Earlier this week we received a leaked presentation covering the results of a Google Fiber survey conducted on behalf of Warner Bros and Sony Pictures Entertainment. The research was conducted in 2012 and aimed to get a baseline of the piracy levels, so changes can be measured after the rollout.
[...] Drawing on an MPAA formula that counts all pirated views as losses the report notes that it may cost Hollywood over a billion dollars per year. That’s a rather impressive increase of 58% compared to current piracy levels. The research also finds a link between piracy and broadband speeds, which is another reason for Hollywood not to like Google’s Internet service.
[...] What’s most striking from the above approach is the way the studios frame Google Fiber as a piracy threat, instead of looking at the opportunities it offers.
Related Stories
Why Google Fiber Is High-Speed Internet's Most Successful Failure (archive)
In the Big Bang Disruption model, where innovations take off suddenly when markets are ready for them, Google Fiber could be seen as a failed early market experiment in gigabit internet access. But what if the company's goal was never to unleash the disrupter itself so much as to encourage incumbent broadband providers to do so, helping Google's expansion in adjacent markets such as video and emerging markets including smart homes? Seen through that lens, Google Fiber succeeded wildly. It stimulated the incumbents to accelerate their own infrastructure investments by several years. New applications and new industries emerged, including virtual reality and the Internet of Things, proving the viability of an "if you build it, they will come" strategy for gigabit services. And in the process, local governments were mobilized to rethink restrictive and inefficient approaches to overseeing network installations.
[...] Google went about announcing locations, and incumbent broadband ISPs, including AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable, would quickly counter by promising improved pricing, faster speeds, network upgrades or some combination of the three. A "game of gigs" had erupted. In the end, Google announced plans to build in 34 cities, playing a kind of broadband whack-a-mole game. Incumbents, who initially dismissed the effort as a publicity stunt, accelerated and reprioritized their own deployments city by city as Google announced follow-on expansion.
As the game of gigs played out, city leaders were forced to offer the same administrative advantages to incumbents as they had to Google Fiber. Construction costs fell, and the speed of deployments increased. Only six years after Google's initial announcement, according to the Fiber Broadband Association, 30% of urban residents had access to gigabit Internet service.
Related: Movie Studios Fear a Piracy Surge From Google Fiber
Google Files Letter with FCC Showing Positives of Title II for Broadband Providers
Google Fiber Announces Next 4 Cities to Get 1Gbps
AT&T Charges $29 More for Gigabit Fiber that Doesn't Watch Your Web Browsing
Austinites Outraged as Google Fiber Tears Up Texas Capital
Google Fiber Buys Webpass ISP
After Years Waiting for Google Fiber, KC Residents Get Cancellation E-Mails
FCC Gives Google Fiber and New ISPs Faster Access to Utility Poles
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @05:27AM
Why is this striking?
Hollywood's MO for my entire life has been to oppose all consumer-driven technology shifts and anything else that may alter their business model. They are perpetually unable to take advantage of emerging technologies _on the consumer side_ until the horse has already left the barn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @05:30AM
They're probably right. 1 gbps symmetric, no cap? I could torrent as much as any laptop out there could handle, do torrent streaming, use extra privacy layers that would slow things down, seed well, etc.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday January 02 2015, @05:56AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 02 2015, @07:23AM
Why do they have to be timely?
Never understood why a movie has to be watched the instant it is released. I'm perfectly happy to watch two or three year old movies for the very first time (on a large screen TV). I've not seen the, so they are all new to me.
But then I've been to exactly one movie in the last 7 years, so I'm probably not the one to ask.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday January 02 2015, @08:04AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 02 2015, @08:54AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday January 02 2015, @04:53PM
Today you don't have to wait 3 years. Try 3 months. Guardians of the galaxy. Theater: August 1st. Download: November 18th. Disc: December 9th.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 02 2015, @09:40PM
True enough, but they are still expensive in three months, (and I'm still a cheap bastard).
Some I will watch within 6 months, but most I just wait till I have a couple hours to kill and a beer in hand, and put them up on the big TV on a whim for less than three bucks.
Current-ish movies on Google play
Guardians 6 bucks. Gravity 7 bucks.
Older-ish movies on same
LoTR-TT 3 bucks.
Lots of times you can BUY and own for life (of Google, not you) for the same money as you can rent and watch once today.
None of the above arguments for a movie having to be current releases are convincing to me. Unless you are a crowd follower, and your life is so vapid that all you can discuss is the movie you saw last night, I still don't see why a well done story 2 years old is less appealing than one done today.
Watched 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) over the holidays. It didn't look cheesy as some allege. Didn't even particularly look dated. 40 year old movie FFS.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Friday January 02 2015, @10:15AM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday January 02 2015, @09:48PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:00AM
You don't have to wait for your torrent to arrive with torrent streaming. It downloads the first pieces of a video file first, and plays in a media player capable of streaming from file like VLC. Well-seeded popular torrents (thousands of seeds) are usually the type of show/movie you would find on Netflix and would download fast on 10 mbps. With a gigabit connection, no matter how you choose to torrent the file, it will likely be completely done in under a minute.
Storage is cheap unless you are SSD only. You can delete the file after you're done. You can reuse the same 10-50 GB to download a batch of content and delete it as you watch it. H.265 is *starting* to cut some file sizes in half and can play on machines that are a few years old.
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:29AM
Yes, they are. When one watches a lot of films, the costs of watching them legitimately can rise into the hundreds or thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, torrents are free.
With gigabit, even HD torrents arrive very quickly, within the time that one is, say, preparing some snacks for the film and rearranging chairs. Nowadays this is true even for less popular content like some obscure art films; there's always a couple of seeders around and the download is pratically instantaneous. The days of waiting in agony for torrent content are over.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:38PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Friday January 02 2015, @10:36AM
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday January 02 2015, @04:57PM
Yup, and that settles it. We need federal legislation to ban internet speeds greater than 10Mb/s. Nothing should be allowed to exist that threatens established corporate profits. Anything else would be un-American.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @10:00PM
The only mainstream use of very fast internet has been sending video. It can be legal, ie Netflix, or piracy. I don't think the general public has a particular use for it, but the phone companies can keep talking people into paying for it...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday January 02 2015, @05:53AM
We didn't build the internet for these jerks.
Let them go back to film and projectors. This idea that everyone should be using dial-up so that they can own the digital world is getting beyond ridiculous.
Why do such a survey unless the plan is to somehow stake a money claim against high speed users like they did against CD and DVD sales?
There is a money grab coming. Watch and see.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 02 2015, @08:15AM
Frankly what should REALLY be scaring 'em is the trend I've been seeing at the shop...ya know how many of the young 'uns have widescreen TVs that have NEVER watched TV and almost never watch movies? A hell of a lot and growing by the year. What are they doing with 'em you ask? Using them as big ass monitors for their video games and free web shows, that's what.
Its not just the young folks either, I've been sitting up more and more HTPCs where its less HT and almost all PC, folks have so much free content to choose from that they are just tuning out the Hollywood crap. Somebody asked me how many movies I had watched this year and...wow, maybe 3? And talking to my 20 year old boys they haven't even watched that many. And talking to the wife's family it hit me...there isn't a single one in the family under 60 that watches TV! There are a few that like watching movies but there is a Redbox round the corner so none of them bother buying any.
So what they really should be shitting their pants over isn't piracy, its folks that don't give enough fucks about their content to even bother if it wasn't ultra cheap or free. I bet if they managed to wipe out piracy tomorrow? All that would happen is the number of people that saw this or that movie would just dry up, there is just too much free content from too many sources for most to give a rat's ass about Hollywood one way or another. And TV is even worse off, talking to customers other than the occasional ball game ain't nobody watching shit, their reality shit done poisoned the well. So fiber isn't what they should fear, total lack of fucks is their biggest problem!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 02 2015, @08:46AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 02 2015, @09:18AM
And you sir are an idiot, that is 2 out of HOW many releases? Why don't you try doing the math and you'll see that other than a handful of mega blockbusters the turnout has been DOWN, sales have been DOWN, the number of TV viewers, which is where they advertise their movies BTW? Dropping like a stone.
So you can name 2 out of a couple hundred that were hits, here's a cookie. There was a black guy join the Klan once too, don't really consider that indicative of the whole, do you?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 02 2015, @12:14PM
Please learn to present your thoughts, such as they are, more coherently, so that you don't end up contradicting yourself.
HTH, HAND
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 02 2015, @04:28PM
Its called facts, want some? How about this...2014 box office is at a 2 decade low [slashdot.org]. How is THAT for lack of fucks for ya?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 02 2015, @04:44PM
Fucks given: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Fucks not given: XXXXXX
You have a perspective problem.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday January 02 2015, @08:29PM
Perhaps he does have a perspective problem, but many of his points may still be valid.
The movie theater experience is really hard to beat, and people do still want to go, including myself. I'm waiting for Alamo Drafthouse (they're super serious about STFU) to make it my way since I'm prone to getting police involved when people won't stop talking or texting (I ask very politely the first few times before I go Hulk smash). That being said, his points about younger demographics holds true. I'm surprised it's only 6% down though, as most of what I've been hearing is that ticket sales were absolutely horrible for some seasons these past years. Like the worst fall season for movies in 20 years, and stuff like that. So 6% might be the average, but I think in some months it could have been down by as much as 50% or more. Of course the MPAA is sure to have their hands in the propaganda, and would never say anything other than bad news.
I myself have a very large wide screen HDTV hooked up via HDMI to my laptop. It has never seen a cable box, used the TV tuner, or otherwise been connected to the traditional distribution channels. For pretty much it's entire use has been a computer monitor. I'm fairly progressive in this area as someone approaching 40, but my younger relatives pushing 20 act exactly as HairyFeet described. They watch TV on the web, pirate WEB-DL releases of their TV shows, or are consumed by Twitch/Vine/Imgur/Reddit etc. providing alternate content creation and sharing features. Instead of waiting for a scheduled program of media with commercials interrupting everything, my younger relatives all have tablets, laptops, or PCs and actively search out their content. Even without adblock, they just put it down, ignore it, switch to another tab, etc. before being stuck with advertisements. Only my older relatives think it's normal to leave a single channel on and listen to commercials all day long in the living room. The kids are quietly ignoring it by muting their devices even when they lack the sophistication to install ad blocking software.
While that could just be another anecdote, I'm seeing articles talk about the "cord cutters" all the time. There have been plenty of studies (marketing not scientific) showing rapid and profound shifts in how people consume media, and most of it supports HairyFeet, with the exception of his movie theater Armageddon statistics of course. As crappy as telecine and cams are, they are still downloaded and watched (much to my own amazement).
Also, young people aren't daft despite the generalizations. It can cost $50 to go out to the movies for a group of young people, easily. Stay in, and you might download an equally good Hollywood movie, get pizza, and probably score some drugs for that same cost. Even better drugs and alcohol if you skip the 3D showings. Maybe the MPAA should just realize that it's as fucked as everyone else in a bad economy, and more so when you're assholes pushing a generation of younger entitled assholes about who can demand what for a good time. The MPAA going up against teenagers trying to have a good time is one of the more comical battles in the universe.
Movie theaters and the MPAA just need to simply accept that with technology now in the homes, that far less people will be willing to go into a theater. Hence, why it was such a big deal to have the Interview online and in theaters at the same time. Movie theaters will need to adapt to service the people looking for a great experience outside of their homes, and that includes urine and fece free bathrooms (they're far worse than gas stations), no talking, and nicer seats. The regular experience can now be had at home, replete with great sound and 3D video. In some cases I would be willing to pay $20 for a great movie if only it wouldn't include the police, managers, etc. dealing with people talking and chatting on phones, crappy seats, crappy food and drink, etc. Alamo Drafthouse is about my only hope of having the real nice movie theater experience again.
The MPAA and movie theaters will continue to progressively fail as they don't service the customer, and as HairyFeet pointed out, they are not serving the new generation of customers with anything but alienation and direct attacks.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 02 2015, @09:06PM
You've made the case for movies being too expensive.
Its not clear you've made the case for the 20 somethings not liking movies. Just that they are now living on their own, and having to pinch pennies, like every generation. I found early on in my post college days that I couldn't afford the night out at the movies, drinking in the pub, or even eating in restaurants. A few years later when I could easily afford that, the habit was broken, and I've really never re-succumbed to the draw of movies. I'm content to go to a few of the very best, or watch them on the big screen at home.
In short, you've mistaken cheapskates (sometimes with a conveniently loose sense of ethics) for changing tastes.
I know of several 20s that share apartments or houses who all chip in to fund netflix accounts and high speed broadband connections as second only to paying the rent. Not because they don't want to go out to the movies. Just because they can't afford that.
The teen-somethings still love going to the movies. Netflix is a distant second.
I don't think you can assume huge changes in the culture, without considering cost as a key factor.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday January 05 2015, @02:48PM
I dunno man, I'm 24, and I can't recall myself or my friends *ever* really *wanting* to go to the movies. Usually when a theater is involved it's not so much "Let's go see this movie!" and more "Well...I *guess* we could go see a movie to kill some time unless you've got a better idea...?"
I've got a 100" projector screen five feet in front of my futon, and I can download a full-length blu-ray rip in 30 minutes. What the hell would I want to deal with a theater for? That's another big issue that may not have fully hit yet, but it's coming -- you can buy a high-def home theater projector for about the same price as a large screen TV now. Mine was about $500. And that price is going to keep coming down. Merely having a big screen isn't an advantage to the theaters anymore. And they're not getting movies first by much of a margin either. Maybe 3D will save them for a little while; maybe these experiments some theaters are doing with scents and other feedback will help, but that's gonna raise ticket prices too. I bet a lot of small town theaters will close; while the larger ones raise prices and become more of a higher class experience. This Alamo Drafthouse place that I keep hearing about seems to have the right idea...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08 2015, @04:04PM
Would you please, please mind not incorporating uptalk into writing? It's bad enough to have to listen to people speaking like there are question marks in the middle of their sentences, but to actually type them instead if commas is simply madness. Just stop.
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 02 2015, @06:05AM
I like to go to theaters.
That's why I don't shop online a whole lot - I like to visit brick-and-mortar stores, and enjoy getting to know the staff at those of the shops that I visit regularly.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday January 02 2015, @06:12AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday January 02 2015, @06:48AM
I don't pirate movies because I don't like movies. They are very simplistic. I read books instead.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday January 02 2015, @10:44AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 02 2015, @07:44PM
So... what, did you come into this thread to get directions on how to live this thread?
It is always those most in need of help that are the most resistant to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @09:32PM
I keep hearing that films are simplistic and do all the work for you, from people who feel they are somehow superior because they read books, because books are better and if books weren't, then they wouldn't read them but obviously books are because they read them, therefore books are better.
If you think movies are simple, you should stop comparing books with Schwarzenegger action flicks, and actually try some others.
There is a lot more to film (and some TV) than just the story, as written in a book. There is no more to a book than what is written in the story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @09:56AM
You like getting deafened in a dark room along with a hundred others?
To each his own. Not my cup of tea.
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 02 2015, @02:28PM
I'm a consulting software engineer. If I watched movies online, shopped online, listened to music online I'd never leave my house.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Friday January 02 2015, @10:24AM
Do you release that for less than $2000, you can build a very immersive home theatre with HD projector and 7.1 surround sound? Once you've done that, going out to the cinema becomes significantly less attractive.
It has been years and years now since my youthful stints in retails, but I rememer customers who wanted to socialize being among the biggest annoyances of the job, and a source of frequent complaint for me and my coworkers. Generally staff would prefer you go in, ask what questions you have about the product, buy it (or not), and get out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @12:06PM
You enjoy getting to know the staff that are literally being paid to work there?
Was this sarcasm?
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Friday January 02 2015, @06:13PM
I don't pirate movies for two reasons:
1. There's nothing worthwhile to pirate.
2. I still have a VCR and movies on VHS are insanely cheap (I got the Star Wars trilogy as a boxed set for $2)
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @09:35PM
Yes, there's nothing quite like losing almost a quarter of the screen and not being able to see much detail to make a movie look stunning.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 02 2015, @07:10AM
First thing they need is a brain. They seem incapable of grasping even the most basic implications of technological advance.
For those who do understand that they are asking the impossible and being very anti-social about it, some humble pie is in order. Start by firing them from their jobs, and clawing back whatever wealth they stole from artists and their companies. Likely they broke laws, and they should face lots of litigation for that. Even some jail time should be a possibility.
Then, some changes to the law are in order. When they are in Shock and Awe over the utter destruction of their old business model, and beginning to understand that their way of thought is history, and counts for even less than the most discredited, backwards lunatic fringe group like the Flat Earthers, and that if they are remembered at all, it will be bad memories, and like the Spanish Inquisition, an example of how not to define and address a problem, then perhaps they will quietly concede, if only privately, that they were wrong, and crawl under the nearest rock to spend the rest of their sorry little lives crying about being ignored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @02:09PM
This is probably about compelling Google into implementing real-time content inspection and throttling like some cable providers do. Frankly I don't see how cable companies can call it "Internet" service, when the product you receive isn't switched at layer 3.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Friday January 02 2015, @07:32PM
The emPHAsis is on the wrong sylLABle, as my Aunt used to say.
The point is perhaps more that the "service" is the kind a bull gives to a cow.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @07:47AM
I saw an item about lousy Internet availability in Cuba (combined with censorship on what exists).
All that those folks seem to need to get around that is a pair of shoes and a spare hard drive.
Paquete Semanal Autnomo is sneakernet on steroids. [google.com]
The odd thing I saw was a mention of a weekly malware killer update being included.
Why would people with that level of tech insight be using an OS that requires that?
Now, there -are- some indications that Cuba is on the right track. [muylinux.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by nyder on Friday January 02 2015, @05:43PM
Face it, the MPAA is the Chicken Little https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny [wikipedia.org] of today. Replace "the sky is falling" with "will lead to more piracy".
Reminds me of how everyone said legalizing marijuana would lead to more crimes, and yes, the opposite has happened.
I refuse to support them in everything possible.