 | | does this mean..... that comcast is admitting there's no bandwidth shortage?
I mean afterall, why would Comcast want to contribute to something that was detrimental to their network.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
 |  jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: does this mean..... Did someone at Comcast claim there was a bandwidth shortage?
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
| |  DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: does this mean..... wasn't that one of the lines given when the cap was put out there? | |
|
| | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: does this mean..... said by DarkLogix:wasn't that one of the lines given when the cap was put out there? No. The usage limit is not about a 'bandwidth shortage' it is about 'excessive usage.'
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
| | | | | | Re: does this mean..... It is about giving a false perception that there is a shortage. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I am not sure I understand the difference.
Excessive usage meaning it is straining the network hence a cap to stop from slowing others down, hence a shortage | |
|
| | | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: does this mean..... said by Van:I am not sure I understand the difference. Excessive usage meaning it is straining the network hence a cap to stop from slowing others down, hence a shortage Not really.
You can always add incremental bandwidth for incremental dollars. The natural corollary to that is that for a fixed monthly dollar figure you will be restricted to some fixed level of consumption. | |
|
| | | | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: does this mean..... But why? I am not being a jackass, I just really don't understand.
From what I have read, they are trying to put a cap because of the Top 5% of downloaders who use a LOT of their room, correct?
Well, I take that to mean a strain on their network occurs by them or anyone going near that amount of downloading
Maybe "shortage" isn't the exact word to use but it does tell me some sort of space is lacking if they can't afford more people to get above that cap.... | |
|
| | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: does this mean..... said by Van:But why? I am not being a jackass, I just really don't understand. Maybe "shortage" isn't the exact word to use but it does tell me some sort of space is lacking if they can't afford more people to get above that cap.... I think you get it -- the limitation is monetary, not technical.
If you factor in all of the costs to provide the service, let's say the actual amount of bandwidth works out to an even 50GB for your $42.95/mo. As we've seen in recent reports, average broadband use is somewhere in the 10-15GB/mo range.
So take a single subscriber consuming 250GB, in order for an ISP to break even financially they need 5 other subscribers consuming 10GB or less to break even on the costs of the service. (10GB out of 50 used for each of the 5 leaving 40GB each to go towards the heavy user plus the heavy user's allotment of 50GB) So in that example with just 1 out of 6 (16.67%) people hitting the cap you are simply breaking even financially. If you leave the service uncapped, then just a small percentage of subscribers can drastically throw off your ratios for profitability. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | Re: does this mean..... said by espaeth:said by Van:But why? I am not being a jackass, I just really don't understand. Maybe "shortage" isn't the exact word to use but it does tell me some sort of space is lacking if they can't afford more people to get above that cap.... I think you get it -- the limitation is monetary, not technical. If you factor in all of the costs to provide the service, let's say the actual amount of bandwidth works out to an even 50GB for your $42.95/mo. As we've seen in recent reports, average broadband use is somewhere in the 10-15GB/mo range. So take a single subscriber consuming 250GB, in order for an ISP to break even financially they need 5 other subscribers consuming 10GB or less to break even on the costs of the service. (10GB out of 50 used for each of the 5 leaving 40GB each to go towards the heavy user plus the heavy user's allotment of 50GB) So in that example with just 1 out of 6 (16.67%) people hitting the cap you are simply breaking even financially. If you leave the service uncapped, then just a small percentage of subscribers can drastically throw off your ratios for profitability. why do these numbers seem WAYYYY off and way to high.
the limitation is not monetary directly but its profit driven. how high of a profit margin can you get for each user. the more users you have over a particular point the lower it will drive your profit margin.
they will make money even on people exceeding the 250gb cap, they just are not hitting their per user profit margins...so they want to put an end to that | |
|
| | | | | | Why would Comcast care about usage if there wasn't a shortage.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: does this mean..... They've discovered a potential revenue stream. I am not going to put another player onto my machines. I'm using Comcast currently. I don't like their TV at all, now that I've had to use it for more than two weeks. Their internet has been great, but their TV sucks... It's really, really bad. We wish Fios would come to D.C or that we could put a dish on the roof! | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: does this mean..... said by jjeffeory:They've discovered a potential revenue stream. I am not going to put another player onto my machines. I'm using Comcast currently. I don't like their TV at all, now that I've had to use it for more than two weeks. Their internet has been great, but their TV sucks... It's really, really bad. We wish Fios would come to D.C or that we could put a dish on the roof! What do you mean it is really really bad? Service is bad or programming or what? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: does this mean..... PQ is soft. I used to complain about the Uverse "stutter". Well, I experience that daily on Comcast now. It's a bit worse than Uverse was... I also have less HD channels to choose from. The DVR is too small compared to my latest experience with U verse. Finally, I find the channel organization non intuitive. I watch mostly HD channels now. The channel placements don't really make sense. For example, 237 is HISHD, 238 is SHOHD, 239 is DSCHD. TBSHD is 232, MAXHD is 233, CNNHD is 234.
Why not put all the movie channels TOGETHER and away from the non movie HD channels? I've had Fios, UVerse, TWC, Charter ( 3 places), DirecTV, and Dish. They all organize their channels better than this. Why can't Comcast? On the plus side, the Motorola DVR looks nice. | |
|
| | | |  RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jlivingood:said by DarkLogix:wasn't that one of the lines given when the cap was put out there? No. The usage limit is not about a 'bandwidth shortage' it is about 'excessive usage.' I see the schematic game in full swing.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: does this mean..... said by Rally:said by jlivingood:said by DarkLogix:wasn't that one of the lines given when the cap was put out there? No. The usage limit is not about a 'bandwidth shortage' it is about 'excessive usage.' I see the schematic game in full swing. Semantics even. 
--
I'll do it later. | |
|
| | | |  huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by jlivingood:No. The usage limit is not about a 'bandwidth shortage' it is about 'excessive usage.' What would make a given instance of usage excessive in the absence of its causing a bandwidth shortage? | |
|
| | | | | | The biggest problem with [the term] "excessive usage" is that it implies that one's use of bandwidth is excessive when, in fact, it merely exceeds the "defined" norm by the "defined" (by Comcast) "too much"--sort of like being graded on a bell curve (except that, here, you get punished for "high grades"). It--usage--is only truly "excessive" if it exceeds the capacity of the network to support it, but given how much "idle time" a network--including Comcast's--has in it, I can't really accept it as "excessive" (unless Comcast can really prove that its network does have a "bandwidth shortage").  | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | said by jlivingood:said by DarkLogix:wasn't that one of the lines given when the cap was put out there? No. The usage limit is not about a 'bandwidth shortage' it is about 'excessive usage.' I love how you jump in as a rep from Comcast and spin everything around! I love how companies pay people like you to pump up their crappy agendas! I hammer my Verizon DSL like it owes me money and not a peep from Verizon. Comcrap its the notwork, lol! | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by jlivingood:Did someone at Comcast claim there was a bandwidth shortage? don't think so, but the astroturf groups they help fund scream this all the time. | |
|
| | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: does this mean..... said by nasadude:said by jlivingood:Did someone at Comcast claim there was a bandwidth shortage? don't think so, but the astroturf groups they help fund scream this all the time. Can you be more specific?
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
| | | | RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: does this mean..... said by jlivingood:said by nasadude:said by jlivingood:Did someone at Comcast claim there was a bandwidth shortage? don't think so, but the astroturf groups they help fund scream this all the time. Can you be more specific? »www.ncta.com/Default.aspx
I can list more.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: does this mean..... how about a link where they say there is a shortage? | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: does this mean..... Seems to be some people speculating.
--
I'll do it later. | |
|
| | | | | | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: does this mean.....
Seems like lots of generalities about the fact that ISPs need to have tools to be able to manage their networks. Again, don't see that as particularly controversial. You may object to certain tools used by one ISP over another, but that's a somewhat different matter. In our case, our congestion management system is about as light touch and transparent as you can get. | |
|
| | | | | | Comcast themselves has made such an argument before the FCC. See page 12, of this Comcast filling:
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/···19856208
which states "...user demand for the Internet could outpace network capacity by 2010... the latest wave of Internet-based products and applications that consumers want requires higher bandwidth than the current network can allow, which could cause the Internet to become significantly congested -- or crash altogether -- in the future."
In this text, they cite Brett Swanson, and the Discovery Institute and The Progress and Freedom Foundation, both funded by Comcast.
There's many more examples. If your job is to come on these forums as a PR hack for Comcast, you might want to read what your lobbyists are saying. | |
|
| | | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: does this mean..... That report has several references which seems to conclude that continued investment in network capacity is needed to keep up with growth in demand. That seems pretty logical and uncontroversial to me. Obviously we're investing, with our D3 build out as significant evidence.
What am I missing?
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: does this mean..... Growth in demand necessitated by VOD and p2p among other things. But what should it matter to Comcast what people are using it for when it was, at the time, an unlimited data plan. So you implement a network management plan that includes a 250 gig cap. Except that cap does absolutely nothing for congestion when everyones using the bandwidth at the same time. So tell me, why was it implemented in the first place?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
| | | | | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: does this mean..... said by S_engineer:Growth in demand necessitated by VOD and p2p among other things. But what should it matter to Comcast what people are using it for when it was, at the time, an unlimited data plan. I am pretty sure there's another 100+ page thread on this topic.
said by S_engineer:So you implement a network management plan that includes a 250 gig cap. Except that cap does absolutely nothing for congestion when everyones using the bandwidth at the same time. So tell me, why was it implemented in the first place? As I have said **countless** times before, congestion and usage are two totally separate and distinct matters. They are both tools you need to manage a network, certainly, but usage volume is not equivalent to contribution to peak or congestion. They are two different things, with two different tools to manage.
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: does this mean..... I understand your various methods for addressing peak usage, but it didn't answer the question. So specifically, how does a hard cap help manage a network?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: does this mean..... said by S_engineer:I understand your various methods for addressing peak usage, but it didn't answer the question. So specifically, how does a hard cap help manage a network? It doesn't plain and simple. The hard cap is a CYA policy for users that burn up their cable modem 24/7 with a max of upload/download *just because they can*. I don't think one could ever argue that on the one hand there isn't a capacity problem, then on the other say that a hard cap has nothing to do with a capacity problem.
That's paramount to saying that a restaurant has no food shortage with an all you can eat menu, but at the same time the restaurant limits home much you can eat because it might be excessive compared to other people that are eating. There is no logic in that something that is perceived to be unlimited should have limits put in place *just in case*
Short version, tech people don't like to write PR release material. That job is left up to the less technical.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
|
| | | | | | | | | k2nnj
join:2004-05-06
Caldwell, NJ | Re: does this mean..... Nice metaphor. | |
|
| | | | See below, where I give this link »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/···19856208
to a filing where Comcast makes such an argument on page 12. They've made similar arguments in dozens of other filings, on panels, on press calls.
Sounds like the PR department isn't talking to the Government Relations department. Your lobbyists are out there making this exaflood claim all over DC. | |
|
| | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | and here is where we pay the piper for net neutrality. this service has to count against the cap because if it didnt someone somewhere would raise a stink that it had an advantage over Hulu by not counting against the cap.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 jazzy_
join:2004-01-27
Charleston, SC | ... Great, another crappy proprietary executable. Glad I still have other options for getting content I like online. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | My favorite Xfinity quote (so far)... "To Xfinity and beyond!" | |
|
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Its alright. said by djdanska:Tried it on my machine. Installed the plugin per the sites request. Kept telling me i had to launch the player thing. Was open but would not let me play anything. This is with both IE and Firefox. I had access to starz with the previous site, and now its premium. That a glitch? Will try it later. Known issues with Move palyer:
Software Interaction Issues
Some features of the following software programs interfere with Move Media Player functionality:
* Firebug for Mozilla Firefox: The Firebug extension for Mozilla Firefox interferes with media playback. To solve this issue, disable the Firebug extension in Mozilla Firefox.
* Kaspersky Internet Security: The anti-banner component of Kaspersky Internet Security software prevents playback of most media content. To solve this issue, disable the anti-banner component from the Firewall dialog under the Settings menu.
* CYBERsitter Internet Filter: This internet filter removes the ability of the Move Media Player to install and play video. Disable this filter to use the Move Media Player.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | Does it work with Linux? Does it work with Linux? | |
|
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
4 edits | Re: Does it work with Linux? No, not yet.
Here is what it works on:
Windows
* Processor: Pentium 4 or newer
* Operating System: Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista, Windows 7
* RAM: 512 MB minimum
* Video Card: 32 MB minimum (128 MB recommended)
* Browser: Internet Explorer 6 (or newer), Firefox 3 (or newer), Safari 3 (or newer), Google Chrome 3 (or newer).
* Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum (1280 x 1024 recommended)
* Adobe Flash 10.0.22
* Javascript and cookies need to be enabled
* Broadband Internet Connection
Mac OS X
* Processor: Intel Core™ Duo 1.83GHz or faster processor
* Operating System: Mac OS X 10.5 or newer (see below for OS X 10.6 “Snow Leopard” specifics)
* RAM: 512 MB minimum
* Video Card: 32 MB minimum (128 MB recommended)
* Browser: Firefox 3 (or newer), Safari 3 (or newer).
* Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum (1280 x 1024 recommended)
* Adobe Flash 10.0.22
* Javascript and cookies need to be enabled
* Broadband Internet Connection
Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard
The Move Networks plugin is not compatible with Snow Leopard’s 64-bit Safari browser. To use the plugin you must:
* Run your Safari browser in 32-bit mode
OR
* Use Mozilla’s Firefox browser (FF is only 32-bit at present)
To change Safari from 64-bit to 32-bit mode:
* Open Finder
* Navigate to the Applications folder
* Get Info on Safari. (Done by Right Click/CTRL+CLICK and selecting Get Info, through the File Menu, or CMD+I)
* Select (enable/check) the checkbox for “Open in 32-bit mode”
* Close the Safari Info window
* Restart the browser
More system requirement info here:
»www.fancast.com/help/technical-s···-player/ | |
|
| | salahx
join:2001-12-03
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Does it work with Linux? And probably not ever, due to DRM/content protection issues. | |
|
 meskinctMad Scientist at WorkPremium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
·Comcast
| Only Counts Against Cap from a Comcast Connection I'm assuming it only accounts against your 250GB cap when using your Comcast connection. If I'm watching from a non-Comcast connection it does not go toward my cap......RIGHT?
--
Rich. My Website | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | Cut the cord already.. I'd purchase this as a Internet subscriber, but I will never pay for Cable TV again - this as a premium add on to the cost of my Internet sure and hope they offer this!
They'll make their money up via offering wireless and wireline broadband and offering Internet video packages. No worries, but for now they lost my money and many other early adopters! | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | movie player created by Move Networks? when will you 'get' it?
We want to use standard or our existing players, not some unknown "movie player created by Move Networks" to play the content.
Because of this, it's a PASS (do not want) for me.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com | |
|
| | | Re: movie player created by Move Networks? Move plug-ins/players have been used by quite a few sites (ABC, ESPN, etc.). Nevertheless, I totally agree with your choice to PASS. | |
|
| | | said by pokesph:when will you 'get' it? We want to use standard or our existing players, not some unknown "movie player created by Move Networks" to play the content. Because of this, it's a PASS (do not want) for me.  whatever. | |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Hacked in Since they offer connections to non-CC IPs, I wonder how long before the accounts get hacked for non-CC users to access the material? | |
|
 MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | hmmmm I still do not understand why they would count it against your bandwidth since you are using their service to watch it on their pipes.
Weird to me..
--
801 Images | |
|
|  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: hmmmm said by MSauk:I still do not understand why they would count it against your bandwidth since you are using their service to watch it on their pipes. Weird to me.. Why wouldn't it count toward your cap?
It should, in all respects of net neutrality.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by MSauk:I still do not understand why they would count it against your bandwidth since you are using their service to watch it on their pipes. Weird to me.. Because the net neutrality advocates would scream bloody murder if it didn't count against the cap and for example Netflix did.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | yhp
join:2006-12-27
Philadelphia, PA | Re: hmmmm Because the net neutrality advocates would scream bloody murder if it didn't count against the cap and for example Netflix did.
As well they should.
Let me get this straight. You're basically saying it's OK for comcast HSI customers to suffer a hit on their 250G quota only when they are doing business with Comcast's movie-streaming competitors (such as Netflix)?
Scans to me like a textbook case in favor of neutrality. Thank you for brainstorming a level of evil the "advocates" in their caves probably hadn't even thought of! | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | will this make it tivo ? I wonder if comcast planned to add this to tivo. If they dont do this ,people using netflix, etc. Wont even notice or care. | |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
2 edits |  Installed 2 Win7 systems no problem
And access to premium pay channels worked as well.
Here is the list of networks Comcast is supporting right now with this:
»www.fancast.com/tv-networks
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| cghh
join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA | Re: Installed 2 Win7 systems no problem said by Romney2012:And access to premium pay channels worked as well. For me, the premium channels that I subscribe to show as locked, and direct me to a page to subscribe to that package. The "unlocked" content works fine. After a two-hour wait to "Chat" with a rep, he just opened a trouble ticket and said he was done. | |
|
| | ps3 does anyone know if this would work with a ps3? all the channels I would watch are available and it would be nice not to need another box for that set | |
|
| | Where to download/ And what if you're just a Comcast TV subscriber and not a Comcast Internet sudscriber | |
|
| | | Re: Where to download/ said by odreian615:And what if you're just a Comcast TV subscriber and not a Comcast Internet sudscriber I was wondering what if you are a Comcast Internet subscriber and not a Comcast TV subscriber!  The login you use is your Internet/email login. | |
|
| | pmarce
join:2009-12-15
Philadelphia, PA | Re: Where to download/ Currently you have to be a Comcast TV subscriber (digital) to use this service and have a the Internet/Email login. So you have to have both TV and Internet. TV only subscribers should have access in the summer of 2010. | |
|
| | | The ability to use this for TV only subscribers is on the roadmap for summer 2010. | |
|
 Paul928
join:2000-05-06
Haverhill, MA | nothing to write home about!!! Okay I downloaded the plug-in, and played with this for a bit....It's okay, but the quality, is sort of crappy, and doesn't even come close to the quality that Net Flicks delivers!!!! If Comcast is going to add this premium, you would think that it would at least look decent! | |
|
| pmarce
join:2009-12-15
Philadelphia, PA | Re: nothing to write home about!!! try some of the HD content if you can find it. I've used on a 50 inch plasma and it looked really good. | |
|
| | | I agree, for as long as they've been talking about it you'd think they would have better quality, anything other than windowed viewing within the browser looks like crap, and that includes any "HD" content.
Until they understand they need to have on par quality with what you can get from P2P sites they're just wasting their time and will continue to lose the battle.
Interesting, but of no value. | |
|
| | | | Re: nothing to write home about!!! I agree. At least the stuff on the p2p sites will play in open source players. | |
|
 Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
·Comcast
1 edit | First thoughts about it (Comcast Access does weird things) I have no problems watching programs, but sometimes when Comcast Access is running, the airappinstall.exe and "Adobe AIR Application Installer.exe" applications keep running and closing every few seconds. This shouldn't be happening.
It looks like it adds an air[1].swf file to the Internet Explorer cache area and then calls it every few seconds. This kicks off the airappinstaller.exe which kicks off the "Adobe AIR Application Installer.exe" which then exits and then the whole process repeats.
This process appears to stop once a video plays.
As for the service itself, it works okay. Quality isn't all that great and the video stutters like crazy. I've also already found I can play videos for channels that I'm not supposed to be able to play.
Finally the Move Network software takes it upon itself to cache the movie on the drive, but not remove the cached file. I found after watching a few minutes of a program and then quitting that there was a few 100 MBs of files in a QMCache00 on my drive.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
dagg
join:2001-03-25
Galt, CA | and now for something completely different which would be a comment completely on topic.
if you use fancast or hulu and you do not pay for what they call 'premium content' then this is not anything new to you. a bit more content available but pretty much same as both fancast and hulu (everything i looked at still had the hulu branding on it... its that un-different)
the non-premium movies still serve up ads as well so nothing spectacularly new in that way either.
it just kinda looks like hulu with a face lift. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: and now for something completely different And that is bad *how*?
Let's look at Hulu's purpose - it's NOT a replacement for TV. It is simply a means to let you enjoy the same programming when not at that TV. (In that aspect, it's not any different from other similar platforms going all the way back to RealPlayer.) FanCast is Comcast-specific (and Comcast has an agreement with Hulu, and with Disney, which is NOT a member of Hulu); hence, Fancast includes content that Hulu doesn't offer. For content in which Hulu offers a better viewability experience, I have no problem going to Hulu (especially Hulu Desktop 2.0, which has it all over the standard Hulu Desktop, especially in terms of scalability); Comcast has no problem with that, either. (Fancast and Hulu don't really compete, even in terms of the same content.) It's all about the viewability experience *and* the content. Where Fancast wins, I choose Fancast; where Hulu wins, I choose Hulu. Given the fact that both are free, how do I lose? | |
|
| | | | Re: and now for something completely different Fancast says ich do not subscribe to HBO und ich do. | |
|
pwn19
join:2004-12-02
Plainfield, IL Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Errors?? I am getting an error trying to get the Comcast access installer to install. Getting a code of 7008, please try agian later. Chatted with a tech on comcast, she was no help at all. She insisted that it was a computer requirement issue, but the laptop is less than two months old, and exceeds all the requirements. Anyone have the same issues?? | |
|
|
|
