Google's Sinister(?) Plans

puppetman writes "This week, Robert X. Cringely makes some interesting observations as to what Google's up to next. He theorizes that Google is looking to create a bandwidth shortage that will drive ISP/cable/telephone customers into it's open arms (often with the blessing of the ISP/cable/telephone company). The evidence: leasing massive amounts of network capacity, and huge data centers in rural areas (close to power-generation facilities). The shortage will only occur if the average bandwidth consumption by individual consumers skyrockets; think mainstream BitTorrent, streaming moves from NetFlix, tv episodes from iTunes, video games on demand, etc, etc. Spooky and sinister, or sublime and smart?"

Or how about...

[Bin_jammin]

Cringley's an idiot, and we're all dumber for having been exposed to this. Sinister? Creating a bandwidth shortage? How about anyone can see bandwidth usage is going up, and will likely do so further into the future. I don't really see how this can be considered anything other than gambling on a developing market. Sinister implies something evil. That can't be right, Google's credo is Do No Evil after all. To sum it up: Cringley=bad, Google=business.

bandwidth shortage?

[d34thm0nk3y]

How exactly does one "create" a bandwidth shortage?

Re:Is it

[dreddnott]

I wish it really was April Fool's day! I'm not at all familiar with Robert X. Cringely but what he's talking about sounds like tinfoil hattery mixed with John C. Dvorak's generally off-the-wall and consequently pointless speculations.

Wild speculation

[ParraCida]

So total internet data traffic is going to multiply by 30 in the next 3-4 years you say? That's a nice statement to make without any research to back it up.

The only thing he's got is google buying up loads of fiber and apparently power for their datacenters, while the immediate goal for this is as yet is unknown to us, a takeover of the internet infrastructure would be one of the less likely scenarios.

Wait a minute...

[TheGreatHegemon]

So Google bought MILLIONS of dollars worth of cable and data centers in case bandwidth demand SKYROCKETS by some freak chance that Bittorrent suddenly becomes massive? And they're EVIL for considering this? Right.

"Sinister"? wtf?

[SirTalon42]

At least the blurb makes it sound like the author of the article thinks actually USING your bandwidth is a BAD thing. I think that if google (or anyone else, even microsoft or apple) gave people reason to use more of their bandwidth (like more streaming content, more stuff to download that appeals to joe sixpack without taking even as much effort as going to the pirate bay or another site to try and find a torrent) is a GREAT thing. At first it may cause the internet to have some pains (if its a sudden surge, most likely it'll be a slow acceleration), it'll be only temporarily before the ISPs upgrade their network's capacity (which several are already doing anyways), which would mean EVERYONE would end up with higher speeds much quicker.

How exactly would that be a bad thing (or did my not reading the article mean I completely missed the point? If so, I'm sure many a slashdotter will be correcting me)

Re:I've been saying for a while now

[Frosty Piss]

If microsoft was pulling some of the stuff that google had done in the past, people would be up in arms. Instead, simply because they're not microsoft, they get the public's and the IT's blessing.

We know with almost 100% certainty that if Microsoft where doing something like this, there is no possible way it would benifit the consumer. With Google, that's not such a sure thing. Maybe it's bad, maybe it's not. But with Microsoft, it's sure to be bad.

Yet another moronic mistake in the blurb...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are about to write IT'S, ask yourself "IS IT 'IT IS'" ?
If it's not IT IS, then it's ITS.

Think: HIS HERS ITS.
not HI'S HER'S IT'S.

Otherwise you look like an idiot.

Re:bandwidth shortage?

[dreddnott]

Don't you remember the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 1973? Sometimes simply saying that there's a shortage of something can function as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In case network neutrality breaks down...

[comingstorm]

Google can't possibly corner the market on communications. It makes more sense as a defense against the breakdown of network neutrality -- the whole point of killing network neutrality is so that big teleco's can extort money from big network players like Google; the little guys aren't worth billing...

If Google owns it's own pipes, they have a level of immunity.

What is he smoking?

[malfunct]

Did he ever think that maybe they need TONS of bandwidth to replicate thier data between the thousands of servers in thier giant backend? Did he ever think that power costs are significant enough that not moving near cheap power is a significant business disadvantage? I work on a team dealing with exactly the same datacenter issues and I highly doubt any sinister plans on googles part (even though I don't personally trust them for completely different reasons).

The answer is easy, Google is just trying to keep up with the monster they have created.

Seriously?

[jhjessup]

C'mon, people! Think about this for just a sec... Cringley's claiming that Google has been buying rights to data lines (future bandwidth) - secretly - for some time now. Cringley hypothesises that Google's motivation for this is their corporate insight concerning the future of a more bandwidth-intensive public. Assuming that this hypothesis is correct (it's reasonable), how is it sinister? Google sees that users are using more bandwidth, they see that they can position themselves in such a way as to capitalize it in the future. It's good business sense. Their stock probably is undervalued.

Plotting for the inevitable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who has ever planned a large network (meaning .0000000000001% of Slashdotters) already knows that getting users to hog MORE bandwidth doesn't require an evil plot. All it requires is a network and attached computers.

If you build it, they will come. If you offer something for users to use, they will use it.

It's simple reality, no evil plot required.

Re:In case network neutrality breaks down...

[Dr. Spork]

Remember that the big beneficieries of the end of net neutrality will be the "last mile" owners, the ISP's. But yes, if Google has many data centers around the country, they could just provide free wireless for everyone, or at least threaten to if the ISP's don't play ball. They've done it in San Francisco, even got some city money for it. Since they wouldn't have to pay bandwith costs (they own the network), hardware fix-it and installation guys (it's wireless), and billing/customer support staff (it's free), they might keep their costs low enough to really make it worth their while to give it away. In any case, it's smart of them to be buying "real" property while there's still money to go around.

What, and miss out on a chance...

[Lotvog]

... to coin the term GEvil? For shame, Columcille.

taking over the world?

[Danzigism]

aslong as we get the gourmet meals and time to work on projects, let them take it over already.. it couldn't be worse than things already are..

Re:How about google.net ?

[Tony Hoyle]

And if someone wanted to create a successful 'unofficial' TLD google would be the people to do it. Unless a website is indexed by google it effectively doesn't exist (unless it's big/well known already). If google started returning .ggl sites I'd be adding their root servers the next day.

Credit where credit is due

[AllParadox]

Google has created its business on a single rock-solid concept: integrity.

Google will not route weird advertising to you just because they get paid for it. They will do their level best to allow you to run your own searches, and find whatever it may be that you seek. Any advertising is strictly ignorable in the right column.

Granting Google the possibility of ethical and honest conduct, I can think of a more likely possibility.

AT&T, the *Mother* of all telephone companies, wants to provide net services to all their customers. As part of their "services" they intend to randomly interrupt the flow of packets, effectively degrading the truly fearsome competitor to the phone company: Vonage.

Google, with power backups and significant broadband capability, can deliver what AT&T wants to disrupt: quality Vonage or other VOIP services.

After that, who needs MS? Google can be your phone company.

I sure trust them more than I do AT&T or Ed Whitacre.

Story submitter bias

[F452]

People, please RTFA article first before confusing the biased story summary with what Cringely actually said. It is a very interesting column, and of course quite speculative. I didn't get the impression that Bob was suggesting anything sinister on Google's part, certainly I don't think he was suggesting that they would create a bandwidth shortage. What nonsense.

Re:I've been saying for a while now

[ClassMyAss]

I've never paid Google a cent in my life, yet they have for a long time provided me with services that truly make my life easier. I will more than happily put up with a few ads for the use of their search engine, Google Maps, Gmail, and Google Earth alone.

Microsoft, on the other hand, treats me like a criminal, writes software that is designed more to line their pockets than help the user get things done, and has now weaseled me into paying for XP three times over because of their shady OEM deals. And frankly, I don't even like the software very much, I only use it because of lock-in.

If someone has screwed you in the past, you expect the worst, whereas if someone has treated you well you give them the benefit of the doubt. Google has my trust until they show me that they no longer deserve it; Microsoft has already convinced me that it's up to no good. So yes, you are right, people would be up in arms if Microsoft was pulling this stuff, because people quite reasonably expect Microsoft to rip the customer off as much as possible, while taking all possible steps to force them to remain customers. People expect Google to make a damned killing off of this while actually creating a valuable service at a reasonable price. To me that goes way beyond being "not microsoft."

Re:Econ 101 Anybody?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Of course, there are many nutjobs (rhymes with star-heft-miberals) that will always look at big business with shifty eyes.

And apparently there will always be a nutjob that rhymes with moehoward who will insert random attacks on his preferred group to hate so that when he does actually make a good point, reasonable people will wonder if he really is insightful or just lucky in the same way that a broken watch still tells the correct time twice a day.

Re:Story submitter bias

[F452]

You wrote: "He theorizes that Google is looking to create a bandwidth shortage that will drive ISP/cable/telephone customers into it's open arms."

Please spell it out for me. What did Cringely write that suggests this sinister plot?

As far as I can tell, he is saying that Google is positioning themselves to be there when bandwidth requirements skyrocket. That's a lot different than causing a shortage to create the situation.

Re:No kidding...

[chimpo13]

Google is tarnishing their image with the "buy your domain through us" thing. Check out the google boards and read the many responses from people with problems.

I bought a domain for a friend as an Xmas present. I wanted to forward it to a blog (blogspot, which is owned by google). No go. Can't get an answer out of google, it's automated. I just want to cancel it and re-register the domain with another company. Google used GoDaddy for registration, and GoDaddy said they can't help me because the domain I bought is owned by Google. Sheesh.

It drove me up a wall and I'll end up letting the domain sit blank for a year and then expire and die.

$10 for the domain and 1 hour 15 minutes on the phone being bounced around GoDaddy. When Google really decides to go evil, we're all doomed. Doomed, I tells ya'. Doomed.

Re:Trying to get Around MS's monopoly

[donnacha]

I suspect that by 2008, we will see a free Google OS. It will be Linux.

Not going to happen.

This is like those "Google browser based on FireFox" rumors - fun to talk about but just not going to happen.

A Google-branded desktop OS based on Linux would hurt Apple a lot more than Microsoft. Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO of Google, is also on Apple's board. And, no, that doesn't mean there's going to be a Google-branded OS based on OS X!

At this time, I do not fear Google or the ppl that currently run it. Problem is that they will not be in charge all the time. In addition, as they say, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If nothing else, look at MS. 25 years ago, BG was a good guy.

Er... no, again. 25 years ago, Bill Gates was the same vicious and scheming asshole he is today - it was just that the realization took about 20 years to filter through to the mainstream media. Microsoft started out rotten and stayed rotten. Google started out clean, have managed to remain reasonably clean so far, who knows what will happen in the future but a good start certainly helps.

Re:Google?

[mikeabbott420]

It's a question of smart not of evil. If the bandwidth increases we have all seen over the last 15 years continue in their exponential way then all communication tech TV,radio,phone etc will inevitably be subsumed by this. Google are building for that.

Re:Plotting for the inevitable?

[Marsala]

Makes sense to me.

My network engineer is always telling me he's got more common sense in his pinky than all of the monkeys in my department put together.

Usually right before he changes the passwords on the switches.

Re:Financial hedging and commoditization of bandwi

[Rich0]

Excellent - the natural progression of this would be to run one cable from each computer on the internet to every other computer on the internet - so as to not have to pay to share cables. And if the major ISPs get their way it might be cheaper that way too.

Gotta love technological steps backwards. I always thought the whole point of packet-switching is that you DON'T need 3 bazillion circuits between point A and point B. But we'll end up having them anyway since every ISP is going to be at 1% utilization but charging and arm and a leg just the same.