When you pay your cable bill, you’re effectively paying for two things: content and delivery.

For example, I currently pay Comcast, as many other Americans do; is the largest cable company in the United States. Comcast has to pay for the content it delivers to me, with the exception of its own NBC products. The company passes these costs to me, along with the cost of delivery.

Cable companies have traditionally done very well because of their complete control of the delivery aspect of the transaction. Even if they have to pay for content, cable companies have long relied on the fact that content creators like HBO had to go through them to reach viewers. Until recently, there was no other option. However, networks have historically fought hard to increase their license fees, a fight that has mostly resulted in ever-increasing cable subscription costs.

Video streaming has begun to push the boundaries of this arrangement in recent years. Now Google is ready to discontinue the cable model entirely.

Following the lead of streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, Google has announced plans to offer a subscriber version of YouTube, which is currently fully ad-supported. The new paid model would not replace ads, but would allow users to pay a fee to avoid them. Google has said it will share subscription revenue with video creators.

In its simplest form, a premium YouTube service is to video what Google News was to news and information. Someone else spends the money to create content. Google then assembles that content and helps customers find it, while selling advertising around the content that costs Google nothing to create. The value that Google adds comes from promotion and distribution. Google shares a portion of the resulting advertising revenue with content creators at a fee set by Google.

This model is set to work for both video and information, with the added benefit that viewers annoyed by ads may be willing to pay directly for ad-free content; at least, this is the hope behind the proposed subscription service. The only missing link, from Google’s perspective, is that Google still relies on someone else, like Comcast, for example, to deliver its content to the viewer over the Internet service.

But Google is addressing that too, at least in some markets, by introducing its own broadband service, Google Fiber. While Google Fiber is currently only available in three major metro areas, plans to expand to five more are already underway and four more are in discussion.

I think we are seeing the start of a war between Google and the cable companies, especially Comcast. Google is one of the few companies that has both the resources to actually build its own broadband network from scratch and the motivation to spend the time and money doing it. If Google can deliver its content to customers faster and cheaper than Comcast, Google has every reason to make that happen.

Also, Comcast currently pays for almost all of the content it offers. Google will have a pool of YouTube content that it doesn’t pay for, except for a portion of the ad revenue it sends to creators. This library of content will subsidize Google’s purchase of content from branded providers. The excitement surrounding HBO Now, which will allow viewers to buy streaming access to HBO shows without paying for the cable channel, shows that content producers are increasingly willing to reposition themselves to attract viewers who prefer a streaming experience.

Google would no doubt be delighted to attract more users to its broadband service by offering standalone HBO packages. Separating subscriptions may not ultimately save consumers money, because each channel will be expensive independently. Already, viewers must increasingly consider which channels are available through which online service when deciding whether it’s worth opting out of cable. But disaggregation can go even further. Google may follow the model established by Apple’s iTunes Store, in which users can buy shows on an episode-by-episode basis if they prefer, paying only for what they watch. Google Play already offers this model for some shows; if it gains traction, Google may try harder to expand its offerings.

Like Google, content providers like HBO have good reason to try to bypass Comcast and other cable companies. They want to expand their audience, and viewers are increasingly unwilling to buy Comcast’s expensive TV and Internet packages. As the cable industry continues to consolidate in search of economies of scale, customers have expressed dissatisfaction with what they get versus what they pay for.

Cable companies aren’t just facing competition from Google. Another potential threat comes from wireless providers. AT&T, Verizon and their smaller siblings are already spending billions of dollars to upgrade their networks and are often the content delivery providers of choice for cord-cutters. Right now, wireless broadband is often too slow and expensive for high-quality video streaming. But given enough time and spectrum, wireless carriers, along with Google, can finally exert enough pressure to break the cable monopoly model.

The cable is not dead. But as the advent of Google Fiber, YouTube subscription and HBO Now indicate, it may well be past its prime.