What is Digg?63 Comments
- cachete22, on 11/17/2007, -3/+46Awesome, I just hopes it spurs some innovation into the cell phone space, because here in the States the big companies suck and don't want to bring anything good because of their strong investment in old tech.
- shranko, on 11/17/2007, -1/+42Google has been buying up dark fiber since 2005. Coupled with this spectrum you can bet they will soon be a whole sale provider of bandwidth.
http://www.news.com/Google-wants-dark-fiber/2100-1 ... - hit9ent, on 11/17/2007, -1/+38Google Vs Corporate World....round 1....FIGHT!
- deadnoob, on 11/17/2007, -3/+36google is one of those companies that seems to actually care about consumers. they can really do some good if they do it right with this.
- DonRoberto, on 11/17/2007, -0/+28This isn't really Google vs the Corporate world, since google is part of the corporate world. Their goal is to boost their bottom line just like all companies, and considering that most of Google's revenue comes from advertising. Imagine if Google offered this wireless on a 20mb synchronous connection with for free (or dirt cheap) with the single stipulation being that you use Google as your homepage (all traffic would be otherwise unrestricted), how many will really say no? Put some ads on the google home page, and bam instant barrels of cash. Granted in such a case we would all be happy, don't think that Google is doing this because they are philanthropist, they are doing it because it could potentially get them a large revenue stream while undercutting any competition.
- bmacleod, on 11/17/2007, -3/+30This is exactly what telco's don't need, but the consumer has been craving for years.
- dupswapdrop, on 11/17/2007, -0/+25the telco's can goto hell, you go google!
- krd1979, on 11/17/2007, -1/+21And you know what? I have no problem with that. As long as the Internet is not filtered, restricted, or otherwise changed in any way I would use their portal without hesitation.
- HonestAbe, on 11/17/2007, -1/+18Why don't we just mass-produce cheap solar-powered router/repeaters and stick them all over the landscape in a huge ad-hoc wireless mesh network and have free Wi-Fi for all?
- fuzzmeister, on 11/17/2007, -0/+16I have no problem with a company trying to make money (it's really the whole point, after all), as long as they don't try to screw me over in the process.
- EndersGame, on 11/17/2007, -1/+16Also the cell phone companies have a unique advantage where they can nickel and dime you for anything. I see Google offering wifi to everybody for a flat rate, and you can do whatever you want with it. No minutes, you can use whatever VOIP service pleases you. No text messaging fees, just use MSN, IRC, or whatever else to get the job done. No paying a dollar or more for ***** ringtones, just download them from the web directly to your phone.
I am thinking 30 bucks a month for virtually unlimited usage, for one IP, at the most. 10 bucks extra for each additional IP. If you have 4 phones, 2 laptops, and a PC...80 bucks a month isn't a bad deal for you or for Google at that point. Keep in mind your phone would be more like a PC than a traditional cell phone at that point. - moocow1452, on 11/17/2007, -0/+14Cause AT&T will be pissed.
- realyst, on 11/17/2007, -0/+13Mesh networking isn't that easy. Lots of overhead with lots of packets being transmitted all over the place just to synchronize everything and provide redundancy and discovery, as well as security.
Anything short of true full duplex gigabit throughput will collapse under its own weight in a mesh network once it reaches a certain scale. - tempusrob, on 11/17/2007, -0/+12Dude, when they're charging $.10 to transmit 160 bytes of text (and $.05 to the recipient on top of that!) the motive is not to avoid "saturation."
- megadan76, on 11/17/2007, -1/+12I really hope the do this. And roll it out outside the US,too, eventually.
- capiCrimm, on 11/17/2007, -0/+10i really wanted the black phone, but the polka-dotted violet phone was a $100 cheaper. :(
- cgreentx, on 11/17/2007, -0/+9Google = Corporate World
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -0/+9Google FTW!
- colto, on 11/17/2007, -1/+10I have to wonder if you will stop capitalizing random words.
- quetzatcoatl, on 11/17/2007, -0/+9The difference is that contrary to teleco's and the RIAA, Google has always been driven by the customers. Many of the large Oligopolies in the country have lost track of the fact that the customer drives the market, we define the value of services and choose according to what we prefer. Google still responds to customers and market demand and it is the reason it is more successful.
If the customers wants open access with minimal advertising, it is in a company's interest to figure out how to provide that service, instead many of these cartel's try to force the market to comply to what they can provide. They use their leverage in special interest groups to create laws that benefit their monopolies, limiting users in choice and forcing customers to use services that they would drop in a second if there was a viable alternative.
It is in Google's best interest as a company to keep us happy, and we should be able to trust a company that responds to market pressure and provides customers with a service they demand.
I'm not saying Google is perfect or altruistic, but they are much more aware of the basics of demand and market forces than the big cartels, and seem to support the free market theories that are being strangled by special interests. - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -2/+10All hail the HipnoGoogle.
- robinator08, on 11/17/2007, -0/+7This should make life pretty bitchin'
- rlbigfish, on 11/17/2007, -0/+6Free Wireless Internet and VOIP for America? Please?
- digitalarcanum, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6You aren't a CIS major, are you? It's just not feasible. Even with route aggregation/summarization (basically abbreviated directions on where to send a packet on the internet) a full, universal mesh network just isn't feasible. This is one of the basics they teach you about networking. The bigger the routing table each router has to maintain, the bigger the mess gets.
- PatrickBrown, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5Yeah, strange:
[1] "I doubt it's because of their strong investment in old tech"
Immediately contradicted by:
[2] "... it's because they'd rather not spend money on new technologies and still charge more using old tech."
i.e. investment in old tech.
Hooray for reading comprehension skills! - sbgunn, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5It's the 700mhz block currently occupied by analog broadcast TV that will be freed up when we switch to all digital in Feb 2009. Google will probably be bidding on the C or D blocks (subsets of the overall spectrum up for auction) because they cover larger geographic areas of the country.
- digitalarcanum, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Coming from a city where broadband is spelled "comcast" I would welcome our google bandwidth overlords with open arms.
- digitalarcanum, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3HEAVEN OR HELL LET'S ROCK
- Tyrghast, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3i almost feel as warm and fuzzy about google as I do about His Noodly Appendage. Can we get a state-sponsored google-based religion someday? plz?
- fuzzmeister, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Eloquently put.
- roodammy44, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2@tempusrob
WTF??? They charge to *receive* texts in the US? That's insane!!!
If that was true in europe I'd tell people never to text me! (Unless you have to pay to receive phone calls too?) - BingoPower, on 11/17/2007, -7/+9uh, that's what he said.
- hollyminkowski, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2I am hoping that Google gets this spectrum.
It will cost billions...but I suppose they can afford that.
700mhz is indeed PRIME rf territory ....supurb for things like cell service and networking.
Also great spectrum for esoteric stuff like 2-way satellite communications. - Ludnix, on 11/17/2007, -3/+5Wireless companies need everyone to be more concerned with what color their cell phone is than any contracts or decent service.
- mckirkus, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Prediction: Your cell phone number will become your OpenID username.
- badqat, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3This is exactly what at&t, Verizon, Sprint, t-mobile and Alltel need!
- starf1re, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Google = Corporate World
This!
advertising empires FTL - zydeco, on 11/17/2007, -4/+5You're forgetting one aspect of that whole equation. When you give someone all-you-can-eat bandwidth, they will use it. So imagine everyone in your neighborhood has google 700 MHz service and they're all running Bittorrent, Youtube, Warcraft, 2-way video chat, telephone service, and all the other misc IP services you can think up. You'd saturate that cell tower after the 5th user.
Google offering unlimited bandwidth is a great thing to think about, but you have to think practically as well. The saturation issue is a large reason why the cell companies nickel-and-dime you for everything, and why they largely supress new applications that tend to be huge bandwidth hogs. - colto, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1The average person isn't going to be torrenting. Most customers will probably just want it for internet, the occasional youtube videos, and cell phone/text usage. Unless torrenting becomes the primary way of getting content within the next couple years then it is not likely that the average soccer mom will need or use it. You have to look at average usage of bandwidth.
- highPhone, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1quick, buy GOOG while its still dirt cheap!!!! ($633.63/share)
and I thought I was crazy when I bought AAPL 2yrs ago at (its then 52 week high of) $87 - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2How much wireless bandwidth is up for bids?
- Mjeacoma, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1You are thinking in terms of a cable company or current internet setups - Google is looking to change the way things are done - this means better compression, more towers.....doing it RIGHT the first time instead of building it ok and adding add-ons (Cablevision)
- MaximusD, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Dugg for using the term bitchin'
- alekies, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1The G-Man is our friend.
- JrGhoull, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1you know there was an article on digg about a week or so back with a prediction about all this...had to do with google and apple working closely together...seemed very plausible to me at the time, i just wished i remembered what the heck the writer had said what he thought google was going to do with the 700MHz
- HonestAbe, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Nope.
- mckirkus, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2I'm going to be a pessimist and say that there is simply too much money flowing towards politicians from Bell to ever let this become a reality. Google's big but the government is bigger.
- Scotty562, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Very nice.
- Tribalvirtue, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1This may be a stupid question. Why does it have to keep a huge routing table? Can't you maintain a map somewhere, say one for every hundred of these cheapie routers? Then the packet needs to be labeled with where it's going, and the router queries the map, and send it to the next node, that queries the map, so on and so forth? It probably wouldn't be ideal for gaming, but for something like torrents or email, where having minimum ping isn't a key feature, wouldn't it be good enough?
- HonoredMule, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1$80? I'd happily spend $180 to have all my communication needs so comfortably satisfied without restrictions or shenanigans. Google should have no problem balancing the sheet when I'd pay $180 for only 5mbit symmetric shared across all my devices (but /my/ streaming data prioritized over /my/ other data), and I'd be much happier with that then the collection of ***** services it would replace for me, which together cost almost that much anyway, even excluding the insane ripoffs I just live without (like mobile text messaging, cheesy ringtones, and good upload bandwidth (which I simply can't get)).
Heck, I wouldn't even complain about not having the option of subsidized hardware, but having to buy a $500 phone. -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is