 RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Why? Maybe in the future, but given the current byte driven internet costs (and yes, even the "all you can eat" has a cost per byte at some point in the chain), it does not make much sense.
Of course, the potential for view on demand instead of 'it starts at 2PM EST or 3PM PST' is much nicer. Someday it might be common and people can not figure out how they ever survived without it (I dumped my cable and went back to the antenna, so you can see what I think of it.)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
 | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: Why? said by RayW  :Maybe in the future, but given the current byte driven internet costs (and yes, even the "all you can eat" has a cost per byte at some point in the chain), it does not make much sense. If this download service gains traction, look for monthly byte caps or cost structures to charge over certain amount of bytes/month.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Why? You've been saying this for years.
We've already been over how any company who switched to a bill by the byte model would be at an immediate marketing disadvantage. The only way the industry could shift to that model is en masse, and that's not happening. | |
|
| | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | Re: Why? While I don't think you'll see widespead $.xx/MB pricing, I do think you may see more monthly caps like Cox HSI has where you end up paying more to get to the next tier. And rather than the tiers being all about speed, you also see more about upgrading to higher monthly caps.
Since these last mile providers are fairly isolated from competition in their individual markets, you don't have to have an en masse shift. I've had Cox since 1997 (one of the first digital cable/cable BB deployments in the US) and still, 10 years later, my particular neighborhood which is very upscale we doesn't have anything that can compete with them (no WISP, no DSL). In other nearby areas Cox a near-lock on content delivery...Ladera Ranch for example includes Cox HSI in their HOA fees so you have Cox HSI whether you want it or not so even if there is a competitior, people are less likely to use them.
I don't think this is an isolated case. Where cable sees competition from fiber we'll see these restrictions relaxed but in areas like mine I think we'll see providers clamping down and charging more fees if HSI use on a per sub basis increases. | |
|
| | | | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: Why? I agree. Until we have national 3-way or more competition the viability of signing up for high-bandwidth technologies, such as video over IP, will not be able to mature. Competition will bring the prices down, and the available bandwidth up. Until then we can just sit around and day-dream of turning Japanese. | |
|
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
While I don't think you'll see widespead $.xx/MB pricing, I do think you may see more monthly caps like Cox HSI has where you end up paying more to get to the next tier. And rather than the tiers being all about speed, you also see more about upgrading to higher monthly caps.
Yes, I have no doubt there will be caps, tiers, throttled apps, etc. There already is. All manner of slight of hand and fine print. Absolutely.
What TCM proposes is flat billing by the byte, where you use exactly how much bandwidth you use, just like an electric utility. | |
|
| | | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Why? said by Karl Bode :What TCM TCH proposes is flat billing by the byte, where you use exactly how much bandwidth you use, just like an electric utility. That is not what I said. This is:
monthly byte caps or cost structures to charge over certain amount of bytes/month
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Why? I did, actually. And only the last two posts you've made advocate per-byte billing over a tier limit. You apparently forged this conclusion after people repeatedly told you general per-byte billion would not work, TKJunkmail. | |
|
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| said by GOLFnSUN :look for monthly byte caps or cost structures to charge over certain amount of bytes/month. My ISP has a byte cap already, helps keep my costs down since I am not a heavy user. 100 gigabytes per 4 weeks metered Monday - Friday, from 7 a.m. to midnight, much more than I use even running a weather station and web page and doing Microsoft 'feature' fixes.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| | | 
hyzmarca
@Level3.net
| Re: Why? Total throughput has never been the problem. In a packet-switched network it is quite possible for every user to max out their throughput without adversely effecting the network.
The problem has always been timing. If 100 people try to access google at the same time then their throughput will be divided 100 ways and the network will be 100 times slower. If 99 people access google and 1 person downloads a video at the same time then you've got the same problem. Neither the size of the files nor the amount of allocated bandwidth matters, really. What matters is the timing.
It just so happens that placing throughput caps during peak usage hours may reduce total usage time which may reduce network congestion. However, this is a roundabout way to accomplish what it really required to keep an oversold network running smoothly, controlling the timing of packet that pass through the network.
A pay-per-byte model isn't the solution for this nor is tiered service plans, packet shaping based on protocol, or discriminatory billing. The solution point-to-point timing negotiation based on IP addresses so that every user has equal and full access to the network. This is technically difficult, but but quite possible and, if done correctly, will be transparent to the end user. By manipulating timing one might increase overall latency by a few milliseconds but would still allow every user full and equal throughput up to a point. If there are too many users even this option fails, of course. | |
|
| | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Maybe in your neocon fantasy world, yes, the providers could charge 'by the byte'. But this is the REAL world, and people are buying a PIPE to the internet, they aren't buying bytes. You obviously don't see the point. My ISP limits my byte transfers based on the SIZE of the pipe. I have a 10/10 connection for 35.00/month. In theory, I could use 6TB of data transfer per month. That's because I PAID FOR a PIPE that can move data at 10mb/sec. Much to your dismay, I don't pay by the byte, because that's not what internet acess is!. Sure, in your megacorp fantasy world, the ISP could charge you 3 times every time you load a web page (base 65.00, + Charge google + charge me by the byte). But that's just a wet dream for you.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: Why? said by karlmarx :Maybe in your neocon fantasy world, yes, the providers could charge 'by the byte'. I didn't know that broadband pricing plans was part of the neocon movement. | |
|
| | | 
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
1 edit | You pay for a pipe but there is this thing called a TOS. I'm sure somewhere in your TOS it states that if you effect the network in a negative way, you will either be disconnected, be throttled or charged extra. So yeah, you can do your 6TB of data movement until you negativly impact the network, then you are either gone or paying more. I'm sure that in your liberal, everything should be free world Karlmarx that this would never happen, but welcome to the real world where you pay to be on SOMEONE ELSES network where THEY get to make the rules since THEY own it. I know that you think making money is evil but again, welcome to the real world Karlmarx. Yes its unlikely that ISP's will start a new pricing structure but in thoery they could, even if you dont like it...because its thier network and business. If you dont like it, you can either take your business elsewhere or start up your own network. Point is, just cause you dont like it and people are going to make money doesnt make it evil. Remember, internet access is a utility, not a right. | |
|
| | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by karlmarx :Maybe in your neocon fantasy world, yes, the providers could charge 'by the byte'. But this is the REAL world, and people are buying a PIPE to the internet, they aren't buying bytes. I guess you have never heard of a cell phone then KarlMarx. Its this little device that fits in your pocket, and it even has internet access! People can chose to pay for a capped plan or pay by the byte. I know that only us Neocons use cell phones these days, but hey, welcome to OUR world. Most countries other than the US only allow for pay by byte cellular internet access. My prediction will be that ISP's will start (either by being forced or otherwise) to clearly label their caps in the near future (within 24 months). They will then be able to say "if you go over X then there is a charge of X per byte". Alternatively, I wouldnt be surprised if they offered a "super budget" plan that included no usage per month (but was very cheap) and the consumer simply paid for all their traffic by the byte. For what its worth, this model is already in place in some European countries.
--
я люблю медведей! | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| maybe its time for the data market to change and adapt to what we the consumers use it for rather then old out dated business models.
we shouldnt hold back new methods of usage because the trunk providers are still using data business models from the 1980s.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Better then nothin Its good. | |
|
| 
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Re: Better then nothin said by ninjatutle :Its good. lol, yeah.
I don't think it's a landmark or a landfill.. it's an appealing option...to some..
I think unless the Xbox360 comes out with an HDMI-out add-on, it's not going to do a whole for the masses.
I don't think the battle for living room space can fought competitively with component cables. 
--
The hills are alive with the sound of jehu. | |
|
| | 
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| Re: Better then nothin Most people who own HDTVs probably don't even know the difference between HDMI and component, so I don't think it really makes much of a difference. I know a lot of people who still use RCA composite input because they don't even know what s-video is. | |
|
| | |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | Re: Better then nothin Sure, but I think the people who have HDTVs, Xbox360s and will invest in the HD DVD add are more likely to be connection-conscious.
--
The hills are alive with the sound of jehu. | |
|
| | | | 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA | Re: Better then nothin Could have sworn 360 came with an HDMI port...? | |
|
| | | | timothytripp
join:2006-11-09
Fort Worth, TX
| As true as that is, 1080p over VGA is still a fine connection option for the 360. I don't think there are many HDTVs out there that do 1080p over HDMI that don't also do it over VGA. Funny thing is that most of the 1080p TVs out there right now don't even support a 1080p input of ANY kind (they just upscale the 1080i).
Another thing to keep in mind is the audio hookup - audio through HDMI is great from a cable perspective but anyone with a serious 5.1 setup is probably going to want to use a direct digital audio connection to their AV Receiver anyway instead of routing the audio through the TV. Most TVs muck with the 5.1 signal instead of doing a straight pass-through from HDMI to digial optical.
Personally I went for a 720p Samsung 56" DLP - seemed to be about the right sweet spot for quality/size/cost - 360 over VGA at 720p is STUNNINGLY good on this set (slightly quicker response than component). | |
|
| | | | |
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Better then nothin I'm usually a stickler for image quality, but I personally think 1080p is overrated. It's a nice feature, but not a killer if you don't have it. I mean my projector only does 1024x768 and I still think movies look pretty damn good on it at about 80" or so. Of course my PC monitor does 1920x1200 so it looks pretty good too. 
I've actually tested 720p and 1080p on my monitor, with the 720p being scaled more and still images are slightly sharper on 1080, but in motion I seriously don't think there is much difference between 720p/1080i and 1080p. 1080p is nice if you have it, but I don't think it's as big a deal as people like to make it out to be. | |
|
| | | |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Nope no HDMI fer xbox360
Of course audio over HDMI is a throwaway.. the attraction is keeping the signal in digital to screen without analog conversion.
I may be wrong, but VGA ports on HDTVs do not have very high resolutions.
The new crop of HDTVs (at significant price drops) are all 1080p over HDMI...or DVI...
I agree that 720p is great but I think it's a hard sell to get people to "downgrade" their perceived picture quality.
--
The hills are alive with the sound of jehu. | |
|
| | | | | timothytripp
join:2006-11-09
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: Better then nothin MS has previously said that an HDMI cable would eventually be available but that there wasn't enough demand to warrant it right now.
Personally I believe it's physically possible but they're not being entirely honest on why they haven't done it yet - licensing HDMI means implementing HDCP (encryption) support, and without a built-in HDMI port this data exchange would probably have to be implemented in the cable itself instead of in the 360 hardware. That would probably mean a surcharge on each cable and possibly some implementation nightmares for them. On the other hand, their AV out port is completely proprietary and HDMI has been around for a while, so it's possible that the hardware is already there - they certainly won't say - or that the key exchange could be implemented in software.
Info on HDCP here: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Bandw···otection | |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
·Verizon FIOS
| Time will tell... though with the increase of Red Ring of Death, I am wondering why one should put so much faith in one "appliance" as a dedicated media center (hub).
I've downloaded many demos from Live Marketplace and the quality is not there. And to get the quality you will need an increase in filesize, and bandwidth and then storage. The 360 only has a 20Gig drive, of which 7Gig is likely spoken for, leaving you with about 13Gigs. Not much for a media library.
Will MS offer a bigger drive? Or how about iTV from Apple? Should Apple have merged with Nintendo or Sony (recall rumors of Sony buying Apple...) to integrate media and OS?
Yawn. Sorry. Was up all night playing Gears of War...  | |
|
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Time will tell... Mine's on order. That good?  | |
|
| |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | Re: Time will tell... The "killer app" | |
|
| | |
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | what kinda drive is in the Xbox360 drive unit? if its just a laptop drive it could in theory be popped open and slide in a big drive.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | 
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Re: Time will tell... theory you could but i bet Ms has the Bios locked down to only see 20g. With all the hacking going on with the 360 it will be increased.
For the drive i heard it was a toshiba drive. | |
|
| | | 
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs:
| Re: Time will tell... Indeed. Last I read on it around release time is it was a 2.5" SATA drive of sorts. And ditto on the possible BIOS lockdown. No reason MS wouldnt keep milking you for extra profit. Buying their branded HD addons means some money goes back to them. Buying your own HD and slapping it on means 0 profit for MS.
--
I reject your reality and substitue my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbusters | |
|
UltimateTech
join:2002-03-19
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| O RLY SONY? said by sony8 :Sony reminds users they need a $100 hard drive add-on to access the video, according to GameSpot. "We would never segregate or shut out any of our consumers from our entertainment experience because they didn't buy the top of the line system," says a Sony spokesman. I guess the extra memory slots and wi-fi capabilities that are on $600 version but not the $500 version are not part of their "entertainment experience".
I do feel though it was a bad idea for MS to sell 360's without a HD. It really does cripple the machine.
Also to Karl, yes Gears really is that good  | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Useless Just watch them on the PC! | |
|
| 
cvrefugee
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Corona, CA | Re: Useless Yeah, I'll watch them on my PC with it's 17" monitor...or I could lay on my couch and watch them on my 50" HDTV. | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | DRM No doubt it'll be laiden with DRM. Thanks but no thanks. | |
|
Rob A
Same Old Jets
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | Nah PS3 will be dominant over it. | |
|
|
|
|
Is Xbox 360 Video a Landmark Shift?