said by NOZIREV :

"the service will count against the company's 250GB per month bandwidth cap" why should you have to pay for it twice

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.

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.

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.

said by Cheese :

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.

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.