how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to mmainprize
Re: You may not like what you get I'm not sure I get your argument: you're already paying for access to content on the internet. Either that, or you have to look at some ads. Most music sites let you download tracks for 99 cents. Heck, even this site charges you an up-front fee for "premium" access. There is some truly free content out there, but they still need to pay the hosting bills through donations or whatever.
Or are you talking about copyright infringement? If that's the case, I have no sympathy for you.
A 2 GB cap in a competitive market (even a duopoly) would be suicide. 100 GB would be pushing the bounds. I'd expect to see these caps appearing in the 200-500 GB range. Remember the idea here is keep the internet "unlimited" for most customers and just punish the ones in the top 1%.
Incidentally, your 192 kbps stream, if you left it running 24/7 for 31 straight days would consume 61.3 GB of bandwidth. Significant, yes, but I'd be willing to wager it will come nowhere near whatever the limit ends up being.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
 a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
1 edit | RE: It's not just BitTorrent BitTorrent is just ashiny coating designed as an excuse/scapegoat for MSO's REAL problem: Competing content providers. And caps and throttling sure ain't the answer.
Throw in about 5-6 hrs of YouTube, Netflix, Xbox Live, a few WoW patches, Windows Update, the latest few Linux ISO's, Apple TV, iTunes..... need I say more? The list goes on and on. Throw in a network of 3 computers each doing the above activities at least twice a week each, along with IPTV/other forms of direct set-top box downloads, and you immediately go well over that 100 GB cap/month. And that doesn't even count that people expect hi-def 1080p streaming, given the monster speeds Comcast advertises.
The above uses might not be significant today, but hey, ten years ago, your internet was nothing more than text and a few ftp sites, and the occasional JPEG floating around. No one had iTunes-style access to MP3's in their wildest daydreams. Once people start getting set-top, IP-based systems like Apple TV or Xbox, they'll discover the benefits of having that merged with OTA ATSC broadcasts. With those two, and a little more user-friendliness and fewer restrictions, cable and satellite will have to stay WAY ahead of the game to keep up.
And btw, 500 GB will only be to sweeten the blow a bit. As demand for multimedia increases, cableco's will begin becoming harsher on many more, and step by step, they'll get to work eliminating the next "top 1%" of users. It'll turn into a demented wash-and-rinse cycle. Like it? | |
| reply to Corydon
Re: You may not like what you get said by Corydon:I'm not sure I get your argument: you're already paying for access to content on the internet. The point is that we are moving to TV by internet, but the ISP and all other are moving to charge you by the byte, so the HD DVD quality movie i want to watch is say 10gig in size if i want it, i have to have the highspeed connection $60, pay by the byte say $1 a gig, that is $10, pay for the rent on watching the movie say $8.99, pay for the middle men that distribute it say $5. Why would i even want it any more, if i don't want it any mor then why do i need the highspeed connection.
Unless the ISP, and content provides get a clue on what is happen and where we are going it will all end and it wount take long. | | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Corydon
said by Corydon:Incidentally, your 192 kbps stream, if you left it running 24/7 for 31 straight days would consume 61.3 GB of bandwidth. Significant, yes, but I'd be willing to wager it will come nowhere near whatever the limit ends up being. Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that the highest tier that Roadrunner was offering in their "test" was 40GB. | |
|
