|reply to baineschile |
I have an Xbox360 with a Live Account and Netflix on it, a PC with a Steam account that I have bought all my games through (up to 36 games total), catch up on my shows online through the hosting channels website (in HD), I also have a couple people in my house playing online video games pretty much all the time, ontop of that we are constantly streaming music from a couple different online radio stations. How much bandwidth do I use? No idea but I can bet it's more than 40GB. I think it would be safe to say I use well over 100GB because the internet is being utilized all the time. Now I can't imagine any the other house like mine in my neighborhood isn't using the same amount as me or close to it. We are a society that has grown accustomed to having everything at the click of a button and all of sudden people decided to take that away. Now we will have to check to make sure before we click that link or watch that video, or buy another video game/movie.
psx_defector and baineschile, your messages couldn't be anymore of a sale pitch towards tiered bandwidth if you tried. Yes, there are codecs out there but we're streaming the material not creating the DivX files. So you're pointing your argument to the wrong person, in an essence you are blaming the providers of the material. You are blaming them for hogging all the bandwidth. You're blaming Netflix, Youtube, Microsoft, Steam, iTunes(where you can get more than just music), Online Radio feeds, etc for using all the precious low-cost bandwidth. Boy if that isn't hindering innovation I don't know what is. I guess we're just a bunch of bandwidith hogging pirates.
It's an old story here...and as always, the "truth" is in the middle.
Any usage number that one might quote will be too little, too much, or "just right"...based on the individual! Nothing new there, right?
I do not intrinsically have an issue with some kind of sliding scale based on usage, as long as those very light users pay much less than they pay now..."average" users pay about the same, and those "heavy" bandwidth users, pay a reasonable amount more. The issue, which IMHO is totally fair based on the indutry's track record, is "Will this be done in a non-rapacious way?" Frankly, if the answer is yes, then I would have no problem. Unfortunately, that has not been the paradigm that these companies have operated by...
Now, I am not so sympathetic with those who just download tons of stuff constantly, not even ever using or viewing but a fraction of what they download, because in some cases, it is the acquisition of content in and of itself that is their real "goal"! I think that there is a reasonable placement point for caps in a properly tiered system. For example: What is wrong with a price point with say a 100gb cap, and the next "level" at 250gb (and so on)?
I think that a legitimate problem is that some "average" users are paying too much, while some very "heavy" users are paying too little. It does not bother me that someone may want to download tons of content...not at all! But, I do think that they should be carrying a correspondingly larger part of the voerall cost.
Deeds, not words