homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.225.24.227
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

    
Google Fiber 100x faster for who?
incrediBILL




msg:4479285
 11:56 pm on Jul 26, 2012 (gmt 0)

Was just reading all the hype about Google Fiber and musing about why it doesn't work.
https://fiber.google.com/about/

We've all gone wireless and 100x faster fiber doesn't change the laws of physics on the WiFi router, it still runs the same speed it always did.

Instant downloads? How so? It's all being throttled thru the WiFi.

Clearer HDTV? Um no, my TV runs over WiFi too so NetFlix, Hulu, On Demand, etc are the same as they always were.

OK, granted for the 2 desktop machines I have currently getting 20GB+ connections the upgrade to Google fiber would be amazing, it would have zero impact on my phones, netbooks, tablets, PS3, Wii, HDTVs or anything else connected via WiFi. They're currently downloading as fast as possible already using the existing cable network which far exceeds the speed of the WiFi network.

However, other that raw downloads, which isn't the bulk of what people use the internet for unless you're watching video, most sites don't or can't respond fast enough to make a difference. Even if a site could respond faster, the display speeds would still be throttled by the same old slow Norton AV checking everything passing it along to the same pokey old browsers running on the same 5 year old desktop for most. In other words, what difference does it make if you have a 100x faster connection but nothing else moves any faster than it did before?

Now if Google fiber came with a 100x faster wireless broadband router and USB dongles to connect to it, then we'd be talking.

Another option would be to have a smart router, more like a DVR type device, where downloaded files could be instantly downloaded to local interim storage and then slowly streamed without interruption smoothly to the destination device with it's much slower WiFi connection.

Yeah yeah, obviously we could wire the house to directly connect those devices, but then they wouldn't be mobile or cleanly installed on a wall without wires running all over the house now would they?

One step forward, 10 steps back.

What might work would be a hybrid option using the household copper wiring ala DSL with a decoupling device to get high speed broadcasting over the existing electrical wiring. Since your TV requires being plugged into a wall socket, having that wiring be optional for broadband cable would make sense. One cable and you get both electricity and high speed internet at the same junction, how sweet is that? That would also make sense for any other device plugged in like a charging laptop would have access to break neck speed when tethered to a wall socket. You also wouldn't have to rewire the whole house to make it happen as I've run modems over my house wiring before, works like a charm.

Just a thought.

 

dcheney




msg:4479288
 12:15 am on Jul 27, 2012 (gmt 0)

I'd take their offer in a heartbeat (and hope to when they expand to the suburbs)

incrediBILL




msg:4479320
 5:36 am on Jul 27, 2012 (gmt 0)

I didn't say I wouldn't take it, I just don't see where I or many other people would even notice the difference except at a desktop computer.

Some would even have to upgrade their NIC on their PC to even notice a difference.

engine




msg:4479462
 2:42 pm on Jul 27, 2012 (gmt 0)

>We've all gone wireless

errr, well, there is some wireless in the house, but still mainly using hard wired networking in the home. But I get your point, there are limits once the fiber has reach the termination point.

It's good thinking ahead, imho. If fiber comes into the house it's there for the newer, faster internal distributed technology.

I'm not sure i'd want to pay $70/month.

Philosopher




msg:4479471
 3:24 pm on Jul 27, 2012 (gmt 0)

We get roughly 20 meg download speeds and I can tell you when the kids are each streaming a netflix show to their tablet and I've got something data intensive going on my desktop (which is connected via ethernet), I can feel the squeeze of not-enough-bandwidth.

If the wife happens to try and watch something on-demand (we have DTV so anything on-demand streams over the internet), things slow to a crawl, not due to wi-fi limitations, but from lack of bandwidth. Google's fiber would be a god-send in that respect. Add some of the newer 802.11ac wireless stuff and I would be a happy camper (of course that won't help the older wireless things, but will help going forward).

thecoalman




msg:4480496
 10:06 am on Jul 31, 2012 (gmt 0)

Clearer HDTV? Um no, my TV runs over WiFi too so NetFlix, Hulu, On Demand, etc are the same as they always were.


HD on bluray is about 25Mbps. Those "HD" services are typically 4 to 6 Mbps. Not sure about the on demand but I can certainly tell you any any HD channel on cable is considerably compressed.

You need a reasonably sized TV to see the artifacting, most people don't notice it but if you were to compare Bluray to Netflix side by side on the same TV you'd see the difference.

I'd love to see Google expand their services just to shake up the competition.

dcheney




msg:4480511
 11:07 am on Jul 31, 2012 (gmt 0)

The connection to the TV would be an HDMI cable - not WiFi.
The TV set top box would have a wired connection to the fiber hub.
In Google's setup, NetFlix runs on the TV set top box - not the TV itself. (Although I'm sure one could still run it there if one really wanted to.)

thecoalman




msg:4480748
 12:21 am on Aug 1, 2012 (gmt 0)

The connection to the TV would be an HDMI cable - not WiFi.


Depends on your TV, a lot of the new ones have direct network connectivity. I can get Netflix, youtube and a whole bunch of other internet services on my TV.

dcheney




msg:4480765
 1:30 am on Aug 1, 2012 (gmt 0)

Right - you could. But the original post was suggesting you could only get it that way (and thus be limited by the WiFi bandwidth to the TV). With Google Fiber's offering - it would be silly to use that approach for things that could use the faster connection to the TV set top box and then HDMI to the TV.

incrediBILL




msg:4480801
 4:28 am on Aug 1, 2012 (gmt 0)

The connection to the TV would be an HDMI cable - not WiFi.


That depends on the type of interface and the services being used. I have both direct HDMI and I have streaming over Wifi for live and on demand broadcasts. Make no mistake about it, all of my TVs have streaming Wifi capabilities and we use them daily.

YMMV

Lame_Wolf




msg:4535596
 3:48 am on Jan 13, 2013 (gmt 0)

I will never go wireless. I like my cables in my PC.

Lame_Wolf




msg:4535598
 4:11 am on Jan 13, 2013 (gmt 0)

I'd love to see Google expand their services just to shake up the competition.
Nah, they'll just buy out any competition.
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved