Google to launch pilot broadband.
Google is using its clout to push for more open broadband. I favor net neutrality but I strongly oppose using the government to enforce it. This move by Google seems the best of both worlds.
I heard on the radio some clown saying “but people have no use for 100X faster access” which shows either that he is too young to remember dialup and/or that some people never learn.
Access that fast might zap both mailed movies and attachable storage media, since storing stuff in the cloud would be much better.
While I’d love to have those kinds of speeds available to me, I don’t trust Google to have complete control over my internet experience.
I’ve already made a decision to not use Gmail, because I dislike the idea of Google tracking both my emails and my search history. I really don’t feel comfortable with adding on my entire internet activity. I don’t want Google correlating the address I’ve sent emails to with flight I booked through the airline website. Or my search for recipes using absynth with the on-line purchase I made from a liquor merchant in Budapest.
Google, as all companies are, are there to make money. The temptation to sell my internet surfing history would eventually be to strong for someone.
http://www.desktopbundle.com/top-ten-countries-with-highest-internet-download-speed/ In America our carriers do not keep up with the technology. They are interested in profit, so they will sell your info.
I want to see more info on those connection speeds, before I take those at face value. Does South Korea has such a high number because only a limited number of people are connected, and those are all in large cities with brand new broadband connections?
Did I miss something when reading your link? I didn’t see anything about “more open” broadband, nor net neutrality…
The general consensus is that Google is partly taking a shot across the bow of the network providers. If they try to play games and limit access to areas of the 'net (specifically Google) or limit some applications that Google has the technology to start a more open network.
With Android, the Nexus One and now this Google is pushing the mobile industry to be more open.
They have a newer infrastructure in many cases, without layered generations of older equipment and cabling. The scaling is also different, as is the population distribution, which makes a big difference. They also have a different emphasis in some cases, favoring higher speeds to their mobile infrastructure because that’s what the majority of their customers use (as opposed to here in the US where the preponderance is still on the PC). There are a lot of factors, but you don’t really expect gonzomax to have a nuanced view of anything when he can simply slap the tried and true ‘Corporate Greed!’ logo on it…do you?
-XT
At what point does broadband speed exceed a modern PC’s ability to “translate” the information as fast as its coming in? Where’s the bottleneck on a PC aside from the ISP and their equipment (modem, etc)? Processor? RAM?
Clearly the PC can handle hard drive access speeds.
The common card on a modern computer’s network speed is one gigabit up/down. Considering more than one computer can share a network connection, let’s call the maximum possible usable 3 gigabits/sec.
It is entirely possible to increase this speed.
Who the hell else could possibly enforce, in in any way ensure, it? Do you really trust that Google will forever live up to its “don’t be evil” slogan? Net neutrality might be in their interest now, but there is no guarantee that it always will be (and the same for any other private company).This is like saying “I think there should be a law against murder, but I don’t want the government to enforce it.”
Ah, thank you. However, I have to admit that it’s (still) not clear to me what you’d like to debate. Is it that Google’s push into the realm of carrier obviates the need (IMHO, a need) for net neutrality legislation? Or something else?
Clearly, you can’t be debating that Google’s presence is creating a “more open” network (and market), for that’s axiomatic when another competitor enters the market.
With the throughput on many computers combined with the speeds of solid state drives we are easily talking gigabytes per second. 1 Gigabyte per second would be 8,000 megabit internet speed. My shop currently has 45 megabit internet (comcast business class). and my network can handle 1000 megabit (routers only 100 megabit though)
Further you’d have to connect it to modern computers somehow, most computers don’t have connectors or free expansion buses fast enough to handle networking equipment that fast. Maybe external SATA connectors, or PCIe 4x. USB, PCI, or Firewire would easily choke. Most motherboards don’t have 10 gig Ethernet yet.
Google’s actions are far more helpful then government intrusion. They are responding to market desire for open networks (which helps them make money). This is evidence that the market does not need to be overseen by the government.
How so? Is Google’s actions hurting Bing?
The arguments for why “net neutrality” needs enforced wouldn’t make sense if Google was given control. The main arguments for it are that ISP’s will block certain sites or favor other sites, make certain material inaccessible, or control bandwidth speeds.
This makes little sense, as if they did this, customer’s would simply go to another ISP who would grant more freedom. It would hurt business to limit consumer’s options, and would be a stupid decision if they want to make money and control the largest percentage of the marketplace.
Meanwhile, the government ONCE AGAIN offers us a “solution” to the supposed “problem.” Meanwhile, Obama’s internet czar has called for people need to register with the government before being able to post material to the internet. There has also been countless attacks from both major parties against bloggers as a “threat” of some sort (only when they disagree with them though…the ones they like are in their talking points).
Net Neutrality is just like every other Orwellian piece of swill this government offers us - It does the exact opposite of what it’s proposing to do.
This assumes that there is actual competition in the market place. I think a large part of the issue is that there is no competition in many areas - having one or two players perhaps - but to “simply go to another ISP” is not always possible.
Agreed on (almost) all counts. In your 2nd sentence, though, I think you’re assigning motive without justification. Leave it at “they are responding to market desire” and it’s all good.
I also take slight issue with the 3rd sentence; I’d point out that evidence is generally cumulative. While I’ll agree that their entry into the broadband market can be taken as evidence that net neutrality legislation is not needed, it is in no way conclusive.
At any rate, it’s still not clear to me what you’d like to debate. Google’s motivation for getting into the provider market? The effects it’ll have? Whether net neutrality legislation is necessary? The proper scope of such legislation if it is necessary?
I’d hazard a guess that any difference of opinion between us is more a matter of degree, not fundamental principles.
I think there’s a misunderstanding – I think it’s on your part, as I’m not sure how much simpler I can make that particular point. But let me try again – when an additional competitor enters a market, it increases competition and the market thus becomes “more open”. Google is entering the broadband market, thus it (and related markets) are becoming more open. That’s axiomatic.
I have little idea what you’re trying to convey by referring to Bing, just as I have little idea why you brought up Android/Nexus One (as it relates to Google’s broadband initiative). Is the misunderstanding on my part?
IME, “net neutrality” means very different things to different people, so it’s important to be clear on the arguments. For instance, “controlling bandwidth” is not, in and of itself, an issue – an ISP has a physical limit on how much bandwidth can be supplied, and they divvy it up however they like (generally in a tiered manner). However, it becomes an issue when combined with other items in your list. You supply your definition of “net neutrality”, just so we can be sure we’re not talking past one another.
First, your viewpoint on business decisions is too simplistic. I mean, really? You can’t imagine a scenario where it would make business sense to limit consumers’ options?
Second, as JimNightshade points out, you assume a competitive market such that simply “going to another ISP” is an option.
WTF are you on about here? Can you point me to a specific net neutrality legislative proposal? How about a legislative proposal about registering to post material?
Look, I’ll cop to sometimes wandering into tin-foil-hat territory myself (particularly concerning privacy), but that last quoted bit gives me the sense that you’re a borderline Montana-compound-living, guard-your-bodily-fluids kinda guy. How about proving that my first impression is wrong by providing some facts with your posts (in addition to dialing back on what I’ll assume for the moment to be hyperbole)?