Measuring Caps By E-Mails Sent Doesn't Make Them More GenerousISP PR departments apparently think you're very, very stupid ( old news - 02:23PM Friday Nov 07 2008) tags: competition · business · bandwidth · Op/Ed · networkingThe nation's three largest ISPs have started either testing or implementing caps and overage fees, not coincidentally as their cable TV offerings are being threatened by pesky Internet upstarts. Convincing customers that already very profitable companies need to completely revamp the US broadband pricing model is a tall order, so ISP marketing departments are using some ridiculous measurement criteria to suggest paltry caps are reasonable -- just as we enter the era of HD Internet video. When Rogers recently began charging overages, they sent out an e-mail informing customers, with pictures, that their new caps allowed 6,291,456 e-mails and 1,572,864 page views. Time Warner Cable's website sells customers on their low caps by suggesting that a 1GB limit gets you "70,000 e-mails, 34 hours of gaming or 1,344 hours of Web browsing." This week finds AT&T highlighting their generosity to the San Francisco Chronicle by noting their cap allows users to receive "75 million e-mails" or "60,000 high-resolution graphics or pictures." Those would all be relevant measurement criteria, were we all idiots. However in 2008, several of these low caps being proposed allow customers to view only a handful of HD films on tiers that still wind up costing nearly $40 per month. An entire home's worth of heavy gamers and TV watchers will find themselves bumping into many of these proposed caps. Measuring caps in e-mail is not only idiotic, it's insulting. AT&T is successfully convincing papers like the Chronicle that these caps are to protect ISPs against heavy users without a shred of real data. That's right, ISPs offer no raw data to prove congestion makes such a move necessary, nor do reporters ask for it. Consumers are supposed to believe, on faith, that instead of targeting just the heaviest users (who the ISPs admit make up a miniscule minority of their base) and pushing them onto business tiers, everyone must trade in their unlimited service for strict limitations. It makes absolutely no sense. Additional bandwidth costs a large carrier like AT&T between five and ten cents a gigabyte. Charging 10 times as much is information superhighway robbery. -Analyst Dave Burstein |
Well, at least for consumers. It makes perfect sense if you're an investor or exec whose job it is to think that already immense profits under a flat-rate pricing system just aren't good enough. At least until you realize that unless the entire industry moves to caps and overages en masse, you're driving customers to any uncapped competitors. It creates a new market differentiator for your competition -- a real advantage in a market now driven by long-term retention. Back to the caps, were they really aimed at gluttony, AT&T would simply follow Comcast's lead and implement a cap (in Comcast's case 250GB) that really only targets these problem consumers. Instead, AT&T is considering low caps on many of their slowest tiers. That's not taking aim at gluttons to protect the network, it's taking aim at average American networked households. More specifically, it's both monetizing and deterring use of content that competes with AT&T's own offerings like U-Verse TV, which won't count against your cap. Unfortunately for consumers, overage fees will probably become mainstream before writers and consumers figure out they're being conned. Many engineers repeatedly note that the bandwidth apocalypse carriers claim they're facing is a manufactured crisis, but they're frequently not heard over the din of ISP lobbyists, execs, investors or the uncritical reporters who parrot them. Meanwhile, P2P use on AT&T's network is actually dropping. As long-time industry analyst Dave Burstein notes this week, greed is AT&T's one and only motivation here: AT&T has limited Internet usage to about 90 minutes a day (7%) and is marking up anything over that by 1,000 to 2,000%. There is no economic or technical reason for this. The difference in cost between capped and unlimited service to a DSL carrier is a few dimes at most, possibly only pennies. AT&T's bandwidth cost has been going down for several years, and they have plenty of capacity to handle any likely load. Additional bandwidth costs a large carrier like AT&T between five and ten cents a gigabyte. Charging 10 times as much is information superhighway robbery. But by suggesting they're facing a non-existent crisis, and soothing consumers into thinking a 20GB cap will never impact them (after all, that's fourteen billion Facebook status updates), these ISPs are paving the way for a particularly ugly future. One where consumers are not only paying immensely more money for the same service, but one where carriers are able to ration your consumption of content they otherwise wouldn't profit from. Related:- Remember How The Net Neutrality Fight Began
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
- As Verizon Goes, So Goes Metered Billing
- Verizon App Store To Block Bandwidth-Intensive Apps
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- FCC Study: Open Access Lowers Prices, Improves Competition
- Neutrality Rules Won't Impact Investment
- Wall Street Journal Tries, Fails To Cover Metered Billing Debate
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   en102 Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: To the whiners... Sad thing is that a 1Mbps (lets just assume 1Mbps total) connection can do over 300GB/month... and that's assuming just one way traffic.
This has been manufactured to do 2 things: 1. Generate revenue (duh) by either charging for overages, or by having people 'fear' the cap, and move to a higher tier. This is similar to a voice plan on a cell phone.
2. End of the all you can eat methodology of bandwidth - all must suffer. These companies don't want you to replace their TV service with an online competitor. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|  |  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: To the whiners... said by en102 :This has been manufactured to do 2 things: 1. Generate revenue (duh) by either charging for overages, or by having people 'fear' the cap, and move to a higher tier. This is similar to a voice plan on a cell phone. 2. End of the all you can eat methodology of bandwidth - all must suffer. These companies don't want you to replace their TV service with an online competitor. They're guilty on BOTH counts. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  |   Smith6612 Premium join:2008-02-01 united state | Don't forget about Frontier! They're talking about caps around 5+GB as well. | |
|  |  |   rawwhide Zer0 Premium join:2000-09-03 Zero clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: To the whiners... For some folks with at&t it looks like it wont be much higher than that.
subscribe to Service on or after November 1, 2008, will have a monthly bandwidth usage allowance based upon the plan purchased as outlined below.
Basic: 20 GB/mo. Express: 40 GB/mo. Pro: 60 GB/mo. Elite: 80 GB/mo.
Customers who exceed usage in a given month, must pay $1.00 per Gigabyte (GB) in excess of the usage allowance. -- TinFoilers UFO Union of America!! TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101... | |
|  |  |  |  iotastorm
join:2006-01-24 Florissant, MO
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: To the whiners... What I don't get here is the assumption that 768 users won't download as much, you can still downloads as much. just do it at a slower rate. if someone @ 6 meg rate and someone @ 768 down load the same content, movies, cd's, knoppix dvd, whatever, pound for pound its the amount of data, just 6 meg rates do it faster. unless someone has some data that the 6 meg line user is a frothing at the mouth bandwidth hog. | |
|   manfmmd Premium join:2003-01-14 Earth clubs: | How about re-investing their gains in their infrastructure bolstering their available bandwidth, expanding their territory, etc. | |
|  |  |  |  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: How said by baineschile :I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want yes customers WANT caps. They've been clamouring for them. Go ahead at&t in my area we also have Charter. I'm sure eventually Charter may have caps until that happens is at&t thinks having cap can posisbly compete with a service that has no cap for the same price they're crazy. Even if you think you'd never use 80 GB of cap space the fact with the other guy you don't even need to worry about it is more than enough for people to switch. How stupid is at&t? | |
|  |  |   Matt Gone playing Dragon Age Origins Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by baineschile :I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... "The few that caused the cap?"
So, what Bittorrent warez kiddie do you know that went over 40GB and broke Time Warner's back? 250GB I can understand ... that's a reasonable number, but AT&T and Time Warner's caps are a money grab. Their caps are not because of bandwidth hogs, it's to stifle competing video services, finance upgrades in competitive areas (read TW vs FiOS competition or where AT&T has to compete with Comcast), and protect their lucrative VoD stream. | |
|  |  |  |   S_engineer
join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: How Its all a money grab, however it's also a precedent setting measurement. Once these caps are fully implemented and accepted, then there will be a further lowering of caps to coincide with more bandwidth usage. The ISPs will blame the usual suspects...pirates and p2p users as the problem. Buttressing that position by the ISP will be the MPAA/RIAA complaining about lost revenues to our congress and other morons that don't see the bigger picture.
The developers of ARPA net must be ecstatic with this result! -- "For duty and humanity!" - Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress | |
|  |  |  |  mrvid
join:2007-06-19 Levittown, NY
4 edits | said by Matt : ...Their caps are not because of bandwidth hogs, it's to stifle competing video services, finance upgrades in competitive areas (read TW vs FiOS competition or where AT&T has to compete with Comcast), and protect their lucrative VoD stream. Remember www.mlb.com (for those who check out the ballgame online)..
I I could be wrong though i'm pretty sure I am right. As far as I know, the idea there was that shows could be seen in out of market games only, the thinking to me was that if it was offered in every market, their wouldn't be a point of offering it on cable in the first place; that is why they had it that way. | |
|  |  |   manfmmd Premium join:2003-01-14 Earth clubs:
| said by baineschile :I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... As plenty of people have pointed out, with the increase of services like YouTube, Netflix, etc. ISP's will have to invest more in their infrastructure to keep up. That's part of growing the business and growing your customer base. | |
|  |  |  |   sapo The Internet is Down Premium join:2002-09-16 Sacramento, CA
| Re: How said by manfmmd :said by baineschile :I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... As plenty of people have pointed out, with the increase of services like YouTube, Netflix, etc. ISP's will have to invest more in their infrastructure to keep up. That's part of growing the business and growing your customer base. The issue is, slowed down growth coupled with consumers wanting more for the same price. This limiting will give them that increase in profit that consumers don't want to pay directly with higher monthly fees. | |
|  |  |  |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: How said by sapo :The issue is, slowed down growth coupled with consumers wanting more for the same price. This limiting will give them that increase in profit that consumers don't want to pay directly with higher monthly fees. The problem is that this type of plan may end up turning around and biting them in the ass. As folks now have to worry about avoiding overages, people will temper their usage and may eventually switch to the lower speed packages. It may also create the problem where people use up to their limit and stop, taking what they paid for and stopping their usage.
All of this creates a climate where the demand for broadband will be stymied because people will feel they have to ration usage. This will hurt existing services, like VoIP, and will kill new services and business opportunities, like cloud computing (subscription to application services, like Microsoft is considering again) or video conferencing (if it every takes off again).
Strict bandwidth caps and overage charges that are grossly inflated are BAD for the internet as a whole. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   sapo The Internet is Down Premium join:2002-09-16 Sacramento, CA
| Re: How Yes, our hopes as consumers will be a push by the high bandwidth applications companies to promote big caps if unlimited is not possible. Depending on the demand of the high bandwidth applications the effect you described of people lowering their tiers may be in fact opposite with people raising their tiers. During all this one needs to contemplate the average users usage which is fairly low(DSLR members tend to not qualify) so this will most likely be a very effective way to curb costs. Restrictions always limit potential growth, there is no doubt about that. But wherever there is a problem innovation generally sprouts. Who knows...
I personally am on your side, I don't have much interest in protecting big corporations but their positions are understandable. I hope these super restrictive caps fail and that this is not a mark for restricted broadband. I like using my internet connection in the way I want to without any big surprises. | |
|  |  |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
| said by baineschile :I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... they would make even more money and need to cap less if they didnt pay execs with seven figure pay. there is no reason for someone to make that money just to sit in an office tower and look pretty to investors who dont know the execs take their advice from far lower paid people. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|  |   sapo The Internet is Down Premium join:2002-09-16 Sacramento, CA | When you can make more with the same, the reasoning is obvious. | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by manfmmd :about re-investing their gains in their infrastructure bolstering their available bandwidth, expanding their territory, etc. that doesn't play well with their manufactured "bandwidth crisis". the name of the game here is bandwidth scarcity - you manufacture a fake scarcity, imply the whole network will fall apart if they don't slow the "bandwidth hogs" down, then slide in the caps that will "save the day".
and it's a twofer: by not upgrading or upgrading slowly, they eventually will have congestion as usage grows, which they can point to and say "see, there's not enough bandwidth!", further promoting the scarcity meme. | |
|  |   Ha
@comcast.net
| How will they make up the cost of losing Cable TV subscribers.
Give it five or ten years and Cable TV will be a dying breed.
Consumers hate the model and are salivating for a better options. If they are smart now a better option is available now, as you can watch almost anything online for free. I just watch MSNBC live coverage of the election two nights ago online on my 42 LCD TV (here is my setup if interested »techavid.com) mac mini connected to it. | |
|  |  |   Matt Gone playing Dragon Age Origins Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by GOLFnSUN :implementing caps and overage fees, not coincidentally just as their cable TV offerings are being threatened by alternative HD video And why shouldn't they protect their video income - so that the content providers grow rich while their business goes down the tubes. If the HD video content providers don't like it, let them sign contracts with the ISPs or build their own fiber networks to the home. The HD content providers are already paying for massive pipes to the internet and if they don't have a direct peering agreement with AT&T or Comcast or Time Warner, someone either pays for the peering or it's a mutually beneficial agreement.
I'll say it again, THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING PAID for the traffic. They are trying to double dip and also snuff out any competition to their video business. Hell, getting paid twice while eliminating your competition so you don't have to compete sounds pretty damn good to me.
Luckily, the incoming administration is going to put a stop to all this "by the business and for the business" foolishness and return the country to what it should be, "by the people and for the people."
As for building their own pipes, what a crock. When someone does try to, what happens? They are sued into oblivion. I cannot begin to imagine the brass set it takes for a business to sue a municipality for providing a public works project. | |
|  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by Matt :The HD content providers are already paying for massive pipes to the internet and if they don't have a direct peering agreement with AT&T or Comcast or Time Warner, someone either pays for the peering or it's a mutually beneficial agreement. I'll say it again, THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING PAID for the traffic. They are trying to double dip and also snuff out any competition to their video business. Hell, getting paid twice while eliminating your competition so you don't have to compete sounds pretty damn good to me. The cost of building out consolidated capacity in a data center or two isn't even remotely close to the cost of building out a DOCSIS plant. You'll spend several orders of magnitude more for DOCSIS delivery to the home, and still end up with less overall bandwidth than is possible at a hosting / content data center.
By stating this I'm not suggesting that content providers should be paying access providers to offset these costs. I do, however, believe that the consumer will (and probably should) be billed a higher level because the delivery method is so ungodly inefficient. There's no way you can take a broadcast medium like cable or satellite TV, convert it to unicast streams where the infrastructure has to scale linearly with every single new viewer, and expect that somehow at full scale this is going to be cheaper.
The consumer costs are going to be higher because of the vast inefficiency of delivery in combination with sharply higher network buildout expenses at the edge. This says nothing of the fact that if people are going to be doing wholesale conversion from broadcast to IPTV, we're only going to get a few percent of the existing viewership converted before we'll run out of edge capacity due to the limits of current broadband access technology. | |
|  |  |  |   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by espaeth :By stating this I'm not suggesting that content providers should be paying access providers to offset these costs. I do, however, believe that the consumer will (and probably should) be billed a higher level because the delivery method is so ungodly inefficient. There's no way you can take a broadcast medium like cable or satellite TV, convert it to unicast streams where the infrastructure has to scale linearly with every single new viewer, and expect that somehow at full scale this is going to be cheaper.The consumer costs are going to be higher because of the vast inefficiency of delivery in combination with sharply higher network buildout expenses at the edge. This says nothing of the fact that if people are going to be doing wholesale conversion from broadcast to IPTV, we're only going to get a few percent of the existing viewership converted before we'll run out of edge capacity due to the limits of current broadband access technology. Very well put. And it is this unfortunate FACT that many here REFUSE to accept. And the loss of TV viewers will reduce revenues while costs will not drop commensurately. Then, prices will increase drastically for HSI unless caps and overage charges are in place. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by espaeth :There's no way you can take a broadcast medium like cable or satellite TV, convert it to unicast streams where the infrastructure has to scale linearly with every single new viewer, and expect that somehow at full scale this is going to be cheaper. This is a technical problem, that requires a technical solution, not a business solution.
It is time for providers and the network engineering community to seriously sit down and work out the issues with multicasting and getting it up and running. This could address some of the issues with getting HD video on the network.
Additional solutions are working with content providers to put the content close to the edge via the increase usage of caches.
Providers should stick to being IP access providers and do it well. Content providers should stick to being content providers and doing it well. When companies try to branch out and do everything, they loose focus and do everything half-ass. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by espaeth :I believe we call this "reinventing the wheel." After you invest all of the time and money into distributing the content via multicast, you still have the same real time video streams that you had when you started with traditional broadcast options. Not even close to reinventing the wheel.
Multicast deals with part of the problem, live streams such as internet radio and live video.
How about caching the content really close to the edge. Let's have boxes with big-ass hard drives that can capture content from a broadcast stream so the end-user can watch it whenever they want. We can call these things Digital Media Capture Appliances.
On second thought, we might need a new acronym. So, instead of smart-ass answers, how about using that energy toward coming up with an engineering solution? What's your solution? -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by NetAdmin :Not even close to reinventing the wheel. Multicast deals with part of the problem, live streams such as internet radio and live video. We already have a system in place to stream hundreds of live TV feeds; they're called channels.
said by NetAdmin :So, instead of smart-ass answers, how about using that energy toward coming up with an engineering solution? What's your solution? Build on existing DVR technology with network augmentation, not replacement.
1) Capture all primary content on a DVR that grabs content from satellite, cable, or broadcast media sources.
2) Have a request system such that if a sufficient number of people request retrieval of content, it is streamed down on a channel and populates the hard drive of the DVR. The request system would mostly be used to recall back episodes of shows, missed episodes, etc.
3) For anything that isn't popularly requested, download that content via the network.
Network access can be an incredible tool for improving media consumption, but only if we're smart about it. The key sell of any network access is it provides "any-to-any" connectivity. Technologies like VoIP are a natural fit for network access because it's still based on random point-to-point conversations.
The overwhelming majority of our TV viewing today is based around consistent time schedules: watching live sporting events, live news programs, or regular recurring entertainment programs. These are all "one-to-many" flows that make for an awkward fit in IP networks. Sure, you can make it work, but it's the least efficient method of accomplishing the task. In terms of solving the "I think I'm paying too much for TV, so Internet delivery will be cheaper" problem... for the first few folks it indeed might be cheaper, but it's not a sustainable solution long term. The cost model turns upside down with even minimal loading of such a solution. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? espaeth
"The overwhelming majority of our TV viewing today"
I think that is radically changing. The only reason cable (for lack of a better term) is providing DVRs is that for years people (a small majority admittedly) were using PVRs. Before that they were using VCRs. People want to watch things when they want to watch them, not whenever it is scheduled to show. How that content gets delivered is in question. Until cable offers to play what the customer wants, when they want it, at a reasonable price(say $10 for a season of show X) there will be some form of downloading. Maybe dropping the number of channels(in the current sense) down to say 20 and moving the rest of the channels over to a system similar to pay per view(except by season). Think of it as true ala carte(by the show). If cable cannot accomplish this then I think a large majority will drop cable TV and put that money into a larger capped HSI tier. Spending $100 on HSI(say 5 meg) without cap is going to(if it is not already) suit many peoples lifestyle much better than spending $45 on HSI(capped) and $55 on cable (whatever the actual numbers are) and having to watch only when something is being shown. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by Lazlow :"The overwhelming majority of our TV viewing today" I think that is radically changing. I think the perception of people on this site is radically changing, but I don't think the habits of the average TV viewer is really changing all that much. The population at large is slow to adopt digital delivery.
Take digital music; you can't watch anything on TV without seeing an ipod commercial now. Retailers like Target are stocking all kinds of mp3 players, some for as low as $20. Despite the fact that digital delivery is everywhere for music content (including iTunes for the multitude of ipod owners), 85% of music sales in the US is still in the form of physical compact discs. Source: »online.wsj.com/public/article/SB···526.html
There also hasn't been a recorded major shift in online video consumption according to statistics from ComScore published in September. This report shows:
* 75 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video. * The average online video viewer watched 235 minutes of video. * 91 million viewers watched 5 billion videos on YouTube.com (54.8 videos per viewer). * 51.4 million viewers watched 400 million videos on MySpace.com (7.8 videos per viewer). * The duration of the average online video was 2.9 minutes.
So while the average online user is watching just over 4 hours of video per month, the average traditional television viewer is watching approximately 5 hours per day according to Nielson Media Research. Also, watching a bunch of short (2.9 min average) clips isn't even remotely close to TV viewing habits.
If you read the opinions on this site it sounds like everybody is getting Roku boxes or downloading movies on their Xbox360/PS3 or watching hours upon hours of Hulu. People love to argue that changes in broadband usage policies aren't about infrastructure limits and are simply a way for broadband providers to limit video competition. The problem with this argument is, the stats show that "competition" is barely a rounding error in relation to their core video viewership.
said by Lazlow :Spending $100 on HSI(say 5 meg) without cap is going to(if it is not already) suit many peoples lifestyle much better than spending $45 on HSI(capped) and $55 on cable (whatever the actual numbers are) and having to watch only when something is being shown. I agree the economics could maybe play out on this, but the problems of delivery and the amount of work required to make this happen would need to be solved. Right now I set my Dish DVR to record shows I want to watch (including local news / local sports), and I can watch them with a click of a remote anytime in 1080i on a nice 58" screen from the comfort of my couch. In the past I've had to track down shows that didn't get recorded (due to storms or power outages) from the net, get them converted into something I could stream to my PS3, and watch them that way -- but that's a lot of work. Unless an online delivered solution offers the same quality and convenience of existing DVR/traditional delivery options, it's not going to catch on en-mass as a replacement for standard TV consumption. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? Espaeth
On the digital music front; I think people are still concerned that they will either have to store (long term) it locally or risk the initial provider no longer providing access(which I recall happened earlier this year). So a lot of people bite the bullet and buy the CD, and then rip it to their mp3 player. There is also the issue of most mp3 providers not using a high enough bit rate.
As to the current video consumption; I think you missed the point. Compare all those numbers you provided (for online consumption) to what they were two years ago. Now project that rate of growth forward two years. I think the cable companies have and that is why this change (caps).
The fact that you use a DVR and a PS3 just proves how close you already are. The difference between running a DVR hooked to your big screen and a PC hooked to your big screen is a very small jump. Once you have the PC tied directly to the TV them the format issues drop out of the equation. Most popular (and a lot of not so popular) TV shows are currently available online in Xvid format that is somewhere between 480i and 720p in quality (roughly 350meg per one hour episode). A lot of content is/has been available in 720p(roughly 1.2gig per one hour episode). In the last six months even 1080p(not i) has begun to show up for some media. Personally, while I can tell the difference(on a 40 inch screen) between the typical Xvid format and the 720p stuff, it is not significant enough (for a TV show) to warrant the 3-4 times increase in file size. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by Lazlow :As to the current video consumption; I think you missed the point. Compare all those numbers you provided (for online consumption) to what they were two years ago. Now project that rate of growth forward two years. I think the cable companies have and that is why this change (caps). 63 million unique viewers for YouTube in 2006.Source: »www.comscore.com/press/release.a···ess=1023
91 million uniques in September -- it hasn't even doubled.
said by Lazlow :The fact that you use a DVR and a PS3 just proves how close you already are. The difference between running a DVR hooked to your big screen and a PC hooked to your big screen is a very small jump. It's easy to think of it as a small jump, you're just replacing one box with a video output with another, right? The problem is, the UI for PC video sucks from a couch viewing standpoint. The only widely available commercial remotes are for Microsoft Media Center, you have to fight video card driver issues and ensure that you get a video card that not only supports HD copy protection over HDMI but also does hardware VC1/H264 decoding so it can keep up with 1080p output. Even then, you still need to jerk around with overscan settings to scale the picture to fit your TV because video cards are designed for computer monitors, not the LCD / Plasma displays that you pick up at an electronics retailer. The existing BluRay / HD-DVD software options absolutely blow, be it PowerDVD, Nero Showtime, or WinDVD. There's also the issue that most PCs are damn ugly in the scope of an entertainment center unless you spend a lot of cash for a really nice media center case. You also have the noise factor of the PC unless, again, you spend a lot of cash building a quiet system.
said by Lazlow :Most popular (and a lot of not so popular) TV shows are currently available online in Xvid format that is somewhere between 480i and 720p in quality (roughly 350meg per one hour episode). A lot of content is/has been available in 720p(roughly 1.2gig per one hour episode). In the last six months even 1080p(not i) has begun to show up for some media. Personally, while I can tell the difference(on a 40 inch screen) between the typical Xvid format and the 720p stuff, it is not significant enough (for a TV show) to warrant the 3-4 times increase in file size. That's the thing... I plunked down the cash for a 58" to watch stuff in HD. While there's a lot of content available in highly compressed xvid, or 720p mkv containers, why would I go through all the effort to track down that content when it doesn't look nearly as good as the 1080i feeds I capture I my Dish DVR via the OTA input? I highlighted each show I wanted to watch when I got it, told it to record all new episodes, and it has faithfully done just that for a couple years now. Online video isn't even close to getting to this point yet. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? Utube
2006: " In July 2006, YouTube served nearly 3 billion video streams worldwide, "
2008: "# 91 million viewers watched 5 billion videos on YouTube.com (54.8 videos per viewer)."
Not quite doubled in two years, and that is just utube. Was Hulu, etc around in 2006?
I guess I use MythTV, a usb remote, and HDMI(1920×1080) output from the PC(no overscan). I put together a very small PC with a 45wattX2 and gigE. My dvd player makes more noise starting up than the PC. Cost me less than $400 and I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All storage is done on my house server in the basement. I run Linux so the video card copyright thing is not an issue. You do have a point that I do not currently know of a service that you can get a seasons worth of content in a one click solution. Blueray is just beyond my budget at this point, so I do not have a player. Take a look at the compression rate of your DVR(yes it does compress too) and compare it to the 5gig/episode available(again I have no idea how these two compare). Personally I have a hard time justifying watching House in Blueray(or even 720p, 1.2gig) vs Xvid(350meg/episode). Now Jeremiah Johnson (or something similar) I could see the point. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by espaeth :We already have a system in place to stream hundreds of live TV feeds; they're called channels. Yeah, but "channels" don't translate over very well in IP networks. The closest thing you can get to channels with IP, while still using bandwidth efficiently, is to use multicast (why does the site think that word is misspelled).
Even in your example, multicast can reduce network usage. Imagine that a good 10 or 20% of the users on one node or DSLAM want to have the same episode on their DVR. When the scheduled distribution of that show occurs, it would be done via multicast to all of the DVRs. So instead of multiple data streams, you have only one data stream. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by NetAdmin :Yeah, but "channels" don't translate over very well in IP networks. The closest thing you can get to channels with IP, while still using bandwidth efficiently, is to use multicast (why does the site think that word is misspelled). That just calls out the even bigger problem -- we have more existing infrastructure for channel capacity than we do for IP capacity. I can get a couple hundred channels via Dish or DirectTV, with at least 30-50 viewable HD channels. Multicast is a solution, but still not the solution. Just look at all the issues ATT is having with U-Verse; only being able to watch 2 channels within a house because that's all the bandwidth you have sucks. I run a single household and my Dish DVR still records 3 feeds at times (2 SAT + digital OTA) to get everything I'm interested in watching. Assuming 5mbps per HD feed, that'd still require 15 mbps of IP capacity just to watch those 3 channels.
said by NetAdmin :]When the scheduled distribution of that show occurs, it would be done via multicast to all of the DVRs. So instead of multiple data streams, you have only one data stream. Why not do the same thing on a traditional channel by playing frequently requested programs in a loop sequence on a "request" channel like they do with PPV? The selection criteria could be: You select a program that is not live, the first thing the appliance does is check the schedule to see if it will be on anytime soon, if it is not in the schedule then it resorts to retrieval over the the network. If enough people select content for retrieval, it can be scheduled to be aired on the request channel and the updated guide information is pushed down to the appliances. With DVRs being networked, this can be implemented on existing technology with very little engineering rework. | |
|  |  |  ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16 Stratford, CT | If you dont have caps and the ISP's start losing incredible video revenue, there will be massive price increases for internet service FOR EVERYONE. These companies still have to build , maintain and improve their networks... and that takes revenue. | |
|  |   Hazy Arc
join:2006-04-10 Greenwood, SC | This is akin to being charged for having a friend send a bottle of wine over to your table while at an expensive French restaurant...your friend is paying to send you the wine and you're paying to receive it. | |
|  |  |   JackKane
@depaul.edu | Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? Actually, with the scenario being in the same restaurant, it would be equivalent to your friend paying for the wine and you having to pay the corkage fee because you did not buy the bottle directly from the restaurant. | |
|  |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO
| I think they need to split the TV from the HSI. There is just to much conflict of interest. HSI is being messed with in the interest of TV. With a lot of people dropping pay tv (due to economy, digital OTA, etc) it is not right to charge more for HSI (or limit it) just to protect a business that should not be involved. | |
|  |  |   rawwhide Zer0 Premium join:2000-09-03 Zero clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by Lazlow :I think they need to split the TV from the HSI. There is just to much conflict of interest. HSI is being messed with in the interest of TV. With a lot of people dropping pay tv (due to economy, digital OTA, etc) it is not right to charge more for HSI (or limit it) just to protect a business that should not be involved. A dieing business model at that. I never sit and watch live TV anymore. I either watch programming online or on the DVR. -- TinFoilers UFO Union of America!! TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101... | |
|  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by GOLFnSUN :And why shouldn't they protect their video income - so that the content providers grow rich while their business goes down the tubes. If the HD video content providers don't like it, let them sign contracts with the ISPs or build their own fiber networks to the home. Look up "peering". Providers like Akamai and Youtube already have contracts in place with most providers. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|  |   yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH
| said by GOLFnSUN :implementing caps and overage fees, not coincidentally just as their cable TV offerings are being threatened by alternative HD video And why shouldn't they protect their video income - so that the content providers grow rich while their business goes down the tubes. If the HD video content providers don't like it, let them sign contracts with the ISPs or build their own fiber networks to the home. Mainly because these companies are letting their data services suffer so that you're compelled to purchase their video services. By denying your only access to alternative sources of content, they constitute a monopoly. | |
|  |  amungus Premium join:2004-11-26 America clubs:
| Is this 1992?
Just because people have figured out how to use the internet for more than text and graphics doesn't mean anyone has to cry about it.
We gave these companies money to deploy more fiber. They did. We gave them more money to buy newer, nicer routers. They did. We gave them more money to buy newer switches and make their networks operate better, they did.
What the frak are we supposed to do with that technology now that it's here... nothing?
This perception that anyone needs to hold back from using the internet for these reasons is disgusting.
If ANYTHING, I'd rather all these ISPs had STOPPED increasing their "Speed" years ago if this is what they were looking to do with it. I'd rather have 1.5Mbps 100% of the time than 50+Mbps >7% of the time.
What a joke. This whole thing just makes me sick. | |
|  |   mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| Lose money? They're "losing" money? I don't call billion dollar profits "losing" money.
ISP = Internet Service Provider. If they don't want to be an ISP, then they should just get out of the business. If they do want to be an ISP, then they should actually do that, regardless of whatever else they may do, what kind of other businesses they may pursue. Their contract is with their customer, who is the one who decides what sites to visit, files to download, etc. etc. etc.
But, hey, why shouldn't they extort more money out of their customers. Shareholder. | |
|   CrazyT
join:2008-10-08 Irving, TX | How much do i use? Is there a forum or can someone tell me how I can measure what my monthly GB usage is? my home ISP is AT&T | |
|  |  Tigerpaw509 Premium join:2006-07-15 Huntley, IL | Re: How much do i use? DU meter works great.I got 5 computers and a tivo and have a total 139 gigs since 8/3/2005 | |
|  |  |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO | Re: How much do i use? I hope that 2005 was a typo. Roughly 39 months to use 139 gigs? That is roughly 120megs a day. I have days when I use more than that just in email. Why do you even have internet? | |
|  |   AnonNutter
@kaballero.com
| The true cost of bandwidth quote: AT&T has limited Internet usage to about 90 minutes a day (7%) and is marking up anything over that by 1,000 to 2,000%. There is no economic or technical reason for this. The difference in cost between capped and unlimited service to a DSL carrier is a few dimes at most, possibly only pennies. AT&T's bandwidth cost has been going down for several years, and they have plenty of capacity to handle any likely load. Additional bandwidth costs a large carrier like AT&T between five and ten cents a gigabyte. Charging 10 times as much is information superhighway robbery.
 This does not take into account the cost of maintaining the infrastructure, the cost of power, rent of facilities, payroll, etc... etc...
The big costs are not bandwidth charges, but selling bandwidth does have to cover the big costs.  | |
|  |  See 12 replies to this post | |
  Nightshade sic semper tyrannis Premium join:2002-05-26 Salem, OR
1 edit | The comparisons would be fine if... all we did is send pictures, surf the web, and send emails to our friends once in a while.
Basically use the internet today as it was used ten plus years ago and the comparisons would be perfect.
Now the question is, do we know anyone who uses the internet today as it was used ten years ago?
I sure as heck don't know anyone. My elderly next door neighbor views streaming content on the fox news network website.
AT&T and all the other ISPs who use this tactic really need a reality check on what the internet is really all about in this day and age. The internet ten years ago is vastly different, content-wise and capability, than the internet we know today.
All they are doing is justifying their low caps by using the most basic and simplest forms of internet traffic and reality be damned. -- Be careful who you vote for, you just might get it. | |
|  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: The comparisons would be fine if... said by Nightshade :all we did is send pictures, surf the web, and send emails to our friends once in a while. No shit they think it's 1998 not 2008. or something. | |
|   viperpa33s Why Me? Premium join:2002-12-20 Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| I agree totally I agree that the criteria they use to justify how great caps are is down right insulting. To say that it enhances a users experience is insulting as well.
This will reduce costs for the ISP but it will also reduce revenue. The first instinct a person will do is use the internet less because they are afraid they will go over the cap and be charged more. This could mean less revenue from advertisements and other things. On the other hand the ISP's hopes and wants you to go over that cap.
This is why the ISP's are giving the false picture of how many websites you can see and emails you can send. With the caps they don't want to make it look like your getting less, that's why they are putting out these big numbers. Any computer illiterate person would think that what the ISP is offering is a great deal. -- Got Change? Better hide it before Obama taxes it! | |
|   RRMAN Premium join:2007-04-02 Cleveland, OH
| What it is It is what it is. TV is meant to watch HD content not a PC. Gaming consoles are for games not a PC. A PC is meant to be just that a PC. Buy your games and play. But do you need to play 24/7? If you do then you need to look at your life and not blame companies for your downfalls. If you don't like it then form your own company and we will quickly see you fail since you will be giving everything away. And making $0 profit. Let us not forget who we can thank. All the P2P users are to blame mostly for these caps. -- Two people shorten a road. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
  ATTmistakes
@ameritech.net
| ATTmarketingmessedup I think also some time back, when there were more CLECS that competed in residential DSL, the bells drastically UNDERCUT the monthly price to prevent losing customers. Now they realize their mistake and instead of raising prices (which is more preferable to a cap), they switch to a cellular usage based system, which you and I know is crap.)
I'd rather pay 10-25 dollars higher per month than live with caps. Really it's a principle thing, even though we may never exceed the caps, I just don't want to worry about it.
And caps also hurt the fledgling VOD and other demand type or backup services. | |
|   rahlquist Redeye
join:2001-10-30 Villa Rica, GA
| AT&T's caps are AT&T's caps are probably low because if everyone maxed out at comcast quantities they couldn't get the data over to the NSA fast enough. -- Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com | |
|  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Lots of flaming, not much else 1. You don't refute any of the data AT&T puts forward. You may not like the fact that they measure transfer by emails or picture views, but at least allow that people do do those things over the Internet, and that AT&T's point is valid (that people who do only those things don't come anywhere near hitting a cap).
2. "An entire home's worth of heavy gamers..." online games do not use a lot of bandwidth. Yes I've seen complaints that WoW puts out updates that are large, but that is not a gaming issue. WoW just needs to figure out how to send incremental updates, which they'd better do before customers start complaining about overage charges.
3. Cries of outrage about a 20GB cap on a 768kbit tier are pretty silly. Why would anyone who is into downloading HD movies get that slow a service? 5GB at 3/4 of a megabit per second is over 8 hours, with no overhead and everything running at max rate. Pay a little more and get a higher rate, plus the cap to go with it!
4. "AT&T has limited Internet usage to 90 minutes a day" --- huh? How could they have come to a conclusion like that? Oh I see. 90 minutes of complete maxed out downloading at 10mb/sec, on a daily basis, would about get you to the 150GB cap. Which doesn't exist yet except on a trial basis. A less polemical statement would be "AT&T is trialing limiting you to an average of 5GB/day over each month." The way it is put makes it sound like you can only connect to the Internet for 90 minutes a day. This is an outrageous distortion, equivalent to saying "Obama supports explicit sex education for kindergartners" (which was actually stated in an ad, BTW... I'm not making this up). It is sort of technically true but strongly implies the opposite of the real truth.
In summary, there seems to be two main arguments you're making:
1) There is no economic need behind caps.
2) The caps don't allow users to download HD movies every day.
To me these are strange arguments.
1) AT&T is a business. They are allowed to choose how they go to market (outside of antitrust violations, which are not in play here). You get to choose whether you buy their service as offered, or not. Whether or not a charge can be directly tied to a cost is really not the issue.
2) You do not have a right to unlimited transfers which would allow you to download HD movies every day for no extra charge. I know this sounds stupidly obvious when I say it, but I really think people think they do. I can't otherwise explain people's emotional reaction when they find out that they may not be able to download as much as they have been allowed to -- like some innate human right is being taken away. Geez, get over it, and get your movies some other way. There's plenty of options -- satellite, cable, DVD rental/purchase, going to a theater. | |
|  |  See 9 replies to this post | |
 cpsycho
join:2008-06-03 Orangeville, ON
·Wightman Telecom
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| (old) cables and telcos a complete utter joke How far we have come in this day and age. The internet has been "THE" tool for the last couple of decades. It started with mostly porn but has evolved into a universe on its own.
This new universe threatens these large company's business model, more compitition poping up everywhere. Divide and counquer they will try, they will fail. Reason; the company im with does not have caps and they do not throttle. They have their equipment in bells CO. They are also running fiber straigt to the home in some locations(I like this idea very much).
I think their should be government funding in helping these smaller company's to try and build the same network. Cable TV has had its day in the sun. But as we all know the sun sets so a new day arises, a better brighter day. Most of these companys now have had government funding to help grow. I think these smaller company's should have the same right. Also another idea is; to let the government build the network and rent it out to these smaller company's. Then poor rogers and bell will be up the creek without a paddle.
I think the UN should get involved and make a net neutrality constitution. To make sure that this very important tool never losses its purpose in bringing the world together.
My net is used for so much more then surfing and email. I use it for everything I do, almost like its a utility. I use it to shop, to do business, to stay in contact with people, to play games and to download different things. I hate TV, the shows are boring and there is more repeats then anything. I dont want cables and telcos telling me what I should be doing. I pay for my service and I will use it how I see fit.
Its not our problem they are hemoraging cash like crazy with no one buying ad space on their tv programming. From what I have watched(usualy just to catch news). I see rogers commercials more and more and more. Just to fill in the blank space. I have family and friends noticing this trend as well.
The internet itself competes against cable and telco company's and they just noticed a year ago. What a joke these companys are. | |
|  |   sw3090cd
@rr.com
| Re: (old) cables and telcos a complete utter joke Well I think you are a massive idiot.
said by cpsycho :How far we have come in this day and age. The internet has been "THE" tool for the last couple of decades. It started with mostly porn but has evolved into a universe on its own. This new universe threatens these large company's business model, more compitition poping up everywhere. Divide and counquer they will try, they will fail. Reason; the company im with does not have caps and they do not throttle. They have their equipment in bells CO. They are also running fiber straigt to the home in some locations(I like this idea very much). I think their should be government funding in helping these smaller company's to try and build the same network. Cable TV has had its day in the sun. But as we all know the sun sets so a new day arises, a better brighter day. Most of these companys now have had government funding to help grow. I think these smaller company's should have the same right. Also another idea is; to let the government build the network and rent it out to these smaller company's. Then poor rogers and bell will be up the creek without a paddle. I think the UN should get involved and make a net neutrality constitution. To make sure that this very important tool never losses its purpose in bringing the world together. My net is used for so much more then surfing and email. I use it for everything I do, almost like its a utility. I use it to shop, to do business, to stay in contact with people, to play games and to download different things. I hate TV, the shows are boring and there is more repeats then anything. I dont want cables and telcos telling me what I should be doing. I pay for my service and I will use it how I see fit. Its not our problem they are hemoraging cash like crazy with no one buying ad space on their tv programming. From what I have watched(usualy just to catch news). I see rogers commercials more and more and more. Just to fill in the blank space. I have family and friends noticing this trend as well. The internet itself competes against cable and telco company's and they just noticed a year ago. What a joke these companys are. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  jca2050 Premium join:2002-02-04 Lewisville, TX
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I say again. Time Warner is the main competition for FiOs in North Texas. How does Time Warner expect to compete with FiOS with caps like that? You know that Verizon is going to have an advertising field day, citing that not only does Time Warner offer inferior speeds but a usage that cap where you will get charged up the wazoo if you go over. | |
|  |  |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: I say again. said by jca2050 :Time Warner is the main competition for FiOs in North Texas. How does Time Warner expect to compete with FiOS with caps like that? You know that Verizon is going to have an advertising field day, citing that not only does Time Warner offer inferior speeds but a usage that cap where you will get charged up the wazoo if you go over. Effing A. That is exactly how this should be resolved. And, trust me, if that works, and Verizon kicks butt, things will change. Money talks. | |
|  |  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| said by jca2050 :Time Warner is the main competition for FiOs in North Texas. How does Time Warner expect to compete with FiOS with caps like that? You know that Verizon is going to have an advertising field day, citing that not only does Time Warner offer inferior speeds but a usage that cap where you will get charged up the wazoo if you go over. TW will lose customers left and right. And that's when these idiotic caps go away. IF they needs to have caps there are SMART ways of doing it. A flat monthly cap doesn't really solve the problem. Until people reach their caps they can still max out their connection which would still cause problems. Then if everyone has maxed out thie caps now no one is using their lines. Also overage fees even at outrageous prices won't stop anyone that has the money to pay.
All these ISPs could have cap say between 8 AM to 11 PM when traffic would be highest at say 5 GB per day. If you go over then your speed gets knocked down to 756 kbps until 11 PM. From 11 PM to 8 AM no cap. This would be a smarter way of managing bandwidth. | |
|  |  |  |  |  SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by Mr Matt : The government has two choices: Declare fees for downloading data illegal or require that any software or hardware that access the internet include features to prevent data from being downloaded through the customers port without first advising them of the amount of data to be downloaded and give the customer a change to cancel the download. You're asking a lot. The Congre$$ional whore$ will never understand how bits/bytes of data are transferred because most of them can't even grasp how to use email. We have a bunch of technologically illiterate Ted Stevens' making policies about topics they know absolutely nothing about.
BTW - You can download many free programs -including a software firewall- that will monitor exactly what transmits and/or receives data using your Internet connection. But again, the average person wouldn't know this so your argument is quite accurate. | |
|  |  |   pspcrazy Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06 San Diego, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: What's worse then caps... I'm glad your not the only one that noticed that. I've noticed that shillers have came here surprisingly enough just around when talks about caps had started on here. I don't believe it's a coincidence either.
Companies are literally sending employees on here to sell their hacked up and smaller product for more cost, and they know the best way to do that is to trick the users into believing that less is better, and judging from what im reading on other major sites as well people are basically starting to believe those shillers. Sucks but marketing has many forms.
We can cut our connections but the only way to stop this nonsense is literally massive riots just for internet. I'm totally serious about it as well, like what anon did for Scientology we have to do for caps. | |
|  |  |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: What's worse then caps... said by pspcrazy :We can cut our connections but the only way to stop this nonsense is literally massive riots just for internet. I'm totally serious about it as well, like what anon did for Scientology we have to do for caps. Wow. Massive riots just for internet?
Y'all are really out there. | |
|  |  |  |   pspcrazy Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06 San Diego, CA | Re: What's worse then caps... No I'm being realistic. It's about the only way anything will change in america, if people think just by depending on a guy they voted for america will change, then there being fools. | |
|  |  amungus Premium join:2004-11-26 America clubs:
| Thank you Karl For posting Dave's comments along with the article:
"AT&T has limited Internet usage to about 90 minutes a day (7%) and is marking up anything over that by 1,000 to 2,000%." I was going to make this same point when the next article like this came up.
Doesn't matter how they try to play it, these are the facts, and they smell rather rotten.
This has little to do with technical restraints, and much more to do with being pissed off that people have figured out how to use the internet for more than just text and jpegs. Got news for you, it's not going to suddenly go back to 1992 anytime soon, it's only going to grow further. | |
|  nitzan Premium,VIP join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| This is just a glimpse into the future. A future where...
You will be forced to use your ISP's TV offering. You will be forced to use your ISP's VoIP service. You will be forced to download only content your ISP profits from. You will not have a choice, nor will you be able to do anything about it when they price-gouge you (or worse).
The US is becoming a monopolized third world country when it comes to ISPs. If you think this won't affect you in the long term, you're so very wrong. -- Nitzan Kon, CEO Future Nine Corporation | |
|  |   S_engineer
join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: This is just a glimpse into the future. Your right, but I'll give you an added prediction. Your future is right around the corner. The set up is in place. Misinformation campaigns about bandwidth availability in sequence with a possible new broadband policy will put your insights in our living rooms. Tax payer subsidized deployment of a network run by theses clowns. And since it's tax payer subsidized, they will be forced into new govt requirements as well as a new taxation format, all to be passed to the consumer!
My Ms Cleo moment. -- "For duty and humanity!" - Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress | |
|  |  |  |  |  nitzan Premium,VIP join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Re: This is just a glimpse into the future. They won't need to. They'll simply "cap" you to a level your VoIP and Video over IP is unusable.
Today it's a choice between an ISP that caps or one that doesn't. In a few months it'll be a choice between an ISP that caps more or one that caps a little less. When (not if) all the ISPs implement ridiculously low caps you won't have a choice or competition to take your business to. -- Nitzan Kon, CEO Future Nine Corporation | |
|  joe642
join:2008-08-14 | caps suxors To quote one user from before this is the end of the internet as we know it. Makes me glad I am moving to asia this month I will take china telecom any day now even though I had bad experiences with them in the past | |
|  |  watts3000
join:2002-01-21 Birmingham, AL
| Re: caps suxors This whole cap thing is to kill inovation on the web as we know it. We are in 2008 but yet these companies want to take you back to 1998. I wonder sometimes how things go over in this country I don't understand why the government is not getting into this basically telling the isps to back off and to upgrade there networks. Hell they want to have senate hearings on steroids why not broadband. Our entire national broadband is a joke and will continue to be so until the fed gets envolved. Than again I forgot I'm sure the ISPS are paying off people in Washington | |
|  |  |  cpsycho
join:2008-06-03 Orangeville, ON
·Wightman Telecom
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: caps suxors I emailed the science and tech minister in canada. I hope he might do something he probably will not do anything. But apperently my email is being passed onto him so atleast he will get to read it.
I tried to keep it as simple as possible as well since he is a bio tech. | |
|   mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| What these ISPs are really saying... We know the monthly fees that you customers have been paying us for many years now have been used to build, maintain, and improve our network--that those fees have effectively paid for our network to even exist, but even though our profits have been huge, we're not making enough money to pay for that fifth luxury car and that fourth house--in the south of France, so we want to start charging you more for your Internet access (even though the cost to transport those bytes across our network has actually decreased year by year--no, we're not giving out any rebates). We also don't want you using your Internet access to compete with our other offerings--TV/video and phone service. Why?... because we can (and you're stupid). | |
|  |   Chasmn84
@comcast.net
| Re: What these ISPs are really saying... This is not what they are saying... ISPs are simply finding that they are having multiple products that are conflicting with each other. why pay as much for tv if i can download the movie online? Now the more you pay the higher cap you will have. Just like if you added HBO to your package the more channels you will have to watch. | |
|  |  |   mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: What these ISPs are really saying... I think you're a little confused as to which point of view you're trying to support. Your HBO analogy isn't even relevant. Now, if you added HBO at its flat rate and still had to pay for each movie you watch on one of the the HBO channels, then that would be analogous; with HBO you're paying for the content, not the delivery of the content.
Any customers willing to pay repeatedly for something they've already paid for pretty much deserve what they get--shafted. Stupid is as stupid does. | |
|  | |  |
|
|