| Google is about to change. When Google succeeds in this venture (and they will), The big telcos are going to be lobbying hard to get them to be confined only to Kentucky. Google is going to release the information on just how cheap it is to provide the service and people might start calling their congressman about being ripped off by the Telcos. This would also give them the content that they wanted to get for their GoogleTV. It seems like a win win for everybody. |
|
| "Google is going to release the information on just how cheap it is to provide the service"
I really hope they do figure out how to grow fiber on trees. Maybe they will come up with a way to plant other equipment that will grow in fields. Google hasn't found some secret way to provide this stuff on the cheap. They have endless piles of cash to throw at their "R&D" projects. |
|
google2
join:2004-02-04
South Beloit, IL | reply to saneblane
Kansas City moved to Kentucky? |
|
|
|
| reply to saneblane
said by saneblane :When Google succeeds in this venture (and they will), The big telcos are going to be lobbying hard to get them to be confined only to Kentucky. Google is going to release the information on just how cheap it is to provide the service and people might start calling their congressman about being ripped off by the Telcos. This would also give them the content that they wanted to get for their GoogleTV. It seems like a win win for everybody.
So, the rule of thumb is that content costs are around half of your monthly cable TV bill. You can be certain that the content people will not cut Google a great deal - the new players without scale always get screwed on price. The content providers also force bundling of their various channels together, which has made ala carte impossible - you get all of ESPN or none of ESPN. This will limit how cheaply they can offer video on top of internet.
It will also be interesting if they use a STB or try for a PC based model - content providers worry about protecting content played on PCs versus more secure STBs. Since they own Motorola STB division, they could take that hardware with Android on top or use their crappy google TV box.
Also will be interesting what they do with VOD - will they leverage youTube or build a separate infrastructure?
And who is going to install this? Much harder to install a TV service that internet - you can use WiFi to connect cable boxes (ATT is doing this now), but it isn't as reliable as wired networks.
Does anyone know if their fiber network is multicast enabled? Multicast is a lot more efficient at delivering live TV than unicast. I don't know anything about Google's network architecture, but you pretty much end up with a pyramid, with content originating at one point and getting distributed down the pyramid to each user. You need bigger than 1 Gb/s pipes to get to the the edge routers.
TV content is a lot more consistent bandwidth usage than normal internet content and their metro network will need to support this - I assume that they are designing their network for video and not pure internet model.
Pricing of the whole service will really depend on if Google ever expects to get a return on this investment or if they just write this whole thing off as an experiment. If they want to at least break even, since their costs are close to those of the incumbents or the smaller ISPs, what they charge will be close. They can try to save money be reducing support, but that hasn't worked well in this space.
Would be a fun project to work on! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | reply to battleop
Dont forget how Google will ALSO demonstrate how the carriage fees the cable co's , telcos, satellite, have to deal with are a Fantasy as well. *rolleyes*
I love when people pop out and blurt out a ridiculous opinion with a factual delivery.
"ripped off by the Telco's" Companies are in business to make money, Google will be in it for money as well. I dont see any cable co or telco stock going through the roof for the last 10 years.
Unless of course, did I miss Googles "non-profit" announcements ?
There is nothing revolutionary going on here with Google. They are releasing a fiber product like 6 years after Verizon FioS. They get the luxury of providing equipment 6 years more modern. If they wanted to, Verizon could do the same, but until Gbps is actually NEEDED, you wont be seeing it. |
|
| reply to saneblane
said by saneblane :Google is going to release the information on just how cheap it is to provide the service
And when they tell people that TV service costs what it costs, people will cast them as evil like they currently do the cable companies. |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to battleop
said by battleop:"Google is going to release the information on just how cheap it is to provide the service"
I really hope they do figure out how to grow fiber on trees. Maybe they will come up with a way to plant other equipment that will grow in fields. Google hasn't found some secret way to provide this stuff on the cheap. They have endless piles of cash to throw at their "R&D" projects.
That's not true, when google started out they just didn't just start filling racks up with standard big vendor server hardware sold to them at the market price. They rolled their own solutions that met their needs best going forward.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
Reviews:
·LUS Fiber
 ·Brown Dog Networks
| reply to BeakersBro
what? its gonna be 1gb full symmetrical fiber to the home. it doesn't matter if they use multicast or not. they aren't forced to over-compress anything on those lines. Verizon has no problems ...and most of their network isn't 1gbit capable.
It will make google no difference ... and you are not thinking outside the box. If a major network wont play ..google has the money ..and the network to simply stream it via netflix, hulu, or whomever else ..and stream it at broadcast quality.
I assume that this network is being built with cloud services in mind ...tv is just an added perk that costs next to nothing to implement after the network is in place ... at least cost next to nothing for Google.
Lastly ..i doubt they care as much about the tv as they do having the fiber internet ... full cloud capable computing to the masses ..and controlling adds on an individual basis. |
|
| reply to google2
hahah, yea i made a mistake about the location. However my point still remains, that this project is going to cause a few changes in the US. |
|
| reply to battleop
Although sarcasm is good, it can also be used in bad taste. Nobody is denying the upfront cost of this project is a lot. But, if they sell their services even below the current price that the other Telcos are selling for, the cost would be repaid in about 3 years, After that the rest is just management cost and profits. The other companies could have already rolled out 1g sym to almost every home in America for the kind of profits that they take home, but instead they choose to play a utility selling water (which they are not). The services that are going to be offered on by this service from Google is going to show the most non technical people of America that they are being held back and they are going to demand more services for their hard earned money, at least i sure as hell hope they do. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| 3 years , eh? When you come up with YOUR facts, do you randomly pick numbers outve your head, or do you throw numbers into a hat?
You want "1g sym" , and you have NO USE for such bandwidth ! Its absolutely ridiculous that you think this will change the world. Verizon didnt change the world, and they wired up hundreds of towns/cities with fiber. Google will have to play by the same rules as all the other MSO's, except they may have a DVR that forces users to watch ads.
lol |
|
 ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
 ·Comcast
| reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:...but until Gbps is actually NEEDED, you wont be seeing it.
I doubt you would even see it offered when it is needed. |
|
ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to ITALIAN926
Verizon does not offer Fiber speeds either. To most consumers it isn't any different than the products already offered. |
|
ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to BeakersBro
said by BeakersBro:... they could take that hardware with Android on top or use their crappy google TV box.
...
Just an FYI: GoogleTV runs Android. |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
When it comes to carriage fees I am sure everyone will want their piece of Google's money too. |
|
| reply to firephoto
Fiber costs anywhere from $12000 to $25000 per mile to deploy. If there was a cheaper way to do it I am sure that way would have been found by now. I can't see that Google is going to come up with some revolutionary way to cut that cost. |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
The payoff for an average area in profit is about 3 years for almost every ISP in the world, except for places that are loosely populated.
"you have NO USE for such bandwidth", that statement is total bullshit. First of all i have always wanted to run 4 simultaneous usenet providers at the same time, each with 3 connections and bandwidth of about 500 Megabits, the other 500 megabits would go towards my servers and in house use. I already paid for termination from a voip provider and I have always wanted to handle most of my call routings from inside my home, but couldn't because i never had the "bandwidth" to do so, so i would have to lease server space and bandwidth from another company to handle all the calls of my customers in the future. I use remote access a lot and have always wanted to be able to view the screen in real time in 60 frames a second, or even stream high def movies and files from my computer, with that much bandwidth file transfer from home to anywhere with a good internet connection would be great, and i can go on and on about "USES" for that bandwidth. STOP talking shit about "NO USE" it's the people like me that tell you how to use that bandwidth if you don't know how to do it. Their are millions of things that people are not doing now that would need a lot of bandwidth in the future. Just calm down. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
no wait until Google tells those customers that if they want support they have to go online to some help website or to send and email to them and hope you get a reply. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to saneblane
Wow you are completely out of touch from reality. You have no idea what 99.99% of the rest of the population is doing with their internet services.
The ISP's dont give two craps what YOUR wishes are, they care about what the other 99.99% are doing NOW, and protecting their revenues. Pipes that large mainly create innovation for one thing, VIDEO.
Im pretty calm by the way, if you feel so optimistic about what Google is doing, by a share or two of their stock.
quote:
Verizon does not offer Fiber speeds either. To most consumers it isn't any different than the products already offered.
Nice OPINION. The other services being provided are fiber one way or another. Another educated comment by you, its quite entertaining. Verizon is selling 150/65 right now, thats not "fiber speed"? Since when? Google? Give me a break. |
|
| reply to StLCardsFan
said by StLCardsFan:what? its gonna be 1gb full symmetrical fiber to the home. it doesn't matter if they use multicast or not. they aren't forced to over-compress anything on those lines. Verizon has no problems ...and most of their network isn't 1gbit capable.
It will make google no difference ... and you are not thinking outside the box. If a major network wont play ..google has the money ..and the network to simply stream it via netflix, hulu, or whomever else ..and stream it at broadcast quality.
I assume that this network is being built with cloud services in mind ...tv is just an added perk that costs next to nothing to implement after the network is in place ... at least cost next to nothing for Google.
Lastly ..i doubt they care as much about the tv as they do having the fiber internet ... full cloud capable computing to the masses ..and controlling adds on an individual basis.
Verizon doesn't deliver live TV over their internet side - they use a conventional HFC cable system. They do deliver VOD over internet, but that is relatively low usage compared to live viewing.
So, the live TV channels have to originate somewhere on the network and flow from that place to each viewer.
Assume they go for high quality and compress HD at 10 mb/s and SD at 3 mb/s.
So, 100 HD channels fill up the 1 Gb/s. ( In theory, you will not be able to achieve that with TCP/IP without tweaking)
So, either the links in the metro network are larger than 1 Gb/s (they are) and/or they have more edge routers serving fewer numbers of subscribers and run bigger links from the metro network to the edge routers (they do).
If I do unicast, have to send a separate copy to each person watching the same HD channel and have to have a server to "split" the original copy to make one for each viewer.
If we use multicast, the network takes care of that and that single source copy gets replicated as needed by the network, but only one copy goes over any one network link no matter how many people are watching it.
So, if they run 4 Gb/s links from the metro to the edge, I can have 400 people viewing HD off of that edge router if it is unicast (and no one wants to use the internet). If it is multicast, I can serve 400 different channels in the same bandwidth, independent of how many people are watching each channel. This scales a lot better.
live TV is hard to deliver well over networks because it uses a continuous high bitrate and isn't very tolerant of not getting enough bandwidth. Netflix uses rate adaptive streaming to adapt the bitrate and quality to whatever the network can support. In theory, you could also do this with live TV, but the number of encoders requires increases a lot and costs go up.
As Google builds a network more like the incumbents and deliver services like the incumbents, their cost structure will become more like the incumbents. Some things (network, fiber) will be cheaper since they are starting later, but other costs (installation, buildout, support, content) will be pretty much the same for all players. If they expect to earn a profit on this project, they will need to charge closer to what the incumbents do. |
|
