p2pnet - rss feed: Google’s secret Project 02
p2p news / p2pnet: In December last year, Google started recruiting in the US and the UK for, “candidates with experience in … identification, selection, and negotiation of dark fibre contracts both in metropolitan areas and over long distances as part of development of a global backbone network”.
Now, “Microsoft and Yahoo have announced that they are building big data centers upstream in Wenatchee and Quincy, Wash,” says The New York Times.
That’s only 130 miles north of, “the windswept Columbia River” and The Dalles in Oregon where, 80 miles east of Portland, “Google is working on a secret weapon in its quest to dominate the next generation of Internet computing,” says the story.
“Google remains far ahead in the global data-center race, and the scale of its complex here is evidence of its extraordinary ambition,” says the NYT.
Behind the Digital Wall of Google, the two existing buildings (Google also has a permit for a third), will, “tap into the region’s large surplus of fiber optic networking, a legacy of the dot-com boom,” the NYT continues.
“The fact that Google is behind the data center, referred to locally as Project 02, has been reported in the local press. But many officials in The Dalles, including the city attorney and the city manager, said they could not comment on the project because they signed confidentiality agreements with Google last year.
“No one says the ‘G’ word,” Diane Sherwood, executive director of the Port of Klickitat, directly across the river from The Dalles, is quoted as saying. “It’s a little bit like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named in Harry Potter.”
We clipped our pic of The Dalles from Google Earth. The WCC (World Control Centre) is conspicuously absent, but The New York Times has an excellent aerial shot.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
started recruiting - Google wants its very own Net, February 3, 2006
The New York Times - Hiding in Plain Sight, Google Seeks More Power, June 14, 2006
June 14th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Since when did local Government officials get the authority to enter into, or be bound by ‘confidentiality agreements’ with corporate, for-profit entities? Does this give them the privilege of refusing to answer questions posed by elected municipality officials at open meetings? If so, this is total BS, and probably a violation of the state or local “sunshine” laws, which prohibits the closure of virtually all meetings of government bodies, except in very limited, specific circumstances, such as to discuss personnel issues concerning specific, identifiable individuals.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:19 am
I helped build one of these buildings in the Dalles