Beans
join:2005-07-16
united state | iTunes I would love to see Apple do a streaming service for a monthly fee. Maybe with AT@T. |
|
|
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... They have low caps for "bandwidth management"...wonder if their streaming service will count against their cap or will they tacitly admit the only reason for the caps is to protect their video business from competitors like Netflix, Apple and Amazon. |
|
| I will have to check it out... Currently they want between $4 and $9 for onDemand movies, which is quite ridiculous and funny. They can't compete with Redbox with that rate in my opinion as there are so many of them around one surely is within a couple minutes making the $2+ dollar savings worth the trip. |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Awesome, so another average-at-best try at something that is destined to fail...all the while allowing AT&T to bring up my rates in the near future? |
|
| Welcome to the neighborhood... Can you spell "me too" boys and girls? ...I knew you could. 
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" |
|
 ShadowMastrMaster Of All Shadows
join:2001-09-01
Fort Pierce, FL | reply to skeechan
Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... said by skeechan:They have low caps for "bandwidth management"...wonder if their streaming service will count against their cap or will they tacitly admit the only reason for the caps is to protect their video business from competitors like Netflix, Apple and Amazon.
My thinking exactly. They keep shouting about how there is a bandwidth shortage, and the world is ready to collapse because we all use too much of it, yet they still introduce more and more ways to use more bandwidth at faster rates. Nothing oxymoronic or coincidental here, just business as usual for them.
They bank (literally) on the average consumer not noticing the layers of wool being pulled over their eyes, and they are very successful at it.
I used to be sure that people would eventually wake up and see all this for themselves, but It's just going further and further with no end in site. Seems people would rather get another job to pay for all this instead of realizing they shouldn't have to pay so much for so little.
--
Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell
I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to skeechan
Because those bits and bytes are in short supply and you know paying for them will allow them to generate more. |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Not going to catch on It's not going to catch on with much more limited device support than Netflix. |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | That, and U-Verse sucks in the first place. |
|
| reply to skeechan
Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... There are no bandwidth caps being enforced for U-verse internet; therefore, there is nothing to explain. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to skeechan
said by skeechan:They have low caps for "bandwidth management"...wonder if their streaming service will count against their cap or will they tacitly admit the only reason for the caps is to protect their video business from competitors like Netflix, Apple and Amazon.
Dense much?
AT&T's service is not traversing the public internet.
When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery. |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Can't wait to see how overly compressed the video streams will be. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| reply to elray
Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... Dense much? BW from the CO or other AT&T infrastructure to the Publik Internetz is DIRT CHEAP, pennies per GB yet they charge $10 for 50GB, whether you actually use all 50GB or not. So whether it is locally cached or not makes no difference in the cost to deliver a streamed program. A 4GB HD program is pennies and subscribers already pay to deliver the content.
So obviously their overage fees have ZERO to do with managing network traffic and everything to do with protecting video revenues. Use our service, not theirs and we do that by pricing competitors out of the market through the use of caps and unjustifiable overage penalties. |
|
| reply to elray
Really? So they are only trying to stop congestion between them and companies like level 3 that has much more bandwidth then they do? I assume they are doing this at Level 3's request right? So when I am using net traffic that never leaves AT&T's network, that doesnt count too?
said by elray:When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery. We are going with the traversing public internet argument again huh? I think really what you are saying by your very dense statement here is that it is OK to violate net neutrality and to only deliver traffic for "free" that you have extorted money from the company for.
How about we flip this and say when AT&T, Verizon and the CableCos decide to start paying Netflix to put caching services on their networks to assist them in reducing their transit cost (if they have any) and to provide a superior service to their ISP consumers?
What consumers of AT&T, Verizon and the CableCos want falls on them to provide as the ISP. It does not fall on the object of those consumers desire to make sure the ISP will provide them the intertube. That is not the internet, which those ISP's are a part of and are the service they are selling. If they want to break off and create their own portal with their own walled garden so be it. But be sure they speak with AOL before doing so to see how that will go. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| What Netflix ought to do is drop AT&T ESPN3 style. Have AT&T, no Netflix for you and AT&T customer will cancel right and left. Google should do the same. Facebook should do the same. No content provider should tolerate AT&T extortion attempts when it is AT&T's customers who have already paid for and are requesting the content be delivered.
Without content, AT&T subscribers don't need AT&T's service. |
|
| reply to skeechan
said by skeechan:So obviously their overage fees have ZERO to do with managing network traffic and everything to do with protecting video revenues. Use our service, not theirs and we do that by pricing competitors out of the market through the use of caps and unjustifiable overage penalties.
Let's try this again. There are no bandwidth caps OR overage fees being applied to U-verse internet. |
|
| out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers u-basic or higher required. meh. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Pointless I cant get Uverse TV.
I have Uverse DSL, so why wont they let me get the streaming service??
No one is going to buy this as the people that would cannot.
I thought ondemand is already included with Uverse TV.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | reply to chgo_man99
Re: out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers Which makes no sense.
If you cant get Uverse TV but have UVerse internet then why would they not offer this to you??
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
·T-Mobile US
| I can get TV, but Im saving money for vacations instead. I don't watch a lot of tv or even rental movies so for me paying >$50 for something I dont use a lot doesn't make sense. While they offer a local package for $20 a month, you still have to pay for installation if you go for lowest package, extra $10/m for HD and this basic package is a lot slimmer than Comcast's, it even won't include Comedy Central. |
|
