Why is Google building a Fiber TV? Does anyone watch like just 1 channel per month or maybe 5 or 10? I'm curious. Netflix and Hulu is out there for anyone to watch TV shows when a computer or a Roku box is connected to a 40"+ HDTV.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? Some people just want linear TV. For those who are happy with Roku, Google has a plan for them that's $50 per month cheaper than the one than includes TV.
| It 's is in fact CATV, delivered over google fiber. (Not sure exactly whose feed they tap in to/purchase for redistribution (geussing a Sat provider, but notice some COMCAST owned channels in there)|
calling it by the FIBER buzz word doesn't make it different, since they don't need any compression (plenty of bandwidth available) it is possible it will be a really clean true HD picture, but no one knows that yet.
Many TV's over the last few years have a DNLA device built in so no computer or roku box is needed, my 40" (2-3 years now) sony even has wireless N built in so no wires needed either.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? An HDMI 1080p/60hz signal needs ~4Gbps. They still need compression.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? Google says they will do no additional compression like many cablecos do. They'll do whatever compression the content provider does. I'm guessing it comes from a satellite feed so will be whatever that compression is.
TWC compression for the SDV channels is horrible. Terrible blockiness during high motion.
BTW, I live less than a mile from the Google demo location in KC and went yesterday. They have a lot of demonstration areas setup. The TV picture quality was very good, better than OTA and far superior to TWC.
They did some kind of Gbit demo showing 500 fishies swimming in a circle where each fish is a connection to a server across town. They showed a 10Mbps connection and at 100 fishies there was a lot of stuttering. That seemed to demo latency more than bandwidth but I didn't check much into how it works.
The had an Onlive box with gaming. Looked so much better and more responsive than when I do it via TWC.
The DVR settings looks fairly sophisticated but what's cool is that any Android device can control the DVR - with bidirectional sharing of the detailed configs. So there is a lot of opportunity to do sophisticated DVR development via an Android app rather than directly on the DVR box. Any Android phone can control the DVR/TV of course, not just the Nexus 7 tablet.
If you have any questions, I'll be visiting again and can check it out.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? OP said they won't need any compression. Perhaps I misinterpreted that and what they meant was any additional compression.
Regardless, even OTA HD pixelates during crowd pans. I don't know whether that's due to the broadcaster's choice or if the pixelation is part of the satellite down link.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? So technically, Google themselves won't do any compression as many CableCos do. But the source content will be compressed.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? Quite frankly, I have no idea. My only comment is that if saying they won't use any compression really means an uncompressed stream, that's extremely unlikely.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? Well, there aren't any great TV shows for me to watch. I used to watch The First 48, CSI: Miami, a bit of Criminal Minds, and Parking Wars in A&E. While I don't get the latest 2012 TV shows in Netflix, I can get great sources of entertainment elsewhere and just go with local channels over the air. And besides, I get to watch early TV episodes of The First 48 in Netflix that I can't get with cable TV.
And if I want to watch ESPN and don't care to pay for 100+ channels, tough luck for me. That makes it easier for me to not care much about. The business model of channel bundling is just too old and I'd be glad to threaten them by finding better sources of entertainment.
Phone: Yealink SIP-T22P + CSipSimple in Optimus V
Phone System: Asterisk 10.1; Server: Debian Sid+Exp
I'm in heaven with VoIP except for 3G wireless.
Re: Why is Google building a Fiber TV? Google will probably eventually get the missing channels. Is impressive the lineup they already have for only one market and not a single customer signed up yet.
Content providers might play along with Google to experiment with different models given it is just one market. Actually only about 1/4 of KC metro will get access and not all of them will signup.
North Tonawanda, NY
London Olympics melting Internetz Nope. Especially with the Paywalls everywhere and the crappy players to boot (unless they are actually using YouTube for streaming like I heard? Then in that case it might slow Google down but not the Internet).
| |skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
Do we need a new National Broadband Plan? No, because the gov't f*cks up everything it touches.
Re: Do we need a new? We would need an actual National Broadband Plan, before we need a NEW National Broadband Plan.
I think we will probably not see an EFFECTIVE National Broadband Plan until version 76, revision 8, by which time we will have wasted all the money in the world on piecemeal, "serve this micro constituency" plans.
| |CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremiumReviews:
Re: Do we need a new National Broadband Plan?
said by skeechan:Really? Wherein lies the problem with a system that f*cks up everything it touches and how would such a problem be fixed?
No, because the gov't f*cks up everything it touches.
Re: Do we need a new National Broadband Plan? Much of the country in terms of land area, not population.
Access to cheap broadband isn't a problem in urban areas with discretionary income capabilities. In fact, broadband is already everywhere. It's just not cheap to buy carrier designed services.
While government does do good, let's make sure we all understand what this program is. Under-served areas want access to cheap high speed networks. In order to make that happen, we will pass programs that transfer wealth from urban areas with disposable income to under-served areas. The wealth will be transferred to corporations where a few will get rich, a lot will get minimum wages and some will be in between (but closer to minimum than rich).
I'd prefer to transfer wealth to community projects that must become self-sustaining. If they can lay fiber, great but they have to maintain it with local taxes or through subscription fees. If there's too much fiber and not enough subscribers, then they need to look at wireless. Fixed wireless is an excellent choice when subscribers are sparse. The cells can be large and infrastructure costs are low. But we won't do this. We'll forever transfer wealth and lay fiber across 10 miles of corn fields to reach one customer.
Regarding corrupt big businesses, business has always been corrupt because they are run by people. We are all flawed in that we like to do for ourselves rather than others. It's within our nature. The difference is business used to be smaller and by correlation, the corruption was not as big nor as bold. Now it's out in the open, too big to fail and heralded as social progress.
| |KearnstdElf WizardPremium
Mullica Hill, NJ
Re: Do we need a new National Broadband Plan? Size certainly has helped them because now they have the ability to craft the laws at the federal scale. Today I doubt standard oil would have been broken up.
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Shared data plans highlight competitiveness in wireless indu Roger Entner is high.