Google Television

[moosetags]

We have been looking at and researching Google Television options for Lucy. More and more campgrounds are coming on line with Wifi at the sites. We also have a Verizon Wifi Hot Spot telephone that can stream video to a wifi receiver. With this access, the new Google Television becomes a viable alternative to satellite television.

Right now, Sony and Logitech are making Google Television units. Is anyone here using this technology, and how is it working out?

Brian

[CanoeStream]

Hi Brian. I'm not sure it's time for 'early adopters' yet... Saw this on NYT last night -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/te...?_r=1&src=dayp

[Boondocker]

All that bandwidth- if available- would be expensive.

[nswhite]

Have been to several wifi campgrounds that ask you not to stream. Not enough available bandwidth. We're not there, yet.

[eubank]

Yes, bandwidth for that kind of thing is becoming a problem. We're talking to a friend of ours about a limiter on our system. I'm sure other campgrounds are thinking along similar lines.

[Aage]

As long as people talk of "limiters" on campground systems, count WiFi out as a drawing card for trailerites to such camps.

People need good bandwidth on the road, since they are out of touch of many things, such as as their normal TV program patterns, but more importantly, contact with sites and emails accounts they consider important. They use the internet to enhance their trips by researching routes and things to see and do while travelling.

Camps that understand that idea, and decide to embrace offering unlimited broadband will cash in on improved fill rates, as long as they find a good way to price and market it.

Camps with free WiFi rarely have satisfactory connection service, and many of those that charge still only offer a stingy amount of bandwidth and often unreliable service, in my experience.

There's a tremendous opportunity for those camp owners that decide to take the time to investigate and understand the options. They could seize the golden ring and grow because they offer a good WiFi solution, rather than step back and fight the "pull" their clients will surely exert to have it...

[CanoeStream]

How big a bandwidth burden is VOIP? Had a friend say some campgrounds were trying to limit seasonals and snowbirds on just that issue.

Downloading TV shows is slow enough already over my wireless and home broadband. I'd sure love to have multiple users on it at the same time.

Sony, co-developer of Google TV and our wunnerful (choke-choke) Airstream AV systems, sez that tomorrow has already arrived - SONY Optimistic about Google TV Despite Setbacks

[Aage]

Originally Posted by CanoeStream

How big a bandwidth burden is VOIP? Had a friend say some campgrounds were trying to limit seasonals and snowbirds on just that issue.

Downloading TV shows is slow enough already over my wireless and home broadband. I'd sure love to have multiple users on it at the same time.

It's only a question of how big a pipe you buy. I have no idea of the costs or the pipe size to carry the load, but I bet the ISP's can.

It's also a question of how it's purchased, in that if you buy it the way we do at our home (fixed amount per month) it will likely be difficult to have a payback, much less show a profit, in view of how quiet camps get for the October through May time frame.

But things like that can be overcome if we want them to be.

[eubank]

Originally Posted by Aage

As long as people talk of "limiters" on campground systems, count WiFi out as a drawing card for trailerites to such camps.

There are lots of variables here, but even with fairly marginal bandwidth you can browse the web and email all you want. Streaming television is, however, a very different story, a real hog of bandwidth.

Note, too, that the kind of heavy-duty internet needed for streaming by groups of people is not even available in many areas, marginally so in others. It's simply a matter of available infrastructure. Angel Fire, for instance, is in the boonies, and we have the highest level service available for the area, but that's only about a fourth of what's available elsewhere from the same company, Qwest. (I'm sure that the phone company would be pleased to accept more money from us for a higher level, but we still couldn't receive anything more than what we currently receive.)


Lynn

[Dave Park]

Streaming video presents a particular problem that all other services do not:

A guest fires up Netflix and starts watching a movie. The connection is established and rated for speed, and the image quality is adjusted up to what the connection can reasonably support. They use 50% of the bandwidth. A second guest fires up Netflix, and during the speed negotiation, they get a narrower slice of the pie. They get a reduced resolution video, and take up 25% of the bandwidth. Now, 75% is used, and a third guest visits CNN.com. The page download is brief but maxes out the bandwidth. Guest 2's video stutters and fails. Guest 1 has a bigger buffer and doesn't notice the problem, until... Guest 4's kid visits the webkinz website and starts playing games.

If four guests can bring the connection to its knees, imagine having a park with 50, 100 or 150 guests.

One solution here is to respond to the Netflix traffic by throttling it, choking it down to a maximum speed that gives them moderate quality video, and degrades it further or blocks it altogether.

The other solution is to provide "Park_Streaming" and "Park_MailandWeb" access points, and blocking all streaming entirely on the mail and web access points. Give them separate lines, and warn people that during busy periods, they may not be able to watch video.

It also helps HUGELY to only use channels 1, 6 or 11. The frequencies and channel widths are such that channels overlap each other, and only channels 1, 6 and 11 do not overlap. Channel 3 overlaps 1 and 6. In a busy park where 20+ people may have wifi laptops, these intermediate channels can degrade performance for everyone on the +/-4 channels.

Hope this helps.

[Aage]

These are mere technical issues, and while it is utterly important that they be solved, it is for us to anticipate that, with time, they will be.

For example, what was impossible the summer of 2009 in our certified-in-the-boonies campground (hi-speed internet) is now easily available since a company added a new service using line-of-sight transmitters from towers they installed winter past.

I use this as an example of how time changes everything, and quite quickly, when it's to do with revenue stream from the internet.

That is my point: it is simply a mindset issue; technology will sweep the limitations away relatively quickly, so a profitable pay model for the camps is on the horizon. If the campers wishing streaming TV in their TT are willing to pay ten or so dollars for an evening of off-air Nirvana, why should they not be able to have it?

In one man's opinion, that is...

[rock60]

kind of like flushing the toilet when your wife is in the shower.

[Dave Park]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I am sure technology will catch up, and I'm sure it won't take too long.

I'm also sure that technology will roll out to rural areas, the places where the most interesting camps are, last. And it will cost 4x or more what it costs in town, and the provisioning costs will be on the campground owners so it will require a capital investment with an uncertain payoff.

If I were to build an RV park today, I would wire in ethernet to every site I could, and also provide small zone low-power wifi, and try to ensure my RV ground was in an area covered by LTE, WiMax and etc. I'd probably invest in an OC-3, and offer basic internet for free, and streaming-enabled net for a $1 or $2 per day premium.

...but I do not have a time machine or resources yet*

In the next decade, bandwidth will be so plentiful and cheap we will refer back to threads like this with amusement!

In the meantime, the "business case" fails because of a mindset issue - on that I thing you're 100% right.

*If you want to invest in an RV park and just need someone enthusiastic to build and operate it with you, we might have a lot to talk about!

[eubank]

Originally Posted by Aage

These are mere technical issues, and while it is utterly important that they be solved, it is for us to anticipate that, with time, they will be.

I certainly hope so! Word here is that the local co-op got the funding to wire the whole area with high-speed fiber, and that they'll charge less than Qwest for equivalent or higher service. Of course, it may take them a couple of years to get it all installed. We're talking an area encompassing over 5K square miles.

As for profit, we've never considered it in those terms. There's no extra charge for it, nor did we increase our prices when we installed the whole business. The only thing we require is that we type in the password; it is not distributed. (Far more expensive than Internet was having to hook up to village water and sewer, costing about $70K up front, excluding monthy charges. That tug on the wallet caused us to increase prices very rapidly.)


Lynn

[Dave Park]

I misread that as 5 miles and was about to offer to come and help

5000, yeah, umm... *shifty look* BYE!

[DanielB]

Be careful when you use unsecured/unencrypted wifi. Remember not long ago Google got in trouble for capturing user ids and passwords when riding through hot spots while taking pictures for street view? You would be surprised how easy it is to hijack this information.

[Dave Park]

As for google television: it's an odd service. It's inefficient and has a painful power requirement. It uses an Atom processor, which is like running a whole laptop. All the current google-tv implementations seem to have a fan, which is not a recipe for long life.