Verizon FiOS TV → Re: Thought FIOS TV was the best until I saw this. Wow

well i think 120 dollars a month for 1gbit internet and all their mentioned pay tv channels already kills anything available anywhere else short of free.

as far as the ferrari v. a truck ... i dont know anyone on earth that wouldnt pick up the ferrari if it was faster and cheaper than any other vehicle.

The fact you even mention ferrari invokes an understanding that what google is offering is premium in every way.

For you that's fine. My point is that the number of those types of consumers, I believe, is small. And 'small' doesn't cut it in this type of venture. They need to appeal to a broad spectrum of consumers. That means content. Which means they need channels like ESPN. Without it, they're going to have a hard time cutting into the market. Look at how much ink has been spilled over closing the terrestrial loophole, for crying out loud. What's THAT all about?! It's about getting access to RSNs. Why do companies want access to RSNs? Because NOT having the RSNs hurts them! Big time.

Verizon did an analysis of a couple such markets. Here in Philly they determined that DBS penetration is 40% below average for a market of this size. 40%. That's beyond huge. Why is it that much lower? Because of one channel - CSN Philly. The DBS companies can't currently get it. One very regional channel has THAT much of an impact.

Oh, and you're ignoring the fact that you need to pay for voice service separately. For 120 bucks a month I could probably get cable, HSI, AND voice from the local cable company.

Oh and your comment about the truck vs. the Ferrari is case in point with what I'm saying. I wouldn't take a Ferrari over my truck because THE FERRARI DOESN'T MEET MY NEEDS. The truck does. I have 5 kids. Want to tell me I'm a moron for not making the switch? I don't care about low-end acceleration. I care about room. Hauling capacity.

That goes perfectly with my point. If all you offer is a Ferrari, you're going to lose ALL the consumers whose needs aren't met by having a sports car. And there are alot of them out there. This is the same thing. Speed is great. But it's far from the only (or even main) consideration. You're assuming that speed is king for everyone because it is for you. That's not even remotely true.

youre reaching my man. Verizon isn't offering something that is 100 or 1000 x's faster for half the price either.

In our economy ... price is king.

As far as the phone goes ... google voice on an android phone is ummm... free provided you have wifi (and oh yeah i forgot wifi in your 1gbit symmetrical home).

again ..can't really compete with free. An educated consumer is googles best friend.

For those that simply can't live without a pots line (for whatever reason) add 20 bucks a month.

so what exactly is google fiber not offering? Are you saying you would not pay much less for 1gbit internet and tv because of O! or espn?

I can't recall any network that was a need of mine...and if it was I could watch it streaming on my 1gbit internet without compression.

You're right. Price is king! Which is why what you're saying isn't correct. It's more than just price, btw, it's value. What do I get for my money? Speed is far from the only consideration.

As for someone who 'needs' POTS...sigh. That's most of the country. Most people want voice service in their home beyond their cell phones. Hell, I have 4 cell phones in my house, and I STILL want home phone service.

Again, you're projecting your own preferences. I'm telling you what most consumers want. You're telling me what YOU want. If what you want is representative of most of the country, then fine. But it isn't. You're in the minority. Not saying that your choices are bad. Not at all. Every consumer decides what works for them. What I am saying is that if Google doesn't get a certain number of consumers, this whole thing goes belly up. Doesn't matter how much faster they are.

As for the Verizon comment, you totally missed my point. I NEVER said that Verizon offered anything like that. Where did I say that? I used a story to illlustrate a point. The point being that Verizon's analysis of the effects of the loophole indicate that the DBS companies (not Verizon... the DBS companies) are hurt because they don't have access to CSN Philly. And it hurts them in this market badly. The point of that is this: channels matter. NOT having probably the most popular cable channel in your lineup will matter a great deal. Not having it will prevent you from picking up the number of consumers you need to make your venture work. That was my point. I'm not stretching at all. I was making a point.

I like the Ferrari analogy, but beyond a matter of preference Vs. a truck. Its buying a 220mph Ferrari with no more than a 75mph posted speed limit in this country. Youre buying that Gbps connection for bragging rights, nothing more, right now.

No ESPN/Disney/ABC... no Fox suite of channels... no TBS... no CNN... no HBO/Cinemax... Yeah, I AM saying I wouldn't switch if it were offered to me in my market because of that. That's exactly my point! I'm saying that that's true of MOST consumers out there. I keep pounding on this - without those channels, Google will not get the base that they need to make this successful, because without those channels most people will not switch. I don't care how fast their internet speed is. That's been my point all along.