Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
|reply to FFH |
Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends
said by FFH:So the answer is obviously to institute caps? I meant, if bandwidth use is growing as Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T insist, then clearly capping monthly bandwidth and charging for people who go over that amount is the answer.
compiled the latest set of data concerning the growth of Internet traffic
Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.
Yeah, but the trust of the three above is questionable with AT&T bugging the government for teleco immunity from lawsuits, Comcast butting heads with the FCC and angry consumers over P2P throttling and invisible caps, and some of Time Warner Cable's decisions regarding channel packages.
|reply to Matt3 |
Caps and ridiculously priced overage charges speak volumes toward most ISP's future business model.
They found a way to increase the transfer speeds in a relatively inexpensive manner, but rather than spend the money on the infrastructure to support these increases, they would rather place a moratorium on the bandwidth consumption limits. They want to impose a freeze on the amount of data that can be transferred. It costs too much money in their eyes. And if they all join forces, this will be the accepted standard and it will not come back to haunt them.
They are trying to make it impossible for innovation to take root. They are crippling one type of service to keep another type alive. This is par for the course with these giant entities that have way too much control and influence in any industry. I wish it were easier to identify and eliminate these nefarious business practices that the RIAA and their ilk seem to employ after they gain too much control.
|reply to Matt3 |
Whether most people would choose to watch TV online is hard to say. It hasn't happened so far and even if everything was available in HD I don't know that would make many more people switch to watching online instead of on their TV. Online viewing is nice for short clips like Youtube carries, but most people will want to watch on their larger TV screen than their laptop or desktop computer has. (Yes, you can connect a PC to the TV but most people don't do that and aren't likely to do it in the near future.) People are creatures of habit and watching shows/movies on the TV is what they are used to and most aren't going to change that viewing habit, especially not if they have more than one viewing at a time.
In either case it probably doesn't matter because monthly usage caps are here and they aren't likely to go away. The caps will keep people from switching to watching large amounts of HD video online even if the cap would allow someone to do so. That's just because most people don't want to risk going over the cap so they will turn to other sources (watch live or recorded TV) instead of watching online.
Saint Louis, MO
not me 2
I think you are VASTLY underestimating the general public. PVRs are very popular, mythtv(among others) is a fairly common thing to see in people under 30 households. Since the computer is already hooked to the TV it usually does not take very long for these people to figure out that they can get media online. It may start out as just finding episodes that were missed for one reason or another, but it soon spreads. If you like one show from a pay channel (say Dexter). If you like a series from overseas (say Kingdom). After a while people soon start to ask themselves why they are paying $60+ for cable when they can get the same media online. While this has been climbing slowly over the last decade(I had my first pvr in 93) it has hit a huge growth spurt since DVRs have become popular (people do not like paying that monthly fee, just like when they got rid of cable boxes the first time).