Next up: GoogleNET

They are giving away everything else, why not connectivity too? Its all about efficiency right? Operational efficiency, risk mitigation efficiency and customer efficiency. Efficiency is the driving force behind Googlenet(gnet). What is GNet? Google's foray into the ISP business. This 'business' for them can be classified as marketing or a means to an end. The end being, selling advertising.

The gnet hypothesis: Bandwidth costs have fallen to a level that the advertising revenue more than subsidizes the cost of the network. We are in the very early stages of a true 'gloabl village' as Marshall McCluhan called it. The cost structure for a traditional ISP like PacBell DSL..errr AT&T, comcast, etc to supply services to the residence is around $40 per month and trends down as they grow because they get cost scale.... in the network world, the more you buy the less it costs.

goog will be placing a bet, and a very calculated one, that advertising $$ will not only subsidize operational costs of providing free services(isp, voip, office, etc), but will exceed them.

Owning the customer's network routes from end to end(being the ISP) provides Google with private solution for delivering customized content and adverting to each and every one of the people using their service. this delivery platform is always on and knows where you go, what you type, where you live, who your friends are, what files you have downloaded, what you look like, and whatever else they add on to their services. So when Johnson & Johnson or GE or Proctor & Gamble or Coca Cola or Pepsi is planning their media buys for the next year do you think they'll purchase advertisements on radio, television, print or the 4th network(Google)? based on the ability to target a specific population that has certain attributes you desire, the choice is clear...you pick google. Why? because you know that your marketing msg is going to a qualified prospect as opposed to the traditional 'shotgun' approach. plus, you can get results in realtime and tweak your msg if its not working in real time. with the other three media you are somewhat ratholed into trusting some third party for ratings that may or may not even reach the people that you want it to. by the time you figure this out a slew of things can happen...some good some bad but why chance it when you don't need to.

At the end of the day, Google is building a traditional media killer and the funny thing is..actually not really funny but kinda, that the writing is on the wall but nobody seems to believe it. I do. @Home Network had this vision but couldn't pull it off because the cable co's couldn't get their heads out of their rear to see the opportunity that was sitting right in front of them.

goog already has deals in place and likely in the works with the producers of original content which will allow their users access to that content. if i'm a content producer where would i want my content to be seen? ex. let's say you are the producer of The Office and goog offers you the ability to place your content on their network so that it can be viewed by anyone, anywhere, anytime and offers a revenue share or some other creative structure around it such that you know your worst case scenario beforehand. simple choice right? sure abc or cbs might offer an upfront fee in the form of $$ per show but the audience is limited, the timeslot is finite and in order for someone to view it, they have to purchase cable tv or satellite or whatever whereas on the google network you content would be globally accessible and the broadband access which replaces the cable or satellite tv service, is free to the masses. additionally you can develop complimentary services that engauge your viewership such that you are able to really develop a community around you content as opposed to content around a community.

What does this have to do with being an ISP? Everything, why do you think there is such a brouhaha over net neutrality? Without connectivity none of this is possible and with the right connectivity, all of it is possible and defendable.

The internet hasn't changed anything. The driving force of media is and always will be advertising. Without it, there would be no televsion, radio, print or internet. It doesn't matter if its old world or new world, it's still dependent upon advertising and gnet is to google what airwaves were to ABC, NBC and CBS, something to exploit in order to sell advertising.

Peering at the edge and the role of the P2P

Here are some reasons why I am leaning that way:

1. Ubiquity in access and Choice. Everyone, everwhere on the planet and perhaps elsewhere will eventually have the ability to choose who their isp is and how they connect to their isp. ISP is defined as a company who sells transit. How they connect is defined as the last mile and example are hfc(cable), fiber, copper(DSL), wireless(wifi, wimax, satellite, whatever)

2. Networks are only as good as the networks they connect to. The whole point of p2p was to improve performance and save costs, at least that is my impression of how p2p's position themselves commercially. p2p technology works best when the 'sharing' happens locally, as in the same town, region, neighborhood because the data doesn't have to encounter so many hops along its way from one peer to the next.

3. Last mile service providers don't connect with one another. This is stupid on their part! Example: I'm on comcast and my neighbor uses pacbell dsl. I just downloaded the maverics surfing competition video which i got by seeing it in my koniki client. I watch it and move on but it is still on my computer and kontiki is still running in share mode. My next door neighbor fires up his kontiki client and he too sees the link for the surf comp and clicks it. Does my neighbor get that file that is sitting on my machine or does he get it from some other location on the net? That depends on different factors but chances are it isn't coming from my pc. Stupid because this isn't efficient and when services aren't efficient they will be driven to the ground sooner rather than later. It wouldn't be efficient for my neighbor to get to my pc vs some other node on his isp's upstream provider(for example sake pac bell, sbc and att and all separate companies) even though he can see my pc from his home office window because in order to do so it is going to cost pac bell money, it is going to cost comcast money, and it is going to cost the surfin website company money and its going to take a shit load longer and have no QoS. That little request for the video i just watched, should it have to come from my pc to my neighbors, would have the itinerary below:

neighbors pc to pac bell Central office to pac bell regional hub to upstream provider to some public peering switch to Level3(comcast upstream provider) to Comcast regional datacenter to headend to neighborhood node and finally down to my pc. and then head back(next door to me) in some similar fashion....I think there is another hop between the node and headend too so it's even longer has more potential points of failure.

For this reason, it would make sense to move the peering to the edge and the p2p networks are a potentially more efficient way to peer than what is currently done. This could take place in or at the CO level or Headend level by merely interconnecting the two and running bgp or some other protocol that accomplishes the same thing. In this example, it would save comcast money that they pay to L3 for their upstream connectivity, it would save PacBell money that they pay to uunet for upstream, it would save the peering provider money because the router would consume less power and generate less heat and not be taxed by the demand of the reques. ie, it's more efficient. The old school telco boys with their closed networks and fear of new techonologies and competition are slowly but surely retiring and moving on because they've been at it for 30+ years and they have better things to do like play golf and play golf again. Backfilling for them are leaders from the IP generation and their mindset is more progressive, they understand the layer one is always going to be layer one and that it is a commodity. As such, they aren't as concerned with keeping it closed at the local level as their predecessors once were. They see the value and understand the threat of not opening it up. Its better to get something than go out of business right? They're keenly aware that their incumbant status could be a liability on several fronts including net neutrality supporters stirring up the pot and filing lawsuits, new technologies emerging which are more efficient and have low barriers to market entry and they still owe a shit load of money to pay back the banks for paying for all that fiber so they wise up and collectively develop a plan to have some arbitrator transfer packets amongst themselves. The arbitrator has to be a neutral third party to avoid any conflicts of interest between the networks and has to have deep reach into the networks users hardware and obviously know what they are doing from a technical perspective.

A couple p2p providers, specifically kontiki, are in a great position to jump on this. It's no wonder they were purchased by Verisign!