Is Google Fiber worth it?

[Beardface]

Where you watching the game at

Sorry Kodiak.. What do you mean by nobody? Everyone can see the difference between 4K resolution and 1080P.. Its crisp and clear. However if cable companies get hold of distribution of channels in 4K, than it is worthless because you know they are going to ruin it..

Best Buy... haha, so I know they are trying to set it up to be ideal... but...

The amount of detail you can see on those displays are impressive. It really does have a noticeable difference, and while cable providers won't necessarily be sending a 4k signal anytime soon (hell, even Fox can't send a good 1080 signal for NFL games) the options for both gaming and streaming are endless, and I would almost expect them to jump all over that medium within the next few years and really show what it can do.

 

[PereDroid]

1080p is pretty damn crisp and clear, too. Especially on a big set. Buddy just got a 101 inch TV. THe most stunning picture I've ever seen on a TV. I have a hard time believing a 4K picture is going to just blow that away.

 

[cr6]

You'd be surprised.

 

[grenefroggie]

People who say we don't need Gigabit Internet are missing the bigger picture. Content will continue to evolve, and the consumption of content is going to grow.

We need to be forward thinking with our infrastructure in order to accommodate and facilitate that evolution. If we continuously stay mired in the idea that, "aww... this is good enough," then we will never progress. It won't be just about watching 4K streaming movies either. Eventually, the Internet will need to support much more advanced concepts like fully-HD, real-time video teleconferencing and other forms of long-distance instant communication.

Yes. This is true. I am not saying people don't need Gig internet ever. Fiber build-outs are becoming cheaper than copper. Older cable systems will need to be upgraded eventually, and fiber is set to replace them. AT&T (and other DSL providers) and Time Warner Cable (and other cable providers) need to jump on the fiber train. They won't get left behind, but keeping the copper networks in place will just give them more fuel to complain to the FCC that the cost to upgrade is outlandish as they willfully let their copper networks degrade.

Finally, our PCs have become so fast that the Internet (at current average speeds across the country) has become the bottleneck.

This is concept is so extremely under-appreciated. I have customers using Windows 95/ME/XP still. I tell them that the reason their service is slow is because the computer wasn't ever meant to do the things we can do on the internet now. Just because you have a NIC in the back does not mean your computer's CPU/GPU can process the information being sent to it.

And I think you're not giving us enough credit. Most of us, the majority, I would guess, are pretty damn tech savvy. I'm not missing the bigger picture, and I don't think anyone else is here either. Content will continue to evolve. Of course. But it's going to be YEARS before I have a 4K or 8K or whatever the heck is next TV. For my needs. Today. I without doubt do not need more then the 15M I have now. Online PC gaming?? Plenty. Streaming Netflix and Amazon at the same time? Plenty.

Talk to me in 2 years. 4. Hell, Goog Fiber probably won't hit CLE for another 15 years anyway. Not because there's anything wrong with CLE, we're just not hip enough.

We are taking about today, right?

For the average person, 500Mbps would probably be too much. I would even venture to say that 250Mbps would be too much. The 15Mbps service you talk about now is good for you. With the same plan on a business account, twice as much money is spent, and you don't get much upload. It would kill me. I have to be able to upload and download large files (mainly backups) to and from the server at my house. Fiber with 1Gbps would not only let me do this, I can do it fast!!

To kind of piggyback off @dgstorm was saying, it's not that people here aren't Tech Savvy. All I really have to say is this: People, a lot of people, drool all over how awesome their phone is, and what kind of specs it has. That is how I feel about my internet.

4k video is another useless standard. That garbage shouldn't even be allowed to take up bandwidth because nobodies eyes can tell the difference, anyway.

Yes, you most certainly can tell the difference. Maybe not in any of the TVs on the market today, but anything larger than 50" you are going to see the difference. All 4K is is exactly 4x 1080p. Then you also have UHD (UltraHD).

Honestly, all Google Fiber is doing is making the the cable and DSL companies look bad. DSL will never get to the speeds DOCSIS 3.0 can, and it will go away eventually. The DOCSIS 3.1 standard I believe supports gig, but I just don't see the major companies in the US deploying it.[/QUOTE]

 

[kodiak799]

You most certainly can tell a difference, especially with bigger screens. Trust me, there's a noticeable difference in a 60" 1080p and a 60" 4k. Was watching a soccer game on a large screen 4k not too long ago, and you could plain as day read the names and numbers on the backs of the jerseys while the camera was at regular zoom. That's really not possible with the current systems.

Bull, that's imaginary. It's science - I doubt you are actually sitting close enough to the tv to notice a difference from 1080p to 4k...you have to be something like closer than 7 feet on a 60"+ screen before you can even START to discern a difference

 

[supermandroid]

1080p is pretty damn crisp and clear, too. Especially on a big set. Buddy just got a 101 inch TV. THe most stunning picture I've ever seen on a TV. I have a hard time believing a 4K picture is going to just blow that away.

I would love to see 4K on a 101 inch TV. It would probably be akin to looking out a Window! Trust me that 4K would blow 1080p out of the water especially at that size!

Bull, that's imaginary. It's science - I doubt you are actually sitting close enough to the tv to notice a difference from 1080p to 4k...you have to be something like closer than 7 feet on a 60"+ screen before you can even START to discern a difference

It's very true, but you don't have to take anyone's word for it. You're more than welcome to walk into any electronics store and see for yourself.

 

[kodiak799]

yone's word for it. You're more than welcome to walk into any electronics store and see for yourself.

Unless you have a rather large theater room, most people's family/living rooms aren't near large enough to accommodate a tv that size. Chart says on a 110" tv you have to be closer than 14 feet to start to notice a difference. I wouldn't be that close with a 65" tv.

 

[kodiak799]

It's very true, but you don't have to take anyone's word for it. You're more than welcome to walk into any electronics store and see for yourself.

No it's not. I trust the science over someone's perception, which may or may not be manipulated by the electronics store to sell you a more expensive tv.

 

[grenefroggie]

No it's not. I trust the science over someone's perception, which may or may not be manipulated by the electronics store to sell you a more expensive tv.

Because science has never been lopsided or influenced to present a specific data set. But I get your point, and for the most part I agree. Early adopters often get the shaft too. That is one main reason why I wait a few years before adopting the newest standard, with the exception of PC hardware.

Like anything else, it all comes down to money.

Back to the main point, for the price, I think Google Fiber is worth it. Luckily, I have AirFiber.

 

[pc747]

To piggyback @dgstorm I like the idea of pushing innovation. For majority of Americans 3g data speeds were good enough but had we settled we would not be where are today. Plus you have to look at it another way. The only way you are going to deal with the Time Warners and the Comcasts of the world is if you have another option. I know I am tired of chatting and calling Comcast week after week about their internet service but they know I am not going anywhere. I for one am happy Google chose my city so that I can soon call up Comcast and tell them come get their stuff. Competition is the only way you are going to get better overall service as well as a better product. When Verizon went LTE it forced everyone else to do the same to keep from being left behind. Google offering 1 gig speeds for $70 will force the other companies offering a lot less to either cut their costs or raise their speeds.

 

[Ollie]

Google is doing what other companies aren't. Rolling out the best network they can instead of nickel and diming us for slow infrastructure upgrades. Who else does this? No one.

Just a few years ago gigabit networks were for hospitals and such. We have a gigabit network here just for that.

I don't need that kind of speed, but it is time that someone lights a fire underneath the conglomerates so that we can finally start winning this one sided scenario. It looks like Google is doing just that.

 

[cr6]

I agree, but price is obviously a contributing factor on both sides. Google Fiber has been around for quite a few years now, yet they haven't really been setting the world on fire in terms of construction and getting it to the people. Verizon ran into the same issue with their FIOS network, which was eventually abandoned.
The question is, it's it cost effective for a company to install this technology when the average consumer doesn't want (or can't afford) to spend that kind of money each month for the service. Therein lies the problem....

 

[Ollie]

Has it been a few years already? I couldn't even imagine the logistical nightmare of fibering a city like Atlanta.

 

[Beardface]

Bull, that's imaginary. It's science - I doubt you are actually sitting close enough to the tv to notice a difference from 1080p to 4k...you have to be something like closer than 7 feet on a 60"+ screen before you can even START to discern a difference

So there is a difference, you just have to have a big enough TV to see it. Which is exactly my point. Yes, at 60 inches there IS a noticeable improvement in the resolution of 4k over 1080. Dismiss it all you want, but it is real and it is there. I've seen it with my own 2 eyes. Its just a more precise picture, and that ends up with a better overall experience. With screens over 60 inches, the differences are going to eye opening. The bigger the screen, the higher the resolution you need to not degrade quality. 1080 doesn't work for everything, which is why 4k will be the next wave.

 

[pc747]

I agree, but price is obviously a contributing factor on both sides. Google Fiber has been around for quite a few years now, yet they haven't really been setting the world on fire in terms of construction and getting it to the people. Verizon ran into the same issue with their FIOS network, which was eventually abandoned.
The question is, it's it cost effective for a company to install this technology when the average consumer doesn't want (or can't afford) to spend that kind of money each month for the service. Therein lies the problem....

I think they are doing a smart rollout. Yeah I would have liked them to roll out much faster than this, "set the world on fire" (as you put it). But building a network takes time and effort as well as getting through all the red tape. The goal of Google here is not to take over but change the way internet is done and they can do that with a slow roll out. Put enough Google fiber networks in a few cities to compete with the status quo and you will see At&t, Comcast, and other companies make a real push for gigabit internet and better pricing.
Plus I am sure Google is going to places where the city is willing to give them tax breaks and deals with construction.