Google Wants To Operate .Search As A “Dotless” Domain, Plans To Open .Cloud, .Blog And .App To Others

If it gets it, Google wants to turn .search into a “dotless domain,” the company told ICANN a few days ago. Last year, Google applied to manage the .app, .blog, .cloud and .search generic top-level domain (gTLD) names as part of a major expansion of the domain-name system.

ICANN, which is managing this expansion, hasn’t awarded any of the gTLDs yet, and the whole program remains controversial. But in May, Google sent a letter to ICANN telling the organization that it would soon provide some specific details about its plans for these top-level domain names. Now, Google has done so through its Charleston Road Registry subsidiary (we have embedded the full letter below).

At the time, it looked like Google was ready to open up these gTLDs to the public and wasn’t just planning on using them for its own services. In its letter to ICANN, Google now confirms that it is working with “the relevant communities related to .blog and .cloud to develop technical standards relating to the operation of those top-­level domains.”

Google’s Plans For A Dotless .Search

The most interesting plan here is to use .search to operate a redirect service on the “on the ‘dotless’ .search domain (http://search/) that, combined with a simple technical standard, will allow a consistent query interface across firms that provide search functionality, and will enable users to easily conduct searches with firms that provide the search functionality that they designate as their preference.”

Dotless domains (think http://example and email addresses like mail@example) are something ICANN has discussed for a while now and that security experts are not in favor of. Google plans to run http://search/ as a redirect service that “allows for registration by any search website providing a simple query interface.”

“The mission of the proposed gTLD, .search, is to provide a domain name space that makes it easier for Internet users to locate and make use of the search functionality of their choice,” Google writes in its amended application.

What exactly this will look like in practice remains to be seen, however. It’s definitely a novel use of the domain system, and judging from the amended application, Google will open this functionality up to third-party developers and its direct competitors.

Of course, it remains to be seen who will actually get to manage .search. Besides Google, Amazon, dot Now Limited, and Donuts.co have also applied for this gTLD.

.Blog, .App and .Cloud

The .blog TLD, Google says, “should be simple and easy for .blog registrants to associate their second-­level domain with their blog on the blogging platform of their choice.” New .cloud domains, too, should have a direct association with “projects hosted in cloud platforms.” While it’s not clear how Google plans to do this, the letter notes that the company is working on a set of technical standards that will “allow users to automatically link their domain name to their blog at the time of registration.”

As for .app, Google plans to restrict this TLD to use by “relevant developer communities” without restricting it to a specific platform.

Read More

Google Will Spend $84M Building Out KC’s Fiber Network To 149K Homes; $11B If It Went Nationwide

With Austin, Texas, expected to be named as the next city for the Google Fiber project, possibly as soon as tomorrow, the analysts at Bernstein Research have published some estimates on how the economics are shaping up for the only place where Google has built out services so far — Kansas City. The firm also sounds a note of caution about whether the search giant will ever embark on a nationwide effort: it could cost up to $11 billion to build out gigabit Internet and TV service to another 20 million homes to achieve a medium-to-large rollout to compete with other providers.

As Ryan pointed out last year when Google first unveiled the details of the Kansas City project, there are a couple of big hurdles to getting a new broadband service off the ground, starting first with building out infrastructure, and then connecting it. Bernstein’s Carlos Kirjner and Ram Parameswaran now put a price tag on that: They say it will cost $84 million to pass (but not actually connect) 149,000 homes — Google’s first phase of buildout for Kanasas City. Some $38 million will go into Kansas City, Kan., and $46 million into Kansas City, Mo., with the cost per home respectively at $674 and $500.

Connecting those homes is another matter. Google has detailed three service tiers, offering a variety of speeds and payment plans, including one with seven years of free service (after you play a $300 installation fee):

Bernstein estimates that to connect up a broadband-only service, it will cost Google $464; those taking double-play of broadband and pay-TV services will cost $794 to connect. “To reduce labor costs, Google will connect homes in waves within each neighborhood, taking advantage of the pre-subscription process it ran asking customers to express interest in its services as it deployed the network,” Bernstein writes. That first wave, of 12,000 homes on “day one” of the service equates to an 8 percent penetration and will cost an additional $10 million for Google, making for a total cost of $94 million for the Kansas City project — $42 million in Kansas and $52 million in Missouri.

As the project gains some momentum, the revenues incoming from new customers will offset the costs of more growth. Based on 8 percent penetration of homes passed on day one, Bernstein writes, “the incremental cash investment to grow to 18% penetration in the first year will be of approximately $2 million, with $15 million in incremental cash costs offset by $13 million of contribution from users.” Bernstein estimates that double-play customers will bring in $64/month and broadband-only customers will bring in $47/month.

Kirjner and Parameswaran write that a wider rollout around Kansas City for 300,000 homes would more than double build-out costs to $170 million (before acquiring customers and connecting those homes). Austin, meanwhile — expected to be announced tomorrow — could end up costing either the same amount or less to build out, since “preliminary analysis suggests that Austin’s population density is materially higher than Kansas City’s and hence could yield a cost per home passed (and hence total cost to pass) that is lower or similar to KC’s even if the network build-out requires a larger portion of (usually more expensive to deploy) buried or underground infrastructure.”

Yet played out on a wider scale, Bernstein is more skeptical:

“We remain skeptical that Google will find a scalable and economically feasible model to extend its build out to a large portion of the US, as costs would be substantial, regulatory and competitive barriers material, and in the end the effort would have limited impact on the global trajectory of the business.”

Using existing providers as a point of comparison (Comcast passes 53 million homes, Time Warner Cable 30 million, and Charter 12 million), Bernstein works out the cost for a 20 million-home coverage for Google, which would give it a 15 percent coverage and rank it as a “medium-to-large domestic access and pay-TV provider.”

Kirjner and Parameswaran estimate that if Google built out a fiber network to serve 20 million homes over a period of five years, “the annual capex investment is required to be in the order of $11 billion to pass the homes, before acquiring or connecting a single customer.” There is a big question mark over why, in fact, Google would ever embark on such a project. “It would have limited impact on the global broadband access industry beyond these 20 million homes,” Bernstein writes. As a point of comparison, it was estimated that it cost Verizon, before it halted FiOS buildout, about $4,000 per home to connect it to its fiber network.

Then again, the Kansas City project, covering neighborhoods in both Kansas and Missouri, has always appeared to have a two-fold purpose. It is a test for Google to see whether it could be a viable infrastructure-based service provider; and it is a way for Google to test out new applications and services, and to amass more data about consumer behavior.

Bernstein has weighed in with a pretty definitive opinion on the first of these (and not for the first time, we should add), but that still leaves questions about the second motivation for Google Fiber.

There is a very clear opportunity for Google to cherry pick a handful of cities for fiber rollouts for in-the-wild tests. These could then subsequently get launched on other service providers’ networks, and provide more opportunities for Google to package its advertising and content in more ways.

Remember, Google’s longer-term vision of how content gets consumed extends across multiple screens. While it’s setting out a winning stake on the mobile screen, by virtue of Android, and dominates a lot of activity on the PC screen, by way of its search engine, its Chrome browser and its many cloud services, it’s relatively far behind the game on what’s still a main screen in the home, the television.

In that regard, it may be that Google never planned for something as costly and extensive as a 20-city, $11 billion investment. A far smaller one in the hundreds of millions, however, could end up being money well spent.

Read More

Microsoft and Nokia Demand EU Action Against Google For Antitrust Violations

Google is on the hot seat with the EU over alleged antitrust violations related to its Internet search practices on both the desktop and on mobile devices. After a two-year investigation that appears to find Google at fault, several of the complainants have voiced their displeasure at the pace of the European Commission’s action or lack thereof.

Reuters says that over a dozen companies have complained, including heavy hitters Microsoft and Nokia, even as European Union Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said he plans to achieve a settlement with Google before the end of the year.

The length of the investigation may be due in part to the fact that it began with the desktop version of Google’s search engine but expanded to examine mobile search, as well.

"Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a 'Trojan Horse' to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile marketplace, and control consumer data," said FairSearch's lawyer Thomas Vinje in a statement to Reuters. Essentially, the allegation is that Google is driving traffic to itself through Android, by directing users to its search engine (not to mention YouTube, Maps, and other services) and also bumping up its own products in search results.

On the one hand, it seems a little silly to bang Google for shipping its services on devices running its operating system; on the other hand, complainants have a very good point. And it’s not like this is a new issue--just ask Microsoft about whether or not it’s cool to include your own Web browser with your operating system.

Read More

A fresh new look for Google Play

Whether you’re in the mood to listen to Justin Timberlake’s new album, read Harlan Coben’s latest bestseller or discover a new game to play, you want the experience of finding and making your purchase to be quick and easy. Today we’ve started rolling out a redesigned Google Play store on Android phones and tablets that is simple, clean and — most importantly — helps you find great entertainment, fast.

The new design focuses on bigger images that jump off the page. Similarly themed content is grouped together so you can hone in on a magazine to read or an app to try. As you move down the page, new recommendations continue to appear so there is always more to see and explore. We’ve also simplified purchasing so you can breeze through checkout and get to enjoying your movie rental or other content.

The redesigned Google Play store app starts rolling out today for Android phones and tablets running Android 2.2 (Froyo) and above. People around the world should see it over the next few weeks. Get ready for a simpler Google Play.

Read More

Google Not After WhatsApp

Late last week, rumors surfaced of Google being in talks to acquire WhatsApp, with about $1 billion riding on the deal. Either the deal fell through, or Google really never approached WhatApp, with the latter now claiming that's the case.

AllThingsDigital got in touch with WhatsApp, its business development head Neeraj Arora completely denied rumors of the company ever being in talks with Google over its acquisition to the Internet giant, and refused to comment any further.

WhatsApp is an extremely popular cross-platform instant-messaging service for mobiles, its apps for iOS and Android earn the company $0.99 per user, per annum. It allows people across IM platforms to send each other mostly text, but also photos, videos, and locations.

Read More