Posted on 8/16/2005, 3:58:48 AM by seacapn
What if Google (GOOG) wanted to give Wi-Fi access to everyone in America? And what if it had technology capable of targeting advertising to a user’s precise location? The gatekeeper of the world’s information could become one of the globe’s biggest Internet providers and one of its most powerful ad sellers, basically supplanting telecoms in one fell swoop. Sounds crazy, but how might Google go about it?
First it would build a national broadband network -- let's call it the GoogleNet -- massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers. Business 2.0 has learned from telecom insiders that Google is already building such a network, though ostensibly for many reasons. For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of "dark," or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York’s AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York. Such large-scale purchases are unprecedented for an Internet company, but Google's timing is impeccable. The rash of telecom bankruptcies has freed up a ton of bargain-priced capacity, which Google needs as it prepares to unleash a flood of new, bandwidth-hungry applications. These offerings could include everything from a digital-video database to on-demand television programming.
An even more compelling reason for Google to build its own network is that it could save the company millions of dollars a month.
(Excerpt) Read more at business2.com ...
Why ain't they doing the same thing?
bump.
All your Net are belong to us.
Maybe they didn't see this coming. This may be a shot across the bow from Google.
I saw this same argument for Walmart a few months back.
WalmartNet? Be still my redneck heart.
They may be a bunch of ultra-liberal jerks, but they do know how to be the best at what they do. This could be the next big step in the Internet. It would sure save me $50 per month.
The problem is even with free internet the ads would be too much to stand, even though it would be free.
Using it once in a while would be ok. But if anyone still uses AOL or has in the past that is how I see a free service. So many freaking ads that it just pisses you off.
It could come in handy every now and then though but I don't see it replacing paid services.
You've never heard of Wal*Mart Connect, powered by Netscape? It's Wally's version of AOL.
A few years ago on his radio show, Rush was talking about how deadbeat consumers wanting something for nothing and the companies foolish enough to cater to them were going to be bad for legitimate internet businesses. This looks like more of what he was talking about.
Doubt it. Small toolbar downloadable to any browser with changing ads on it should do th trick. Compared to spending 50 bucks to Time Warner every month, I'd do it
oh, here we are. the movie doesn't work anymore, but they have pictures and the whole bit has been transcribed. just scroll down.
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/11/29/summary_of_the_world_googlezon.htm
No wonder Time Warner Cable Road Runner recently increased their throughput speed to 100 times faster than dial-up. They want to try to keep their customers from jumping ship by providing the most blazing fast speed possible.
I think the bigger question here is, "Could Google ever do this without ending up the target of an AT&T-sized antitrust suit by the government?" I think the answer to that question is "No." I don't think GOOG will make it to 2010 as it is without the feds trying to break up the company; if they were to ever try something like this, they wouldn't make it to 2007.
The internet is a lot different than it used to be. It's possible that omnipresent, no-charge networks will eventually saturate the globe, just as a side-effect of other electronic commerce.
Not sure about that.
Google makes its money off of ads, point blank and simple.
The more specific the ad to the person, the more likely it is to generate money for them.
Anything that generates eyeballs and clicks on ads for them, makes them money.
If this is cost effective for them to open and give the internet away free, because they will wind up profiting from the ad revenue, then its not foolish, its genius.
They haven't made any bad moves yet, and I'm not betting on them screwing up now (actually, I'm betting on them doing better...i.e., I own stock in the company).
"but how would existing service providers react?"
It would put competition back into broadband... which just lost all hope of that with the recent rulings on sharing broad band access.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.