Web 3.0 Just Kicked Through the Door

In the playbook for Google's world dominance there is one play still in the developmental stage:

GoogleNet - the one missing link. No pun intended with the missing link part. Link....network... get it?

The posting below is a repost from February of 2007. I'm reposting because I think it is just as applicable today as it was then.

Couple quick thoughts before my paste:



- the amount of data on every persons habits that google will be able to manipulate and exploit is scary. the Chrome OS and Android just gave google 5 times the access they had to me before. Why? Android was built to run on devices and I can't stand windows crashing every hour so i'll gladly switch to a more stable android. not to mention its free. Android will be the OS for my mobile phones, set top boxes, home entertainment systems, appliances (refrigerators, ovens, vehicle management and entertainment systems, home automation devices (remember google's forays into the home automation and electrical smart meter markets?) and probably, in the not too distant future, they'll manage our terlits too. Thats a shit load of visibility they'll have in to the patterns and habits of connected people. Again, no pun intended :)

- will the Feds just sit back and watch as Google take it deeper than Ma Bell ever dreamed possible?






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 Google is the means to an end. At the end of the day Google sells advertising and they'll use whatever means necessary to do that, be it building an OS and giving it away for free or by providing free connectivity so that free OS stays online 24x7. The more interaction we have with devices the more impressions google has to sell to advertisers.

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 infrastructure platform 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 from the threat of new competition emerging to pose a challenge.

The internet hasn't changed anything when it comes to the bare bones media model. 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.

Net Neutrality: The Ugly Bride

Over the next 20 years net neutrality will be left at the alter many, many times. At&T already did it once when they had no way to provide cable modem service because @Home Network had been the choice of partner for the cable co's. Meaning AT&T didn't have a broadband connection into the home. What did they do? They found the other kid who wasn't invited to the party, AOL, and cried all the way up to the principals office where they screamed and yelled about how poorly they were treated and how they should be included. Funny how shortly after the TCI acquisition was approved they slowly crawled across and into the anti neutrality, anti gov't intervention, pro free market camp.

What about Google? Google talks a good game but like the Barons of the past, they're so rich and powerful that it's easy to be preaching the socialistic smoke screen of open access when the commotion you're making distracts the attention from the real reason you need open access policies: Advertising $$.

Before I get into why, this thesis hinges on where I see Google taking it's road map over the next ten years. Google will become and will accomplish during those 120 months:

- already is today and always will be, and DON'T EVER FORGET IT, generating revenue by getting a piece of the advertising and marketing budgets of BUSINESSES worldwide (Sound familiar? It should because you know many similar companies. Companies like NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc)

- building out an IP network that will kick ass on anything we have today because they'll squeeze every little drop of 'utility' out of each tiny unit of that network, driving the revenue per packet higher and higher the longer that packet stays on it's network. The big deal in this? They will give access and access device away for free to anyone who wants one. Just like the bikes at the googleplex, take one when you need one and leave it for the next guy to use when you're done. Since they're free, there really is no reason to steal them because there is no reason to buy one, right? Riiiight.

- will emerge as the leading global wireless phone carrier, giving access to voice and data via free gPhones to the masses.

- will enable a true global village as Marshall McCluhan predicted. providing ubiquity in access reach, speed and scope. no kids left behind, just like the California school system. uh huh.

How could such a beacon of industry and a company that is studied and admired as the pinnacle of American enterprise show its true colors and be so fickle? Flip flopping from one side to the other? I love answering my own questions and since nobody else is raising their hand I will tell you; first, its real simple and sheds some light on why net neutrality is a pipe dream. Net neutrality itself is a concept and notion created by the telco's and in cooperation with their opposition, which pits each other in a one extreme to the other showdown. Nobody will ever win this showdown because if someone did it would then be over and if it's over how can they conveniently flip or flop to the other side when need be? Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too and when your talking about something you can see, touch and feel, the history of any given involved party is easily forgotten, effectively masking economic warning signs. The most obvious one being the saying, "if it's to good to be true, it is and never will be true."

It's all about one $ and maximizing how many times that same $ can be 'turned over' during it's lifetime. For this example, my definition of 'turned over' is the value of the taxes the US gov't(or any type of tax collector) collects on each dollar it spends, collects, spends, collects, etc...

Keeping that packet on your network all the time ensures you can have more opportunity to market to the user, provides them with more and deeper analytics of this persons habits, a deeper understanding of what is important to this person and what are they hiding. After all, the easiest way to get someone to do some action is by guilting them into it.

Yes, businesses will do what they can to maintain an advantage in the market for the assets they've built or acquired. This is nothing new and is happening on behalf of every industry, not just telecom. And it is expected. If you elected an official who is uneducated and susceptible to rhetoric and hype you have the ability to change that instead of throwing more rhetoric and hype on top of it. The fact of the matter is that with or without net neutrality, market innovations will happen that shake up the landscape. We're seeing it now with wifi. In a few years the net neutrality debate as it relates to in ground last mile connections to the home will likely be a laughable memory because of innovations by companies addressing a market deficiency such as lack of competition for the last mile connection. Wifi, WiMAX, satellite or any other protocol/standard/whatever bypasses the last mile altogether, thus bypassing the ILEC, MSO, etc.

So, if you really want a competitive market for alternatives to any of the technological services we have today, the best way to ensure that is to allow those companies to keep their systems closed and have tiered offerings because the capitalistic market forces will produce alternative, innovative, ground breaking and industry shattering service offerings. Does Napster ring a bell?

Another thing to consider, the telcos(distributors) rely on the content producers(websites, aps's, isv's, etc) as much as the producers rely on the telcos. They are complimentary in nature and it is in their best interest to play together because the combination of the two is what makes each, in its own right, attractive. What would Yahoo or Google be without the internet? Why did GM pull that all electric car they used to have off of the market and now why is Tesla coming out with an even better one? Because the oil companies needed GM as much as GM needed the oil companies.

We aren't fans, we are participants. Just how fans often confuse their favorite team signing a questionable player or a player saying something negative about their team, these industries are made up by for-profit businesses which must show a return on investment or they will vanish faster than they got here. Don't be fooled by the smoke screens!!!

The exploitation of inefficiency - If it's too good to be true, it is!!

Robert Young always writes thought provoking and interesting posts on GigaOm and this one got me thinking....

They say technology refreshes itself every six months. So it seems logical that if you compress many six month periods together and apply the technology change to the original market frozen in time and compare it to the current market chances are you will be looking at the equivalent of a square and and circle or Big Foot(the monster truck) to a Toyota Prius. Free markets, by definition, gravitate towards the most efficient products, not necessarily the cheapest products. What was cost effective for the entertainment industry 30 years ago most likely isn't cost effective to them today. What used to take a big budget and major cooperation from many different parties(film crew, editing, special effects, music, USPS, chain of command approvals) can now be done by a single person with a video camera. Why? The micro markets got efficient and allowed for the common person to have access to the tools and skills that had been surrounded by unnatural barriers to entry. Unnatural barriers to entry aren't sustainable and over time erode. Is old school Hollywood really so naive that they can't see the fact that they exploited an inefficiency in a market to get where they got? Consider the Television market from 20 years ago and how a product was given the thumbs up or thumbs down. Surely it was inefficient from an aggregate perspective to have the gating factor of whether or not a prospective TV show made it be decided by one person when that person may or may not be who the creator of that show was trying to align with or identify themselves as. As evidenced by the case of Nobody's Talking, the Youtube revived sitcom which was not picked up by NBC after the pilot but gained support on YT. Whoever passed on that probably has moved on to greener pastures, huh? :)

This seems like common sense and something we should accept as being what it is, reality. But the only markets which readily accept and embrace this evolutionary notion are those of technology. Why? Because most leaders in technology got to be leaders in technology by virtue of their innovation. Innovation in technology typically leads to greater efficiency for that or of that technology.

What is the point in this? Basically that this shift in power, for lack of a better term, has been gaining momentum for a quite some time and ubiquity in the access to and of information is accelerating the breakdown of those unnatural barriers to entry....ie, the internet leveled the playing field. The studios, believing they actually deserved to be in their current positions instead of realizing the short term nature of them, continued to invest in protecting those unnatural industry walls instead of innovating on new product, while the rest of the world was coming up with ways to target the inefficiencies of free markets and cognisant of it or not, halt the exploitation of those inefficiencies as soon as they come to light.

The end result? More efficient marketplaces with the increasingly blurred delineation of consumers and producers. Efficiency is bringing McCluhan's Global Village to life and should be good for those that aren't solely dependent upon the exploitation of an inefficiency to further themselves. As we know, inefficiencies can't last forever in a free market society. I, as the consumer, now have choice on what I buy/watch/eat/etc and how/where/when I consume it. That in and of itself is useful and valuable to me but has even greater value to the producers of that content which I consume because, trust me on this, that content wasn't being 'let' out by the powers that had been in Hollywood. Advertisers, the great subsidizing force of content production(that is a whole other issue), now have the ability to actually target and market to very specific and unique subsets of the general population by virtue of that populations choices. In the past those advertisers were stuck with choosing between the three major TV networks in very very specific time slots. Today their options are infinite. Literally.

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.

The Global Village

As Marshall McCluhan predicted way back when there was no world wide web, communications will pave the way for a true Global Village. It is happening right now and we get to be a part of it!!

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2007/gb20070111_826128.htm?chan=tc&chan=technology_technology+index+page_more+of+today%27s+top+stories
Big deal? Indeed it is. It levels the playing field and blurs the line between the have's and have not's. It is the foundation for a global economy based on free trade of information and services. The three class system we know today will evolve to some degree by seeing the middle class swell to include 99% of the worlds population. Sounds like communism in its purest form. Never thought the internet would turn you to a commie, did ya?

It is too bad all those morons trying to block free wifi in metro city locales(SF!!!!!) can't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to learn the benefits of connecting people.