What is Digg?64 Comments
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38Dugg for linking to the Fox News site - as you know 90% of diggers detest having that cookie on their system, LOL.
- LinuxGalore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Many may have forgotten that in the late 90's hundreds of miles of fibre was laid only to end up as "dark fibre" (un used fibre due to the lack of finance/backing to connect to the end user).
Google for the last two years has been slowly buying up the rights to allot of this dark fibre leading to allot of speculation as to why.
http://news.com.com/Google+wants+dark+fiber/2100-1034_3-5537392.html
Then Google starts building super nodes that fit into a large shipping container.
Now we have Google offering free Wifi on a small experimental basis.
Next year Wimax routers and chip sets hit the consumer market offering 75Mb/s both way speeds and up to 8Km of range from the base station.
If you not seeing the game plan now your blind.
Google is going to do the biggest smack-down within the next three years ever seen and the Telco's will be sitting there going "er what just happened".
The free wifi is actually part of the game plan, google is just waiting for a better technology to finalise the game and with the advent of Wimax next year its going to be check mate and game. - h0kiez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Great article.
"This expansion of services is entirely possible and doable. And it all stems from the phone companies and cable companies arrogantly shooting off their collective mouths about tiered services, along with their cavalier failure to give the American public what it needs — universal and cheap high-speed access.
Now they have to contend with being beaten at their own game. Good luck."
From beating the Telcos and cable companies at their own game to providing competition for eBay and Paypal, I don't think Google has to come up with a single thing to do for the next 30 years...all they have to do is clean up what other companies have failed miserably at (from a consumer's perspective) and hopefully they'll spread the "do no evil" mantra to a few more companies when others see their success. - politech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Ok LeeVal so what's your point? Dvorak baits fanboys all the time (and he doesn't just limit himself to Apple fanboys either). That doesn't negate the fact that wireless could have a huge impact on telcos and cablecos and us the end users.
Dvorak may be the computer world's version of Andy Rooney, but he is spot on with this article. - strat94, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I disagree. Sometimes big companies get stuck in their ways and fail to see opportunities.
- technique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Sure I do. H.L. Mencken is the Dvorak of the newspaper industry.
- LeeVal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4215587585970919950&q=dvorak
- strat94, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Wow, a Dvorak article that may actually make sense and work. If google could make this happen with local advertising it would definately hurt the telco/cable companies. Somehow I think they would band together with congress to pass some sort of goofy law banning it.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Here's my one question - who is providing the pipes for Google that the WiFi ultimately runs off of? I'm certain they are not using their own satelite, so are they using hte Google fiber?
- Nesh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Not pipes, tubes. It's not a big truck, either.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Dvorak also talked about Apple allowing Windows on to their boxes...people laughed. I don't remember the episode, but it was probably within the first ten episodes, whenever it was speculated Apple was going to Intel.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8That's priceless. And although he's playing it as it's just a joke, it's actually what he does.
- MontyZooma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So this is what the end of the Broadcast Networks and Telcos is going to look like.
Evolve or die ye olde giants. - wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The problem with deploying municipal Wi-Fi is that there are huge bandwidth constraints that would limit widescale adoption"
Right, and Google knows very little about bandwidth usage right? I think you also missed the point that they've already done it in Mountain View. Not to mention there are non-free wifi services now being offered by the telcos.
"While the telcos and cable are big bureaucracies, their engineers are not that stupid and if there was a business model around Wi-Fi one of the telcos would have already been doing it."
The reason the telcos aren't doing this is that it would cannibalize their existing businesses: DSL, cable, and even analog telephone lines (who's going to pay $50/month for a phone line when they can VOIP for free)? - h0kiez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Make sure you don't read the article and comment on that. People would much rather you cry about the posted source of what you admit is "syndicated". Wah.
- Acrion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I love it. Google putting the slap down on service providers.
It is brutal and it does scare me that one corporation could toss out some pennies and scare competitors in a new market. If Google lost their cool about profits, once most other providers are driven away from major areas by lack of customers, they could very easily start charging... a lot. I'd like to think I have faith in Google but I don't have faith in humans' greed. - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -0/+6We need a Dvorak section just on Digg just for him.
- falcon734, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I would think they'd come up with all kinds of laws banning it, but IF this article's scenario comes true, Google and MSFT (not to mention Yahoo) have the kind of deep pockets to at least put up a good fight. It will be really interesting to see how this plays out.
- robweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I actually agree with this Dvorak article, however I'm not quite sure who's side he is supposed to be on with this one. Is it Google and other providers of this eventual free wi-fi, or the telco companies? He seems to be kind of sitting the fence and pointing out what could happen one way or another. I certainly feel no remorse for telco companies. Also, what is so bad at having targeted ads for your location? I would rather have that than most of the stupid ads I do end up getting most of the time.
Another thing I have a problem with is this sentence right here:
"What if suddenly — from this experiment — Google discovers that localized service combined with localized search and local advertising (specific to the target community, aka Mountain View) can not only pay for the system but provide a new profit center?"
I find it very naive to believe that someone at Google hasn't seen this potential already. We're talking about a company that hires the brightest of the bright, and John C. Dvork thinks they haven't seen this potential yet.
It is a good article, but as usual, Dvork raises up a big issue, and has no conclusions as to how this problem affects people in general, or how it can be "solved". - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I do now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.L._Mencken
the joys of the internet, unless it becomes tiered - ochito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5For crying out loud.... Allot=apportion, distribute. A lot (as in ONE LOT) = a large quantity or amount.
/English Nazi out - HardD99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ahhahah awesome clip, dvorak is my hero, lol
- MontyZooma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bgthej
Sorry, but your wrong. Everyone in the big cities that still uses dial up would dump their service for free WiFi. Reguardless of the end user speed, it's going be at least on par with dial up.
Not to mention that every laptop being bought for school/college these days come with WiFi built in. It doesn't take much to connect to the free WiFi signal form your local dorm and open AIM or whatever your basic now techie college kid does these days.
People who still want the high speed connections will still pay for them, but Google is going to be able to offer a free alternative that most people will embrace. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The only constant in technology is it makes fools of those who try and predict it" - unknown
if you look at the history of technology it often takes wild turns based on unpredictable things. - Schrade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you don't want to allow sites to set cookies by default, you can use the CookieSafe extension for Firefox and then just turn off Cookiest. CookieSafe is basically a Whitelister for cookies, you click on its status bar icon to allow websites to set cookies.
No annoying popups asking you if you want to set cookies, just click on the button to allow specific sites or you can set it to go by domain only. Even has a temporarily allow the site (tosses its cookies when you exit Firefox.. huhuh....tosses)
Web site for CookieSafe: http://www.scorpiondb.com/firefox/extensions/cookiesafe/ - ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@coax
The NY Times cookie doesn't corrupt your SOUL! - dragongrrl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
it's been a pet theorem of mine for about a year that Google is secretly building a darknet to mitigate their risk in the event the telco's succeed in creating a layered Internet.
if telcos try to pull a fast one, Google could pull a Relakks and allow people to VPN into their own intranet.
Dvorak has now theorized a way to monetize it through free wifi sponsored by localized advertising and services. i shall mentally add this postulate to my pet theory! - joelsp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love how Dvorak takes the extreme obvious, writes an article about it, and gets huge coverage. I don't think saying that google's W-Fi service is going to be revolutionary is a huge revelation. I think most of us who are following things like net neutrality already know this. So Dvorak gets a giant yawn from me.
- robweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i was actually responding to the thread below, i hit the wrong reply....i tend to do that a lot..i'm an idiot
- kazem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've been trained to ignore everything he says. A sort of knee-jerk reaction...but I actually agree with this one...gah!!!
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good points.
Wireless ANYTHING is loaded with security problems. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@lava
Right on, Dvorak has always been the Nat. Enquirer of computer critics - robweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@KingPhallus (nice name by the way)
That is why professional journalism sucks. Professional journalists have a very nice life just bringing up facts and tying them together in ways that really don't make any sense, and then leaving the whole matter up to speculation instead of making a conclusion.
I also believe, if as you say Dvorak was pointing things out to people who weren't aware, that he could have done it with out using the phrase "what if suddenly google discovers", how about "what if google now decides" instead? i think it was more of a ploy not only to bring ignorant users aware of the situation, but also a method to promote how Dvork himself has seen potential in something google has not yet.
as joelsp says a little farther down the page here in the comments, Dvork just took something that was already obvious and wrote about it, somehow generating extreme coverage. - kartbart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Couple of issues here:
a) Wi-fi doesn't penetrate walls that well.
b) Not many people will trust a public, free service for doing their work and browsing. If it is secure and ubiquitos, the only sure fact is that there are a bunch of hackers who have already hacked the system.
c) The current service is being provided without customer support. Try using that as your "primary" network connection. No thanks
d) All it will take is a few signal jammers thrown around by the Telcos :-)
I would rather opt for Verizon's FIOS service (which even today is capable of over 100 Mbps).
The telco industry is heavily regulated. Verizon for instance has a large staff and spends millions producing compliance reports for various states. You think Google will get off easily? Once they blanket everything, Google will be declared a monopoly and regulations will be slapped on it.
Think of the flip side - wireless networking technology continues to grow rapidly. Cell phone companies make money by charging users $30 to $50/month. Do you really think Google can pull off profits maintaining a huge infrastructure and customer service staff based on adverstisements on the pennies. All it will take is AdBlock to nuke that business model. - SPThom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@robweber:
So you're saying... You'd rather have other people make up your mind for you? Critical thinking skills just too time-consuming for you? Eesh.
I have a brain and I prefer to use it. I'll take professional journalism over the type of tabloid-fodder mentality that plagues 95% of news sources nowadays, thank you. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah. Rooney. Quit insulting Mencken
- renzodesign, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11I get NO SPAM :]
- drye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its a shame people don't get it. And because they don't get it I will be buried also.
- robweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the point is now that Dvork has a target audience, that will continue to read his articles, he can just spout off whatever and know that people will read it.
- ramallama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its kinda like the way that the Star Wars Defense System brought down the Soviet Union, they just couldn't afford to keep up.
Google doesnt actually have to 'do it', they just to have the capability to do it. That'll be enough to scare the bejesus out of the telco/cable companies and cause them to rethink their current practices. - phatmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Or more like dvorak.org/blog dvorak.org/blog dvorak.org/blog ...
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2here's a citizen supported WIFI network being fleshed out that will be free to users, looking to maintain net neutrality and fight corporate interests:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Wind_and_Solar_FREE_WIFI_independent_from_corporate_control - kartbart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A very interesting statement was made by Marissa Mayer of Google that it is very difficult to get Google's engineers to work on the mundane and routine type stuff. They just want to build the coolest toys to beta release 1, and then they get tired and move to the next thing.
A team of rockstars has never performed well and history shows that. Google is not going to become and exception to the rule. Just see their non-search offerings - not one service is worth the hype that surrounds their announcements.
If you think 40 people making a decision in large telcos is a bad thing and that Google has some how overcome the analysis paralysis that binds all big companies, you are sooo wrong. - schmidtl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This sounds awesome but I really dont like that it says that now they can not only see what city you're in, but they can tell what street you're on. This sounds a bit like big brother tricking us into agreeing with him. Yay for google but they're still people.
- SPThom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ramallama:
Exactamundo. All Google has to do is provide the threat of friendly competition against the telcos. That's probably a better defense against a tiered Internet than government regulation. Actually, I believe I remember reading Eric Schmidt say something to the same effect. - frozensmirnoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@triplehelix
We need more of those networks rolled out in the major urban areas. Nothing the corporations could do to fight it, and it would ensure net neutrality regardless of what congress does. - KingPhallus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you honestly believe you're a part of his syndicated columns target audience?
- marcamillion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dont think they have that much clout. What these telcos dont understand is that they are playing with fire. They are trying to stick it to the web community, and hurt the bottom line of several major companies. Google, Amazon, MSFT, Yahoo, Ebay. Most of these companies have $Billions more cash, than the stupid Telcos, so given that they want to fight them, they can and probably will.
I hope that the telcos do piss them off to the point that they retaliate and squash them. Everybody start building these huge wifi networks, and giving away free skype handset phones that work out cheaper for the consumer, would do the trick. - ThePharaoh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yeah that sounds good...then we can just ignore all of his ramblings...
- robweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what i'm saying is that the 95% of the fodder you seeing on the news these days is professional journalism.
i'd rather see FACTS presented that make sense and perhaps some intelligent thought and converstation from there. giving me a bunch of "well this could or could not happen based on the fact that I think so" type information and then leaving it at that is just crap. -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is