how-to block ads
|
NOZIREV
join:2008-07-10
New Bedford, MA | i dont agree with that "the service will count against the company's 250GB per month bandwidth cap" why should you have to pay for it twice
--
"Citius, Altius, Fortius" [Faster, Higher, Stronger] | |
|  Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: i dont agree with that It's just the same as everywhere else. You pay for the movie and then you pay for the means to deliver it.
If you consider this to be like Amazon, you pay once for the media (the book, song, movie, whatever) and once to get that media from Amazon to you (shipping charges, bandwidth, whatever).
Not too hard to figure out.
Besides, as Karl pointed out, if their content didn't charge against the cap, Netflix, Apple and everyone else trying to break into this business would cry foul. And the FCC would probably back them up.
Personally, I'd guess that Fancast will end up much like their Video On Demand service. Plenty of free (ad-supported) content, some perhaps only accessible for free to Comcast TV subscribers, with the newest stuff being pay-per-view.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: i dont agree with that said by Corydon  :It's just the same as everywhere else. You pay for the movie and then you pay for the means to deliver it. If you consider this to be like Amazon, you pay once for the media (the book, song, movie, whatever) and once to get that media from Amazon to you (shipping charges, bandwidth, whatever). Not too hard to figure out. Besides, as Karl pointed out, if their content didn't charge against the cap, Netflix, Apple and everyone else trying to break into this business would cry foul. And the FCC would probably back them up. Personally, I'd guess that Fancast will end up much like their Video On Demand service. Plenty of free (ad-supported) content, some perhaps only accessible for free to Comcast TV subscribers, with the newest stuff being pay-per-view. I would agree with the first part of your comment if the file was being downloaded from a 3rd party, but to download it from the company who is also providing the internet to your location, and them charging for the movie/tv show and then to have it COUNT AGAINST the download caps? That's ridiculous. | |
| | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: i dont agree with that said by Cheese :I would agree with the first part of your comment if the file was being downloaded from a 3rd party, but to download it from the company who is also providing the internet to your location, and them charging for the movie/tv show and then to have it COUNT AGAINST the download caps? That's ridiculous. You do realize that your comcast.net stuff, your email, accessing your own personal web page hosted on mysite.home.comcast.net -- all of this applies on the cap.
The $1.99 per episode or 3.99 per movie that you would pay is not only to pay for Fancast's bandwidth (which amounts to a minor fraction), but to pay the license fee charged by the studios for PPV, and -- of course -- margin.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| |
NOZIREV
join:2008-07-10
New Bedford, MA
·Comcast
| i still dont agree with "Not too hard to figure out." and it has nothing to do with figuring it out but thanks for throwing that in there. besides karl has enough brown noses.
--
"Citius, Altius, Fortius" [Faster, Higher, Stronger] | |
| |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by Corydon :Besides, as Karl pointed out, if their content didn't charge against the cap, Netflix, Apple and everyone else trying to break into this business would cry foul. And the FCC would probably back them up. I don't see this in his article anywhere...
And second, why would Apple or anyone else care if it went against CC download caps or not? They aren't in that business. | |
| | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
2 edits | Re: i dont agree with that said by Cheese :said by Corydon :Besides, as Karl pointed out, if their content didn't charge against the cap, Netflix, Apple and everyone else trying to break into this business would cry foul. And the FCC would probably back them up. I don't see this in his article anywhere... And second, why would Apple or anyone else care if it went against CC download caps or not? They aren't in that business. It's in this part...said by Karl's article... :
If you're curious, Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas tells me the service will count against the company's 250GB per month bandwidth cap -- a move that certainly saves them from loads of grief from network neutrality supporters. The cap is part of Comcast's network management efforts, so they probably do have to apply it fairly so that services like iTunes, NetFlix, Hulu and Amazon can compete with Fancast for your business.
But keep in mind that the 250 GB cap will only be enforced upon you if you are also one of Comcast's top 1,000 users systemwide (the Invisicap). If you've used 250 GB, and want to watch a movie, I'd say watch the movie. For the past year or so, the people getting the calls have been running north of 400 GB.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | |
NOZIREV
join:2008-07-10
New Bedford, MA
·Comcast
| Re: i dont agree with that i dont think that you are understanding what i am trying to say it has nothing to do with you subscribing to tv or not it has to do with paying for the 250 gb's and also paying for the movie that you are getting from them. if you are getting the movie from them and paying for it then it should not count against the cap as well but if you were getting the movie from someone esle then its free game.
--
"Citius, Altius, Fortius" [Faster, Higher, Stronger] | |
| | | |
|
