Google Fiber

[samgreco]

And I am by no means saying we are there yet. GFiberTV may be the closest yet. But the content providers are currently the biggest stumbling block in my mind, as they have ALWAYS been, in every change. They tried to stop every new technology out there. And they basically lost every time. As the realities change and demand increases, they will jump on board. They won't have much choice.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by samgreco

And I am by no means saying we are there yet. GFiberTV may be the closest yet. But the content providers are currently the biggest stumbling block in my mind, as they have ALWAYS been, in every change. They tried to stop every new technology out there. And they basically lost every time. As the realities change and demand increases, they will jump on board. They won't have much choice.

That's exactly right. Eventually (very long time from now) we will be able to just go to a network and choose the show/episode we want to watch. I see something like hulu being exactly what we use to watch tv. There will still be airing dates and things like that, but it won't quite work the same way. Almost every network in existence has a website you can view past episodes of a specific show, but for some reason having a "10 foot" ui so people can do this on their TV is off limits. Hulu is (was) a start, but there are just as many commercials in shows as there are on the regular broadcast. Netflix is really the way to do it, but not getting the shows until the season is over blows, but them disappearing because their contracts with the networks expire is even worse. All of those issues are the networks trying to make something that should be simple very difficult.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by samgreco

But the content providers are currently the biggest stumbling block in my mind, as they have ALWAYS been, in every change. They tried to stop every new technology out there. And they basically lost every time. As the realities change and demand increases, they will jump on board. They won't have much choice.

This time I think the cable companies have more to lose than the content providers as cable is in danger of becoming a commodity provider of internet bandwidth. We will still need content providers in the future, will we still need a channel aggregator called a cable company? Maybe not.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by wayner

This time I think the cable companies have more to lose than the content providers as cable is in danger of becoming a commodity provider of internet bandwidth. We will still need content providers in the future, will we still need a channel aggregator called a cable company? Maybe not.

This is precisely why cable companies have started becoming content providers (i.e. Comcast buying NBC). It's about the only way they can maintain their relevancy. Once the major networks are all owned by cable companies, they can lock all other services out, stifling competition entirely. Then, just for show, they'll pretend to have little spats between each other about programming costs and channels (like we do today), when, in reality, they'll be sued by the government for collusion.

/realistic conspiracy theory

[wayner]

You don't have to tell that to a Canadian - this trend is much, much worse in Canada than in the US. The two main private networks, CTV and Global, are owned by Bell Canada and Shaw Cable/sat. The Canadian version of ESPN is owned by Bell Canada, its main competitor is owned by Rogers Cable. Bell Canada is in the midst of acquiring the Canadian version of HBO.

In Canada almost all of the OTA brodcasters and specialty cable channels are owned by the cable/tel cos (Bell, Rogers and Shaw) or are in the process of being acquired. The main exception is the CBC which is government owned.

In addition Rogers owns the Toronto Blue Jays (and their stadium) and Bell and Rogers just went 50-50 to buy Maple Leafs Sports and entertainment which owns the Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), Toronto Raptors (NBA) and Toronto FC(MLS) in addition to the Air Canada Centre. Obviously they have figured out that live sports are crucial and may be the only thing forcing you to keep a cable/sat sub.

[pjpjpjpj]

How long did it take for the large majority of America (and Canada) to get cable - i.e., to get that ubiquitous piece of black coax into almost every household? Three to four decades. And every one of those pieces of cable is owned by somebody. Mostly, cable companies. And if you want someone else's service to come through it, that other service will have to pay a fee to the cable company that owns the cable. If the cable company starts to think they are losing their grip on their 30-year cash cow, that fee will start to increase.

The only other option is for the other company to install their own lines of some sort (whether it be more coax, or fiber, or a combination, or something else). And that would take just as long to happen as it did the first time, with significantly more risk than when cable was installed (risk, meaning, the cable companies pretty much knew people would get cable TV because it was the only choice, but now there are several choices, so no guarantee they'll ever get the cost of the infrastructure installation back).

[darcilicious]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

Hulu is (was) a start, but there are just as many commercials in shows as there are on the regular broadcast.

I hear this a lot but I have never found a show where that's the case. Well, maybe there are "as many" but there some of those commercials are 15s (or less even!). And often times, even though it says it's going to play three commercials, but it only plays two.

I just finished watching a first-run prime time show and the total run-time including commercials was 50 minutes (sans closing credits) compared to a 43-minute show that runs an hour.

So, less than half the commercial time compared to broadcast tv.

(Oh, this was for Hulu+, free Hulu might be different but then, that's how "free" tv is subsidized too )

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

The only other option is for the other company to install their own lines of some sort (whether it be more coax, or fiber, or a combination, or something else). And that would take just as long to happen as it did the first time, with significantly more risk than when cable was installed (risk, meaning, the cable companies pretty much knew people would get cable TV because it was the only choice, but now there are several choices, so no guarantee they'll ever get the cost of the infrastructure installation back).

Isn't that exactly what this thread is/was about. Google just DID build (OK, is building) a fiber network in KC. Now it's just a question of how long it takes to spread. But their infrastructure concept certainly has more than enough bandwidth to make the cable-less system viable.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by samgreco

Isn't that exactly what this thread is/was about. Google just DID build (OK, is building) a fiber network in KC. Now it's just a question of how long it takes to spread. But their infrastructure concept certainly has more than enough bandwidth to make the cable-less system viable.

Absolutely. My point is just that if Google has decided their only viable option to compete with cable is to install fiber across that country just like cable companies did with coax 4 to 5 decades ago, well, the idea that we'll all be streaming and surfing at fiber speed any time soon is, well, a "nice thought". Unless you live in Silicon Valley or a major city, it will be a while. A long while.

[phelme]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

... install fiber ... Unless you live in Silicon Valley or a major city, it will be a while. A long while.

I think I'll be long dead before fiber to all homes is placed in my area of Silicon Valley. Infrastructure is as backwards here as any place else. Sometimes I think even more so.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

My point is just that if Google has decided their only viable option to compete with cable is to install fiber across that country just like cable companies did with coax 4 to 5 decades ago, well, the idea that we'll all be streaming and surfing at fiber speed any time soon is, well, a "nice thought".

There is always the hope that some breakthrough in wireless technology will turn this all on its head.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by brainbone

There is always the hope that some breakthrough in wireless technology will turn this all on its head.

Now that I can buy into.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the big breakthrough to get super-high-speed wireless into homes required us all to have big antennas on our houses like 40+ years ago? What goes around comes around...

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Wouldn't it be ironic if the big breakthrough to get super-high-speed wireless into homes required us all to have big antennas on our houses like 40+ years ago? What goes around comes around...

Back in '96 that was the only way I could get "high speed" (1.5mbps down) internet. A big roof mount antenna pointed at a tower a few miles away for the downlink and a 33kbps modem for uplink. Worked well for the time, with relatively low latency.

If there was a reliable ~2 to 5mpbs uplink with ~10 to 20mbps downlink wireless system like that available today, that beat local cable prices, I would sign up in a heartbeat -- no matter the antenna size.

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by brainbone

Back in '96 that was the only way I could get "high speed" (1.5mbps down) internet. A big roof mount antenna pointed at a tower a few miles away for the downlink and a 33kbps modem for uplink. Worked well for the time, with relatively low latency.

If there was a reliable ~2 to 5mpbs uplink with ~10 to 20mbps downlink wireless system like that available today, that beat local cable prices, I would sign up in a heartbeat -- no matter the antenna size.

Man does that bring back memories. But back then I was working for US Robotics. We were really smoking the market with our new 56K modems.

A lot can happen in 15 years...

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by samgreco

We were really smoking the market with our new 56K modems.

The sound of a dial-up handshake sure can trigger a memory or two... Don't hear it in the wild too often anymore.

[darcilicious]

Originally Posted by samgreco

We were really smoking the market with our new 56K modems.

A lot can happen in 15 years...

Sure seems a lot longer ago than that for some reason I remember using a pair of 56K modems (pretty sure they were USRs) for a leased line from Portland OR out to the middle of nearly nowhere, Columbia County. I believe I had the first 7x24 Internet connection in the entire county at the time.

[bcjenkins]

Originally Posted by drewg

I hate having to deal with this so badly that I have a general rule that I don't watch anything following football on CBS. What really ticks me off is that the just moved one of my favorite shows ("The Mentalist") to CBS Sunday night. I'll just mark all the bad ones as recording errors, and wait for re-runs. Sigh.

Drew

It seems like CBS has pushed everything back 30 minutes on Sunday.

B

[paulbeers]

Originally Posted by drewg

I hate having to deal with this so badly that I have a general rule that I don't watch anything following football on CBS. What really ticks me off is that the just moved one of my favorite shows ("The Mentalist") to CBS Sunday night. I'll just mark all the bad ones as recording errors, and wait for re-runs. Sigh.

Drew

Or do like my wife and I and set an hour of padding on any
cbs show on sundays.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Now that I can buy into.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the big breakthrough to get super-high-speed wireless into homes required us all to have big antennas on our houses like 40+ years ago? What goes around comes around...

The FCC actually looked into this around the time of the "digital transition". IIRC they were looking into putting wireless data on the "in between" frequencies for broadcast TV (under 1ghz), but for some reason abandoned the idea. I looked around, but couldn't find specific documentation on the project. What a great idea that never happened.

[skyeclad]

While it might not be a true Google Fiber product, some new "sagetv" hardware, in the form of that stand alone device hinted at is something we could really use right now! Well maybe something that I could really use. My server is starting to feel a little old and I'd love to know what Google's plan is for non-GF TV's.