Could Google Fiber Save Network Neutrality? 230
nmpost writes "Could Google Fiber, set to launch next week, be the savior of network neutrality? Some speculate that the program is Google's answer to attacks on network neutrality by the big internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. These companies complain about the price of upgrading and maintaining their network, and want to charge websites like Google extra money to allow customers fast access to its sites. This practice would violate the long held spirit of the internet, where all data traffic is treated equally. Google may be out to prove that fast networks can be built and maintained at reasonable prices."
The real test (Score:5, Interesting)
Reasonable price != market-building price (Score:4, Interesting)
We are still in a mode in many areas where ISPs are trying to build market share, especially with DSL. DSL took a big hit when the equal-access provisions were found to be unworkable - technology passed them by and nobody noticed - but you still see offers for $14.99 DSL service.
Look at "business rates" for DSL or cable and you will see what the real costs are. Nobody is interested in competing on price for business customers, so they do not. The result is the prices are 3-4 times the residential rates and in many areas they will not give you a "residential" (i.e., cheap) plan at a business address.
On the residential front, most of the ISPs are trying to compete on price because the service is pretty well known. What is the difference with business service? Certainly nothing that changes the real cost structure, in fact things are added which cost more for the ISP.
Where most of the "network neutrality" flap has come from is the ISPs are offering below-cost service to residential customers in an effort to still build market share. Of course, any residential user that is doing more than web surfing and reading email is costing them more in peering than they are getting from the customer on an Internet-only plan. Should be obvious why they want you on a bundled plan with cable TV and phone service. The business customer is in a market-building mode so they are charged full cost plus.
So why are the ISPs screaming? Because they boxed themselves in with below-cost pricing for residential customers. The same residential customers that are doing much more than just web surfing and reading email. They can't raise prices to their customers - they are building market share. So where are they going to recoup their real costs? You guessed it - the other end of the connection, the one with no options and the one with the deep pockets.
Could Google come in an offer service to residential customers? Maybe, but they are far more likely to offer service on their own terms to ISPs - perhaps with no peering charges at all. Google is paying nothing or almost nothing for the existing fiber - they bought it already. So their costs are already sunk into it. Would an ISP sign on with Google? If the other option is to continue to pay someone else for traffic to Google... maybe it makes sense.
Could Google compete on a residential service level? Sure, I suppose. But they would have the same costs as the ISP does for customer service (script readers in India) and physical plant maintenance (outsourced to independent contractors) and they would have to make a huge investment into local terminations - nodes where the connections to homes would be. It makes much more sense for them to offer independent Google connections bypassing the current peering arrangements to save the ISPs rather than paying the ISPs for the privilege of having eyeballs.
The advantage for Google is with a completely independent pipe to each and every ISP they can do a much better job of geographic data mining. And traffic analysis so they know the Detroit suburbs aren't going to Amazon as much as the folks in Scottsdale. There are probably hundreds of other things they can collect this way with a tap into every ISP. Probably with a router running custom Google code to facilitate this tap. It makes paying for the fiber a rounding error on the balance sheet compared with the value of the information they can collect.
Re:Fast Networks (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it really isn't that expensive. I put in my own fiber network for our farm, home and business. Small, but then we're smaller than Google (surprise!) and I had a very good reason. Fiber is immune to lightning strikes which are a huge problem up here on the mountain. Next I would like to lay fiber the mile and a half down to the phone company. It pushes the lightning strike problem that much further away from us.
Re:Fast Networks (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the difference between Municipal run Media/Internet and my solution which is FREE ENTERPRISE. IF your municipal "Cable" sucked, who could you turn to? Nobody. IF the Comcast/Time-Warner/Roadrunner/Verizon/ATT who got the 5 year lease on the plant sucked, you could fire them and replace them with someone else.
Competition is good.
The problem with Liberals AND Conservatives alike, they don't know where the boundries ought to be. The Plant to the house (last mile) is just like the Road in front of my house. It is Infrastructure. I does need to be maintained and improved from time to time. However like a road, I'm suggesting that it is available for anyone to use.
Read my reply to one of the earlier posts in this thread, I said everything could be run to a CO where a tech would manage the connections for the providers, and switch you to the new provider etc.
The problem is that we need to think OUTSIDE the "Nationalized" model and the "unregulated" crap both sides seem hell bent on moving towards.
Net Neutrality would not be an issue if we weren't hostages to the "Local Monopolies".
Re:Last mile (Score:4, Interesting)
// So Google did get to the front doors of all the people in Kansas City, and Charter and AT&T couldn't stop them, because the city agreed to it. //
As a Kansas City-area resident, I'm afraid this is not the case. I don't know anyone that lives in Kansas City, KS that currently has access to Google Fiber services, or that has seen any trucks or workers in their neighborhood.
Google has been very short on public details with this entire project, and this launch that the article is referring to has to refer to a very limited and localized deployment.
Keep in mind that physical installation did not even begin until this past February: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytjn-5_li-I [youtube.com]
'A Google spokeswoman would not say whether the announcement actually means somebody in Kansas City will finally get a light-speed connection next week.
"We're excited to announce more information Google Fiber next week," said Jenna Wandres. "We haven't elaborated on what arriving means."'
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/18/3711326/google-fiber-to-make-july-26-announcement.html#storylink=misearch [kansascity.com]
I'll be curious to eventually find out who has access to it, exactly, and how long it'll be before any significant portions of the city are lit up.
Re:ISPs have become oligopolies (Score:5, Interesting)
this is all about monopolies and their control over competition
long ago there was the pots and because the government had helped develop it, the local operators had to provide access to their competitors, this lead to the proliferation of DSL carriers and competition was introduced into a stagnant market where only isdn was offered
the incumbent local operators worked to destroy the competitive DSL carriers and rolled out their own offerings, which resulted in relatively high speed access to millions of customers. Cable providers rolled out their own services and for a while we saw speeds climbing and easier deliveries of services
the FCC made allowance to the carriers installing new networks to support these services that they would not have to provide equal access to other carriers if there was any segment of fiber on the new network, effectively locking out new competition. This has resulted in slow growth in data speed offerings and attempts to Monetize their assets by jacking up fees and charges on people using large amounts of data
The only thing that will re-introduce competition and the resulting increase in service levels and lower of costs will be a challenger that is willing to bear the cost to build out their own fiber to the curb network. Fortunately Google has that type of money to invest and relationships with the big data carriers to support this buildout
all hail the new king, but be wary of their monopoly should it come
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a significant difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. That said, it is quite true that the business environment rewards sociopaths inordinately over non-sociopaths. The actual proportion is nearly impossible to know, however, as sociopaths who succeed in business are those who have exceptional adeptness at manipulation and the spinning of fabulously intricate and entirely plausible webs of utter bullshit (while only rarely being caught doing it).
The error is in believing the current system is the cause of this, rather than coming to the true conclusion that sociopaths have an inherent advantage when it comes to concentrating power through manipulation. They are almost purpose-built (the ones who don't spend their time abducting and killing, anyway) to excel in games of social engineering, which is the basis of both business and politics.
The other error is in equating the successful businessperson with the rich in general. While the former generally belongs to the latter group, the latter group as composed of many who are not the former. The bulk of the world's concentrated wealth is more likely to be held as an accident of birth than as a result of being a highly successful sociopath, and in that they are much more likely to be average than clinically insane.