Feeds

Why you subsidize Google's Soviet-style Net

Inefficiency creates hidden costs for punters and taxpayers

The smart choice: opportunity from uncertainty

Google certainly likes to throw a party. Its annual, roving Zeitgeist conference sees politicians and policy-makers beating a path to the door for inspiration. As a result, Google and policy makers have got very, very cosy together. But how much are ordinary net users and taxpayers subsidising Google?

The answer is a lot, and it's certainly getting more from us than it's paying for.

One estimate I've seen comes via analyst Scott Cleland, who certainly has a horse in this race: one of his jobs is chairman of NetCompetition, the telcos' lobby group. But let's use this as a starting point, and then go on to see why it's important in ways the business pages of the kebab wraps haven't clocked yet.

According to Cleland:

Google’s search bots regularly copy every page on the Internet, some as frequently as every few seconds, and Google’s YouTube streams almost half of all video streamed on the Internet. The study estimated Google’s payment to fund just the U.S. consumer broadband Internet segment to be approximately $344 million in 2008, or 0.8% of U.S. consumers’ flat-rate monthly Internet access costs of $44.0 billion. Thus Google’s 16.5% share of all 2008 U.S. consumer bandwidth usage, is ~21 times greater than Google’s 0.8% share of U.S. consumer bandwidth costs – or an implicit ~$6.9 billion subsidy of Google by U.S. consumers.

With traffic trends, that invisible subsidy may have doubled by now.

In effect, you're paying for inclusion in Google, because the bots use a lot of your bandwidth, although the cost is hidden. Is this fair? To stretch the highway analogy, vehicles that use the road more (heavy trucks) pay more than light users (scooters).

That's worth bearing in mind, as Google seeks taxpayer subsidies in the US for its 1Gbps fibre network (fiber if you're in the US) - far faster than anyone needs today.

Now the telcos' own behaviour - pocketing billions in subsidies - has been less than shiny. But two wrongs don't make a right. If we're to discuss what "shape" the internet will be in the future - with each shape having associated costs and technical advantages and weaknesses - we should do so on the basis of honesty. There are no "goodies" and "baddies" in this story, only sets of hidden costs that will be sprung on us. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Google's preferred "shape" for the network of networks we call the Internet certainly isn't the best or most efficient, technically.

Imagine the content of UK's FilmFlex cached at the cabinet at the end of every street. Video on demand services would then be instant. The network would save money, and if we did what decent consumers should do and insist the savings are passed on to us as consumers, we'd be quids in. The ISPs could do it themselves, or they could use a CDN, such as Akamai, which has its servers inside the ISP's POPs (Points of Presence). Not as efficient as a streetside cabinet, but not far off.

By contrast, Google's technical architecture is incredibly inefficient. Huge data centres [sample plan], which the company has described as "our Manhattan Project", are built far from consumers. They must transmit data thousands of miles, which naturally requires high bandwidth, and for this bandwidth we now see, Google wants a subsidy. Google alreadygets subsidies from states and municipalities keen to have one of these honking great data centres built in their neighbourhood: running into many millions of dollars per facility.

It would be a peculiar way to run a railroad company to insist passengers went thousands of miles on horseback first, and then drove round at high speed round a little loop, before continuing their journey on horseback again. It may be how a Soviet-style planner might like it, but it's no way to design the internet.

Neither Google's vast data centres nor gigabit speeds are needed for us to enjoy a well designed internet, with lower costs. But both happen to be perfectly aligned with Google's heavily subsidised ideal.

Just fancy that!

It's left as an exercise for the reader to judge whether Google settled on a technical architecture optimized for taxpayer subsidies, or whether the subsidies are optimized for the peculiarly inefficient architecture. Or both - you tell me.®

Bootnote

Although Google now gains more in revenue than ITV, it pays no UK tax. It's entitled to do so under EU Law, so you'll have to blame the single market for that, not Google.

Eight steps to building an HP BladeSystem

More from The Register

next story
Auntie remains MYSTIFIED by that weekend BBC iPlayer and website outage
Still doing 'forensics' on the caching layer – Beeb digi wonk
Major problems beset UK ISP filth filters: But it's OK, nobody uses them
It's almost as though pr0n was actually rather popular
Microsoft unsheathes cheap Android-killer: Behold, the Lumia 530
Say it with us: I'm King of the Landfill-ill-ill-ill
All those new '5G standards'? Here's the science they rely on
Radio professor tells us how wireless will get faster in the real world
Apple orders huge MOUNTAIN of 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s
Bigger, harder trouser bulges foretold for fanbois
Yorkshire cops fail to grasp principle behind BT Fon Wi-Fi network
'Prevent people that are passing by to hook up to your network', pleads plod
Oh girl, you jus' didn't: Level 3 slaps Verizon in Netflix throttle blowup
Just hook us up to more 10Gbps ports, backbone biz yells in tit-for-tat spat
GoTenna: How does this 'magic' work?
An ideal product if you believe the Earth is flat
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Prevent sensitive data leakage over insecure channels or stolen mobile devices.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Top 8 considerations to enable and simplify mobility
In this whitepaper learn how to successfully add mobile capabilities simply and cost effectively.
Application security programs and practises
Follow a few strategies and your organization can gain the full benefits of open source and the cloud without compromising the security of your applications.
The Essential Guide to IT Transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIO's automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise.