecom companies enough for them to offer decent plans is a
win for Google AND for the customer.

Sure Google pursues its own commercial goals but in the end it benefits the
customer as well. I personally think they will succeed, will sign up as soon
as it's available in my city and believe what they're doing is great for the
future of the 'net.

The biggest selling point here (in Canada) would probably not even be the
speed (about 40 times faster than whatever else we can get) but the unlimited
bandwidth. As opposed to the USA (I think) we have very aggressive bandwidth
caps up here. Try consuming anything with a 30Gb/month limit, especially when
your ISP charges a few cents per subsequent Mb without telling you until you
get your bill. You'd be welcoming an alternative like Fiber as well.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Indeed. It's the same as their chrome gambit. Releasing chrome kicked the IE
development team into gear and lit a fire under firefox's ass. Today if I
launch any of the 3 most popular browsers on this machine each of them will
score 100/100 on the acid 3 test and render it smoothly and seamlessly. That
certainly wasn't the case when chrome 1.0 was released a bit more than 3 years
ago. Now the installed base of folks who have truly modern browsers is vastly
higher and the sort of browser-side capabilities one can safely assume when
they build web apps is very much expanded.

~~~
ajross
It's a total digression, but this brings a tear to my eye too. Kids today will
never know the suffering that was endured by their predecessors.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Coincidentally, I just happened to stumble on this yesterday:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHb6M03Ft84>

Computer Chronicles, Battle of the Browsers, 1997.

------
PaulHoule
There's always been a touch of Willy Wonka style unreality about Google Fiber.

Municipalities across the U.S. know that their broadband sucks, and they wrote
proposals to Google in lieu of real action, hoping Google could solve their
problems with their magic wand.

Google still has a "non-evil" and academic reputation in some quarters,
although anybody who makes a living on the streets of the internet knows that
Google is the most dangerous and rapacious company on the net. People think,
for instance, that Google is a noble warrior against web spam, although Google
sustains web spam by (i) being the only signficant source of traffic for many
site types, and (ii) making it possible to monetize crappy content. In fact,
Google has gained "question answering" capabilities in the last few years
thanks to web spam farms run by companies like eHow.

What gets me is that, in a time where the world is overflowing with capital
(signified by low interest rates and general low investment returns) both the
private and public sectors in the U.S. seem completely indifferent to
investments in infrastructure.

(And why should they? Telecom companies can make minimal investments in
infrastructure and charge champagne prices for beer products.)

Google steps in because, like Microsoft, they've got a small number of wildly
profitable products and an inability to use the profits from those products to
create new products of comparable profitability.

This is good for Kansas City, but it's one of just a long list of
distractions, such as snake oil fixed wireless schemes for rural access, that
have stood in the way of a real national plan for broadband U.S.

~~~
VikingCoder
> anybody who makes a living on the streets of the internet knows that Google
> is the most dangerous and rapacious company on the net.

I make a living on the streets of the internet, and could not disagree more
with your conclusion.

You don't speak for everyone, because you certainly don't speak for me.

~~~
fear91
You are clearly in a minority though. I bet that at least 80% of internet
marketers hate Google.

~~~
Achshar
Have you used adwords? I have. And it is pretty transparent about almost
everything that should be available to the advertiser. They certanly have the
website base and actively moniter ads for inapprpiate content, increasing
overall prosperity of the network. Although it could get them more money, they
play for long term and keep the standard high. They need to make money like
every other company.

~~~
fear91
Not really but a friend of mine was scammed out of $40k legit AdSense
earnings.

As for the quality of AdWords - I have not forgotten about the 500 million
dollar fine Google received for pharmacy ads.

~~~
Achshar
> Not really but a friend of mine was scammed out of $40k legit AdSense
> earnings.

Can you give more details? Are you/he suggesting Google scammed him? Any
reason/evidence to believe so?

> As for the quality of AdWords - I have not forgotten about the 500 million
> dollar fine Google received for pharmacy ads.

Adwords is better _when compared to competitors_. This does not mean it is
perfect. Automation can do only so much.

------
rickmb
Google's core business is advertising. Google likes to do stuff with the data
that passes through its systems. Google has explicitly and pro-actively taken
sides in fight against copyright violations instead of remaining a neutral
party.

And they've been less than steadfast on Net Neutrality, which is a big red
flag for a company that wants to be an ISP.

This is not about Google being "evil", but I do not want a company with that
mindset and those interests to be my ISP. It's going to be very tough, if not
impossible to separate those.

I know this is already common practice in the US, with many of the major
(cable) ISP's being part of companies that having a direct stake in copyright
exploitation, advertising etcetera.

So ask yourself: how's that working out for you so far? Would Google really be
any better?

~~~
r00fus
Aside from say, Sonic.net, I'd be hard pressed to find a less "evil" company
(in terms of conflict of interest - most other major ISPs tend to be wireless
carriers or in bed with the entertainment industry or both).

Google may not have it's interests aligned with us end users, but they're a
nice contrast to the remainder, and might be forced to play a countering role
on the copyright front to differentiate.

------
hythloday
Sorry for the weak pun, but I really couldn't help myself: I wish the title
had been "Why Google is an acceptable ISP".

Apropos of the article, I'm increasingly unconvinced that free markets work
well enough when they're dealing with infrastructure--roads, train lines,
phone lines--that have an expensive one-off set-up cost and then a larger cost
of switching while the original provider attempts to recoup the set-up
subsidy. Certainly Britain's experience with train lines, and the US's
existing telco network, among others, seems to demonstrate that it doesn't
tend towards a free market. (Compare, of all places, Somalia's mobile network,
which is thriving--at least relatively, for a country that's been in a civil
war for two decades-- in the absence of a set-up cost).

~~~
yock
I'd probably argue that most private industry infrastructure efforts are
decidedly _not_ free markets. Given the politics involved in building out
large utilities, governments tend to get heavily involved. Around the country
this has resulted in some strange relationships between company and
government, most involving some manner of limited monopoly in exchange for
certain guarantees regarding types of service. Those agreements tend to be
short-sighted and rarely updated, leaving us with aging infrastructure and
legal impedements to competition.

~~~
pyoung
There are some good and bad reasons for this. For example, the deregulation of
electric utilities in California in 1996 was an epic failure. Part of that was
due to the design of the deregulation scheme, but a lot of is was attributed
to the perverse incentives of the free market.

------
kodablah
If I were a potential customer, my biggest fear would be customer service.
There is a track record of no-human-contact service disabling; especially with
"free" products.

If Google shuts down an ad-sense account for perceived violation without good
justification or interaction, how can I expect them not to do the same with my
internet for an unjust DMCA complaint?

~~~
ajross
Indeed. There is much fear and uncertainty about Google's proposed service.
You are right to doubt them.

~~~
jahmed
Fear and uncertainty? The company that provides fairly clear blog posts,
comments, changelogs and EOL guidance for its many of its products?

Goog has made a commitment for at least 7 years on this project which is great
for a capital intensive project. This is a long term bet that has tons of
potential for both the company and the ecosystem. Google has always been
particularly good at building reference models that they are in many cases
happy with everyone else copying. Look at Gmail, Chrome, Android, Maps and the
features they helped create or popularize. Fiber is another example of what
Google thinks is a good idea and one that they think you'll agree with.

In the end Google doesnt care who you get a gigabit connection from they just
want everyone to have one. The KC network is just an example they want people
to copy.

~~~
ajross
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt>

------
michaelfeathers
The real question, and the one that the article doesn't answer is whether an
advertising company is a better ISP than a telecom.

~~~
prodigal_erik
It would be really hard to be worse than a telecom, whether we're judging on
incompetence or malice.

------
ArbitraryLimits
Let's take a poll: How many people here understand that Google is doing this
because Internet connections are a complement of your personal data, which
they would like to monetize, and not out of the goodness of their hearts?

~~~
pwny
Let's take a poll: How many people here understand that Google is a
corporation and therefore has making money as its primary goal?

Seriously, what would be wrong from a corporate standpoint would be for Google
to be doing this out of the goodness of their heart, not the opposite. You
don't like it, don't use it. I bet you'll have a real easy time finding
someone to pull fiber to your house and provide you with gigabyte internet
without trying to monetize it.

Welcome to capitalism, I'm personally quite happy with it.

~~~
ArbitraryLimits
I wasn't _complaining_ that Google is a nameless, faceless, soulless
corporation just like the ISPs, just trying to remind people.

------
Sunlis
> It gets better: For people that don’t need a super-fast connection, Google
> is offering a 5Mbps connection for free — yes, free. If Google Fiber
> expands, there’s no guarantee that this will remain the case, but it could
> totally upset the market for entry-level broadband. Even the “catch” isn’t
> that much of a catch. Google is planning on charging a one-time $300 fee to
> run the fiber to each residence, but if you opt for a contract, the fee is
> waived. Free accounts will have to pay the installation fee, unfortunately.

Free for 7 years. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's still relevant.

~~~
taligent
The antitrust implications for this are massive.

Google would clearly be subsiding the cost of the broadband with
advertising/sales from their online properties. If you are someone like Vimeo,
Hulu, Netflix etc then you would forever be at a disadvantage to Youtube due
to bandwidth costs. Similarly the proven importance of speed in site
popularity and conversions means that an entire raft of competitors would
again be at a disadvantage. And finally Google would be in a position to wipe
out hundreds/thousands of small mom+pop ISPs.

The Google Fiber on its own has competition issues but a free service could
just about tip it over the line.

~~~
latch
Are you a lawyer?

Antitrust law is complicated. Simply subsidizing or undercutting competitors
isn't nearly enough; nor is having a monopoly. For example, it wasn't
Microsoft's monopoly that got them in trouble, it's that it leveraged its
monopoly on Windows to force a monopoly of the browser (special APIs and
restrictive license agreements with OEMs)...not to mention the whole Java
thing.

Anyways, if someone came out with free energy or free telephones, I doubt
anyone would complain. These are utilities. The internet is the same. Last
year the UN even declared that the internet is a fundamental basic human right

~~~
briandear
> the UN even declared that the internet is a fundamental basic human right

The UN should stick to prancing around in blue helmets handing out food while
ignoring genocide in Tibet.

------
yalogin
I really hope they succeed or at least stay in the game long enough to make a
difference. Remember the Verizon "open" ads a while ago when ATT was kicking
their butt with the iPhone? Android came along and they quickly shoved the
open thing under the rug. Nothing changed in the wireless world except for the
visual voice mail aspect. The current players in the wired internet market do
not have competition. All they are interested in is making commercials and
getting more customers. Google would be a swift kick in the butt for comcast
and others. They will be forced to improve.

------
tscrib
Once this gets rolled out to more cities, this will certainly be looked back
as a disruptive product in the home internet market. Google is well-placed to
destroy the traditional ISPs.

Google Fiber: come to Canada please!

------
RoryH
They are perfect because they charge $70 for gigabit fiber. period. :-D

------
nicholassmith
You know what'll make google the best ISP? The fact is they only care about
getting you online and keeping you there, which is much different to most ISPs
who only care about you _paying_. As long as you've paid that month, why
bother when you're offline for a day or two?

Plus I bet they'll have the best first line techs.

------
funthree
A company _like_ Google could make a better ISP, but to cheer a growing
internet monopoly just seems ridiculous.

> Free internet at today's average speeds

> $300 construction fee (one time or 12 monthly payments of $25) + taxes and
> fees

Google is going full circle. I wonder if the cost for Google to give internet
to people who didn't otherwise have it (and at no charge to them) actually
paid dividends very soon because that person is going to immediately generate
new revenue for google from the inevitable use of Google/adwords. I think John
D. Rockefeller would tip his hat, tbh.

