Google TV/Dish Email Survey

[TalonDancer]

Hmmm... did I get this right?

Dish, who provides TV entertainment via satellite with monthly subscriptions to packages which are bloated with bandwidth consuming channels most subs don't watch, is planning to offer an add on service to help subscribers learn that there is a vast repository of TV entertainment available via the internet that they do want to watch. And OBTW much of that TV entertainment is free and already available without any Dish equipment/subscription at all.

So the whole business model depends on consumers being so lazy that they are willing to pay someone else a monthly fee to do something they could do for free with a little effort -- yep, it'll work

Talon Dancer

 

[DustoMan]

Hmmm... did I get this right?

Dish, who provides TV entertainment via satellite with monthly subscriptions to packages which are bloated with bandwidth consuming channels most subs don't watch, is planning to offer an add on service to help subscribers learn that there is a vast repository of TV entertainment available via the internet that they do want to watch. And OBTW much of that TV entertainment is free and already available without any Dish equipment/subscription at all.

So the whole business model depends on consumers being so lazy that they are willing to pay someone else a monthly fee to do something they could do for free with a little effort -- yep, it'll work

Talon Dancer

1. It's a partnership between Google and DISH (and other companies such as Sony and Logitech who are going to put GoogleTV software into their own consumer electronic devices).

2. Aside from the survey question, there's been no mention of a monthly fee from DISH or more importantly Google as with most Google products are free. You just have to agree to have your usage data collected and face the possibility of seeing ads at some point down the road. Google is an advertising company... not a search company.

3. Getting internet video on the big screen in the living room is more of a pain in the butt then most people are willing to go through. Unless you want a PC attached to your TV, which then you need to either use software with a "10-foot UI" or use a keyboard a mouse to manipulate a browser, or mess around with hooking up a laptop, which really doesn't do much better then a dedicated PC, you need some kind of set top box hooked up to the TV. Love my Roku, but it and other boxes like it are pretty niche products.

4. What this does do is eliminate the need to have another box connected to your TV. And it also will unify your DISH service with internet video and applications like Netflix with the power of search. It just makes things easier, because not everyone has a setup with a DISH receiver, AppleTV, Roku Player, and Internet Connected Panasonic Blu-Ray player all tied together into a system that works smoothly. You'd be surprised how many people don't know about or want to go through that "little effort" to get it all working.

 

[sparc]

3. Getting internet video on the big screen in the living room is more of a pain in the butt then most people are willing to go through. Unless you want a PC attached to your TV, which then you need to either use software with a "10-foot UI" or use a keyboard a mouse to manipulate a browser, or mess around with hooking up a laptop, which really doesn't do much better then a dedicated PC, you need some kind of set top box hooked up to the TV. Love my Roku, but it and other boxes like it are pretty niche products.

4. What this does do is eliminate the need to have another box connected to your TV. And it also will unify your DISH service with internet video and applications like Netflix with the power of search. It just makes things easier, because not everyone has a setup with a DISH receiver, AppleTV, Roku Player, and Internet Connected Panasonic Blu-Ray player all tied together into a system that works smoothly. You'd be surprised how many people don't know about or want to go through that "little effort" to get it all working.

A lot of HDTVs these days come with connectivity and possibly wireless adapters built-in. USB ports on HDTVs have become pretty common as well.

They aren't necessarily open platforms for everything yet, but it's a sign of things to come. Many of these TVs have the ability to phone home and update their firmware with new internet features.

you can already do youtube, netflix, amazon on demand, pandora, twitter on some of the sets without much effort.

It should be interesting to see if the TV manufacturers start making some of these extra boxes unnecessary. Unless these other competitors really start moving fast and cheap, they could end up being late to the party.

 

[TalonDancer]

.....3. Getting internet video on the big screen in the living room is more of a pain in the butt then most people are willing to go through. Unless you want a PC attached to your TV, which then you need to either use software with a "10-foot UI" or use a keyboard a mouse to manipulate a browser, or mess around with hooking up a laptop, which really doesn't do much better then a dedicated PC, you need some kind of set top box hooked up to the TV. Love my Roku, but it and other boxes like it are pretty niche products.

4. What this does do is eliminate the need to have another box connected to your TV. And it also will unify your DISH service with internet video and applications like Netflix with the power of search. It just makes things easier, because not everyone has a setup with a DISH receiver, AppleTV, Roku Player, and Internet Connected Panasonic Blu-Ray player all tied together into a system that works smoothly. You'd be surprised how many people don't know about or want to go through that "little effort" to get it all working.

Thanks for making my point

But you forgot to mention the minor detail that the WHOLE Google TV-Dish thingy is predicated on the consumer having access to a high bandwidth internet connection, which neither Dish nor Google will, or even can, provide. A fact that many corporations (e.g. Dish and Google) and people in metro areas seem to forget is NOT ubiquitous in the USofA. So for many folks, the very concept of streaming video via a high bandwidth internet connection into a Google TV - Dish thingy is just silly talk about things that won't happen at our house anytime soon even if it were free. When Google or Dish starts providing the real backbone of this 'service' (i.e high bandwidth internet service) I'll be willing to consider it. Until then, they can shove it.

And no I am no longer surprised at how much people will pay for convenience. In fact our economy has become dependent on people going into to debt to avoid a 'little effort'.

Talon Dancer

 

[chicagonettech]

. . . the very concept of streaming video via a high bandwidth internet connection into a Google TV - Dish thingy is just silly talk about things that won't happen at our house anytime soon even if it were free. When Google or Dish starts providing the real backbone of this 'service' (i.e high bandwidth internet service) I'll be willing to consider it. Until then, they can shove it.

Talon Dancer

Want an interesting read? Australia is now deploying everything as GIGABYTE to the door for residential service - at prices comparable to what we now pay in the US:

• Tasmania To New York: We're Faster
• Australia's Gigabit: Cheapest Upgrade in History

Australia builds out gigabyte, as US Telcos fight the FCC's demands to populate broadband to rural areas.

Welcome to the model of greed.

 

[chicagonettech]

That is a good post. However, nothing will be True HD about your PBS, because they will be using a ton of bits for all their subchannels. I am very disappointed by OTA PBS HD.

Sometime, when you have a chance to visit Chicago, I'd love to invite you to watch a live concert on the local PBS affiliate, WTTW. Yes, they have sub-channels, but their primary HD channel is far superior to most other PBS affiliates.

WTTW in Chicago, along with the PBS affiliates in NYC, BOSTON and PHILADELPHIA, SAN FRANCISCO - as well as several other major cities, have repeatedly been cited by the Commission as the proper way to deploy digital TV.

Remember, just because it is PBS, does not mean they receive lots of money from the government - those days are gone. Their budgets come mostly from the local community, and locally produced programming which is sold to the networks, now.

 

[chicagonettech]

You can pound on the satcos because that's who you see and pay. But it's the providers that the satcos pay that seem to be making major demands. Especially the local stations.

BTW, WETA (PBS) here seems to be the worst in HD-Lite, with their experiment to have an "HD" channel and an additional 3 sub-channels.

While DN was mentioned in my post, they were not exclusive. I disdain the fact that FREE DIGITAL LOCAL STATIONS are now reaping BIG BUCKS off the cable and satco distribution rights.

Locals are intended to BE, and should always REMAIN, free. They use public airwaves to transmit their original content. Part of the contract for the use of those public airwaves should be the free re-transmission, within their local areas, via both cable and satco facilities - should they so desire to carry them.

Lots of rural folks, in the area we are moving into, are cutting their cable and satco ties altogether - putting up the large towers, installing the amplifiers, and getting rid of a hundred dollars per month - or more - in expenses.

You can buy a really GOOD 100 foot tower now for less than $1,000.00. Add two high-gain digital yagis, amplifiers, and cable - in bulk, via e-bay, and, for less than $1,600.00 you're installed - with no more monthly payments; no more DVR fees,; no more lease fees for purchased equipment; and no more surprise increases every time someone sues Charlie!

In the area we are moving to, there are more than 75 DIGITAL, OFF THE AIR television channels available. More than eight are PBS - Milwaukee and Chicago. At least two of the Chicago digital channels now show old movies - without commercials - uncut.

Hell, we've got two acres, and can easily add FTA dishes as well. Several raw feeds exist on those and can be fun to watch - with some interesting content.

If the locals want to hold the distributors hostage with re-transmit fees, we will bypass the distributors and get our signals off the air.

If the content providers want to raise their rates every time someone wants more money in their pockets, or the satcos want to bloat the services with SD channels we don't want to watch, then we don't need them.

 

[TalonDancer]

.....Australia builds out gigabyte, as US Telcos fight the FCC's demands to populate broadband to rural areas.

Welcome to the model of greed.

SIGH. I agree.

Every month Verizon includes a flier with our bill for a product they don't actually offer at our address -- high speed internet -- as a reminder I suppose, that in terms of internet access, we live in a 3rd world country -- rural America.

Talon Dancer

p.s. For those who think my posts in this thread seem a bit harsh.... consider the Google TV - Dish product from the viewpoint of someone whose only internet access options come with usage caps of 4-5GB/mo.

 

[cditty]

Sometime, when you have a chance to visit Chicago, I'd love to invite you to watch a live concert on the local PBS affiliate, WTTW. Yes, they have sub-channels, but their primary HD channel is far superior to most other PBS affiliates.

WTTW in Chicago, along with the PBS affiliates in NYC, BOSTON and PHILADELPHIA, SAN FRANCISCO - as well as several other major cities, have repeatedly been cited by the Commission as the proper way to deploy digital TV.

Remember, just because it is PBS, does not mean they receive lots of money from the government - those days are gone. Their budgets come mostly from the local community, and locally produced programming which is sold to the networks, now.

Then my 2 (Yes, I get two one from Arkansas and one from Monroe) PBS channels just suck. They both have 3 sub channels and 13.1 and 12.1 look like HD.Crap.

And, BTW, I'm not PBS bashing. I like PBS... Otherwise I wouldn't have noticed the picture

 

[sparc]

p.s. For those who think my posts in this thread seem a bit harsh.... consider the Google TV - Dish product from the viewpoint of someone whose only internet access options come with usage caps of 4-5GB/mo.

I'm amazed you can even call it internet access with that limited of a cap for a home internet connection.

I don't see this google tv really needing a whole lot for an internet connection. Most of these video on demand services work pretty well with even a mediocre connection. Obviously a severely capped connection would exceed that limit pretty fast, but most other providers don't have as bad of a cap as your provider.

out of curiosity... who is your provider just so i can avoid them?

 

[chicagonettech]

Then my 2 (Yes, I get two one from Arkansas and one from Monroe) PBS channels just suck. They both have 3 sub channels and 13.1 and 12.1 look like HD.Crap.

And, BTW, I'm not PBS bashing. I like PBS... Otherwise I wouldn't have noticed the picture

Unfortunately, the PBS model of working with funds primarily from the local viewer and business market - subsidized by less than 5% - at tops - of government funding, makes for an extremely variable viewing experience for PBS users - depending on the market in which those stations exist.

In Chicago, WTTW [channel 11] is now part of a merger with what was once WFMT, an FM broadcasting facility which has extremely deep pockets. The engineering department at WTTW is extremely talented and has the full resources of Eastern Illinois University - on who's campus both facilities are housed. Both are at the forefront of broadcast technology and have pioneered much of the technology used in the broadcast industry today.

The other public broadcasting station in Chicago, WYCC, is run by the City Colleges of Chicago - another institution with deep pockets and an excellent technology group behind the operation of the station.

There's an interesting backlash developing in the home-entertainment community and some interesting news partners are beginning to take notice of that fact.

WIRED Magazine [Magazine*| Wired.com], in the Sept 2010 Edition [Number 18.09], has an excellent article "THE NEW GUIDE: It's Not About What To Watch. It's About How To Watch It."

Because WIRED does not post links to their magazines online until the middle of the first week of the month for which the magazine is published - in this case, September 2010, the link posted above is for the main page of the WIRED Magazine website - I cannot post a direct link to the article at this time.

Extremely encompassing in all entertainment delivery models, the gist of the article is that no one has to pay for TV any more . . . promoting the model of getting entertainment from the INTERNET and the myriad free resources - highly promoting the digital broadcast mode.

Compromised of more than twelve pages, there is a lot of discussion about abandoning the greed model of cable and satellite delivery - via which 90% of the delivered content in any package is never watched and only 10% is of real interest to the subscriber.

While an acknowledgment of the fact that some content will have to be forgone as part of the digital off-the-air method, as a primary accepted delivery method, and acknowledging that ROKU, TIVO, APPLE TV, HULU, NETFLIX, AMAZON VIDEO on Demand, and iTunes can, when coupled with a decent PC or MAC, and integrated with a good home network, give serious augmentation to over-the-air content, they keep favoring, and, in fact, in their summarization at the end of the article, promotes broadcast HD television as the second best medium after Blu-Ray, ranking delivery medium in order of quality - from BEST to WORST - to wit:

BLU-RAY: Full 1080p resolution at 48 Mbps - best video and audio currently available.

[digital] OVER-THE-AIR-BROADCAST: Even though most is the older MPEG-2 standard, networks broadcast HD at an average data rate of 19.4 Mbps - putting both satellite and cable to shame.

CABLE / FIBER [tie]: Both use proprietary compression and neither will talk about bitrates.

SATELLITE: Both Dish Network and DirectTV will not talk about bitrates or compression algorithms either and both providers transmit their HD content at between 6 and 8 Mbps - when transmitting their BEST content. Much of what is sent HD by Dish and Direct is at a significantly lower bandwidth.

VUDU: [Owned by WALMART, incidentally] Vudu is the only video-on-demand service that offers shows in 1080p resolution AT A DECENT DATA RATE. While other services offer the 1080p resolution, both the data rate, and the speed at which the content is delivered are at the mercy of the content provider's servers, and adjusted based on the recipient's networks capability; Vudu maintains a constant data rate to deliver true 1080p resolution - even though it may take longer to deliver the content.

DVD: While not hi-def in resolution, the DVD transfer rate of up to 9.8 Mbps generally delivers a higher resolution than most Internet delivery services. With a good Blu-Ray player, up-conversion usually makes for an exceptional experience when a standard DVD is up-converted.

iTUNES / AMAZON [tie]: Lots of compression and lower bitrates - generally around 3 Mbps give a drastic reduction in quality to the delivered product.

NETFLIX Instant: Netflix goes for seamless delivery over picture quality. If your broadband connection is not reliable, both services cut back on the quality of the delivered content.

HULU: The quality speaks for itself and, on a big-screen, is mostly unwatchable.


As more and more people begin to feel the effects of this non-economic recovery, and also discover the advantages of the exceptionally high-quality of many of the network feeds available off the air - via digital television, along with their discovery of the ability to view content from the Internet, I honestly believe the greed model adopted by both cable and satellite companies will begin to shed subscribers by the hundreds of thousands.

There are some great digital off-the-air resources available for finding off-the-air content, creating a list of required equipment - antennas, towers, amplifiers, cabling, and even finding someone to install it all and make it work, on the Internet.

The best of these, with links to many other resources, is AntennaWeb.org.

TitanTV.com will give you a complete listing of what's available for watching via digital off-the air in whatever part of the country you live.

To ask people to pay hundreds of dollars per month - for content which is, in many cases, free, is a non-sustainable model which will fall apart without any additional help from Charlie and the new manglement staff at Dish Network.

 

[Bob Haller]

Much of the bandwith issues can be solved pretty easy with the help of a DVR

You order the shows you like and they download off the net at whatever speed is available, to be watched when done.

so you might have to wait a day for some shows but that may not matter, since few with DVRs watch live shows, so waiting till the next day to save big bucks may be a non issue.

its sad the state of our very ill economy, but that may hasten some changes in lots of consumer industries.

like grocery store stuff, store brand merchandise sales are way up, while the name brands fall.

now substitute store brand for tv over internet, and call sat and cable name brands.....

as our economy collapses futher greedy companies are going to see their market collapse.

theres no reason all shows must be streamed live, many will smile saving money for a overnight delay

 

[TalonDancer]

I'm amazed you can even call it internet access with that limited of a cap for a home internet connection....
out of curiosity... who is your provider just so i can avoid them?

All you have to do is live far enough in the country to be out of reach of DSL (need to be fairly close to a switch), Cable (need to be in a relatively densely populated area e.g. a sub-division with smallish lot sizes) and wireless towers (need to have line of sight). No DSL, Cable or Wireless? Then your choices for anything other than dial up are Satellite or Cellular, if you are lucky. Both of these generally have usage caps on the order of 4-5GB for packages costing $60+/mo.

When we first moved to the country we had WildBlue with a 4GB cap and draconian enforcement. When our 2 yr contract expired we switched to an AT&T 3G USB modem. The later is dramatically better due to the terrible latency with satellites. As it happens our AT&T "unlimited" data plan is grandfathered. But neighbors who signed up just a few months after we did are getting large bills when they run over their 5GB limit. Even though we do NOT voluntarily* do streaming video or audio we come very close to 5GB most months.

Talon Dancer

* many sites these days include streaming video ads. Can you guess one that does?

 

[DustoMan]

But you forgot to mention the minor detail that the WHOLE Google TV-Dish thingy is predicated on the consumer having access to a high bandwidth internet connection, which neither Dish nor Google will, or even can, provide. A fact that many corporations (e.g. Dish and Google) and people in metro areas seem to forget is NOT ubiquitous in the USofA. So for many folks, the very concept of streaming video via a high bandwidth internet connection into a Google TV - Dish thingy is just silly talk about things that won't happen at our house anytime soon even if it were free. When Google or Dish starts providing the real backbone of this 'service' (i.e high bandwidth internet service) I'll be willing to consider it. Until then, they can shove it.

I'll agree that broadband penetration in the US is behind, but I live in rural Wisconsin community far from any large metro and get a connection that's plenty fast to stream HD video. There's enough people that CAN get broadband fast enough to support the business AND that number is constantly growing. To dismiss GoogleTV now just because the broadband going to your home sucks is shortsighted.

Cable (need to be in a relatively densely populated area e.g. a sub-division with smallish lot sizes)

Yea, no sorry that's just not accurate any more. I'm surprised how far out Cable companies will bury wire. Especially if you look at small municipalities that are locally owned and operated.

 

[TalonDancer]

I'll agree that broadband penetration in the US is behind, but I live in rural Wisconsin community far from any large metro and get a connection that's plenty fast to stream HD video. There's enough people that CAN get broadband fast enough to support the business AND that number is constantly growing. To dismiss GoogleTV now just because the broadband going to your home sucks is shortsighted.

I was wondering when you'd pull out the classic Marie Antoinette response

BTW what part of...

.....So the whole business model depends on consumers being so lazy that they are willing to pay someone else a monthly fee to do something they could do for free with a little effort -- yep, it'll work

...didn't you get? I've already posted that Google TV and even Google TV w/ Dish will probably be successful despite my personal distaste for the business model that depends on 3rd party infrastructure that neither provide. But that does not mean that I won't dismiss Google TV for my own use.

Yea, no sorry that's just not accurate any more. I'm surprised how far out Cable companies will bury wire. ....

Of course the local cable company was more than willing to "bury wire" out to our place for $65,000. But I could get my nearest neighbors to share the cost. That would get it down to only around $10 grand a piece.

Talon Dancer