Comment Are people really that blind to Google? (Score 0) 283
The responses above make me sad for how predictable /. responses have become - if its Google and China's not mentioned then they must be right, if its telcos, or MS or the Patent Office it must be bad..
A few posters are near the target, there is only one motivation and thats future money. Google has to get some more substance behind its business, as one day its page hits will fall, and the advertising it generates will drop off.
The key, and has been for a long time, is content. If you own / control content that people want then the money will follow. Google has quasi-content in that they rely upon everyone else to generate it, but make it easy to access - as long as you are on the first couple of pages. However they want more - and high quaility video streaming of content is a way to get into really big ticket money - what if Google bought the rights to Premiership football (for the UK) or the Superbowl in US - all exclusivly available on Google Video for the sum of $$$
So Google needs to do a couple of things No 1 - restrict is competitors and No2 protect its access to consumers.
Telcos have a problem that they drove data prices rock bottom, supported by their PSTN revenues, but now are seeing the PSTN revenues disapear as voice just gets shifted to data - so they need to move into the content business as well. If a telco builds data centers at network hubs that already have Gb's of connectivity into them it makes good sense, they don't need to bias traffic - they just charge Google for the Gb's of access they will need - or charge a premium for carrying multicast traffic.
Why? Well, funnily enough to carry that much data costs telcos money - and that money is going to come from one of two places - the content provider, or the consumer - if you restrict the ability of telco's to charge the content providers appropriately for the traffic, then the only place they can get it from is the consumer - you and me. So what happens is we end up paying more for our connections, and the content providers get even richer as we subsidise the bandwidth they should be paying for and we still have to endure the advertising that Google is getting paid to provide - moiney that should be paying for bandwidth.
Earlier in this appalingly written, badly spelt rambling rant I mentioned that content is key, Google have to be very careful how they position the whole neutrality piece lest it come back and bite them. Google is so pervasive that if you have content, you need to rank highly on Google to get people to see it - how do you do that? Well you take your chance on the secret alogrithm, or you pay some money and still take your chance - so how is that different from a telco saying to Google 'sure you can take your chance with everything else or you can pay some extra and be further up the page^H^H^H^H QoS queue?
My predication is that in 5 years time Google will be seen as very bad thing for real freedom and access to information - lets hope /. survives so I can point to the archives and let the inevitable flamee's have a chance to re-consider their views - assuming the then all-pervasive google-bar or google brower doesn't censor it..
A few posters are near the target, there is only one motivation and thats future money. Google has to get some more substance behind its business, as one day its page hits will fall, and the advertising it generates will drop off.
The key, and has been for a long time, is content. If you own / control content that people want then the money will follow. Google has quasi-content in that they rely upon everyone else to generate it, but make it easy to access - as long as you are on the first couple of pages. However they want more - and high quaility video streaming of content is a way to get into really big ticket money - what if Google bought the rights to Premiership football (for the UK) or the Superbowl in US - all exclusivly available on Google Video for the sum of $$$
So Google needs to do a couple of things No 1 - restrict is competitors and No2 protect its access to consumers.
Telcos have a problem that they drove data prices rock bottom, supported by their PSTN revenues, but now are seeing the PSTN revenues disapear as voice just gets shifted to data - so they need to move into the content business as well. If a telco builds data centers at network hubs that already have Gb's of connectivity into them it makes good sense, they don't need to bias traffic - they just charge Google for the Gb's of access they will need - or charge a premium for carrying multicast traffic.
Why? Well, funnily enough to carry that much data costs telcos money - and that money is going to come from one of two places - the content provider, or the consumer - if you restrict the ability of telco's to charge the content providers appropriately for the traffic, then the only place they can get it from is the consumer - you and me. So what happens is we end up paying more for our connections, and the content providers get even richer as we subsidise the bandwidth they should be paying for and we still have to endure the advertising that Google is getting paid to provide - moiney that should be paying for bandwidth.
Earlier in this appalingly written, badly spelt rambling rant I mentioned that content is key, Google have to be very careful how they position the whole neutrality piece lest it come back and bite them. Google is so pervasive that if you have content, you need to rank highly on Google to get people to see it - how do you do that? Well you take your chance on the secret alogrithm, or you pay some money and still take your chance - so how is that different from a telco saying to Google 'sure you can take your chance with everything else or you can pay some extra and be further up the page^H^H^H^H QoS queue?
My predication is that in 5 years time Google will be seen as very bad thing for real freedom and access to information - lets hope
