6 ms·

> This move might be good for Google, but I find it somewhat alarming as a consumer. Those who control or curate content (Google, NBC/Comcast, Facebook) should

> This move might be good for Google, but I find it somewhat alarming as a consumer. Those who control or curate content (Google, NBC/Comcast, Facebook) should not control infrastructure. I don't know about you, but I'll take Google over Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. any day of the week, regardless of their conflicts of interest. Google has a proven track record of doing things in my favor.

incongruity 14y ago
> Google has a proven track record of doing things in my favor. Thus far. The point still stands, as a principle – that sort of combination of function/power and interests has, historically, not been one that has resulted in good things for consumers, in the long run.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  I don't dispute that. But the other option are the companies I listed, which also have conflicts of interest and have repeatedly abused their control of telecommunications to favor the other branches of their businesses in the past. So I'd rather go with Google, which doesn't have a history of abuse.
antidoh 14y ago
Wasn't ATT before the divestiture their day's equivalent of an owner of infrastructure and a controller, if not owner, of "content?" You got good, reliable service. What was more reliable than the phone?
- nl 14y ago
  You got good, reliable service until anything went wrong or you tried to change anything or you tried to get a less nosey line to use a modem on or you wanted to use a different style of phone. etc.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    And that's my point. That's Google's equivalent future.
    - nl 14y ago
      I think Google Fiber provides increased competition for local access. That is the opposite of ATT. (Or is this sarcasm fail somewhere?)
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    Is this kind of like how you get good, reliable service from Google until "anything goes wrong", like your Adsense account is erroneously suspended, your site is erroneously blacklisted from their search results, or your Gmail account is erroneously disabled and/or deleted? There is story after story after story of what happens when your interactions with Google require human attention, and it's not pretty.
    - nl 14y ago
      Yes, exactly! When there is no competition then companies can afford to be lazy or ignore customer complaints. AdSense has no real competition, so Google just doesn't care if they have one less customer. In the local access area, fiber from Google would increase competition, so would be a good thing.
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  What content did AT&T own or control?
  - antidoh 14y ago
    Voice, the content of the day. It's a stretch.
    - stretchwithme 14y ago
      Definitely, since they neither owned or controlled people's conversations.
ary 14y ago
> Google has a proven track record of doing things in my favor. The current, publicly acknowledged level of intercourse between Google and the U.S. Federal Government is already worrisome. Perhaps your data has been a part of those exchanges, perhaps it hasn't. You and I don't know. Now, imagine that Google begins relaying traffic unrelated to their services on behalf of internet users. It isn't hard to fathom that Google will come under the same pressures to give the U.S. government access to user traffic as have Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and others. That could just be the tip of the iceberg though. How long before the company caves in and decides to start including user internet traffic analysis into the search engine's signaling and ranking? Would it still be doing you a favor? Edit: typo
- freehunter 14y ago
  Yes, Google hands over some of your data to the government. But as far as I am aware, Google tells you when requests have been made for your email account, and when search results have been censored. If your account is accessed by anyone but you, Google will notify you that you have been hacked. Do I believe Google tells the whole truth? I'm not 100% convinced, but I can't know that. What I do know is that even if they tell 5% of the truth about government interaction with your data, this is several times more information than AT&T, Comcast, or Verizon tell you. Most of the time your data is simply handed over on a simple request. At least Google attempts/pretends to put up a fight. Is it worrisome that I would accept 5% of the truth? Yes. But that goes to show how shady everyone else is. While immoral cooperation has no excuse, I would still point more blame to the government that makes the requests in the first place. Always assume your security is lost the minute the data touches a public pipe unless you take deliberate attempts to secure it.
  - gringomorcego 14y ago
    Do you work for the Bureu of Information? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-...
  - enneff 14y ago
    > But as far as I am aware, Google tells you when requests have been made for your email account I could be mistaken, but I think the PATRIOT act permits the US government to obtain your personal information without you being informed.
keeperofdakeys 14y ago
> Google has a proven track record of doing things in my favor. Don't forget all the horror stories of trying to sort out customer support issues. Given the range of issues that supplying internet to houses can have, this would discourage me a lot.
sigkill 14y ago
It's fine today, but what about when the management changes? And I'm sure, Google's management change could easily occur during our lifetime. Heck, look at Apple and Microsoft. Steve Jobs -> Tim Cook and Bill Gates -> Steve Ballmer.
- waqf 14y ago
  If you believe that Google's management and board is willing to consider the public interest in day-to-day business decisions, there's no reason you can't believe they will consider it in a management succession plan.
jc123 14y ago
With track record, hope the customer service is an improvement.

incongruity 14y ago

> Google has a proven track record of doing things in my favor. Thus far. The point still stands, as a principle – that sort of combination of function/power and interests has, historically, not been one that has resulted in good things for consumers, in the long run.

w1ntermute 14y ago
I don't dispute that. But the other option are the companies I listed, which also have conflicts of interest and have repeatedly abused their control of telecommunications to favor the other branches of their businesses in the past. So I'd rather go with Google, which doesn't have a history of abuse.

antidoh 14y ago

Wasn't ATT before the divestiture their day's equivalent of an owner of infrastructure and a controller, if not owner, of "content?" You got good, reliable service. What was more reliable than the phone?

nl 14y ago
You got good, reliable service until anything went wrong or you tried to change anything or you tried to get a less nosey line to use a modem on or you wanted to use a different style of phone. etc.
- antidoh 14y ago
  And that's my point. That's Google's equivalent future.
  - nl 14y ago
    I think Google Fiber provides increased competition for local access. That is the opposite of ATT. (Or is this sarcasm fail somewhere?)
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  Is this kind of like how you get good, reliable service from Google until "anything goes wrong", like your Adsense account is erroneously suspended, your site is erroneously blacklisted from their search results, or your Gmail account is erroneously disabled and/or deleted? There is story after story after story of what happens when your interactions with Google require human attention, and it's not pretty.
  - nl 14y ago
    Yes, exactly! When there is no competition then companies can afford to be lazy or ignore customer complaints. AdSense has no real competition, so Google just doesn't care if they have one less customer. In the local access area, fiber from Google would increase competition, so would be a good thing.
stretchwithme 14y ago
What content did AT&T own or control?
- antidoh 14y ago
  Voice, the content of the day. It's a stretch.
  - stretchwithme 14y ago
    Definitely, since they neither owned or controlled people's conversations.

ary 14y ago

> Google has a proven track record of doing things in my favor. The current, publicly acknowledged level of intercourse between Google and the U.S. Federal Government is already worrisome. Perhaps your data has been a part of those exchanges, perhaps it hasn't. You and I don't know. Now, imagine that Google begins relaying traffic unrelated to their services on behalf of internet users. It isn't hard to fathom that Google will come under the same pressures to give the U.S. government access to user traffic as have Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and others. That could just be the tip of the iceberg though. How long before the company caves in and decides to start including user internet traffic analysis into the search engine's signaling and ranking? Would it still be doing you a favor? Edit: typo

freehunter 14y ago
Yes, Google hands over some of your data to the government. But as far as I am aware, Google tells you when requests have been made for your email account, and when search results have been censored. If your account is accessed by anyone but you, Google will notify you that you have been hacked. Do I believe Google tells the whole truth? I'm not 100% convinced, but I can't know that. What I do know is that even if they tell 5% of the truth about government interaction with your data, this is several times more information than AT&T, Comcast, or Verizon tell you. Most of the time your data is simply handed over on a simple request. At least Google attempts/pretends to put up a fight. Is it worrisome that I would accept 5% of the truth? Yes. But that goes to show how shady everyone else is. While immoral cooperation has no excuse, I would still point more blame to the government that makes the requests in the first place. Always assume your security is lost the minute the data touches a public pipe unless you take deliberate attempts to secure it.
- gringomorcego 14y ago
  Do you work for the Bureu of Information? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-...
- enneff 14y ago
  > But as far as I am aware, Google tells you when requests have been made for your email account I could be mistaken, but I think the PATRIOT act permits the US government to obtain your personal information without you being informed.

keeperofdakeys 14y ago

> Google has a proven track record of doing things in my favor. Don't forget all the horror stories of trying to sort out customer support issues. Given the range of issues that supplying internet to houses can have, this would discourage me a lot.

sigkill 14y ago

It's fine today, but what about when the management changes? And I'm sure, Google's management change could easily occur during our lifetime. Heck, look at Apple and Microsoft. Steve Jobs -> Tim Cook and Bill Gates -> Steve Ballmer.

waqf 14y ago
If you believe that Google's management and board is willing to consider the public interest in day-to-day business decisions, there's no reason you can't believe they will consider it in a management succession plan.

jc123 14y ago

With track record, hope the customer service is an improvement.