Comment by recoiledsnake | Hacker News Reader

Comment by recoiledsnake | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

While I am super happy that the cable industry is getting disrupted as it deserves to be(the wireless industry sucks too, maybe a tech company can buy TMobile or Sprint), I feel uneasy about the following two points:

1) Profitability: I wonder how profitable and sustainable this is for Google? They can subsidize it for only so long before deciding to discontinue it as has been happening to many of their services recently.

2) With Google as your ISP and TV channel provider, they will have the potential to know everything about you, probably even more than you know about yourself! Imagine you use all their services, they will know about your surfing habits(via ISP, Google searches and clicks, G+ buttons, Google ads, Google analytics etc.), your location(Android location services/GPS. Google Maps), TV channel viewing habits, Gmail, social network(Google+), phone calls(Google voice), etc. etc. It will also provide malicious and state actors with a one stop shop to steal/request information from.

1: Someone mentioned that it's a $700 cost, less the $300 you pay - so $400. Also, installation of the fiber is like to be amortized over 100 years or more: So single figure amounts a year for the fiber itself. Of course, there's an upfront capital expenditure, but Google literally has more cash than they know what to do with, so no problem.

Once the fiber is in the ground and connected to the Google backbone, I would guess that delivering 5 mbit internet service to the kind of people who won't/can't pay $70 for insanely fast Internet is actually cheaper than sending out the invoice.

2: I, for one, welcome our new advertisement-serving AI overlords. Also, I doubt that Google can learn much new about you from your TV habits than from all the other sources you mentioned.

>Someone mentioned that it's a $700 cost

It was some guy higher up who provided no sources. We don't know how much it actually costs Google. There are so many factors involved that I highly doubt $700 is what it costs.

>They can subsidize it for only so long before deciding to discontinue it...

on the pricing page, they commit to providing free service for at least 7 years. So unless google goes belly-up, it won't be discontinued for a while.

IMO, the free plan is brilliant. They get people to front the money for putting in infrastructure, and as digital distribution of everything continues to grow, they'll probably start to see people transitioning over to the faster connections. $300 + $70/month is a hard sell for a lot of people, but if my parents could ditch Comcast for a one time fee I'm pretty sure they'd do it.

Once the fiber is there, google can actively offer free demos of cool bandwidth hungry tech , for people, in their homes. what better way to sell more bandwidth and services ?

re: #2

have you been following this story at all?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nsa+whistleblower+william+binney

(lmgtfy used not because I'm trying to be a dick, but rather because the direct google search gives a url that contains all kinds of extra parameters)

You only need one:

https://www.google.com/search?q=nsa+whistleblower+william+bi...

https://www.google.com/search?q=william+binney

http://google.com/search?q=nsa+whistleblower+william+binney

re 1: The more people on the Internet, the more potential google customers, and eyeballs on their ads.

Are those ads going to pay for the $1,000 of equipment that Google gives you?

What $1,000 worth of equipment? The "free" tier only comes with a network box, and it has a $300 "construction fee". $300 should pretty easily pay for what looks like a wireless router.

That doesn't include (at least transparently): actually running the fiber to your house, getting permits to run the fiber through various properties along the way, installing and maintaining switches routers amplifiers etc to give you the service, etc.

It would seem like that is subsidized by the paying users.

Google's total revenue from advertising in Q2 2012 was 10.5 Billion dollars. so yes, those ads can definitely pay for a couple thousand dollars worth of equipment.

Don't forget the sales Google will get from all the movies and media people will buy from Google Play.

> With Google as your ISP and TV channel provider, they will have the potential to know everything about you

Is it allowed by the ToS?

on Point 2: How is this any different then today with Comcast/Verizon etc..?

It's different because Comcast/Verizon don't have your email and your calendar and your web surfing habits and your voicemail and your text messages and your contacts and did I mention your email?

Huh?

Many people use Comcast/Verizon-provided email services. Most people use them for their home voicemail too. And they can absolutely see your surfing habits if they want to -- excluding encrypted communications, of course.

There's a gulf of difference between having access to your surfing habits and having access to that information via a structured database.

You're assuming that Comcast doesn't have this in a structured database?

And ads/analytics/+1 buttons on pretty much every website ever.

people have been using this argument for years, just wondering has there ever been any example(citation) where this has been an issue yet ?

It's a great point. I've always shared the same suspicion, but there hasn't been any instance yet, at least in the public eye, where google has abused my personal data.

I think they've just realized for everyone to "move to the cloud", we need internet that makes it possible.

Yes, because they also have access to data associated with your Google account and collected across the web through AdSense and Analytics.

However, having potentially millions of people with gigabit connections creates a whole new world for darknets so I think it's a net gain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com