GG Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I don't? Ok... You still haven't explained anything. My original post was whether Google would be in addition to DirecTV or a sole provider. Then all subsequent posts were under the assumption that Google received sole rights to the service. The going assumption is that Google would replace DTV as the exclusive provider because that's how NFL would maximize revenue because Google may be wiling to pay more than DTV as it has a larger addressable base. Your technological naivete is showing because you clearly don't understand how Internet streaming devices work and how they're connected to the TV. Hint, most of them have composite outputs into TVs. If someone still needs to connect a traditional pay-TV service to the TV on top of the Internet streaming feed on an old-fashioned TV, then they can plug in the DTV set top box to the RF feed on the TV. But my guess is that demographic as it relates to Sunday Ticket is very very small, and if they really really want to watch football on an old Philco, I'm sure they can call their grandson to help out with the connection. The people who complained about the broadcast digital conversion were a non-factor. It was mostly noise about the confusion with the "free" box adaptors. Plus, if these are the people you're talking about, they don't subscribe to DTV in the first place because the digital switch didn't affect DTV subscribers as DTV now gives away local over the air feeds. Youtube bandwidth provisioning is totally different than what they would need to provide for Sunday Ticket HD. Apple TV, Roku, Tivo & Netflix show flawless HD stream sto millions of customers today, and quality will be a magnitude higher if Google gets the Sunday Ticket because they will have all the incentive to over engineer it. Now you can argue why Tuel deserves the starting job.
The Big Cat Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Perhaps I am not understanding. Where would the internet TV come from? What service are you speaking of exactly? So I don't have cable. I have a smart TV which has built in apps (Hulu, Netflix, HBOGo, Pandora, YouTube). My TV has an ethernet port and I get all my content fed through the Internet, into my TV and through the app's interfaces without having to pay for TV. I can do this because I have a newer TV built for this. For those that don't, the exact same services can be achieved through Roku, Google TV, Apple TV, et al. I don't know about this Chromebox... If the NFL were to liscense an app for my TV (like the MLB does), I could then watch football games the same way. Another way to achieve this: I also have a Mac Mini (just a desktop computer) hooked up via HDMI to my TV, so anything that can be streamed through a web browser I can watch, too. This creates redundancy with most of the apps 'built' into my TV, but comes in handy for some Hulu content that is web only (MST3K), services like preseason live, et al.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I love the way it is now, because it works for me. Directv has been great and usually gives it to me for free (or at least discounts the price of the Sunday Ticket). I also have the DVR set to automatically record anything related to the Buffalo Bills. Now that I married with children, there are times when I am unable to watch a game live (or in person). Whatever happens with the package, I hope that there is a way to watch it in my home theatre both live and later. Just my two cents. Do you watch the Shortcuts of the games? Love the condensed versions when I'm pressed for time.
Dorkington Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Apple already carries MLB.tv, which is way more complex than Extra Innings. You get every single game instead of most games, AND you get to pick which team's feed to watch, or even the radio feeds if you want. Methinks apple could figure out Sunday Ticket. The only real difference would be the crush of bandwidth with games being the same day and time every week. Well, they have been building HUGE data centers the last few years...
Peter Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Do you watch the Shortcuts of the games? Love the condensed versions when I'm pressed for time. Yes, I do. Sometimes, I record those when I want to go over the game again later. It is a great option without having to take up too much room on the DVR.
Last Guy on the Bench Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 ] It's actually $20B I contend that offering it online would open it up to international customers. You don't think between commercial and private-residential customers on the internationa market they could sell products ranging from $10-100 and be able to scrape together $20B? Plus, they would still have to rely on cable companies to provide the ppv service, a service they'd have to pay for too. They already sell the ticket online to international customers via Game Pass. You can buy a 1 team subscription. Or you can get the full deal plus archives of all games of the last few years, including condensed versions and eye in the sky coaches' versions. When you watch live, you can even select the TV audio, or either team's radio broadcast audio (used to have trouble syncing, but they are starting to improve that). Costs $199 this year for the full deal including playoffs and year round NFL Network. I never have trouble with the streaming, and you can set the quality level on whatever you want, all the way up to HD, depending on your bandwidth. That is certainly the way they will ultimately go for the U.S. (at least as an option to complement broadcast TV). Whether that happens this next go around or sometime down the line remains to be seen.
RyanC883 Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I hope it sells like NHL Center Ice, MLB channel, etc. which are available on the majority of cable carriers. I'm fine w/ Google getting it also.
microscopes Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Your technological naivete is showing because you clearly don't understand how Internet streaming devices work and how they're connected to the TV. There is no technological naivete on my part. I could explain to you my background in network administrating, where I installed peer to peer networks in schools and hospitals. Or the fact that i'm "fluent" in Java and PHP. But telling you all that would just be boasting, wouldn't it? So let me just state that I know what i'm talking about and leave it at that. I think the issue is that you're not understanding what i'm writing. I've tried to be as clear as possible, but I'll go over it again, step by step, to explain what i'm thinking. Hint, most of them have composite outputs into TVs. No one said they didn't have composite outputs. What was said is that many older TV's only have one composite bank. Therefore, when your Apple TV for example is plugged in, nothing else can be. Therefore, you have to continuously unplug and plug in your device. If someone still needs to connect a traditional pay-TV service to the TV on top of the Internet streaming feed on an old-fashioned TV, then they can plug in the DTV set top box to the RF feed on the TV. And lose an incredible amount of resolution. That's not really a solution. But my guess is that demographic as it relates to Sunday Ticket is very very small, and if they really really want to watch football on an old Philco, I'm sure they can call their grandson to help out with the connection. The issue you don't seem to understand is that these TV's you're talking about aren't 30 years old. TV's made as soon as 10 years ago had very limited options in the budget price range which millions of people have. The people who complained about the broadcast digital conversion were a non-factor. It was mostly noise about the confusion with the "free" box adaptors. Plus, if these are the people you're talking about, they don't subscribe to DTV in the first place because the digital switch didn't affect DTV subscribers as DTV now gives away local over the air feeds. You missed the point entirely. Youtube bandwidth provisioning is totally different than what they would need to provide for Sunday Ticket HD. Apple TV, Roku, Tivo & Netflix show flawless HD stream sto millions of customers today, and quality will be a magnitude higher if Google gets the Sunday Ticket because they will have all the incentive to over engineer it. Apple TV, Roku, Tivo and Netflix don't come even CLOSE to the bandwidth that Sunday Ticket would require. The fact that you use them as comparisons make me question you technical acumen. Netflix, for example, has thousands and thousands of movies and documentaries and TV shows. In other words, the folks who are watching their content are spread out far and wide. Their digital footprint and pull is not overloading one server (for example). Not to mention, they watch at all different times of the day. There are people who work nights, watching Netflix at noon. People who work during the day are watching at night. Stoners are watching at 3am, while buzzed. Kids are watching in the morning at daycare. Sunday Ticket on the other hand, would be approximately 8 to 12 single channel games, pulling from one quad (each). So there will be 3 million people, watching 8 to 12 "shows" at the SAME EXACT TIME pulling. LOL, it's almost hysterical thinking about it. This is something that the engineers (much smarter than I) at YouTube/Google have been trying their damnedest to figure out for a long time now. Advertisers obviously are not to happy when their advertisement gets buffered and the user clicks another link. YouTube has historically had issues even when popular music videos are released and a few hundred thousand people are watching at the same time. Now you can argue why Tuel deserves the starting job. I never ever said that. But that does serve to prove the point that you aren't reading and comprehending what I write. You're glancing over my posts and gathering some ideas and responding. Just like you thought I said that Tuel deserves the starting job, which is absolute nonsense and I couldn't care less if he was cut tomorrow. So I don't have cable. I have a smart TV which has built in apps (Hulu, Netflix, HBOGo, Pandora, YouTube). My TV has an ethernet port and I get all my content fed through the Internet, into my TV and through the app's interfaces without having to pay for TV. I can do this because I have a newer TV built for this. For those that don't, the exact same services can be achieved through Roku, Google TV, Apple TV, et al. I don't know about this Chromebox... If the NFL were to liscense an app for my TV (like the MLB does), I could then watch football games the same way. Another way to achieve this: I also have a Mac Mini (just a desktop computer) hooked up via HDMI to my TV, so anything that can be streamed through a web browser I can watch, too. This creates redundancy with most of the apps 'built' into my TV, but comes in handy for some Hulu content that is web only (MST3K), services like preseason live, et al. Ok, yes. But that is not the same thing that is being offered via DirecTV or Cable. It's a completely different beast. Edited August 21, 2013 by microscopes
dollars 2 donuts Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I smell the salary cap going up!! WHALESY, GIT 'ER DO...oh, who am I kidding. I can't do this.
yungmack Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I see where Google is taking over the Starbucks wifi service. And they're expanding their ISP. And now they're experimenting with using "weather balloons" for nodes. A few years ago, they were laughed at over the digital library project. Then there was Google Maps with those cars driving around videoing street after street. Then the "car that drives itself." And Google Glass. On and on. The common thread is that these all seemed kinda crazy at the time, as well as that most of them seemed way outside its purview at the time they got into it. My takeaway: never ever write these guys off. And if they do the NFL, look for some really interesting changes in delivery.
Chilly Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I hope Google gets it! Sunday Ticket + Chromecast would be awesome!
microscopes Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I hope Google gets it! Sunday Ticket + Chromecast would be awesome! I'm really hoping Google gets it as well. But not as the sole provider.
Just Jack Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 My home setup... 27" tube TV, purchased in 1998, has RF and two RCA inputs Roku plugged into RCA 1 DVD/VHS player and Nintendo Wii into RCA 2 using Y splitters HP desktop running PlayOn/PlayLater software to feed internet based videos to Roku Been using this for 2 years now this month with no issues, and only a cable internet bill.
birdog1960 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) i'm thinking we're witnessing the beginning of the decline of cable/satellite tv and that's just fine with me. sports are their last exclusive product if you can get over the air networks (and maybe even without that if apple or google make a deal with them). i saw a business estimate that cable/satellite subscribers are paying $50/ month for sports when the numbers are crunched. for now, many are paying it but google winning sunday ticket would be a dagger to the heart. and the issue of incompatible tv's becomes moot if you can recoup the relatively low cost of a $3-400 hdtv in a few months of nonexistent cable bills. i don't believe google and the nil would even be meeting if the streaming capacity for sunday ticket wasn't currently available. linky:http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/sports-last-barrier-cutting-cord-174048139.html Edited August 22, 2013 by birdog1960
26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 i'm thinking we're witnessing the beginning of the decline of cable/satellite tv and that's just fine with me. sports are their last exclusive product if you can get over the air networks (and maybe even without that if apple or google make a deal with them). i saw a business estimate that cable/satellite subscribers are paying $50/ month for sports when the numbers are crunched. for now, many are paying it but google winning sunday ticket would be a dagger to the heart. and the issue of incompatible tv's becomes moot if you can recoup the relatively low cost of a $3-400 hdtv in a few months of nonexistent cable bills. i don't believe google and the nil would even be meeting if the streaming capacity for sunday ticket wasn't currently available. linky:http://finance.yahoo...-174048139.html Another related article, IPTV defies drop in US pay-TV market to gain subscribers in 2Q13, says: IHS http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130816PR206.html
birdog1960 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Another related article, IPTV defies drop in US pay-TV market to gain subscribers in 2Q13, says: IHS http://www.digitimes...30816PR206.html and this: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/cbs-vs-time-warner-cable-death-match-win-145845398.html
GG Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 There is no technological naivete on my part. I could explain to you my background in network administrating, where I installed peer to peer networks in schools and hospitals. Or the fact that i'm "fluent" in Java and PHP. But telling you all that would just be boasting, wouldn't it? So let me just state that I know what i'm talking about and leave it at that. I think the issue is that you're not understanding what i'm writing. I've tried to be as clear as possible, but I'll go over it again, step by step, to explain what i'm thinking. No one said they didn't have composite outputs. What was said is that many older TV's only have one composite bank. Therefore, when your Apple TV for example is plugged in, nothing else can be. Therefore, you have to continuously unplug and plug in your device. And lose an incredible amount of resolution. That's not really a solution. The issue you don't seem to understand is that these TV's you're talking about aren't 30 years old. TV's made as soon as 10 years ago had very limited options in the budget price range which millions of people have. You're off by a decade or so. Even cheapo TVs that are ten years old have both a composite (and as Jack points out 2 composite) and one RF. If they only have one, there are very cheap composite switchers out there. But the kicker is that you are now arguing that picture quality would suffer dramatically by swapping out the composite and RF inputs on old tube TVs? Seriously? If that TV is that old, it won't make much difference between composite & RF because most video is now in clear digital format and you don't have the bad picture quality of old analog broadcasts that may have made a difference between RF & composite. You missed the point entirely. Apple TV, Roku, Tivo and Netflix don't come even CLOSE to the bandwidth that Sunday Ticket would require. The fact that you use them as comparisons make me question you technical acumen. Netflix, for example, has thousands and thousands of movies and documentaries and TV shows. In other words, the folks who are watching their content are spread out far and wide. Their digital footprint and pull is not overloading one server (for example). Not to mention, they watch at all different times of the day. There are people who work nights, watching Netflix at noon. People who work during the day are watching at night. Stoners are watching at 3am, while buzzed. Kids are watching in the morning at daycare. Sunday Ticket on the other hand, would be approximately 8 to 12 single channel games, pulling from one quad (each). So there will be 3 million people, watching 8 to 12 "shows" at the SAME EXACT TIME pulling. LOL, it's almost hysterical thinking about it. This is something that the engineers (much smarter than I) at YouTube/Google have been trying their damnedest to figure out for a long time now. Advertisers obviously are not to happy when their advertisement gets buffered and the user clicks another link. YouTube has historically had issues even when popular music videos are released and a few hundred thousand people are watching at the same time. Actually, Netflix now accounts for about a quarter of Internet backbone traffic, so it's specious to say that Sunday Ticket would take up more bandwidth. You also show your ignorance in how Internet video is distributed, especially when a provider has a very good idea of what they are streaming, at what time, how many people will be watching and where the viewers will be watching, There is a little cottage industry of Content Delivery Networks out there. Read up on them. Google will have at least one year to get ready for Sunday Ticket. I have a feeling they'll engineer it well. After all, they had no problem plunking down $500 million for gigabit Internet access for a few thousand subscribers in Kansas City. I never ever said that. But that does serve to prove the point that you aren't reading and comprehending what I write. You're glancing over my posts and gathering some ideas and responding. Just like you thought I said that Tuel deserves the starting job, which is absolute nonsense and I couldn't care less if he was cut tomorrow. You did say that he deserved to start against Minny because of what he accomplished, yet ignoring that the only reason he was able to accomplish what he did was because the guy ahead of him on the depth chart was down for over a week. Yet when that guy came back he promptly outplayed Tuel. Just like your other posts - ignore the inconvenient reality that doesn't fit your point.
boyst Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 My home setup... 27" tube TV, purchased in 1998, has RF and two RCA inputs Roku plugged into RCA 1 DVD/VHS player and Nintendo Wii into RCA 2 using Y splitters HP desktop running PlayOn/PlayLater software to feed internet based videos to Roku Been using this for 2 years now this month with no issues, and only a cable internet bill. I am going to go with a Roku...but I want to try a Google ChromeCast...But, I will more or less emulate this - except nix the VHS player. Switch the Nintendo Wii with the Nintendo Entertainment System (original)
microscopes Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 My home setup... 27" tube TV, purchased in 1998, has RF and two RCA inputs Roku plugged into RCA 1 DVD/VHS player and Nintendo Wii into RCA 2 using Y splitters HP desktop running PlayOn/PlayLater software to feed internet based videos to Roku Been using this for 2 years now this month with no issues, and only a cable internet bill. So do you not watch any live programming? This is a great option for people who don't.
microscopes Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) You're off by a decade or so. Even cheapo TVs that are ten years old have both a composite (and as Jack points out 2 composite) and one RF. If they only have one, there are very cheap composite switchers out there. But the kicker is that you are now arguing that picture quality would suffer dramatically by swapping out the composite and RF inputs on old tube TVs? Seriously? If that TV is that old, it won't make much difference between composite & RF because most video is now in clear digital format and you don't have the bad picture quality of old analog broadcasts that may have made a difference between RF & composite. Actually, Netflix now accounts for about a quarter of Internet backbone traffic, so it's specious to say that Sunday Ticket would take up more bandwidth. You also show your ignorance in how Internet video is distributed, especially when a provider has a very good idea of what they are streaming, at what time, how many people will be watching and where the viewers will be watching, There is a little cottage industry of Content Delivery Networks out there. Read up on them. Google will have at least one year to get ready for Sunday Ticket. I have a feeling they'll engineer it well. After all, they had no problem plunkin g down $500 million for gigabit Internet access for a few thousand subscribers in Kansas City. You did say that he deserved to start against Minny because of what he accomplished, yet ignoring that the only reason he was able to accomplish what he did was because the guy ahead of him on the depth chart was down for over a week. Yet when that guy came back he promptly outplayed Tuel. Just like your other posts - ignore the inconvenient reality that doesn't fit your point. There is so much wrong everyone in this. I don't want to go though this all and have an argument with you so ill just correct a few things and move on. 1) Netflix does not account for a quarter of Internet traffic. Not even remotely close. That was a meme that was spread around. Falsely. They have a large percentage of last mile traffic. Which is the traffic received from local data centers where Netflix has cached their programming. All of it being duplicate content. Its not real traffic. Its cached copies. They actually did this because they would be crashing every 10 minutes if they didnt. Problem is, you can't cache live programming. The fact that you don't know this and then tell me I don't know how Internet video is distributed is hilarious. I've programmed and networked more in a year than you have probably in your life. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing. In case your curious, google has WAY more traffic than Netflix. 2) I said he deserved the start MORE SO than Kolb. Not that I wanted him to start or that he deserved to. I wanted EJ to start and I think EJ deserved to start. 3) Great. So now all we have to do is go buy a media player, buy the service, buy a splitter, perhaps an adapater, oh and pay for DirecTV as well if we want true live programming of other shows. That's simpler than just keeping it with DirecTV for sure. Edited August 22, 2013 by microscopes
Recommended Posts