When Being a Verb is Not Enough: Google wants to be YOUR Internet

Bahir the Red · Jan 21, 2007

Remove all ads!

I spoke recently with an old friend who is a bandwidth broker. He buys and sells bandwidth on fiber-optic networks around the world. And he told me something that I found not completely surprising, but I certainly hadn't known: Google controls more network fiber than any other organization. This is not to say that Google OWNS all that fiber, just that they control it through agreements with network operators. I find two very interesting aspects to this story: 1) that Google has acquired -- or even needs to acquire -- so much bandwidth, and; 2) that they don't own it, since probably the cheapest way to pick up that volume of fiber would be to simply buy out any number of backbone providers like Level 3 Communications.

Google loves secrecy. That they've been acquiring fiber assets hasn't been a secret, but the sheer volume of these acquisitions HAS been. Why? One thought is that it kept down the price since people didn't really know it was Google snatching up this stuff (they've done it under a number of different corporate names). But if price was the issue, then why hasn't Google just bought the companies that own the fiber? It made no sense until I scratched my head and thought a bit further, at which point it became obvious that Google wants to -- in its own way -- control the Internet. In fact, they probably control it already and we just haven't noticed.

There are two aspects to this control issue, but let's take the legal one first. If Google bought a bunch of Internet backbone providers, such a move would of course get the attention of regulators from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the two federal agencies charged with looking at large corporate mergers for signs of anti-competitive activity. But simply acquiring legal control of those same assets through leases and other long-term contracts doesn't trigger such an examination, though perhaps it should. By renting instead of buying, Google was able to acquire its fiber assets primarily in secret. The game was over before most of us even knew there WAS a game.

The second aspect of this is the whole idea that the game is already over for control of the Internet. I touched on this concept back in 1998 when I wrote my first column about PayPal, which at the time had been offering its core service for less than a year and already had eight million members. I wrote then that PayPal had already won the Internet payments race, which time has since showed they had. PayPal's confidence was based on analysis of its own growth. Understanding the potential range of growth, looking at the rate of subscriber acceleration, and using second derivative analysis of these data, PayPal was pretty darned sure, even back in 1998, that its competitors at the time would never be able to catch up.

Topix.net founder Rich Skrenta recently took a similar approach to argue that Google, like PayPal, has already won the game and represents to most users the face of the Internet. Skrenta (in this week's links) argues that Google's dominance of search and advertising is so profound that most competitors -- especially Yahoo -- would probably be better off NOT even attempting to compete and simply let Google handle search and advertising while Yahoo provides content. He's probably correct. Skrenta argues that even if services come along that are superior to Google's, in order to become dominant they'll have to overcome Google's brand recognition with users, which is almost impossible to do. So just being better than Google isn't enough.

All this is prelude for understanding what Google intends to actually DO with all this technology, which I have only lately begun to figure out.

I live in South Carolina, a state that I can argue qualifies as a technology backwater despite being the shrimp and grits capital of the world. Why, then, are the local business pages filled with stories about Google preparing to build massive data centers here? Google is apparently negotiating to build data centers in Goose Creek, a town not far from Charleston, where I live, in Columbia, the state capital, and a third location across the border in Georgia. To read the papers, Google might choose one or another of these locations, but according to people I have spoken with who are fairly close to the action, Google actually seems intent on building in all three locations.

Why?

Why would Google need two data centers in a state with only four million residents? Why would they need to buy 520 acres in a Goose Creek industrial park when that's probably 100 times as much land as any conceivable data center would require?

Google is building a LOT of data centers. The company appears to be as attracted to cheap and reliable electric power as it is to population proximity. In Goose Creek they bought those 520 acres from the local state-owned electric utility, which probably answers the land question posed above. By buying out all the remaining building sites in an industrial park owned by an electric utility, Google guarantees itself a vast and uninterruptible supply of power, much as it has done in Oregon by building a data center next to a hydroelectric dam or back here again in Columbia by building near a nuclear power station.

Of course this doesn't answer the question why Google needs so much capacity in the first place, but I have a theory on that. I think Google is building for a future they see but most of the rest of us don't. I'll go further and guess that Google is planning to build similar data centers in many states and that the two centers they are apparently preparing to build here in South Carolina are probably intended mainly to SERVE South Carolina. That's perhaps 100,000 servers for four million potential users or 40 users per server. What computing service could possibly require such resources?

The answer is pretty simple. Google intends to take over most of the functions of existing fixed networks in our lives, notably telephone and cable television.

The Internet as we know it is a shell game, with ISPs building their profits primarily on how many users they can have practically share the same Internet connection. Based on the idea that most users aren't on the net at the same time and even when they are online they are mainly between keystrokes and doing little or nothing when viewed on a per-millisecond basis, ISPs typically leverage the Internet bandwidth they have purchased by a factor of at least 20X and sometimes as much as 100X, which means that DSL line or cable modem that you think is delivering multi-megabits per second is really only guaranteeing you as much bandwidth as you could get with most dial-up accounts.

This bandwidth leveraging hasn't been a problem to date, but it is about to become a huge problem as we all embrace Internet video. When we are all grabbing one to two hours of high-quality video per day off the net, there is no way the current network infrastructure will support that level of use. At that point we can accept that the Internet can't do what we are asking it to do OR we can find a way to make the Internet do what we are asking it to do. Enter Google and its many, many regional data centers to fill this gap.

Looking at this problem from another angle, right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. Broadband ISPs hate these super users and would like to find ways to isolate or otherwise reject them. It's BitTorrent -- not Yahoo or Google -- that has been the target of the anti-net neutrality trash talk from telcos and cable companies. But the fact is that rather than being an anomaly, these are simply early adopters and we'll all soon follow in their footsteps. And when that happens, there won't be enough bandwidth to support what we want to do from any centralized perspective. A single data center, no matter how large, won't be enough. Google is just the first large player to recognize this fact as their building program proves.

It is becoming very obvious what will happen over the next two to three years. More and more of us will be downloading movies and television shows over the net and with that our usage patterns will change. Instead of using 1-3 gigabytes per month, as most broadband Internet users have in recent years, we'll go to 1-3 gigabytes per DAY -- a 30X increase that will place a huge backbone burden on ISPs. Those ISPs will be faced with the option of increasing their backbone connections by 30X, which would kill all profits, OR they could accept a peering arrangement with the local Google data center.

Seeing Google as their only alternative to bankruptcy, the ISPs will all sign on, and in doing so will transfer most of their subscriber value to Google, which will act as a huge proxy server for the Internet. We won't know if we're accessing the Internet or Google and for all practical purposes it won't matter. Google will become our phone company, our cable company, our stereo system and our digital video recorder. Soon we won't be able to live without Google, which will have marginalized the ISPs and assumed most of the market capitalization of all the service providers it has undermined -- about $1 trillion in all -- which places today's $500 Google share price about eight times too low.

It's a grand plan, but can Google pull it off? Yes they can.
Click to expand...

Source

Google is up to something all right...

Argohir · Jan 21, 2007

Sounds possible but it isn't a nice thing. If you have a monopoly over communication, you will become too strong and will determine what people will and won't know. But it isn't fair trade and will be prevented by courts, if it ever happens.

Abomination · Jan 22, 2007

As long as it is still run by its original founders I have no problem if Google runs the internet. Frankly I feel it would be a good thing.

If one person/organisation could control the intenet then they could do something about all this damn spam, viruses etc. AND they would be held accountable for NOT preventing them as the internet would be their service provided.

Currently the internet is this great big lawless entity. Frankly I'd like some order there.

Gnarfflinger · Jan 22, 2007

The more of the internet they control, the more money they can make. That's what they care about, not keeping order...

Abomination · Jan 22, 2007

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second. But hey, positive off-shoots of their greed.

Aikanaro · Jan 22, 2007

Centralising power in any group - especially a corporation whose aim is purely to make money - is to my mind a bad thing.

Can anyone point out exactly what it is they can do with this new control besides 'make ****loads of money from ISPs'? Specifically my concern is: 'can they censor the internet?'

edit: Why does the internet need order? It seems to be working fine as it is. Spam and viruses are something I can deal with to see the only really free (as in speech) way of distribution stays open.

Dalveen · Jan 22, 2007

I would far rather Google took control of the internet than say, someone like Microsoft.

Montresor · Jan 22, 2007

I wouldn't worry about Google gaining a temporary monopoly on the Internet. Unless the monopoly is sanctioned by the government, any other company is free to compete with Google, which will force them to provide at least a decent service at a fair price. Otherwise, competitors will spring up (for example, IBM or Microsoft could deliver broadband as well as Google).

If Google should manage to secure themselves a permanent monopoly (which I think unlikely), they would in fact have less of an incentive to provide good service. The worst, most hated monopolies in your countries are probably the ones either run by the government or protected by the government.

Abomination · Jan 23, 2007

Monopolies are not, by definition, a bad thing. What is so bad about Google anyway? I have only heard good things about them (although some would argue that just proves they're up to something nefarious ).

It's a concept that nobody has ever encountered so frankly I think give them a go and see what transpires... wasn't there going to be an Internet2 anwyay?

BlckDeth · Jan 23, 2007

Monopolies are not, by definition, a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Competition breeds necessity; necessity breeds invention. If you have no real competitors, then why even bother to innovate? Our friends over at EA have shown us that much (I'm looking at you, John Madden).

Abomination · Jan 23, 2007

Because Microsoft obviously haven't developed anything new since 1995...

Aikanaro · Jan 23, 2007

Microsoft didn't update IE until Firefox started making a serious dent in their market share.

And it's not that Google in incredibly bad as far as companies go - it's just that it would be better if no one controlled the internet so there is no temptation to screw it up in the name of morality or money.

BlckDeth · Jan 24, 2007

Exactly. Like the saying goes, "When banks compete, you win." If several companies are vying for power over something, then the common man tends to benefit as they each struggle to put out the "best deal." It's really only when you have one superpower corporation with no competition that situations tend to decline in quality.

Shoshino · Jan 24, 2007

Those ISPs will be faced with the option of increasing their backbone connections by 30X, which would kill all profits
Click to expand...

only a short term cost, most large ISP's can certainly afford that, and they would probably increase their connections by more then 50 in an effort to oust googles hold

T2Bruno · Jan 24, 2007

And here I thought a number was an noun or adjective depending on its use.

Log in or Sign up

When Being a Verb is Not Enough: Google wants to be YOUR Internet

Bahir the Red Gems: 18/31
Latest gem: Horn Coral

Argohir Gems: 10/31
Latest gem: Zircon

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

Gnarfflinger Wiseguy in Training

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

Aikanaro Gems: 31/31
Latest gem: Rogue Stone

Dalveen Rimmer gone Bald Veteran

Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

BlckDeth Gems: 7/31
Latest gem: Tchazar

Veteran

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

Aikanaro Gems: 31/31
Latest gem: Rogue Stone

BlckDeth Gems: 7/31
Latest gem: Tchazar

Veteran

Shoshino Irritant Veteran

Log in or Sign up

When Being a Verb is Not Enough: Google wants to be YOUR Internet

Bahir the Red Gems: 18/31Latest gem: Horn Coral

Argohir Gems: 10/31Latest gem: Zircon

Abomination Gems: 26/31Latest gem: Diamond

Gnarfflinger Wiseguy in Training

Abomination Gems: 26/31Latest gem: Diamond

Aikanaro Gems: 31/31Latest gem: Rogue Stone

Dalveen Rimmer gone Bald Veteran

Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

Abomination Gems: 26/31Latest gem: Diamond

BlckDeth Gems: 7/31Latest gem: Tchazar Veteran

Abomination Gems: 26/31Latest gem: Diamond

Aikanaro Gems: 31/31Latest gem: Rogue Stone

BlckDeth Gems: 7/31Latest gem: Tchazar Veteran

Shoshino Irritant Veteran

Bahir the Red Gems: 18/31
Latest gem: Horn Coral

Argohir Gems: 10/31
Latest gem: Zircon

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

Aikanaro Gems: 31/31
Latest gem: Rogue Stone

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

BlckDeth Gems: 7/31
Latest gem: Tchazar

Veteran

Abomination Gems: 26/31
Latest gem: Diamond

Aikanaro Gems: 31/31
Latest gem: Rogue Stone

BlckDeth Gems: 7/31
Latest gem: Tchazar

Veteran