said by S_engineer :

Its irrelevant if they're paying ISPs or not because of the disproportionate amount of bandwidth to be used. This was the excuse for imposing caps. If ISPs decided to market additional bandwidth to an enterprise like this it would undercut their argument about a bandwidth crunch.

said by tiger72 :

1. I guarantee Onlive isn't paying for a consumer "unlimited" service. They are probably doing what other broadband-centric models have followed (Steam, Netflix) by negotiating low per/GB pricing. To put it more simply, they are paying for their consumption on their end.
2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant.

said by TKJunkMail :

But Onlive's business plan isn't reflecting the reality of broadband use and the caps. You can talk all day about how ISPs shouldn't have caps(and that is refusing to accept reality too), but they do, and Onlive is doomed if they don't take that in to account. Maybe they are waiting for the idiots in the government to change the rules for them.

said by tiger72 :

2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant.

said by Skippy25 :

First off you are a shill

said by Skippy25 :

First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water.

said by S_engineer :

you lost any credibility with the sentences that followed this remark!

said by compton :




No, he hasn't lost any credibility with that statement. The reason why is every time a new service is announced there is a group of people here who take the position that the service is unfair to the ISP. When these same people time after time take very simplistic positions that favors the ISP at all cost then a reasonable conclusion could be that they are shill.

said by S_engineer :

Or one could draw the conclusion that they (or he) understand the cost to businesses. These unforeseen events are game changers for businesses that have a model in place.
The simplistic view of this is unfortunately the prevailing one these days. "I want what I want when I want it" with no consideration of the ramification for these desires. If you've got a argument with his position then make it...otherwise you just look like a shill for the ignorant!

said by tubbynet :

of course, this is purely speculattion based on what we think bandwidth usage will be. who knows if they have some way of transferring information hither and yon without intensive bandwidth usage.

The company puts the data usage at just under a gigabyte per hour of high-definition gaming. The only Internet application with comparable consumption is high-definition video, like movies bought through iTunes, watched on Netflix Inc.'s streaming service, or downloaded from file-sharing networks.

A service unveiled this week aims to stream video games over the Internet, setting gamers on a collision course with cable and phone companies that are seeking to curb growing demands on their networks by charging for heavy usage.

For instance, Comcast Corp., the country's second-largest ISP, limits usage to 250 gigabytes per month, and cuts off repeat violators. OnLive says its users would need to play around the clock for nearly 12 straight days to reach that.

However, other Internet service providers are trying lower limits, then charging extra for those who go over. It's not clear which approach will win out, but subscribers on low-limit ISPs could quickly find themselves paying far more for their Internet connection, particularly since many gamers spend more than 20 hours a week on a game.