Since Google has unveiled Google Fiber in Kansas City, a new debate has been ignited on Google’s aspiration of owning the world. The move has further complicated the content distribution industry where cable operators, broadcast service providers and telecom providers are jostling for control of the consumer home.

However, it is not the content distribution industry alone which is uncomfortable with Google’s foray into the consumer home. For the Television Networks, none could be more threatening than to let their content flow through a goggle pipe. It really does not take an Einstein to figure out what Google might do to the TV advertising model once they have a complete grip on consumer content consumption pattern.

In order to strengthen its connection with the consumer, television networks have been contemplating a move towards retail “direct to consumer” initiatives for several years now. However among many initiatives, the only two true successes of reaching the consumer directly are Hulu and HBO GO. Both owe their success to premium and monopolistic content.

Otherwise direct to consumer as an initiatives have largely been morphed into digital marketing initiatives where investment on social platforms for creating consumer connect is the key driver. On the retail front, the direct to consumer initiatives have morphed into   “TV Everywhere” initiative where cable operators have a stronghold on the consumer.  Otherwise, most networks today are defining their business as “custodians of intellectual property” while a few still continue to invest on distribution platforms to create differentiation through the supply chain process.

But is that all the networks could do in the content ecosystem?

To put the things into perspective, networks don’t have the core competency to move into a consumer electronic business and compete with Apple, Google or Samsung. Unsuccessful experiments such as MySpace (Newscorp), Friends Reunited (ITV), Flux (Viacom)have proved that Television networks may not be able to compete in the social network space either.

Networks may not be interested to delve into technology-rich smart device market of Roku, Boxee, Apple TV or Google TV (The trend has been more of partnership. For example Roku has lined up extensive content from Dish, Fox and Disney in its platform).

While Time Warner cable and BSkyB are successful carriers, there is hardly any further space for another carrier in this competitive area (unless you are a Google). The question therefore is what is left for the TV Networks to create new leverage?

If the networks are to differentiate & grow, I believe they will eventually transform from a “TV only” industry to a “full service” content industry. The focus on investment will change from “buying another network” to investing on any content (News, article, Research paper, Video, Movie, Games, Blogs) within a genre.

This could eventually lead to restructuring for big media house which are today organized by media types  and not by content genre. However, one thing is certain that the first mover in this “full service” content strategy will have an advantage as important brands could be snapped up before competition gets a sniff or antitrust law kicks in to prohibit content monopoly.

One might ask as to why the Television Networks only while this theory holds good for any player in the content industry? Fact of the matter is that this is the only industry in the content space which has scale, which is still profitable, and who has the muscle power of a conglomerate. So anyone in the content industry, who could lead this vertical integration, it must be the Television Networks. The only other profitable and growth sector in content space is gaming but it is too one dimensional an industry to lead a vertical content strategy.