What Are Google and Verizon Up To? 120
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the what-aren't-they-up-to dept.
from the what-aren't-they-up-to dept.
pickens writes "Robert X. Cringley has an op-ed in the NY Times in which he contends that Google has found a way to get special treatment from Verizon without actually compromising net neutrality, by beginning to co-locate some of their portable data centers with Verizon network hubs. 'With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay,' writes Cringley. 'This would save space for other traffic — and money for both Verizon and Google, as their backbone bills decline (wishful thinking, but theoretically possible). Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced.' So why won't Google and Verizon admit what they're up to? 'If my guess is right, then I would think they're silent because it's a secret. They'd rather their competitors not know until a few hundred shipping containers are in place — and suddenly YouTube looks more like HBO.'"
Re:Google TV (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is probably looking at partnering much more closely with Verizon than you realize. VZ has thousands of CO facilities all over the country that are essentially empty -- the footprint of equipment needed to provide landline services is shrinking dramatically. Plus the wireless side has the best site placement of any of the carriers, and the backhaul internet connectivity for many of the cell towers runs through these COs.
Throw some Google clusters in these facilities... and you have an ability to deliver extremely fast application access without traversing the internet or having to increase bandwidth to the thousands of wireless sites.
You nailed it (Score:5, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with being anothe akamai. This has everything to do with Google getting more detailed information on exactly who you are. I'm not a Google hater, but when Google and Verizon partner, they will know almost everything that was in your credit report, where you are right now, where you've been walking with your cell phone, which computer at home you're using (assuming you use their router), what you're watching on TV right now, and what type of porn you like on PPV.
Net neutrality remains, but your privacy most certainly does not.
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:2, Interesting)
So google wants to test the water on a lock in deal. Super fast, instant on data, telco gets boasting rights to 'best ever' experience as the resolution and quality goes up.
Value add the same content and they both hope to lock in and win.
Think of the tracking too if google becomes the isp, your ip and real life stats could mix. Offering as a very nice non "individually identifiable" wink wink data set with long term tracking.
Re:i don't think so (Score:3, Interesting)
And putting Google "pods" (i.e. glorified cargo containers) at these sites with limited bandwidth (T1s or microwave backhauls to better connected towers) is going to be useless. You can't cache everyone's Gmail data at each pod (although you could make a fair attempt at doing so, across thousands of cell sites), and you can't cache all of Youtube at each pod. It'd be cheaper to drag fiber to the towers like AT&T is doing.
"Air doesn't discriminate" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Enhanced? (Score:1, Interesting)
It is different because they are paying for something physical, which is co-location on Verizons network. BTW this is something that has been in practice by CDNs for years, so it isn't really radical.
The principle goal of network neutrality is not to allow ISPs to double dip on the bandwidth charge with protection racket scheme veiled by tiered service. Which is to say, Verizion can't make google (or anyone else) pay for bandwidth or be throttled, which is something the requester (i.e. the consumer) has already paid for (internet access).
It would be beneficial for you to not confuse the two issues, as the first one is business as usual and actually beneficial to us the end user and the content providers (Google) and ISPs (Verzion). Win-Win-Win
The second issue is the one you want to speak out against because end-users lose, content-providers lose (google) and only the ISPs win.
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that the favouring of Google's traffic isn't artificial. In the classical net neutrality scenario, speeding up one company's traffic requires little or no effort on the part of the ISP--the pipes must already exist that can handle such faster traffic, so in reality they're slowing down their competitors by denying access to these pipes. When you colocate a server, though, that actually *does* cost power, physical space, server insurance, et cetera, and the benefits aren't gained by preferential throttling on the part of the ISP. They can't really be held accountable for convenient network topology. It's true this is a little bit of a grey area, but I think my logic is pretty sound.
This isn't the classical net (non-)neutrality scenario, it's that scenario's test case. Once the test case is common and accepted throughout the industry, there won't be anything controversial about the artificial version.
Right now you're assuming that Verizon won't "slow down their competitors" by denying them access to their networks. In reality it costs Verizon a lot of money to build Internet connectivity (fiber connections, backbone connectivity, etc.). Verizon now has a choice: they can invest enough money to meet or exceed their customers' demand for this limited resource. Or they can invest less. If they invest less, then they're effectively creating an artificial scarcity, which has exactly the same effect as the classical net-neutrality scenario. Vimeo will stream their videos over the backbone and Google will stream them from the head-end. Google will offer higher quality with better service level, and Vimeo won't.
Then, once all the major players have their co-located their data centers, two different things will happen. First, it will take all of the wind out of the net-neutrality fight, since Google/Microsoft etc. are the major corporate supporters. People will still talk about it, but nobody will be spending money lobbying for it. In this country that means its legislative chances are zero. More to the point, once the major players have their own datacenters, there will be a huge push by smaller companies who /also/ want access to those scarce network resources. In practice that'll either mean buying fractional co-location through a company like Akamai (who then pays Verizon through the nose for the service), or perhaps directly from Verizon.
Of course once you've gotten there, why pay for colocation at all? After all, it's only reasonable that smaller companies should be able to buy the same level of access that Google does, without the "waste" of colocation. In fact, it's necessary for fairness! So Verizon can then move on to the more artificial scenarios in which it prioritizes some traffic into its network, and so on and so forth. In the long run the goal will be prioritization and tiering throughout Verizon's network.
Provided that Verizon ensures that it always has sufficient capacity to meet everyone's needs, this won't result in anyone being slowed down. That is, of course, completely wishful, ridiculous thinking.