NO DVR? NO DVR? or is that a different box?
Re: NO DVR? Maybe Google will have a software based DVR for separate computer. Or maybe store content on Google servers.
San Diego, CA
Re: NO DVR? It would be sweet to be able to watch your dvr'd programs on your android smartphone or tablet.
well others do control content well others do control content lets see how far google tv gets with out ESPN or FSN?
Re: well others do control content I think I'd be willing to pay a dollar to ensure that ESPN and any other Disney properties were excluded from the package.
Re: well others do control content Hell, I would pay 2 dollars to exclude them.
| |said by GlennAllen:Better be willing to pay a whole lot more than a a dollar because Disney will accept Google's money just like they do the money of others.
I think I'd be willing to pay a dollar to ensure that ESPN and any other Disney properties were excluded from the package.
Re: well others do control content And I'm OK with anyone who's willing to pay for something they want--along with the inevitable increases every year (or every few months)--actually being able to get what they want. But does that mean I should have to pay to subsidize the viewing habits of others by having to pay for stuff I don't want? I'm just saying that spending a small fee to avoid a much larger and ever-increasing fee is something I could get behind. (As it is, they get no money at all from me--they don't give me what I want, so I don't give them what they want.)
I love the irony
said by Karl Bode:I'm continually amazed when the sentiment is in favor of Google being the monopoly, but quickly turns negative with any other business entity. Hopefully this works out well for everyone.
Again Kansas City will be an interesting scenario to watch (and most incumbent executives' worst nightmare) where Google will control the pipe, the ad/content, and the set top hardware.
Re: I love the irony Hey if others are allowed why not google ?
Personally I think this wreaks of ad revenues instead of a real world test like they said. If this is successful maybe we get lower cost tv subsidized by ads delivered to our tvs, that are actually for products we may want ?
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"
Re: I love the irony Is no different than what Hulu does.. they allow you to click to respond if the ad is or is not relevant to you. You'd think advertisers would love to have that info and would want Google to expand on that.
Re: I love the irony I used to click every single ad was not relevant to me. Then I realized it was like responding "unsubscribe" to spam email, if I clicked, that would just confirm they had a real live viewer. Now I just get up and hit the can, or the fridge.
| |said by BosstonesOwn:I wasn't suggesting to disallow it, more so the irony of it being acceptable as long as it's Google doing it.
Hey if others are allowed why not google ?
Re: I love the irony
said by El Quintron:I see them raising the bar to, cable industry IS a monopoly, and so is the wireless industry, I hope that Google plans more city's in the future and show that these companies have to change!, these cable companies have all this capacity but they lie to the gov and say no we don't we have to charge is complete bull. Fiber will annihilate any cable co it don't matter what the cable company's do. said by openbox9:
I'm continually amazed when the sentiment is in favor of Google being the monopoly, but quickly turns negative with any other business entity. Hopefully this works out well for everyone.
I think the perceived enthusiasm here has more to do with Google raising the bar, rather than Google as a monopoly.
FWIW: When I worked for the incumbent phone company in Ottawa back in 1999-2000 era the only residential internet they offered was overpriced dial-up with no unlimited option. When the cable company showed up with unlimited broadband of all things, people were overjoyed, not only because CableCo's offering was the same price as Telco's dialup offerings, but also because it meant that Telco would be forced to *finally* roll out broadband to compete with Cable.
Re: I love the irony and they've shown that already and will keep doing it.
Re: I love the irony Umm, how so? I haven't exactly seen Google being a great "service" provider. It likes to throw out a lot of products, but services are a different story IMO.
Irony I find it ironic that DSL Reports rages so hard against the "evil monopolies" of the phone company and cable company, but favors Google controlling "the pipe, the ad/content, and the set top hardware." Why? Could it be because Google is an advertiser?
Cranberry Twp, PA
Re: Irony Where does it say they favor it?
said by comp:They're implying that the incumbents would be afraid of it, thus making it, presumably, a good thing.
Where does it say they favor it?
Re: Irony Just because the incumbents would be afraid of it doesn't necessarily mean support for it nor does it mean that its a good thing.
said by Skippy25:It amazes me that anyone thinks the cable companies (excepting those in the KC area) are afraid of this. Google is doing their KC fiber project to learn how to make more money from the internet and most if not all cable companies would also like to learn that. As long as Google doesn't try to become a very large ISP the cable companies will not regard Google as the enemy. Don't hold your breath waiting for Google to roll out in other areas because the total number will probably never exceed what can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
No matter how you fight it, they will have an impact on the service, speed and price of offerings in the areas they roll out in.
said by 25139889:It has nothing to do with the fact they are rolling out 1 gbit/s fiber for the same price as Cable?
They are only in favor of Google because Google PAYS DSLR/Karl's pay check. Log out and see how many ads are actually part of the Google network. Also look at the cookies they drop on your computer for stats. They're all going back to Google.
Re: Irony I didn't realize that Google had already announced pricing.
Re: Irony »googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/
TOWN HALL QUESTIONS PART 1
Q: How much will it cost?
A: It's too early to say how much we plan to charge for service, but we do plan to set prices that are competitive to what people are currently paying for broadband access.
My best guess is 60 dollars.
Is this why they bought SageTV? They have had this DVR software for about a year, so it would be cool if they built it into their hardware.
no .sig found, please restart your browser.
Re: Is this why they bought SageTV? I could see them putting out a consumer friendly plugn'play appliance that talks to the settop box and/or allow HTPC hobbiests build their own using Sage software.
Re: Is this why they bought SageTV? This could be a Humax made product with SageTV software. Maybe it will allow attaching an external drive for DVR storage.
Great News...for Kansas City Being a techie junkie I really will be moving to KC now Especially since I'm stuck in Detroit-metro area with ATT crappy U-Verse and Sprint's no 4G/LTE Only problem is can't move since my home is worth 100K less from what I purchased 8 years ago and my wife will not agree that 1Gbps Google Internet is not good enough reason to move.
Re: Great News...for Kansas City Michigan has open rules for anyone to build. They already have a group of people putting in a commuter train system for the SE Michigan area. Why not get a group of people together and build a Co-Op Fiber network? Oh wait- over building does NOT work. And Google will find that out when they're forced to pay someone for Customer Service/billing/and truck rolls.
·Brown Dog Networks
Re: Great News...for Kansas City and what exactly is over-building besides an industry coined term that is meaningless. How else do you suppose an "outsider" install a network? Maybe Cogent "overbuilt" the existing ATT network. Maybe level3 overbuilt cogent's network. Oh wait ..maybe verizon overbuilt sprints network ... hrrm.
What a sheeple you are.
El Paso, TX
Eh, i don't like it. The whole idea behind a 1 gigabit connection from Google is to disrupt.
Offering "cable TV" is missing the point of the thing.
If they were really thinking about offering some sort of TV service, why not do it over the open internet and offer it to everyone? Not just their fiber clients.
This is how Google has done everything else, and it makes very little sense to build a walled garden just for this. when the other way has been so successful AND disruptive
With the speeds they offer, they could add a "very high quality" setting that would show the benefits of having a gigabit connection. Like for example: having bluray bitrates on every room in the house. as opposed to the quality other users with lesser connections would get.
They would show they would also show the benefits of having a connection that isn't easily congested. because they could have multiple downloads and uploads of other applications people might use at the same time with out any performance penalty.
For something that is considered to be a "disruptive" service, this makes very little sense.
·Brown Dog Networks
everything google is building in KC is for their cloud You can speculate all you want ... Googles eye is on cloud computing.
The writing has been on the wall for a few years at least ... hence the legions of android users ..its relative ease of installation on any piece of electronic communications equipment .. and most recently ..chromebooks.
The expense for the initial network in KC is mere peanuts ... they will have the real world ability for anyone on their network to go without windows, linux, or apple os's. Of course you'll be able to use whatever OS you can dream of ... but why spend all that money on useless hardware when google will supply it for you. DUH
The TV ..another no brainer ... on 1 or 10gbit connections they will have the ability to supply lightning fast internet and loss-less tv feeds 24/7... and i would figure its a simple bi-product of having a mass of what most clueless people would describe as "overbuild" or needless speed.
The possibilities are endless as to what google could feature. Why not their own phone service...they already have google voice... they could do their own wifi radio stations .. their own network cellphones ... whatever you and I or anyone can or can't think of presently.
Lastly, while the present incumbents are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to squeeze a few extra mbits from their century old copper plants ...google will change come cards and have 100gbit available and will be set for at least the next century without any real capital investments to speak of.
Oh ..and those that have said there are bigger companies for Google to worry about? Who is that? I don't think all the TV networks combined have the financial means to sink google.
Maybe Google will offer a dumb pipe approach... If they set up the 1Gbps network and an IPTV STB. They could let any content provider make their content available over the IPTV STB. Google could provide the billing but the subscriber would select the channels that they want. That would be a game changer.
It will also be interesting to see how Google integrates You Tube into this. Particularly since You tube is creating original content.
Re: Maybe Google will offer a dumb pipe approach...
said by OwlSaver:It's doubtful that the major content providers will allow them to have no bundling. However they could try smaller bundles rather than large tiers such as one bundle with mostly Disney / ABC / ESPN, another with mostly Newscorp / Fox, a third with mostly Viacom, etc.
If they set up the 1Gbps network and an IPTV STB. They could let any content provider make their content available over the IPTV STB. Google could provide the billing but the subscriber would select the channels that they want. That would be a game changer.
Tick Tock... June 6 and counting GOOGLE! Tick, Tock, Tick Tock!