Comcast, Time Warner Hope To Tame Internet Video > Internet video is going to start taming itself

Internet video is going to start taming itself

Paid, Free, or Pirated... It doesn't matter if there's a 250GB Cap to deal with.

reply to espaeth
"it costs money to develop content, and you can't keep funding that development when you simply give the content away online for free."

Hulu doesn't make or develop content, unlike the newspapers and hollywood. They place ads to make money, if they can't make that work, they should give the content back to iTunes (oh I just remember not so long ago NBC dude pulling out of iTunes and then saying how sucessful hulu was going to be. Perhaps people are willing to pay for content - I mean most tv shows don't show up on itunes for a LONG time, why not put them there for a season and see if what happened to the "free music on the net" happens to the tv content. And I disagree with your second post, occasional viewing and the caps - no, never, not. This article is not about occasional viewing. Plain and simple, don't advertise unlimited, when there is a cap, and don't cap legal stuff. If they can't figure out how to do that, then there should not be a cap AT ALL.

reply to espaeth

reply to LV1099246

Hulu is a joint venture of NBC Universal (GE) and Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp), with funding by Providence Equity Partners, which made a US$100 million equity investment and holds a 19% stake. ABC, Inc. (Disney) also owns a 27% stake in the venture.

People simply aren't going to watch programs online, even "free ones" if they're going to go over the usage caps.

- A "free" program will still cost you money if you have to pay an overage fee (Think Cogeco). A "paid" program will simply cost you what you pay for the program, on top of the "overage" fee.

- People won't watch this stuff at all, paid or free, if going over their cap means that their service is terminated as a result. A warning, followed by another within six months means a one year suspension in the case of Comcast.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army

reply to IPPlanMan
What makes these carriers think people won't "cut the HSI cord" as costs surpass cable tv charges by 20% to 200% with overage charges depending on your carrier. And why oh why has there been NO intervention by the FCC?
Sadly, I think I already know the answer to the latter.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

reply to IPPlanMan

reply to S_engineer
I think you'll see a web of consumer coercion happen...

You won't be able to get a "cheap" internet package anymore.

Want something without a 5GB cap from TW, you'll have to pay more, even if you don't want/need the speed.

Go over your cap? You need faster internet, that's the problem.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army

reply to espaeth
If it is such a low percentage of people, then why not just penalize them individually. Why would you spend money to put a capping service in place if MOST people will not be affected by it?

It's sheer nonsense. They cannot go backwards and cut people off, but they sure can stop them in the forseeable future. It starts off as not affecting MOST users, and ends up screwing MOST users. But by then, it will just be accepted because that's how things have been. The sheep can be gently eased into the pen, right. Well some of us aren't so blinded by the plan, and are expressing our disagreement with it.

cw

reply to espaeth

reply to wentlanc

reply to IPPlanMan

reply to badtrip

reply to MTBikerChris
It's clear to me that the less TV you watch and the more online content you stream/view, the more likely you are to hit the cap. I'm not sure why that's something that you're not getting.

Besides, you're just one person. Try that with 4-5 people on the same modem.

It's very easy to reach 250GB with roommates, housemates, children, etc.

I did the math in this post: »Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

----
If the shoe fits?

You conveniently disregarded everything else I said in my other posts about "regular" use.... which are all affected and limited by the cap...

I consider online backups regular use...
I consider streaming video from other sources besides Comcast regular use....
I consider uploading photos/videos regular use....

These are regular uses ... but you don't think so.

And then factor in the people that share my connection with me... and it becomes an issue. I'm not the only one using my connection, so it's very easy to get to the cap.

Split a 250 GB cap between 2 people on the same modem and it's 125 GB/month per person... and you have to split that between uploads and downloads, so it's 62.5 GB download and 62.5 GB upload.

Let's split it among 3 people: 83.3333 GB per person per month... and now it's 41.6666 GB upload and 41.6666 download per person per month.

It's fair to make the split evenly between uploads and downloads because some people do online backups and other uploads of movies and photos, etc.

Shall I keep going? How about we split it among 4 or 5 people.... Wow... that looks like an actual family! 250 GB per month for the whole family, with all of them potentially interested in different iTunes/Netflix content! And the cap hasn't moved upwards since it was introduced back in October of last year.

Let's add some more things that are part of regular use... Software updates!
Sometimes Apple updates are a few hundred MB... Multiply by 3, 4, or 5 and now we're talking noticeable numbers towards the cap.

You can't take Comcast movies with you on the go, unlike the iTunes rentals/purchases which you can, either on a laptop or an iPod/iPhone. So that's a feature. That's a feature that some people are willing to pay for.

It's not that you're doing anything wrong. You just can't believe that anyone would want to do anything else... or more.
-----
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army

reply to IPPlanMan

reply to IPPlanMan
Yeah... and see what I responded with pal:

"Look friend, if your use exceeds the 250GB cap that is known and currently in place, there is only a few choices you can make...

Re-evaluate your use and reduce it to acceptable levels - regardless of user count.

Discontinue service and start looking for a new provider.

Get a second account at your house.

I consider staying within the Terms of Service that I agreed to as "regular use"

It doesn't matter what you consider fair or normal or regular.
What matters is abiding by the rules set forth by the network owner.

Hope you figure it out! "

--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply to IPPlanMan

reply to JoesphM
See above... I did the math. Some people don't like how the math comes out, but don't blame me for that.