Google's buying more fiber, WiFi pages and new software found

Man, this whole GoogleNet thing is getting sticky and suspicious and interesting—a real page turner, if you ask us. So if you recall, we reported before that Google was supposedly buying up unused fiber and spare backbone bandwidth like crazy—enough to move some serious, serious data. Then yesterday our man Om pointed out IP Democracy's report that Google has been further reviewing bids for building a nationwide DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplexing) fiber network, one theoretically capable of terabit speeds, and at the bargain basement price of under $100 million—apparently this thing could even be up and running in months, according to their sources. Yes, we know how crazy-conspiracy-theory this stuff sounds sounds, but where it goes from here is increasingly less questionable. So even though Goog can easily snap up all this backbone bandwidth, they're left with the last mile issue, hence speculation of a WiMax or WiFi network. Now today it's come out that yes, they actually have a piece of working WiFi VPN software to download called Google Secure Access, and that it "is only available at certain locations in the San Francisco Bay Area"—coincidence that that's where they happen to have a test bed of location-tracking WiFi hotspots to provide Google-local based ads on top of free WiFi access? And knowing Google, of course they'd want VPN software running on "GoogleNet," what kind of PR nightmare would it be for them having millions across the nation getting online on open WiFi on account of the "do no harm" company? Ordinarily we might say this is all kind of crackpot speculation, but these pieces keep falling together and it's kind of freaking us out.

[Via The Washington Post]

P.S. We gave the Google Secure Access client an install—click on to check it out.

Nothing out of the ordinary on the TOS, at least not that we could see.

Small, as usual.

Disconnected.

Connecting�

It worked!

... well, kind of. Once on their network, Windows knew to route traffic by default to through the Google VPN interface. Except they obviously detected we weren�t on a Google WiFi hotspot, so our traffic didn�t go anywhere.

This is an old Horace idiom. It might be a lot less cryptic if it didn�t roughly translate as: �It�s of your concern when the nearest wall is burning.� Oh, Goog.

[FriedBean @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Skynet is almost online!!!

[Dave Zatz @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

God Bless the United States of Google! And here Steve Ballmer thought he could bury them... All that's left is for them to buy AOL and Sprint and charge us to NOT reveal the topics we search, the sites we visit, and the contents of our email.

[dep @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Google will own the world!! And given the quality of their products, I can't say I mind too much :)

[Andrew Stone @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Do it Google!

I wouldn't dump my DSL line for an ad based free service (remember netzero back when it was actually free??? LAME...) but rolling around with my laptop would become that much easier, what with all the cell phone companies crippiling their phones so you can't dial up thru them.

[digiguru @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

maybe there just doing it so they can further monitor what you do and how you do it.

[geno @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

#2 I like your thinking.

[Aaron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

The latin correctly translates to:

"It is your concern, when your
neighbour's wall is on fire"

Still a bit cryptic, but makes somewhat more sense.

[dmek @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

GoogleNet + 10 years = SkyNet

[hfl094 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

A better translation of the Latin bit is:

It is your concern too when your neighbor's house is burning.

In its proper context it means that if you don't help out your neighbor during a fire, that your house will soon go up in flames.

So presumable Google is about to go down and this is their appeal for help ;)

[jared @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Of COURSE they're doing it to monitor what you're doing and how you're doing it...online. Their whole business model is targeted advertising. If they can make enough money off that to justify giving us all free wireless ethernet, well, it's about time advertisers started paying us for the right to try to sell us shit. The sooner free bandwidth becomes the norm, the sooner we can FINALLY stop paying for poor cell phone service and poor cable service, and get back to paying for great content.

[CR Hamilton @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Does anyone think this will force internet providers (specifically wireless) to get with it, much the same Napster did to the music industry? Just a thought. (or a hope)

[Tom W @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

If it has broadband speeds and enough capacity for everyone that uses it, then cable and DSL are dead.

If it drops connections like my cell phone, then I'll only use it when I'm on the road.

[thegreyfox @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

�It�s of your concern when the nearest wall is burning.�
Firewall?

[juliuss @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

There is SO much confusion about Google VPN being equal to a Google ISP.

This is VPN. You connect to the internet in any way, and then send your packets to Google. Google then forwards it on, and sends it back. It's pretty simple.

Yes, Google has a few hotspots set up in the Bay Area. That makes sense, since they are from the Bay Area. I think it's jumping to conclusions to say that 2005: Bay Area leads to 2006: .

Anyway, this is still important. A public VPN through google could lead to some headaches for the RIAA -- when they try and sue someone, how happy are they going to be when a Google VPN IP shows up?

And yes, someday Google might be an ISP, but this is not inevitable given the facts we currently have.

[Tom W @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

"This is VPN. You connect to the internet in any way, and then send your packets to Google. Google then forwards it on, and sends it back. It's pretty simple." -juliuss

juliuss,
By the pictures above, it seems like a Google WiFi hotspot must be used. That would make Google an ISP, right? I haven't wrapped my mind around this thing yet, so feel free to help me out.

[juliuss @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I haven't tried it myself, but over on Slashdot, it appears that you can in fact get it working on any internet-connected computer, so it doesn't seem like it's a Google-HotSpot only thing at this point.

And Google does have other hotspots currently -- Bryant Park in NYC for example has WiFi "sponsored by google." I've used it a lot. I think this nation-wide wifi would be great, but it just doesn't make much sense right now. It cost the telcos billions to roll out a nationwide cell network (which has longer range) so to think google will be doing anything nationwide with wifi right away I think is, um... premature.

[kelly @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I'm ready to be assimilated.

[westwing02 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

What is Google Secure Access... straight from their Privacy Policy:

"Using insecure networks, such as public wireless networks, can leave your internet traffic open to snooping by others in the vicinity of the wireless network. Google Secure Access helps address this problem by encrypting all traffic from and to your machine and passing it from the insecure network through a trusted gateway. If you choose to use Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted and sent through Google's servers to the internet, then received from those servers to be encrypted and sent back through our servers to your computer."

So in addition to developing their own wireless network for us to use and Google to monitor, they are now the "middle man" for all other wireless networks that we use.... and Google to monitor.

So lets run the tally on what Google can monitor and use:
Ethernet Traffic: Check (Google Toolbar)
Wireless Traffic: Check (Google Secure Access)
Google Wireless: Check (It's theirs)
Corporate Documents: Check (Google Search Appliance)

"My CPU is a neuronet processor, a learning computer."

[Tom W @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

The WiFi hotspots might just be a proof-of-concept test. If Google went with WiMAX they could easily afford to cover a LOT of area. I don't think money is a problem for them.

[Brian White @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

In response to westwing02:

This is how all VPN systems work, isn't it? You first connect to the server, and then all your traffic goes through that server. This is just the nature of VPN technology, not Google trying to become the middleman.

I think it's a great idea, too many people use wireless networks with no protection, and google probably just doesn't want to expose themselves to liability.

[Frostie @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Man, this and a Nokia 770 would be sweet mobile surfin' bliss.

[ryan libson @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

still believe the end plan is combine search, gps and transaction management. I think they are targeting visa and mastercard more than anything. Follow the whole consumer purchasing lifeline. They may dole out some of their bandwith to us in order to feed the "not an evil company" pr monkey!

[kingoscar @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

It's neural net processor BTW...

[Iceman @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

This sounds like a great idea to me also. They are trying to take the risk out of public wi-fi hot spots. If they also offer universal wi-fi and internet access for the cost of a few ads I say bring it on!

[adithemopur @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

well i'm safe from the googleverse. i run an apple. the only thing we get is the gmail notifier.

[dmek @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

A learning computer

[J @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Why would anybody want to trust all their data through Google servers when they can setup a secure wireless connection by clicking on a single button on their wi-fi router "Enable WEP protection"?? I certainly would not trust Google.. It just takes one disgruntled employee at Google to bring the whole trust system down.

[Jeremy Dunck @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

#27:
While privacy concerns in a Goog-centralized net are reasonable, comparing the protection of WEP versus VPN is like comparing the protection of a cardboard box to Fort Knox.

[Scott L @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

To 27 -- because 90% of people aren't knowledgeable enough to know about encryption, let alone how to type an IP address into the browser and setup WEP in the router. Yes it's easy for most readers here, but we are not representative of the computing majority.

[lach @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

1 9 8 4

http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05092015.htm?ref=foolwatch

[Ken @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I think that fool.com article is right: their endgame is owning a national cellphone network without having to spend a CENT for spectrum.

You'll buy an inexpensive wifi phone that will only connect to GoogleNet and the price will be much less than any of the other carriers.

But they'll probably first offer it as a wireless national ISP. Then they'll roll out the phones and destroy Verizon/Sprint/Nextel etc. with one shot.

[Cashmore @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

The GoogleNet funding bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th, 2006. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. GoogleNet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

[nike meaker @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Seems to work just fine, connection through any hotspot, or free location. I get a connected status and DHCP show the VPN and unique IP's for connection, I THINK meaning that indeed the traffic is being securued.?

[robbie @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

#20 i agree with you,
if they are able to provide gmail users with about 1mb each per day (and think how many gmail users there are and how many sign up all the time) then they can obviously afford a lot of stuff to test out stuff etc

[SD @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I currently pay T-mobile $40 a month for mobile wi-fi; mostly at Starbucks, Borders, Red Roof Inn and Aiports. I also usually have cable service at home for about $55 a month. So free wi-fi would be welcome. But an encrypted proxy thru VPN at Google is only as good as Google's privacy policy. I don't think you would beat a sapena if came down to something legal. All that info is going to be cached somewhere, encrypted or not. I'm sure at somepoint in time, Google's servers will be exploited for personal info if it stored in someway. I'd use the free wifi for basic stuff, but use the secure land line for private surfing/transactions. Oh, forget WEp. Use WPA or go PGP.

[tom @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

It's all about LOCALIZED advertising - once they are your ISP, they know your location. Then Google can show local advertising and take a big bite of a huge market.

[FreeStuffCrazy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I can't wait till i can pull out a laptop and get free wifi anywhere in SF. They should really consider doing the big airports too.

[E Ness @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Google will make this work. Pretty soon we'll all have free wi-fi - probably ad supported, but that's alright. Then Charter can take a hike....