 | | 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. | |
|
 | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | 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. | |
|
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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. | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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. | |
|
| | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Any additional compression, was indeed what I meant, seeing as they can't undo damage done in earlier steps.
It would be quite possible to order (at a higher price point) truely uncompressed streams from content providers and provide their own fiber path back to the google TV plant, but that seems unnessacerily expensive and complex for this testbed.
They certainly can offer as clean a stream as any other provider, exactly what they will do remains to be seen. | |
|
|  BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA | Most people still find TV service to be important. A Roku with Netflix/Hulu may be cheaper, but it's definitely a second rate experience to what you can get from cable TV.
Lots of people just want to be able to play something like CNN in the background. What about Sports? Do you want to wait a year to watch Breaking Bad? Do you want to give up the ability to watch shows like True Blood easily? You'd have to buy expensive DVDs a year after it airs. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
| 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. | |
|
 Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22 | 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
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Do we need a new National Broadband Plan? No, because the gov't f*cks up everything it touches. | |
|
| tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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 picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Do we need a new National Broadband Plan? said by skeechan:No, because the gov't f*cks up everything it touches.
Really? Wherein lies the problem with a system that f*cks up everything it touches and how would such a problem be fixed? | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | It should be noted that without the government much of this country still would not have electricity.
Of course the TVA and Rural Electrification Act where from a time when the government was a tad less corrupted by big business.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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
join:2002-01-22
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 | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Shared data plans highlight competitiveness in wireless indu Roger Entner is high. | |
|
|
|
