Is Google Fiber worth it?

[kodiak799]

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.

Why do you think it's "biased"? How are manufacturers benefiting from this science? Science KNOWS a lot about eye optics and science KNOWS what the eye can differentiate - "simple" geometry. And blind tests confirm that people can't tell the difference (until you "favor" the higher def with certain setting and tell people it's 4K or 1080p or whatever).

People can claim otherwise all they want. The science is unobjectionable.

 

[kodiak799]

So there is a difference, you just have to have a big enough TV to see it. Which is exactly my point.

It's not about the size of the tv, it's about how close you are relative to the size of the tv when your eye can actually begin to see the extra pixels. And my point is no one sits close enough to notice the difference. And that's the precise meaning of "noticeable benefit".

Some people may actually sit close enough to see the difference between 1080p and 720p. But it won't be comfortable to be close enough to see a difference between 1080 and 4k - 7 feet on a 65" 4k tv (and if you are sitting that close, your eyesight clearly isn't good enough to see a difference at that range, either).

 

[Beardface]

It's not about the size of the tv, it's about how close you are relative to the size of the tv. And my point is no one sits close enough to notice the difference. And that's the precise meaning of "noticeable benefit".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Just like how 1080 on a 30 inch screen only mattered if you were inches away, and didn't mean that the new format could really help out larger screens, right? Your logic is absolutely fatally flawed.

 

[kodiak799]

It's not about the size of the tv, it's about how close you are relative to the size of the tv. And my point is no one sits close enough to notice the difference. And that's the precise meaning of "noticeable benefit".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Just like how 1080 on a 30 inch screen only mattered if you were inches away, and didn't mean that the new format could really help out larger screens, right? Your logic is absolutely fatally flawed.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about at all. It's geometry - the size of the tv relative to how far away the eye is all that matters here.

 

[dgstorm]

The topic is Google Fiber rollouts, not 4K TVs.

Let's not derail the thread please.

 

[grenefroggie]

I like when people complain about the "Google Huts" which are basically like telco COs. If you want the service, the head end infrastructure has to go somewhere.

 

[Jonny Kansas]

The topic is Google Fiber rollouts, not 4K TVs.

Let's not derail the thread please.

Agreed. Please keep to the topic of the thread folks.

 

[scottasaurus]

At first glance, Gigabit Internet seems excessive for the average consumer. However as time progresses, there will be more products that can take advantage of it. It's future proof at a great price!

And if you only have FioS or cable to choose from, Google fiber is a great alternative for when it is available

 

[PereDroid]

I would like to have an alternative. Any alternative.
I can go with Time Warner. Or... ATT DSL @ 6MB. You'd think I live on a farm, not the 46th largest city in America.

 

[pc747]

I like when people complain about the "Google Huts" which are basically like telco COs. If you want the service, the head end infrastructure has to go somewhere.

Want Fiber get use to seeing one of those.

 

[kodiak799]

At first glance, Gigabit Internet seems excessive for the average consumer. However as time progresses, there will be more products that can take advantage of it. It's future proof at a great price!

And if you only have FioS or cable to choose from, Google fiber is a great alternative for when it is available

But if hi-def 1080p only needs 10-12mbps (depending on whether talking Netflix, Vudu, etc.), I don't really see the need for those speeds individually, even with streaming tv/cable. In that scenario, you need more bandwidth in general but many commercially available connections at 25-50mbps or so are fully capable of handling that. Obviously 3-4 people streaming tv over one internet feed changes that, but the speeds are already there.

Maybe VR changes that. Or 3D-tv, but don't see that catching on.

 

[cr6]

The speeds are "supposed to be" there, but they usually aren't. Most people that pay for 50meg up rarely if ever see it. The number one complaint from customers is slow speeds through their cable or satellite company. Fiber will change all that.

 

[liftedplane]

the channels they offer this would completely replace my Dish and Comcast that I pay 200+ a month for.... man... someday, I just want options.

 

[grenefroggie]

Here is one thing that kills me: While Google has a really sweet deal with Kansas City, MO, AT&T and Verizon and TWC and Comcast receive hundreds of millions of dollars in Broadband Stimulus and USF funds each year.

All of the supplied funds are meant for network expansion and improvement of their current networks. Instead both AT&T and Verizon are trying to shudder their landline networks to push wireless sales. The cable companies are competing to see who can low ball their customers the best. And to top it off, they spend a lot of money making sure no one else can build out in their area.

If Google offered to come to my area, many people would be really happy to have another option. And what they have to offer customers might be worth giving them more than the competition. It really shows you what some towns are willing to do to have another option.

 

[Yellowhammer]

I'm currently paying $60 for 65down/4up. Its the up speed that sucks.

It's all relative. I pay $410 per month for a T1 line (1.5Mbps up/down).