newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2014-Dec-24 2:41 pm
Pretty uselessCan you even finish watching a season before you hit your cap? /sarcasm | |
|
| |
Re: Pretty uselessIf it's being streamed directly from Comcast, I doubt they will count it as usage. | |
|
| | |
Re: Pretty uselessStreaming from the Comcast App does count against your monthly internet data usage. I live in the Atlanta market where this ridiculous policy is being "tested". Comcast is really screwling us all. I | |
|
| BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
to newview
Most Comcast markets do not have a cap. | |
|
| | newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2014-Dec-24 10:31 pm
Re: Pretty uselesssaid by BiggA:Most Comcast markets do not have a cap. Yet ... Caps for everyone are definitely coming I would wage they will be coming like a freight train once the Net Neutrality and Comcast/TWC merger issues are resolved. quote: Comcast plans data caps for all customers in 5 years Cable company already enforces 300GB limit in seven states
» arstechnica.com/business ··· e-500gb/ | |
|
| | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Dec-24 10:58 pm
Re: Pretty uselessThey can deploy them in some southern markets because of low U-Verse penetration and lack of any other competition.
They can't deploy them in Philly, DC, Boston, or (if they get TWC) NYC due to FIOS, as their churn rate would hit the roof, and Verizon would go on a ruthless advertising campaign against them, and probably double their marketshare. Even CT is shaky with about 50% U-Verse penetration and one system partially overbuilt.
Anywhere else where there is a credible fiber competitor or overbuilder would be bloodshed for Comcast if they deployed caps, and could even be a big win for an other unappealing U-Verse product if it caused AT&T to back off of their as-yet-nonexistant 250GB cap. | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to newview
not if its bitstarved which will most likely be the case. and it will look like shit on larger sets which most 4k sets are. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
46436203 (banned)
Member
2014-Dec-25 12:49 pm
Re: Pretty uselessShould still look better than the 1080i MPEG-2 trash that Comcap shits out via their cable system.
Netflix 4K looks better than Blu-ray - although it obviously isn't as good as a Blu-ray 4K would look.
Try watching 'The Blacklist' via a Cumcast NBC affiliate on a 4K TV and then watch that same show on Netflix 4K and the difference is astounding.
Internet streaming video has finally beaten cable and OTA high definition television. Cable companies better start innovating fast because their flood of over-compressed, ad-infested MPEG-2 HD channels are going to get left in the dust by 4K HEVC Internet streaming content. | |
|
| | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Dec-26 7:06 pm
Re: Pretty uselessNot as long as the content is locked up on cable, or you have to subscribe to it via cable to stream (like if WatchESPN went 4K). The content and availability are much more important to the mass market than quality anyway. HBO offering standalone is huge, but sports are still tied up on cable. | |
|
| | | Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX |
to 46436203
It's very simple, the 4k and beyond transition is going to be the most seamless one yet. All companies like Netflix will need to do is to have higher resolution options. No need to wait for standards to catch up. | |
|
| dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
to newview
Nah, they'll let the link saturate so you can't even get a reliable stream.
see: HBO Go for an example of how they're going back to the magic saturation issue. Even though comcast now works with HBO go on roku, they completely screw it up and cause packetloss to break the streams. | |
|
rit56 join:2000-12-01 New York, NY |
rit56
Member
2014-Dec-24 2:51 pm
Net NeutralityIt should also be noted the content being offered is only from NBC and USA Network which are both owned by Comcast. | |
|
| |
Re: Net Neutralitysaid by rit56:It should also be noted the content being offered is only from NBC and USA Network which are both owned by Comcast. Yep. You beat me to it. | |
|
Packeteers Premium Member join:2005-06-18 Forest Hills, NY Asus RT-AC3100 (Software) Asuswrt-Merlin
|
FCC should make a ruleyou can only call it 4K is the source material was provided in 4K, so none of that 1080p rescaled crap 4K owners will have to suffer with for the next few years 4K Blu-ray content won't be available for another year. | |
|
| |
Re: FCC should make a ruleIt's crap anyways because 4k TV's in residential settings is stupid.
Once people start blowing through the cap because of 4k they will be more than happy to put even MORE 4k out on the net for people to download. It's completely a win/win for comcast here in Tennessee where they DO have usage caps. | |
|
| | Fir_Na_TineTime to get riggity riggity wrecked son Premium Member join:2001-01-03 South Jersey |
Re: FCC should make a rulesaid by davidc502:It's crap anyways because 4k TV's in residential settings is stupid.
Once people start blowing through the cap because of 4k they will be more than happy to put even MORE 4k out on the net for people to download. It's completely a win/win for comcast here in Tennessee where they DO have usage caps. Why is it stupid to have 4K TV's at home? The picture is incredible when viewing 4K. And yes I am an early adopter of one. We were do for a new TV so I sprung for a 4K 65 inch Samsung . The PQ is great on regular 1080P stuff since it upscales it nicely and stunning watching 4K. True there isn't much 4K content yet, but Samsung did throw in a free 1TB hard drive with movies and documentaries in 4K, with option to download more. Netflix has some 4K and Amazon also is starting to offer some. I think the hope is that 4K will someday be the mainstream cable TV offered but I realize its got a way to go. I know comcast would have to do lots of up grades as well. I believe 4K will take hold more so that 3D did since you don't need glasses and the PQ is outstanding. | |
|
| | | Packeteers Premium Member join:2005-06-18 Forest Hills, NY Asus RT-AC3100 (Software) Asuswrt-Merlin
|
Re: FCC should make a ruleFir - I'm glad you enjoy your investment, but personally, I can't see how anyone is going to use 4K beyond their computer desk (I'm waiting to buy a 40" FreeSync this Summer to replace my 6yo dual 24" 2K's) It's 2015 and I'm still perfectly happy watching every video in 720p, it's only games and desktops I need more detailed. There are demographics to be considered - the very generation that can afford to upgrade home entertainment systems (again this past decade) to 4K, are also the most prone to presbyopia. | |
|
| | | |
to Fir_Na_Tine
said by Fir_Na_Tine:Why is it stupid to have 4K TV's at home? It's been documented all over the web that no one can physically see the extra resolution (Impossible), *unless you either get closer to your TV's (Less than 10 Feet) and have a TV set 90" or larger. The full benefit of 4k becomes apparent at 10 feet with a screen size of over 140". 4k was designed for the digital projectors found at movie theaters. The only reason why we are seeing it on consumer TV's is because manufacturers need to sell us new TVs. Here's the 4K chart that shows all of the details... » s3.carltonbale.com/resol ··· art.html | |
|
| | | | |
TN Titan
Anon
2014-Dec-25 12:22 pm
Re: FCC should make a ruleI have never heard anyone mention that a 90 inch television is necessary. You can goto your local Best Buy and pick out the 4K TV at quite a distance and in TVs much smaller than 90 inches. | |
|
| | | | Fir_Na_TineTime to get riggity riggity wrecked son Premium Member join:2001-01-03 South Jersey |
to davidc502
said by davidc502:said by Fir_Na_Tine:Why is it stupid to have 4K TV's at home? It's been documented all over the web that no one can physically see the extra resolution (Impossible), *unless you either get closer to your TV's (Less than 10 Feet) and have a TV set 90" or larger. The full benefit of 4k becomes apparent at 10 feet with a screen size of over 140". 4k was designed for the digital projectors found at movie theaters. The only reason why we are seeing it on consumer TV's is because manufacturers need to sell us new TVs. Here's the 4K chart that shows all of the details... » s3.carltonbale.com/resol ··· art.html I sit within 6-8 ft of my 65 inch and the 4K content is incredible, nature scenes are like looking out a window. Its also noticeable from a further distance too. As said by TN Titan you can even see the quality difference in the stores from a distance. So I call BS on impossible to see. For me and my family there is a wow factor when viewing 4K content over the 1080P. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: FCC should make a ruleAs long as you're happy with it, that's all that matters. The following article does a pretty good job of explaining what a arcminute is, and how the eye resolves detail. 4k is a bit out of the eyes range of detail that it can resolve, unless 1 of two things happens. » www.cnet.com/news/why-4k ··· -stupid/ | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: FCC should make a ruleIs irrelevant if 4K under 100" is useful or not. It will get to a point that it doesn't make sense to make 1080 screens if 4K screens can eventually be made for about same price. IE, 1080 is said to be overkill for under 25" but there are more 1080 than 720 in retail stores. Even phones are getting 2K and 4K screens.
It's not really about consumer demand, it's about what is optimal for screen makers to target. There are already 4K TVs under $1500 and large 4K screens haven't really even hit significant mass production yet. Once 4K production exceeds 1080, won't make sense for some screen makers to bother with 1080. | |
|
| | | | | | | 1 edit |
Re: FCC should make a rulesaid by existenz:Is irrelevant if 4K under 100" is useful or not. I agree, and there's one word for what you've described... "Capitalism". > Fortunately we live in a country where we can learn and educate ourselves, and hopefully pass some of the knowledge on to help others. It's up to them if they accept or reject what's been said. To me, I believe in the science that's been put forth (so far), and will reject buying a 4k TV anytime soon. But as we've read above others seem to think 4k is the next best thing to sliced bread. Will it ultimately fail like 3D TV? Or will it slowly take hold, and grow in popularity? Time will tell, but my guess is it will be slow growing because a majority of people will buy 4k when their old flat panel dies. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: FCC should make a ruleEconomies of scale is what partly drives new tech to replace older tech - if it's not demand and even if the older tech is just fine. | |
|
| | | |
to Fir_Na_Tine
I find the 4k situation quite amusing in a "Spishak Mach-20" kind of way.
Simple experiment for those with >60" TVs when you pause DVR and walk up what do you see? Do you notice lack of pixels or is quality limited by compression artifacts? Everywhere I've conducted this experiment the answer is obvious.
Cable and satellite providers are using ancient algorithms with growing pressure on per-channel bandwidth. Instead of translating into customer complaints it appears to be generating demand for 4k... marketing departments everywhere deserve a raise big time.
What customers really wanted assuming they care at all was for a modern algorithm like H.265 to replace MPEG-2 what they will actually get is to spend a whole lot of money on new hardware that won't do them any good unless viewing from less than 4-5 feet away... and they will be happy about it. | |
|
| RRedlineRated R Premium Member join:2002-05-15 USA
1 recommendation |
to Packeteers
said by Packeteers:you can only call it 4K is the source material was provided in 4K, so none of that 1080p rescaled crap 4K owners will have to suffer with for the next few years 4K Blu-ray content won't be available for another year. I have absolutely nothing against 4K. Higher resolutions? Yes please! I just think it's going to be implemented on the cheap while used as a marketing gimmick. Just because the resolution is 4K doesn't mean that it is automatically superior to lower resolutions. The next logical progression would be better, more widely adopted 1080p programming! Good 1080p video looks absolutely amazing, even on 70" TV's (which is bigger than what most have/want in their living rooms). The problem is that it's easier to market "4K OMG!!!" than it is to market "better quality 1080p." We are going to end up with ~15 mbps 4K video streams, and there will be no ~15 mbps 1080p alternatives, which in many cases may actually be superior in perceived quality to the 4K version. | |
|
| | |
Re: FCC should make a rulesaid by RRedline:The next logical progression would be better, more widely adopted 1080p programming! Good 1080p video looks absolutely amazing Yet what we have is watered down 1080i at best with half the frame rate. OTA is best with SAT and CABLE watering down even more. Networks could offer better quality but they end up cutting up their bandwidth into 4 more sub digital channels. And those are even worse then the old SD channels. I know in Albuquerque none of the networks have a 1080P stream. I only use OTA and cut the cord years ago. I had a friend over last night that has the same vizio 55" TV and commented that mine had a much better picture then his. I explained its because DTV compresses the signal. 4K is a complete joke at this point being that digital HD has been totally screwed up by the providers. OTA is as good as it gets. Forget the rest. | |
|
quisp65 join:2003-05-03 San Diego, CA |
Are they the only ones with the H.265 codec?Haven't really kept up. I read about a year ago there was only 1 TV company so far with h.265. Wondered if it has changed? | |
|
1 recommendation |
What Cap?It seems every time a news topic about Comcast come up the same people turn it into a usage cap discussion. As stated by another member above many areas dont even have a cap. Even in the areas that do it must not be much of an issue since I havent heard people complaining about being overcharged or getting their service terminated. Until customers start actually getting punished for going over the cap its a non issue. | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2014-Dec-24 7:50 pm
Re: What Cap?caps suck all the value out of stuff like this. | |
|
| |
to saratoga66
We are being punished, getting bills with over $120 of addition data charges is absurd. | |
|
| Bil @174.251.81.x |
to saratoga66
Get ready! Comcast has stated that they plan to have caps in every market within 5 years. My family uses 500gb every month @ $10 per 50gb over 300. I recently switched to Business Class internet to avoid the 300gb cap | |
|
|
Comcast Business not eligibleI have a CCBI account for my residence. Logged in and said my account was not authorized. | |
|
linicxCaveat Emptor Premium Member join:2002-12-03 United State |
linicx
Premium Member
2014-Dec-27 3:51 am
Nailed it?If I remember correctly Comcast is a FCC licensed entity that owns CBS or NBC, cable, and is now in bed with DTV and probably AT&T, too.
Y'all can look forward to higher retransmission fees for cable users (from the TV stations and programs Comcast already owns).
How clever it is for Comcast, and how bad it is for their customers. | |
|
|
Buzzcut
Anon
2014-Dec-28 2:11 pm
I'm getting caught up in the hypeI have to say that it is hard to resist the 4K hype.
As I peruse the flyers for Best Buy and HH Gregg, the 4k TVs are not that much more than I paid for my Sharp 70" 1090p HDTV 3 years ago. So tempting!
HOWEVER...
I have personal experience how a newer, larger HDTV is not necessarily superior to a smaller one.
I had a 40" Samsung that the Sharp replaced. It's picture quality and features were vastly superior to the Sharp. However, it was also a lemon that failed shortly after the warranty expired.
SO...
Thank goodness that 4K media is lacking, and there is absolutely no reason to upgrade at this time! I would have a hard time resisting.
I think that I'm going to bide my time, and let LARGER sets become more common. I saw a 79" LG in the HH Gregg flyer this week. Over $6k dollars! | |
|
|
wont be as good as Blu-rayBlu-ray supports bitrates up to 40mb/s and will be better than 4k video coming over your broadband connection. How fast your broadband is will determine how much video quality you can. Blu-ray is just flat out better. | |
|
|
|