This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth.
If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost.
Kansas City is essentially giving Google free reign to perfect their rollout and implementation processes. The next city that Google wires up will probably cost them a fraction of what Kansas City does because I'm certain that Google will automate every last detail that can be automated.
I've got to agree with you an many others in the comments. The thing that "doesn't sit right" is that Google is looking at alternative ways to benefit their company while benefiting the community. There's always going to be a risk of monopoly. In Australia, the fiber roll-out is government owned and funded, replacing a former government telco monopoly with a current government telco monopoly. If the price is right and there's still competition, I think we should be vigilant but happy.
I agree, and I think Google could have more in mind then just replacing television providers (no small feat). They can start to eliminate television channels. Why must NBC, CBS, or ESPN exist? If Google did "adwords" for television they just allow producers to release a show and then Google injects per-user targeted ads. Google's choice of a tablet as a remote hints at more interactive TV, not just big 30-second commercials, but opportunities to buy, learn, tag, etc. while you're watching a show. It gives producers more control over their content and an opportunity to look at different ways to fund the show's production. Forget 30 minutes show slots... do 48, or 10, or whatever makes sense.
Sure, it probably means more ads, but it could mean more innovative, targeted, and available content too.
Comments
This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth.
If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost.
Kansas City is essentially giving Google free reign to perfect their rollout and implementation processes. The next city that Google wires up will probably cost them a fraction of what Kansas City does because I'm certain that Google will automate every last detail that can be automated.
I've got to agree with you an many others in the comments. The thing that "doesn't sit right" is that Google is looking at alternative ways to benefit their company while benefiting the community. There's always going to be a risk of monopoly. In Australia, the fiber roll-out is government owned and funded, replacing a former government telco monopoly with a current government telco monopoly. If the price is right and there's still competition, I think we should be vigilant but happy.
I agree, and I think Google could have more in mind then just replacing television providers (no small feat). They can start to eliminate television channels. Why must NBC, CBS, or ESPN exist? If Google did "adwords" for television they just allow producers to release a show and then Google injects per-user targeted ads. Google's choice of a tablet as a remote hints at more interactive TV, not just big 30-second commercials, but opportunities to buy, learn, tag, etc. while you're watching a show. It gives producers more control over their content and an opportunity to look at different ways to fund the show's production. Forget 30 minutes show slots... do 48, or 10, or whatever makes sense.
Sure, it probably means more ads, but it could mean more innovative, targeted, and available content too.