clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy For the first time, I'm finding myself agreeing with your post. However, you're not considering one important fact about this plan and that is that I don't think they are attempting to make this a linear transmission method. Or put another way, it isn't real time.
If that's the case, then do not underestimate the amount of programming that can be pushed while people are sleeping or at work. In that sense, the efficiency of the system is quite high because it'll do a lot more work when network utilization is lowest. Furthermore, this is the ideal ala-carte TV transmission system.
Certainly, you are correct in that it pushes the transmission costs directly upon the viewer. But those who are interested in receiving their programming in this fashion are already prepared to pay the costs. Those who are not will still rely upon OTA.
As far as oversubscribing, it's time for consumers and broadband ISPs to get with reality. Nothing on this planet is unlimited and there is no reason to think broadband internet access is somehow exempt from that. If you want a fat pipe to grab your entertainment, then you should be prepared to pay for it. However, broadband ISPs should also realize that they can't use this as an excuse to prop-up older business models that might see a decline in revenues from competing transmission systems. It's not unlimited, but it's also moving toward becoming a commodity. There is no reason to cap someone at 250 gigabytes of transfer per month for $80 and then start billing $2 for each additional gigabyte. |
