drmorley
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-20
Park Ridge, IL
clubs:
1 edit | It's pretty sweet
There's no HD content being offered yet, but there's a crapload of shows from tens of networks available for download.
Yeah, I downloaded two seasons of Celebrity Mole.
I pity the fool that tries to use this service with Comcast HSI. Those invisible caps will be well within reach of average users once they start downloading HD content.
--
»tehblogs.com |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by drmorley  :I pity the fool that tries to use this service with Comcast HSI. Those invisible caps will be well within reach of average users once they start downloading HD content. I pitty them too..
I also find it a little odd that providers like DirecTV are trying to offset part of their business model to other providers. DirecTV should be operating their service through their own broadband network. Maybe they won't because they'd be violating their own FAP too quickly.. I smell irony here.
If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers.
I will make a prediction right now.. it's this type of actions from other providers which will push Comcast into a billing by the meg system. Mark my word. Don't think that DSL won't be too far behind either. Neither side - NO provider for that matter - is going to sit back and accept the cost for others to do business on their backs.
When you start pushing everything under the sun through the internet and the networks are impacted - someone is going to have to pay for it.
For the longest time I've never agreed with the SBC push to bill 3rd party content providers such as this.. but to be honest, the more and more this is happening, the more I agree with it.
Either the consumer will pay for this, the ISP will pay for this, or those that want to put their content on the lines will pay for it.. however, the ones that are pushing the content are making the money and therefor, I say let them pay the ISPs. That makes the most sense, business wise, anyway. If this model takes play, the consumer will ultimately win anyway.. let the corporations pay the corporations.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner
said by fiberguy :I also find it a little odd that providers like DirecTV are trying to offset part of their business model to other providers. DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers. I will make a prediction right now.. it's this type of actions from other providers which will push Comcast into a billing by the meg system. Mark my word. Don't think that DSL won't be too far behind either. This will just be one more thing that will drive all the ISPs to either implement monthly transfer caps or reduce the size of their caps. Or they will start charging for "tiers by bytes transferred" instead of "tiers by speed". |
|
JasonD
@comcast.net
| I'm all for byte billing if it's fair. Wholesale bandwidth pricing for the big guys is cheap (somewhere south of 5 cents per gig). If whimpy Canadian provider TekSavvy can offer increments of 100 gigs for $10.00 if paid up front, with overages at .25 a gig, Comcast could certainly do better.
.........But we all know that won't happen, so I'm not holding my breath for anything to change anytime soon. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| reply to fiberguy
Re: It's pretty sweet
Video on Demand has been the one (and only in my opinion) thing Cable has had over DirecTV. So I think that fact alone is motivating them to roll this out, more than the idea of offloading the cost of distribution.
And while I agree with parts of your opinion, I also view it as "you advertised it, now provide it" when it comes to the internet connection itself. AT&T has said absolutely nothing to me (their customer) about not using my 6000/768 lines to move data at 6000/768. They bill me for 6000/768, and therefore I feel they have no say in what I use that connection to download. (setting aside the arguments over pirated material)
That said, I am one of the beta testers, and even given the small number of us that were using the DoD service during it's beta only trial, not once did it max out my connection. Some speculate the DTV servers just didn't have the output bandwidth to do so, but with this now a national release, they should. I think DTV is probably limiting the speed, be it on their end or via a setting on the box. So while monthly caps could still be a complaint, there really isn't an argument of them clogging up the lines with a high throughput.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
·magicjack.com
·Optimum Online
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Road Runner
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy : DirecTV should be operating their service through their own broadband network. Maybe they won't because they'd be violating their own FAP too quickly.. I smell irony here. If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers. DirecTV doesn't have "a network" - the former DirecWay service was spun off over 18 months ago and is now called HughesNet, and has nothing to do with DirecTV.
Interesting that TiVO is looking at similar content delivery opportunities:
Rogers also sees great potential in developing the broadband delivery of content to TiVos, noting that almost 1 million TiVo users have connected their DVRs to the Internet.
“That will be the catalyst for the on-demand world,” he said, adding: “The cable industry made a bad bet… video-on-demand is a highly constrained infrastructure. We have 15,000 titles via Amazon, and they’re encoding thousands more each month. The video-on-demand infrastructure just can’t match that.”
»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6499350.html
Hmmmm. But since TiVO is in bed with Comcast and Cox, that's probably OK - unless of course you're using your TiVO to do content delivery via broadband using another ISP.....
As stated in the original article, and I agree - this will be a significant test of net neutrality. Precisely why I beleive that DirecTV will need to add some 'controls' to the product - specifying windows to allow/disallow downloads (only download after midnight and before 6AM) and bandwidth percentages/QoS limits (only use 25% of the max bandwidth I have available).
--
If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
Living in "an optimized state of temporary chaos" |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | reply to JasonD
Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner
Again, the only way that billing-by-the-byte takes off in the U.S. market is if every single ISP gets together and decides they're willing to implement an entirely new pricing scheme in unison while completely ignoring consumer revolt. An ISP would take major subscriber losses were they to single-handedly try to change the American pricing model to mirror Australia's just to please investors like Tom (HCT, Retire Rich, TCH, or whatever pseudonym he's using this month).
If Comcast started suddenly billing by usage, customers would flee to competing bell services. It would be marketing seppuku in an industry that's drilled unlimited use into the consumer consciousness.
I expect we might start seeing overage fees in extreme (400GB+ monthly) cases, but that will be the extent of this model in the U.S. I think this face-fanning, capacity apocalypse rhetoric is largely the territory of men in the industry eager to buy new boats. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
Wholesale bandwidth pricing for the big guys is cheap (somewhere south of 5 cents per gig).
The price you quote is for backbone transfer prices. It does NOT include the costs of upgrading residential distribution networks to handle much larger bandwidth loads. The cost to do those upgrades has to be included in the "per byte tiers". And it won't be 5 cents or 25 cents per gig. It would have to be closer to a $1/gig.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net | A file is a file is a file...
It's not "their" bandwidth; it's "my" bandwidth--I'm paying for it, so I expect to use it in any legal way I see fit.  |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| reply to dbmaven
Re: It's pretty sweet
See my post above. I don't think they are using any sort of download times window, but something is limiting the bandwidth. (not sure if it's lack of output capabillity, or on purpose though)
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
jgnj
@verizon.net | reply to JasonD
Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner
There needs to be a way of making sure that one of my kids does not click on a link that cost me $50 in bandwidth overages. |
|
kcblack
Premium
join:2000-09-11
Chicago, IL | reply to EverAndAnon
Re: A file is a file is a file...
couldn't have said it better myself. Looks like I'm going to have to buy that 750GB or 1TB external esata drive sooner than I thought...
Kevin |
|
IM1811
join:2001-08-20
Haverstraw, NY | reply to EverAndAnon
Correct, a file is a file is a file.
Let me check, there's 3 South Park episodes, 1 movie, and an ubercool Halo 3 screenshot on my 360, all HD. And I used my bandwidth to get it. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | "Fifteen dollars, please," says the troll under the bridge. |
|
Whiskey Tango
@ameritech.net
 from:
fiberguy
| reply to jgnj
Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner
Yes.
Don't let them click on any links. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to fiberguy
Re: It's pretty sweet
But the corporation is ALREADY paying the corporation. Or do you think Direct-TV is a free backbone provider? DirectTV can't SEND the data any faster than their pipes allow. In the end, there shouldn't be any change in the services/pricing, since everyone is ALREADY compensated for whatever bandwidth they are using.
What I would REALLY like to see, is DirectTV to use a torrent based system to provide the shows. That would allow them to provide MUCH faster bandwith, to many more people, at the same time. Guess what COMCRAP, your little sandvine experiment will come crashing to the ground, as net neutrality advocates will most CERTAINLY have a case to argue that the technology is interfering with LEGITIMATE traffic.
The ONLY solution, which is the one I advocate, is that the ISP's only SELL what they CAN PROVIDE. If comcast is incapable, or unwilling to provide the bandwidth THEY ARE SELLING, then they either need to lower the speed, OR upgrade their networks to provide WHAT THEY ADVERTISE.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner
How in the HELL do you get $1.00/GB pricing? HELL, if I BOUGHT a T-1, I could move a total of 950GB/month, for only $350.00 a month. THAT's 33 cents per GB, with a DEDICATED LINE. The SHARED medium, with a massively nice 10-1 ratio, means it would cost about .03 cents PER GB.
Your greed is betraying you. There is NO WAY they could ever justify charging MORE that .10 cents per GB. (and that's assuming they have a 1-3 ratio)
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| reply to EverAndAnon
Re: A file is a file is a file...
No you do not selfish one. You only had paid for access to a shared resource. When you pay for 1.5 or 10Megs you are sharing that line with other users. The network is made of two wires: tip and ring. Ones excessive download can effect the quality of the network for all users on the node. |
|
dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
clubs:
·VOIPo
·magicjack.com
·Optimum Online
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Road Runner
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| reply to Camelot One
Re: It's pretty sweet
We're talking about entirely different things.
D* is limiting the outbound bandwidth - kind of like a valve at a dam that only lets a certain amount of water out at a time. That may be so that they can simulate the expected download times when the service is generally available. Imagine if they didn't limit it now, and the few users that are using it got the full pipe ? Those users would be spoiled, and when the load ramped up, they'd be screaming about how "the downloads suck now - they're taking 15 times longer than they used to !"
I'm describing an enhancement on the HR2x receivers that allow a user to specify:
•when to allow DOD downloads by hours of the day
•how much of the target connection bandwidth to use. If I have a 6mpbs connection, I want to limit what DOD uses to one-third of that, or a max of 2mbps. Effectively, it's a form of QoS for the receiver. And since the download appears to be taking place over ports 80 and 8080 (straight old http or https), it would be difficult to throttle that in your router. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| reply to Richard B
Re: A file is a file is a file...
Networks aren't about good faith or being courteous to your neighbor. Why should a user be expected to act in good faith to a corporation that has proven time and time again that they cannot uphold the same moral standard. There are a lot of martyrs in this world today that are really just greedy reward seekers in disguise. There reward is their holier than though moral high ground soap box or whatever you want to call it. |
|
