<<   <   Page 5 / 6   >   >>
darkone 12/5/2012 | 3:00:49 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet Fair enough on LightReadings part. I don't have time either so it is better to filter. I expected the forums to figure that one out instead of spiraling into a debate about the merits of video.

Google wants to become a WiFi ISP. It might be what they think they need to do to compete if there is a MSN / AOL agreement. I am curious why they would build it completely rather than say buying Tmobiles US operations or trying to work with an incumbent mobile provider.

As fits Unstrung, wires so old, so busted.

fanfare 12/5/2012 | 3:00:48 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet Steve,

You said:

""Peer-to-peer content dwarfs most other traffic types.""

I read a report about 5 months ago that stated 30% of all internet traffic was in the form of bit torrents. bit torrent clients are only one example of peer to peer. Also, many content exchangers/release groups/teenagers getting content use FTP because it is reliable. There is also IRC/DCC and even web based access to content. I think we need to be careful about underestimating the type of traffic that is out there now .. and using this to make predictions about future needs. As someone said earlier, one of the best indicators of where a market is going is to look at the younger users.

You mentioned cable companies as the prime competitor for last mile access. You are forgetting edge ring owner/operators who, often, are network providers for cable companies. Companies like OnFiber, PTD .. etc are building out local rings like crazy. They are offering optical drops to their rings .. which dump to the bones at alarming discounts to what RBOC's can bring. Someone mentioned OPEX as it relates to less personell, trucks, boxes, etc. You put LH/ULH carriers with next gen infrastructure together with these local ring ops/owners and you get a mechanism that threatens traditional carriers in a big way. Big cable companies such as Comcast represent (or will represent) this type of model (although obviously they began as a cable company and integrated backward).

I see a lot of "legacy" perspective being tossed around here. I understand now why the next gen companies are not given much respect from traditional carrier folks. For some reason conventional carrier wisdom wants to push aside any concepts which threaten their way of life (go figure eh?). However, I think it's time to wake up and realize that legacy may be facing a serious disruption... even more than it has already gone through. GOOG is really taken an example of this model and simply brought it to the forefront of the minds of industry people. The truth is, this country is behind in it's progress toward a new model, and when it finally starts to move there will be some serious upheavals in this industry. I'll bet companies like VZ and SBC execs are secretly tense on issues like this. They may be smiling to the camera .. but I'm inclined to believe they are feeling a bit of a nervous twitch beneath their executive armor.
bluesignal 12/5/2012 | 3:00:48 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet
Did anyone read the google wifi faq?

It's not a Wifi service, but seems to be an encrypted VPN type service that runs over any wifi service you already use. This would be really useful when you are using public un-encrypted wifi like Tmobile, Wayport, etc.

stephencooke 12/5/2012 | 3:00:47 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet fanfare,

I agree with you. Don't forget the MP3 peer-to-peer traffic that slows most of our home PCs down after school hours. Bit torrents are often used for peer-to-peer video files. Some blue-collar people I know would set up a download of a popular movie before they went to work in the morning and watch it in the evening after work. They were happy because they have an 'unlimited' Internet connection and the bit torrent peer-to-peer files were free, as long as you agreed to share them with others.

I have said many times that the telecom carrier execs are loosing a lot of sleep these days. In terms of LH/ULH carriers teaming up with local optical ring guys though, this model is similar to what started the CLECs. It works well for business customers, primarily large businesses, but as the number of potential customers goes up, so does the complexity of providing the service and the physical amount of equipment that has to be deployed in the field, powered, housed, etc. (ie: logistics make the business case harder and harder to realize).

That said, this model strikes at the heart of the RBOCs as they make most of their margin on business services (also why the CLECs targetted businesses; smaller numbers compared to residential with higher margin capability per customer). Here is yet another facet to the market which techies often ignore: legislative clout. This was how the RBOCs killed the CLECs. They kept the CLECs in court or out lobbied them with every level of government so that a huge amount of the CLEC revenue went to their lawyers instead of their investors or customers. Incidentally, it is generally, though not always, true that the more residential lines you service the more clout you have with politicians. Therefore you can win large amounts of revenue with new technology via offering services focussed on businesses but if you go up against a competitor who services more households on a legislative (read political) issue, you are at a disadvantage.

"Legacy" technology is what most of the existing networks run on today. Tomorrow, today's technology will be called "legacy". The key is to be able to look to the future but understand the legacy of what worked and why it worked (note that this may or may not include technological observations). Also know that a huge corporation, once threatened can and will bring enormous and diverse resources to bear in the fight for survival. Incidentally, they have also been known to acquire potential competitors. Money talks.

jepovic 12/5/2012 | 3:00:45 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet However, I think it's time to wake up and realize that legacy may be facing a serious disruption


The problem is: From a carrier perspective, I see nothing new here.

If it was anyone else than Google making this investment, everyone would think it was just plain stupid.
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 3:00:44 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet Perhaps that is because anyone other than GOOG would be missing a key piece of the revenue puzzle. It makes no sense to get the ball to the 99 yard line and drop it like a LVLT.
spelurker 12/5/2012 | 3:00:43 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet "The reason VoD services haven't taken off yet is because the content available isn't diverse enough, it isn't easily accessible, and it isn't offered at the right price."

I have to agree with this. Putting on my "consumer" hat, I have to say that I usually don't want any of the whopping 5 movies that are available on demand from my Cable company at any one time, and I don't want to pay movie theater prices for it. And the whole "mobile video" concept is stupid -- not because I wouldn't want to see a movie while traveling, but because video is much less appealing on a 2 inch cellphone screen or on a 100kb link.

What IS appealing is a video that is of broadcast quality and large enough to fill my laptop monitor. We are just on the cusp of this sort of service becoming available. BitTorrent is just the precursor, while we are waiting for the delivery infrastructure to support this in streaming form. This quality of video takes ~2Mb to deliver with today's best compression technology. 2Mb data services to the home have only been available for ~3 years and are only now becoming reliable & common enough for this to be feasable.

Based on this, and having kept my ear to the ground, I think the "video revolution" that people have been promising me for the past 20 years is actually going to happen. (I remember being in the ATM switch business in the early '90s, and someone asked "can I really get video on it?" to which, my cynical response was "yeah, IF you've got something to connect it to, and IF you've got some content to feed into it, and IF you have some applications at either end to set it up....". My cynicism is fading quickly.)
networker62 12/5/2012 | 3:00:37 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet I would like to come back to the original question

If you look at the GOOGs WiFi secure solution, this is nothing more than a VPN tunnel from the user directly to the Google servers.

Look at Googles FAQ :

"If you choose to use Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted and sent through Google's servers to the Internet. The data that is received will then be encrypted and sent back through our servers to your computer."

Does that mean that GOOG is going to let all internet traffic of these users pass trough their VPN servers ? Suppose this secure WiFi solution becomes popular, the google servers will see a HUGE amount of traffic passing. Could that be a reason to build an own, huge network ?
Are we tomorrow sending all of our internet traffic first to Google before it is passed from there to the destination server of my preferred site ? This would really put GOOG in the driver seat. With one move, GOOG reduces all operators to bitpipe providers (from the end-user the Google network)
gotman 12/5/2012 | 3:00:35 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet Where is Honestly? I don't see him on this wagen,
so i'm going to start the rumor he would hate to hear. Who can confirm the google crs-1 deal is on/done?
multithreaded 12/5/2012 | 3:00:30 AM
re: Google's Own Private Internet Netmeeting is widely used if a development team is spread across multiple sites.

What else free tools can you use instead of NetMeeting?
<<   <   Page 5 / 6   >   >>
Sign In