Google Fiber

[Brent]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

What I'd like to know is if we could "acquire" a google fiber STB to see if it will recognize our current servers...it won't, but it would still be cool. I bet jeff could pull a string or two.

Originally Posted by samgreco

Maybe Brent could haul a laptop with Sage on it to the Gioogle Fiber store and plug it in and tell us

Hmm. Not sure they would let me, but makes me want to attempt it. My install date isn't until Summer 2013 so the real info on that won't happen until then. It just depends on how much "SageTV" is really under the hood. I suspect quite a lot of SageTV DNA honestly.

[Brent]

This is definitely just a rumor thus far and it is the first time I've seen (or heard) such talk. But here's a report that more cities will be bidding for Google Fiber soon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/googl...nalyst-2012-9?

UPDATE: Fixed the bad link.

[hemicuda]

I heard (not sure the reliability of the source) that Google tried to purchase my local provider's fiber system or something along those lines.

[ToxMox]

Originally Posted by hemicuda

I heard (not sure the reliability of the source) that Google tried to purchase my local provider's fiber system or something along those lines.

Google has been buying fiber and dark fiber for years now.

[cncb]

Originally Posted by Brent

My install date isn't until Summer 2013 so the real info on that won't happen until then.

Holy cow. They're getting a little head start on the signup aren't they...

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by Brent

This is definitely just a rumor thus far and it is the first time I've seen (or heard) such talk. But here's a report that more cities will be bidding for Google Fiber soon.

I suspect (and have since day one of the SageTV buyout, coupled with the Moto buyout) that this is Google's true end-game. They seem to be quite good at looking further out than many others. They have slowly been building their information eco-system.

When the shift to all online content happens, we'll look back and notice that Google has been there all along, laying the foundation and pushing the merger.

And I'll bet that they will own a good chunk of the infrastructure.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by ToxMox

Google has been buying fiber and dark fiber for years now.

"dark fiber" I love it.

I think our city would be a pretty good candidate for a Google Fiber buyout/partnership. I've had it in my head that the "local" provider had built a $1 Billion fiber optic network in town, though I'm not sure where that came from (could be confusing it with a $1B investment they got at one point)...

But regardless, they have fiber run all over town for a while now, in most places doing FTTN, but in my neighborhood they just started doing FTTH when they expanded out here.

Supposedly they have plans to do something (VOD I think) with Roku's but I haven't heard much about that lately.

[mistergq]

It will be interesting to see if they buy markets that Verizon sold off its FIOS in. it will also be interesting to see if they decide to go head to head with FIOS. I would like to see that because Verizon's customer service is horrible and they need competition. Comcast is not competition for FIOS. The two products are not even close since Comcast gets the fiber within a mile of a house/business where Verizon runs the fiber up to the house or business.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by mistergq

It will be interesting to see if they buy markets that Verizon sold off its FIOS in. it will also be interesting to see if they decide to go head to head with FIOS. I would like to see that because Verizon's customer service is horrible and they need competition. Comcast is not competition for FIOS. The two products are not even close since Comcast gets the fiber within a mile of a house/business where Verizon runs the fiber up to the house or business.

If I were placing bets, I would think Google would go to areas without a lot of competition to start with. It makes sense to go to places where they have high probabilities of signing up a large percentage of the population and where there is a high population density.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by samgreco

When the shift to all online content happens, we'll look back and notice that Google has been there all along, laying the foundation and pushing the merger.

I hope I'm around in 2060.

[samgreco]

If I had any money, I'd be putting it on 2020 to 2025

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by samgreco

If I had any money, I'd be putting it on 2020 to 2025

I don't doubt that everything will be available online by then, but the people that control the content need to get over the fact that they are going to have to change they way they will have to distribute that content.

Also, there will still have to have legacy systems in place for the people that never upgrade. There are still people that use VCR's to record programs throughout the day and then record over them after they watch them. The same people that have tube tv's they bought specifically for their cabinet and won't upgrade because "the picture isn't as tall."

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by samgreco

If I had any money, I'd be putting it on 2020 to 2025

Go back to this post and read the discussion forward so I don't have to re-type.
http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/show...&postcount=182

[samgreco]

Sorry, but there is a lot from that point forward. And I did tread it. So was there something specific you need me to understand that I don't?

I have been known to be a bit thick on occasion.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by samgreco

Sorry, but there is a lot from that point forward. And I did tread it. So was there something specific you need me to understand that I don't?

I have been known to be a bit thick on occasion.

The 5-cent explanation of my POV is:
1) There's not enough demand to make it worthwhile for companies to invest in the infrastructure required to supply it. Far too many Americans don't care one bit about getting any more than the simple cable they have now (or can't afford more). Many don't even have HD yet, most don't have a DVR. I've never seen stats but I suspect a good amount of people have an HD flatscreen and pump standard analog cable into it, put it on "stretch" mode so it fills the screen, and think they are watching HD. That's the knowledge level of most Americans when it comes to A/V stuff. And those people will still be the majority for another 30-40 years. No demand = no supply.

2) Cable companies will be the biggest block to "all-streaming" occurring. Cable, as it is, is a cash cow and has been for 30+ years. If competition pops up that might threaten their reign, they'll do whatever it takes to protect it - i.e., they have started buying (or already own) rights to so many media providers, channels, programs, etc., that no one will be able to provide alternatives for reasonable prices.

3) Sports - mostly American pro and college football - are a big roadblock. Too many existing BILLION dollar long-term contracts in place, none of that will change any time soon, if ever. And cable companies are buying rights to sports franchises too, so #2 and #3 will combine to form an even larger roadblock.

4) All-streaming, on-demand TV probably isn't possible until everyone has fiber. I don't think that will be in place in 10-20 years.

JMHOs.

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

3) Sports - ...

Speaking of sports: what I would really like would be for my cable company to offer a package that promises to block all forms of sports programming and keep regularly scheduled shows on-time instead of delayed because of sports teams that are unable to play their games within their allotted times.

My favorite TV category that I've seen is titled "Sports non-event". I thought that was repetitive.

- Andy

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by Opus4

Speaking of sports: what I would really like would be for my cable company to offer a package that promises to block all forms of sports programming and keep regularly scheduled shows on-time instead of delayed because of sports teams that are unable to play their games within their allotted times.

My favorite TV category that I've seen is titled "Sports non-event". I thought that was repetitive.

- Andy

pjpjpjpj - I mostly agree with you in that the cable companies and sports are the big stumbling blocks. However, I think that there are a lot more people out there already watching online than you think. We cut the cord months ago and I am happy. But we live in a major metro area, so there is a lot of stuff OTA. So my perspective may be skewed.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by samgreco

pjpjpjpj - I mostly agree with you in that the cable companies and sports are the big stumbling blocks. However, I think that there are a lot more people out there already watching online than you think. We cut the cord months ago and I am happy. But we live in a major metro area, so there is a lot of stuff OTA. So my perspective may be skewed.

I cut the cord four years ago when I got into Sage. I've been all OTA, and am lucky enough to be on a hill squarely between two large cities, so I get both clearly. PlayOn has been a huge WAF addition (with Podcast recorder, wife gets all the HGTV, Bravo, etc. stuff) and with various PlayOn scripts, I can get most of the sports I want, if I want it.

But almost all of my friends look at my in befuddled confusion when I tell them that I don't have cable. And after they stammer their way through "b-b-b-b-but what about ESPN?", and I tell them that I have "alternative" ways of watching if I really want to, they are even more dumbfounded. They think I'm some sort of computer genius, yet I am probably in the bottom 2% of all Sage users when it comes to computer knowledge.

Funny thing is, if you spend a short time with no ESPN, you'll realize how little you miss it, and when you do see it, you realize how bad it is. SportsCenter is half the day and most of it is their employees giving their opinions on stuff and arguing with each other about various things. Highlights are a small fraction of the show anymore. What I really love is when they have one of their "experts" give his commentary about some comment that was made by one of their other "experts".

I should also add to my comments that I've always said that the majority of Sage users had a skewed opinion about TV viewing because they were completely unattached in their lives from sports, and therefore miss the fact that sports are probably the biggest driver of TV anymore. Conveniently, Opus4 proved that point just above.

Opus... while my opinion of sports and yours clearly differs (I played D1 college basketball, for goodness sake!), I think the biggest problem is that TV refuses to acknowledge the REAL length of sporting events. Baseball games are regularly scheduled for 3 hours on TV, yet routinely go 3:10 to 3:20. Football games are exactly the same. If they'd simply add another half-hour in the schedule for them, it would only be the rare overtime game that would exceed the scheduled window. I don't know why they refuse to change that; I suppose it's a result of "we've always done it this way".

[wayner]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

4) All-streaming, on-demand TV probably isn't possible until everyone has fiber. I don't think that will be in place in 10-20 years.

Why do you say this? I can get 75Mbps down/10Mbps up from my cable company over copper - why isn't this fast enough for all-streaming, on-demand TV?

[samgreco]

I think it's as much an age thing as anything else. I admit that most of my friends that are my age (mid 50s) don't have a clue. However, almost everyone I know under 30 is doing everything online. That's why I think it may not be too long. As those folks hit critical mass in income and the like, everyone will be bending over to do what they want.