TWC is going to try to move to usage based billing, citing growing popularity of video based downloads as a cause. Will other ISP's follow?

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN1639580720080117

Much of the "downloads are the future, not disc" argument is based on the assumption of flat rate broadband Internet usage. If usage based billing takes off, it's going to put 3rd party providers like MS, Apple, and Netflix at a price disadvantage.

Originally with downloads, I knew the corporate bean counters would constantly apply pressure to save bandwidth costs on their end by compromising quality. Look at the Sat companies and even some cable companies. But with usage based billing the consumer also stands to save money with greater compression, so the pressure to save bandwidth may come from both sides. I have no desire to watch bit starved HD. It's bad enough on sat/cable already. Wire based delivery is only going to get worse. That's why I can't understand the rush to kill off disc based formats for downloads. They should be different markets, with disc catering to the high end, high quality market.

Anyway, rant aside, I thought it was worthwhile news given the amount of attention HD downloads have been getting in this forum recently.

This is exactly what we've been saying this whole time. DL supporters think that for $3 a movie they're going to be able to just greedily gorge themselves on bandwidth.

This is exactly what we've been saying this whole time. DL supporters think that for $3 a movie they're going to be able to just greedily gorge themselves on bandwidth.

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.

I am a Time Warner customer (roadrunner service).

I currently get 6mb down and something like 256k up (very slow upload).

Of course I currently have unlimited access and pay 44.95 (I think).

If they offer lower priced plans with restricted bandwidth, good for them, and the people that want them.

If they try to restrict the bandwidth I am already using for the same price, they are going to have one less customer.

BTW - I have had the exact same service for 8 years now, isn't it about time someone offered something that was faster? (can't get fios for the forseeable future)

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.

Is the reverse also true, the more you love Blu-ray the less you believe that there are people who use and continue to use download based video services?

Let's stop making this a BD love or hate thing guys, there are simply more and more HD options becoming available to consumers. Being interested in or using those options doesn't by default make you a "hater" of Blu-ray.

To address the topic, I believe that this strategy is more to combat the kazaa/********** crowd where people don't just download but also become supernodes for everyone else to leech off of. People who use pay downloads services often do this in moderation as they only have so much money.

When we tried doing VOD over IP at Enron, we had one secret weapon: our own nationwide fiber optic network that we got when we bought PG&E. We peered with all of our last mile partners (SBC, QWEST, etc.), bypassing issues like this.

This is exactly what we've been saying this whole time. DL supporters think that for $3 a movie they're going to be able to just greedily gorge themselves on bandwidth.

Majority of ISP's these days are telcos. This is not unfair of them. Basically they want their peice of the pie. In the end, 1$ from that 3$ will have to go to the provider. This is nothing new.

The ISP's have already been fighting with VoIP providers like Vonage for a year or so for the same reason. It's easy for Vonage to provide you with unlimited voip calling at a cheap price.. while the ISP foots your bandwidth bill.

In Canada, where I live.. Rogers just launched their own VoIP service and throttled the competitions.

The ISPs would LOVE for digital downloads to become the reality.. they just want a cut. Don't be surprised if the person offering you bajillions of movie downloads on an unthrottled port is your cable co and not some 3rd party.

When we tried doing VOD over IP at Enron, we had one secret weapon: our own nationwide fiber optic network that we got when we bought PG&E. We peered with all of our last mile partners (SBC, QWEST, etc.), bypassing issues like this.

Dark Fiber FTW!

Unfortunately at my place of business (where I am a network engineer), we can only get access to dark fiber for building to building access, not city to city.

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.


:D too true

I can tell you that the company I work for (telco/isp/iptv provider) has no plans to begin nickle and dimeing our broadband customers. We have customers ranging from dialup to fiber (FTTP and MetroE) with FTTP speeds up to 20Mbps, and MetroE speeds up to 1 GigE. We are also allocating 60Mbps to each of our iptv customers (just for Video), which are all on GPON networks.

We peer at 4 points in the Eastern US and are at this time not seeing anything that would make us rethink our position. In fact, if our competitors begin to cap monthly usage, we will likely use that to our advantage from a marketing standpoint.

ISP business is highly profitable. Don't think for a moment people will do things that would cause them to lose customers....

To address the topic, I believe that this strategy is more to combat the kazaa/********** crowd where people don't just download but also become supernodes for everyone else to leech off of. People who use pay downloads services often do this in moderation as they only have so much money.

That's true. It's not so much the downloads, but the uploads that can go 24/7. When there's pressure to keep the share ratio over 1:1, and even to build up some wiggle room, more bandwidth is used for uploads. I'm surprised it's gone on this long without usage-based charges.

This is a much more reasonable strategy than Comcast's strategy of threatening to cut off customers who use too much bandwidth, and then actually cutting them off for a year without notice.

If a customer uses more than the secret bandwidth limit, which has been estimated at around 100GB a month, bill the customer an additional surcharge, instead of threatening them with goons. If the customer insists on continuing to use excess bandwidth, then the customer pays more for it. Most customers would cut back after the first time.

comcast also has a similar system already setup they are just afraid to use it but if TW succeeds then comcast will follow and those who think restricted access will be cheaper your SOL it will become like canada

They just don't want people fully using the services they've contracted for, just the same way your insurance company doesn't want to pay out on claims. Business is all about giving you as little as possible in exchange for your money.
Ooooh, 6mb/s unlimited!! Oh, what's that? you actually want to use that bandwidth to download video? Oh heck no, we have to get paid more, we didn't think you were actually going to use your bandwidth!

Majority of ISP's these days are telcos. This is not unfair of them. Basically they want their peice of the pie. In the end, 1$ from that 3$ will have to go to the provider. This is nothing new.

The ISP's have already been fighting with VoIP providers like Vonage for a year or so for the same reason. It's easy for Vonage to provide you with unlimited voip calling at a cheap price.. while the ISP foots your bandwidth bill.

In Canada, where I live.. Rogers just launched their own VoIP service and throttled the competitions.

The ISPs would LOVE for digital downloads to become the reality.. they just want a cut. Don't be surprised if the person offering you bajillions of movie downloads on an unthrottled port is your cable co and not some 3rd party.

Beyond illegal downloading, the ISPs have no say or any right to how we use the bandwidth. The bandwidth has been paid for by the customer. If we choose to use bandwidth to email Aunt Edna or download a movie from Apple, it's our business. They sold us the bandwidth.

I am a Time Warner customer (roadrunner service).

I currently get 6mb down and something like 256k up (very slow upload).

Of course I currently have unlimited access and pay 44.95 (I think).

If they offer lower priced plans with restricted bandwidth, good for them, and the people that want them.

If they try to restrict the bandwidth I am already using for the same price, they are going to have one less customer.

BTW - I have had the exact same service for 8 years now, isn't it about time someone offered something that was faster? (can't get fios for the forseeable future)


I agree completely. this will just drive me away from them if they do this in Austin. I've got 10mpbs down and 1mbps up and I game alot. I have a hard enough time keeping track of cell phone minutes...now they want me to keep track of Kilobytes? Ummm No -**** off on that...

The ISP's have already been fighting with VoIP providers like Vonage for a year or so for the same reason. It's easy for Vonage to provide you with unlimited voip calling at a cheap price.. while the ISP foots your bandwidth bill.



I wouldn't say they are footing the bill, YOU are paying for a service so it is no of their business what you use your bandwidth for. That's the way free markets work. If the telcos want to get voice customers back, find better solutions to do so, or introduce your own VOIP service at a better price as many have.

It really doesn't cost an ISP more per amount of bandwidth you are using. The issue is when it becomes cumulative from the number over users using alot of bandwidth. That would also mean they probably have a lot of customers and therefore should have the revenue to upgrade their network.

Charging by the bandwidth is just pure greed and will certainly lead to loss of customers. I for one and gone if this happens.

This is a much more reasonable strategy than Comcast's strategy of threatening to cut off customers who use too much bandwidth, and then actually cutting them off for a year without notice.

If a customer uses more than the secret bandwidth limit, which has been estimated at around 100GB a month, bill the customer an additional surcharge, instead of threatening them with goons. If the customer insists on continuing to use excess bandwidth, then the customer pays more for it. Most customers would cut back after the first time.

This is news to me. I have downloaded much more than 100Gb in a month before, and never received any notification I had exceeded any "limit". I live in the Chicagoland area.

Art

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.

DLing has nothing to do with hating BD. I know plenty of people who like to download movies (legally or illegally, I have no idea and don't ask), and for the most part, they don't know what BD really is. Some have heard of the name, and just mention the PS3.

Beyond illegal downloading, the ISPs have no say or any right to how we use the bandwidth. The bandwidth has been paid for by the customer. If we choose to use bandwidth to email Aunt Edna or download a movie from Apple, it's our business. They sold us the bandwidth.

If you read the TOS you agreed to when subscriping to your ISPs services, I'm 99.9% sure there is a stipulation in there restricting you from using the service to run a server or provide unauthorized distribution services.

Allowing your computer to be used as a supernode and having hundreds to thousands of people downloading off of you falls under that stipulation and the constant upload rate creates an undue strain on the bandwidth available for the use of other customers.

This is no different than the restrictions that had to be placed on email to prevent spammers from locking up mail servers will mass emails.

I don't agree with paying according to the amount of bandwidth you use, but I do believe there need to be some restrictions to prevent some users from placing undue burden on others because of usage outside of the ISPs TOS.

Isn't that exactly what I said? I said 'beyond illegal downloading'
Downloading from Apple or Netflix in no way a breech of TOS. I paid for the bandwidth, I can use it in anyway I want to, with the exceptions of illegal P2P, etc. Downloading from Apple or Netflix, or using Vonage is in no way shape or form a type of being a Supernode.

As for the burden on the network, they shouldn't sell the bandwidth if they can't provide it. Basically they're saying: here's 6mb/s, but don't actually use it.

If you read the TOS you agreed to when subscriping to your ISPs services, I'm 99.9% sure there is a stipulation in there restricting you from using the service to run a server or provide unauthorized distribution services.

Allowing your computer to be used as a supernode and having hundreds to thousands of people downloading off of you falls under that stipulation and the constant upload rate creates an undue strain on the bandwidth available for the use of other customers.

This is no different than the restrictions that had to be placed on email to prevent spammers from locking up mail servers will mass emails.

I don't agree with paying according to the amount of bandwidth you use, but I do believe there need to be some restrictions to prevent some users from placing undue burden on others because of usage outside of the ISPs TOS.

What you are talking about really deals more with piracy and charging people to use you internet connection.

This is news to me. I have downloaded much more than 100Gb in a month before, and never received any notification I had exceeded any "limit". I live in the Chicagoland area.

Art

From a post on dslreports.com:

"Q: About how much bandwidth are these “excessive” users consuming?

A: There is no predetermined bandwidth threshold. However, the amount of bandwidth that an excessive user may consume may be analogous to downloading 90 movies or 4,500 movie trailers in a single month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this is at least the third time of heard the "90 movies" limit (but possibly the first time I've heard the "4,500 trailers" limit), perhaps we should read between the lines and try to deduce what the limit probably is? I just watched the broadband trailer for the Polar Express from the Quicktime site. It was 22 MB (checked my browser's cache). 22 * 4,500 = 99,000, or 99 GB. The trailer for House of Sand and Fog is 24 MB. 24 * 4,500 = 108,000 or 108 GB. This does suggest to me that if you stay under 100 GB a month you'll probably be all right.

Yes, I agree with everyone here that I'd rather know what the limit is rather than have to guess at it, but I believe Matisaro is correct in one important respect: if Comcast actually were to spell out what the limit is, they would probably have to give a much lower number than what the current "classified" number really is. The 30 - 40 GB seems pretty likely based on what other ISPs have implemented.

I think people should try to calm down, stay under 100 GB a month (way under shouldn't be difficult at all), and quit threatening legal action or negative press attention. I think that kind of knee-jerk hysterical reaction will cause more harm than good and will probably end up hurting those of us who have reason to be concerned about these limits in the first place."

And, yes, I have received one of those phone calls from Comcast's goons.

sounds like dial up may be the next big thing again hopefully google will get the 700 mhz spectrum im praying they do and i hope they change the broadband and cellphone world with it and offer cheaper services forcing companies to turn in the right direction.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19819679- this sounds sad but so true :(

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.

Or the HD haters... always the ones wishing that HD would go away or else downloads would take over.

All I am reading is that 1080p with 7.1 channel lossless sound is going to cost consumers more. Either from the BDA or from the ISP. They want premium $$ for the premium service.

I was hoping for some competition to drop prices, not increase them. Oh well, I'm off to Wal-Mart to scour the $5 bin some more ....

Shutting Down Big Downloaders
Comcast Cuts Internet Service to Bandwidth Hogs

By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 7, 2007; Page A01

The rapid growth of online videos, music and games has created a new Internet sin: using it too much.

Comcast has punished some transgressors by cutting off their Internet service, arguing that excessive downloaders hog Internet capacity and slow down the network for other customers. The company declines to reveal its download limits.

"You have no way of knowing how much is too much," said Sandra Spalletta of Rockville, whose Internet service was suspended in March after Comcast sent her a letter warning that she and her teenage son were using too much bandwidth. They cut back on downloads but were still disconnected. She said the company would not tell her how to monitor their bandwidth use in order to comply with the limits.

"You want to think you can rely on your home Internet service and not wake up one morning to find it turned off," said Spalletta, who filed a complaint with the Montgomery County Office of Cable and Communication Services. "I thought it was unlimited service."

As Internet service providers try to keep up with the demand for increasingly sophisticated online entertainment such as high-definition movies, streaming TV shows and interactive games, such caps could become more common, some analysts said.

It's unclear how many customers have lost Internet service because of overuse. So far, only Comcast customers have reported being affected. Comcast said only a small fraction of its customers use enough bandwidth to warrant pulling the plug on their service.

Cable companies are facing tough competition from telephone giants like AT&T and Verizon, which are installing new cables capable of carrying more Internet traffic.

The cable companies collectively spent about $90 billion in the past decade to improve their networks. And on cable networks, several hundred subscribers often share an Internet connection, so one high-traffic user could slow the rest of a neighborhood's connections. Phone lines are run directly to each home, so a single bandwidth hog will not slow other connections.

As Internet users make more demands of the network, cable companies in particular could soon end up with a critically short supply of bandwidth, according to a report released this month by ABI Research, a New York market-research firm. This could lead to a bigger crackdown on heavy bandwidth users, said the report's author, Stan Schatt.

"These new applications require huge amounts of bandwidth," he said. Cable "used to have the upper hand because they basically enjoyed monopolies, but there are more competitive pressures now."

To trigger a disconnection warning, customers would be downloading the equivalent of 1,000 songs or four full-length movies every day. Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas declined to reveal specific bandwidth limits.

"It's our responsibility to make sure everyone has the best service possible," he said, "so we have to address abusive activities so they won't damage the experience for other customers. "

Companies have argued that if strict limits were disclosed, customers would use as much capacity as possible without tipping the scale, causing networks to slow to a crawl.

Some customers are unaware they are using so much capacity, sometimes because neighbors are covertly connecting through unsecured wireless routers. When they are told of that possibility, many curb their use after an initial warning, Douglas said. Others, however, may be running bandwidth-hungry servers intended for small businesses from their homes, which can bog down a network serving a neighborhood. Comcast said it gives customers a month to fix problems or upgrade to business accounts before shutting off their Internet service.

Joe Nova of North Attleboro, Mass., lost Internet service after Comcast told him that he was using too much bandwidth to watch YouTube videos, listen to Internet radio stations and chat using a Web camera. He and other customers who complained of being shut off said they were not running servers from their homes.

"Sure, I'm online a lot, but there's no way I could have been consuming that much capacity," Nova said.

Other Internet service providers, including Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T, say they reserve the right to manage their networks, but have not yet suspended service to subscribers. Smaller Internet service providers RCN in Herndon, Leros Technologies in Fairfax and OpenBand in Dulles said they do not cap bandwidth use.

Some AT&T customers use disproportionately high amounts of Internet capacity, "but we figure that's why they buy the service," said Michael Coe, a spokesman for the company.

Cox Communications, which provides Internet and cable services to parts of Northern Virginia and Maryland, said the bandwidth demand on its network has doubled every year for the past six years. It has boosted its speeds twice in the past 18 months to keep up and offers tiered service plans for heavier users, spokesman Alex Horwitz said.

"We don't spend a lot of time enforcing [bandwidth] caps, but we contact customers when their usage is egregious enough for it to impact the network," he said. "Instances are few and far between."

When Comcast canceled service to Frank Carreiro, who lives in a Salt Lake City suburb, he started a blog about the experience. His wife and six children then relied on sluggish dial-up Internet access until a phone company offered DSL service in his neighborhood.

"For a lot of people, it's Comcast or it's nothing," he said.

Bob Williams, director of HearUsNow.org, a consumer Web site run by Consumers Union, said the vagueness of Comcast's rules is "unfair and arbitrary."

"They're cutting service off to the people who want to use it the most," he said.

Schatt, the ABI Research analyst, said he expects cable companies to spend about $80 billion over the next five years to increase network capacity. In addition, they may acquire airwaves at an upcoming federal auction and could lay fiber-optic lines over their existing cables. Switching to digital-only programming could also help conserve capacity.

Comcast, Cox and Time Warner say they have more than enough capacity to meet demand and are adding new technologies to strengthen signals. Bruce McGregor, senior analyst at Current Analysis, a research firm in Sterling, said the bandwidth bottleneck is not yet a crisis for cable companies, but it could intensify with competition from phone companies.

Companies like Comcast "need to address people who are major drains on the network" without angering consumers, he said. "They're not the only game in town anymore."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602545.html?hpid=topnews

I can tell you that the company I work for (telco/isp/iptv provider) has no plans to begin nickle and dimeing our broadband customers. We have customers ranging from dialup to fiber (FTTP and MetroE) with FTTP speeds up to 20Mbps, and MetroE speeds up to 1 GigE. We are also allocating 60Mbps to each of our iptv customers (just for Video), which are all on GPON networks.

We peer at 4 points in the Eastern US and are at this time not seeing anything that would make us rethink our position. In fact, if our competitors begin to cap monthly usage, we will likely use that to our advantage from a marketing standpoint.

I want, I want!

It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet. When someone eats too much they want to throw him out of the restaurant.

All IPTV providers are probably not very happy with tiered-internet pricing. Unless the ISP actually IS the IPTV provider. Apple and Netflix for sure are not going to like this as it makes consumers think twice before buying an AppleTV or the future Netflix box.

In Canada Videotron droped their last unlimited bandwith plan a couple of month ago (extreme high-speed plan). Now we have limit per month and they charge by the meg. Bell also has limit. I think Cogeco still have an unlimited plan (or they are capped but don't enforce it) but this shouldn't last.

Some tried to sue them but since it's written in the contract that they can place a cap they really don't have a chance of winning.

I really don't think IPVOD will really fly. Maybe in the US but in Canada even ITunes isn't really that popular (especially since p2p is still an option in Canada).

And it all comes down to choice. I can find those oscure and popular movies on some physical medium on amazon or other store but what are the chance of you finding those film available on a server when disk space and bandwith are at a premium. They'll only keep those holywood blockbuster movie that they know they can make a lot of money. Forget about classic or B grade movie or foreign film.

It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet. When someone eats too much they want to throw him out of the restaurant.


You know this really happened recently right? They were charged double and told never to come back.

You know this really happened recently right? They were charged double and told never to come back.

ooooohoooooo, I'll bet the backlash was fun off of that one.

This would suck if we started getting charged per usage by our ISP's, at least for those of us that use it a lot. But I really can't see Comcast or Verizon Fios doing this anytime in the foreseeable future. Plus, so many people barely use their internet, so they are making money off of these people who pay a flat rate.

As for the DL supporters hating BD... I am a DL supporter and don't hate BD or HD-DVD, but I won't support either just yet.. because it seems like, if made correctly, DL set-top boxes will be the most convenient and cheapest way of viewing HD movies from all studios. BD and HD-DVD are very inconvenient for the average consumer and casual high-def fan such as myself. We don't want to have to buy two players, and we also don't want to only buy one player and end up missing out on a ton of movies that aren't made on a certain format. Until there is a major fix in this area, people like me will continue watching regular DVDs and ordering movies On Demand. The DL concept excites me because it will most likely (at least eventually) have a greater selection to choose from than On Demand and if it is subscription-based, it will be even easier to use than Netflix's DVDs by mail.

BTW, a lot of people, including me, ended up on Comcast's list because a Windows Media Center online application, TV Tonic, had a bug that caused it to keep downloading the same content over and over. This caused it to download hundreds of GB without the user knowing it. It was fixed by a patch, but I just deleted it from my system permanently.

I now make it a practice to monitor the network activity to make sure that the utilization is 0 percent if I am not actively doing anything. I also secured my wireless router as well as I can, short of disabling it altogether.

Broadband internet in the US is already considerably behind a large portion of the world, and I doubt it's going to get WORSE. I really can't imagine anything but a considerable amount of improvement in speed over the next few years.

Basically, video download services are going to wind up screwing all of us.

This is news to me. I have downloaded much more than 100Gb in a month before, and never received any notification I had exceeded any "limit". I live in the Chicagoland area.

Art

Well, something to keep in mind is that not all bandwidth costs the same.

Most ISPs don't give a crap how much you download at 3am, since nobody else is using the network at that time. The bandwidth would otherwise have been wasted, so no big deal if some people want to max out their connection overnight.

The real concern is peak usage (which I would guess is between 8pm and midnight). When everyone is online and competing for bandwidth, then that bandwidth becomes more valuable, and thus more likely to be monitored.

A flat bandwidth cap doesn't address that, which is probably why comcast wants to keep some flexibility in who they define as a 'heavy' user.

well i have internet radio running about 8 hours long most days. i watch a few videos every week, plus the web feeds that have video running on them. i like to send a video cam email to family at least once a week, some times more when my girl who is in collage wants to chat with me.

add in both my younger girls internet radios playing and my wifes computer. plus the few hours late at night when i can play WOW.

i would be surprised if i got bandwidth UNDER 100G any month.

I am a Time Warner customer (roadrunner service).

I currently get 6mb down and something like 256k up (very slow upload).

Of course I currently have unlimited access and pay 44.95 (I think).

If they offer lower priced plans with restricted bandwidth, good for them, and the people that want them.

If they try to restrict the bandwidth I am already using for the same price, they are going to have one less customer.

BTW - I have had the exact same service for 8 years now, isn't it about time someone offered something that was faster? (can't get fios for the forseeable future)

If HD video downloads really do take off to any significant degree, they won't have much choice. Almost every broadband provider out there has oversold capacity. The only one I can think of that hasn't is Verizon with FIOS. And that's not exactly wide-spread. The cable companies are the big culprits, though.

Edit: Also, the ISPs will want a piece of the pie. See: "Google is getting a free ride," from whomever it was that was their provider.

If HD video downloads really do take off to any significant degree, they won't have much choice. Almost every broadband provider out there has oversold capacity. The only one I can think of that hasn't is Verizon with FIOS. And that's not exactly wide-spread. The cable companies are the big culprits, though.

Edit: Also, the ISPs will want a piece of the pie. See: "Google is getting a free ride," from whomever it was that was their provider.

There's nothing wrong with oversold capacity per se. It's a much more efficient way to use the available pot of bandwidth (ie, everyone gets better speeds), and it works great most of the time.

The downside is that they need new models to react to new usage patterns, like a boon in IPTV, in order to maintain that efficiency.

One way they could respond would be the Akamai model, where the content providers would put a box at every ISP's head end. The ISP would then get content off that local box, instead of going through the internet backbone. The issue of "oversold capacity" never comes up, since the content is right there on the local network.

I might be wrong, but doesn't Apple already use Akamai for distribution? Maybe the solution is already there?

Maybe the AOL execs in the TWC staff came up with this "new, innovative" idea of usage billing. They're thinking: "Heck, it worked for us in 1991, can't we do it again?" :rolleyes:

I could see some kind of surcharge for "excess" usage, but defining excessive could be tricky since customers have become accustomed to a flat fee pricing schedule since the mid-late 90's.

ooooohoooooo, I'll bet the backlash was fun off of that one.

They're stomachs were too full to cause any trouble!

Brandon

This would suck if we started getting charged per usage by our ISP's, at least for those of us that use it a lot. But I really can't see Comcast or Verizon Fios doing this anytime in the foreseeable future. Plus, so many people barely use their internet, so they are making money off of these people who pay a flat rate.


Paying tiered prices for internet usage is exactly how it should be. Why should I foot the bill for someone downloading 100GB a month? I have no desire to download bit starved 720P, DD 5.1 HD movies. I much prefer high bit rate 1080P, losslesss audio, Blu-Rays. The same thing will happen with healthcare in this country. You want to smoke? Overweight? Visit the hospital/doctors office >5 times a year and you will be moved to a higher tiered premium. Its time for people to start paying for their own choices in life.

I could see some kind of surcharge for "excess" usage, but defining excessive could be tricky since customers have become accustomed to a flat fee pricing schedule since the mid-late 90's.

If they do this, I would be pissed as well should any customer who doesn't ever come close to the cap. Think about the business model. Right now, all of the customers in the lowest tier are subsidizing the bandwith that the highest tiered customers are gobbling up. We all pay a flat rate, so when I use 10% of what I could, and you use 110% of what is allowed, it more than balances out in favor of the ISP.

If they change it to a flat-rate + premium tier (kinda like phone companies that charge by the minute once you go over your allotment), then I still pay a flat rate and subsidize your excess, but they also get compensated for the excess by the end-user. So, assuming it would normally balance out (big assumption), they are now being paid double for the excess amount.

If any company is going to do this it should be a pure continuum and sliding scale, like utilities companies use. You pay for what you use, period. But will that ever happen? Probably not.

Paying tiered prices for internet usage is exactly how it should be. Why should I foot the bill for someone downloading 100GB a month?

Exactly, lower tiered customers are already footing the bill for higher tiered customers like I said above. It either stays that way or goes to a complete sliding scale.

Brandon

i guess they need to give me a meter so i can see what im using. I wouldnt even know where to begin to calculate that. Is there some kind of software available for this?

If you are on a Mac, Activity monitor has a "data received" listing under the network tab. It only goes to the last reboot though, but you can probably get a good monthly estimate if you leave your Mac on for several days.

I haven't found a good windows solution yet.

They already had a pay per use service called America Online. At one time they had almost 70% of customers with internet acces. Absolutely HUGE! Obviously they had to change their policy when tons of customers flocked to much cheaper ISP's and they lost their huge marketshare. Time Warner was much too slow to react to the trend and ended up taking big losses on it's acquisition of AOL.

It's amazing that Time Warner didn't learn their lesson the first time around. You know what they say about history and those who are doomed to repeat it. Good luck TWC. Watch all your customers go elsewhere.

They already had a pay per use service called America Online. At one time they had almost 70% of customers with internet acces. Absolutely HUGE! Obviously they had to change their policy when tons of customers flocked to much cheaper ISP's and they lost their huge marketshare. Time Warner was much too slow to react to the trend and ended up taking big losses on it's acquisition of AOL.

It's amazing that Time Warner didn't learn their lesson the first time around. You know what they say about history and those who are doomed to repeat it. Good luck TWC. Watch all your customers go elsewhere.

Meh, note that they don't make money on all customers. Ideally, they'll want the heavy users to voluntarily quit the service (and go make losses for the competition), while they can offer cheaper, faster (read: more competitive) service for the grandmas and everyone else out there.

This move is going to help them financially, unless they get hammered by the marketing.

They already had a pay per use service called America Online. At one time they had almost 70% of customers with internet acces. Absolutely HUGE! Obviously they had to change their policy when tons of customers flocked to much cheaper ISP's and they lost their huge marketshare. Time Warner was much too slow to react to the trend and ended up taking big losses on it's acquisition of AOL.

It's amazing that Time Warner didn't learn their lesson the first time around. You know what they say about history and those who are doomed to repeat it. Good luck TWC. Watch all your customers go elsewhere.

Yes, because a dial up provider you connect to using a telephone line is completely analogous to a dedicated always on connection.

Tell me, how many places can you get broadband from in your area? In mine I'm stuck with Cox cable because DSL isn't available.

Time Warner should be able to price and sell its bandwidth anyway it wants. If we don't like the price there are always other options.

If they try to restrict the bandwidth I am already using for the same price, they are going to have one less customer.

Not trying to me a smart ass here, but where are you going to go? Once one company does this and is sucessful, all the other large ones are going to follow. So you may have small ISP's will to sell unlimited, but all the bandwidth hogs will go there and they will soon be out of business.

I am fine with the idea as I have a teenager in the neighborhood who keeps his computer maxed all the time with downloads. He must have 10,000 or more songs he will never listen to and thousands of movies he will never watch just to be able to say he has them.

At the expense of my ability to download a large file for work one in a while. So if his parents had to pay extra for his usage, they may not look the other way so quickly. Plus it is only a matter of time before he gets a RIAA/MPAA letter.

Yes, because a dial up provider you connect to using a telephone line is completely analogous to a dedicated always on connection.

Tell me, how many places can you get broadband from in your area? In mine I'm stuck with Cox cable because DSL isn't available.I'm in Seattle and I have quite a few choices. Even if you don't live in an "as wired" metropolitan area such as Seattle, there are still options such as satellite and new wireless radio broadband, cellular radio broadband, and there are a few other technologies in the works as well.

Not trying to me a smart ass here, but where are you going to go? Once one company does this and is sucessful, all the other large ones are going to follow. So you may have small ISP's will to sell unlimited, but all the bandwidth hogs will go there and they will soon be out of business.The cable companies don't necessarily own all the infrastructure involved. Believe me... the cable companies had better tread lightly unless they want the Federal Government getting involved with regulation. After Enron getting away with all they did with the deregulation of Power and infrastructure control, I would hope the Feds have a close eye on cable operators and broadband providers. Don't make Al Gore pull the cord on his invention :)

If you are on a Mac, Activity monitor has a "data received" listing under the network tab. It only goes to the last reboot though, but you can probably get a good monthly estimate if you leave your Mac on for several days.

I haven't found a good windows solution yet.

Actually its rather easy. If you go to network connections and click on the network connection you use for internet connection it will tell you how much you have received and sent. I usually go to properties and put it on the system tray.

As for people talking about footing the bill for others. Its that way in almost every bussiness. Whether its buying the TV that is marketed up to cover the costs of selling DVD's to customers that have almost no margin. Or its buying the SUV that sold at well above costs to make up of the sedans and compacts sold at below costs. Its about the bill you pay on your cell phone that covers them putting up a tower in California. Its about you paying taxes for schools even though you have no children. Trust me you pick any market and I could find a way to show you how one side is making up for the other.

Time Warner should be able to price and sell its bandwidth anyway it wants. If we don't like the price there are always other options.

Are there? I just recently got another option for internet access in my area that didn't involve DSL at much slower speeds. If there isn't direct competition of the same infrastructure you can bet that issues will begin to arise concerning closer regulation.

Brandon

Paying tiered prices for internet usage is exactly how it should be. Why should I foot the bill for someone downloading 100GB a month? I have no desire to download bit starved 720P, DD 5.1 HD movies. I much prefer high bit rate 1080P, losslesss audio, Blu-Rays. The same thing will happen with healthcare in this country. You want to smoke? Overweight? Visit the hospital/doctors office >5 times a year and you will be moved to a higher tiered premium. Its time for people to start paying for their own choices in life.

I totally agree. 100%

Time Warner should be able to price and sell its bandwidth anyway it wants. If we don't like the price there are always other options.

That's the big thing. They can but that doesn't we can't debate if its a good thing. It just alienates customers and then pushes them towards a company willing to give them unlimited access we already went from limited connections i don't see how you can develop a business model that goes backwards. In the end customers not worried about their bandwidth will still be forced to pay for that big network that isn't used as much. Its not like you are buying a candy bar, anything not used right away goes to waste, when people its just money gone and bandwidth wasted.

The best that can happen from this is it allows them to eventually stop upgrading the lines and maybe (maybe being key) charge less to those other users. Right now I guess they count on being able to charge people more for their bandwidth use on the high end and hope that those people didn't just sign on because it was unlimited and leave. If it was me their are many other options even if their slightly slower then cable, and if Fios ever comes to me sometimes faster that will allow me the same access I am getting now.

Its about the bill you pay on your cell phone that covers them putting up a tower in California. Its about you paying taxes for schools even though you have no children. Trust me you pick any market and I could find a way to show you how one side is making up for the other.

You're illustrating my point though: it's already built into the cost. So take your analogy and now imagine one citizen paying more in taxes for every child above 2 that they have in public school. This is in addition to the other people who have no children using the system but still pay taxes. It's in addition to, not in place of, which means they are doubling revenue because they're being paid for it twice. And this revenue isn't going to better schools or roads or military equipment like some taxes do, it's going to direct profit for the ISP.

If all cable companies with monopolies in certain areas start doing this and can keep their customer base it'll be time to start buying stock.

Brandon

can't wait to see what happens when downloading hd reaches popularity i picture
major outages be it amps, nodes or servers i just don't see this working so well for
quite a few years.

I'm in Seattle and I have quite a few choices. Even if you don't live in an "as wired" metropolitan area such as Seattle, there are still options such as satellite and new wireless radio broadband, cellular radio broadband, and there are a few other technologies in the works as well.

I get it, you live somewhere that has plenty of options and can't fathom that those of us in flyover states (ie. most of the country) are YEARS from getting this tech. I'm lucky to get a cellphone signal most of the time.

can't wait to see what happens when downloading hd reaches popularity i picture
major outages be it amps, nodes or servers i just don't see this working so well for
quite a few years.

What will really be funny is when the day comes that friends are chatting on messenger and friend B says "hey I'm gonna send you this file to check out" and friend A replies "nah, I'm running out of gigabytes so I'll have to get it from you next week."

Brandon

Why would you want to wait to download HD movies anyway?

Comcast has already said they are going to have 6000 titles by the end of the year, half will be HD on VOD/OnDemand.

Plus Pansonic showed a portable DVR modular cable box if you want to watch something on the go.

Using your Internet to watch Movies or TV is just stupid.

You're illustrating my point though: it's already built into the cost. So take your analogy and now imagine one citizen paying more in taxes for every child above 2 that they have in public school. This is in addition to the other people who have no children using the system but still pay taxes. It's in addition to, not in place of, which means they are doubling revenue because they're being paid for it twice. And this revenue isn't going to better schools or roads or military equipment like some taxes do, it's going to direct profit for the ISP.

If all cable companies with monopolies in certain areas start doing this and can keep their customer base it'll be time to start buying stock.

Brandon

Now its about maximizing profits. They found that by having a flat rate they found a price that wasn't to much for the people who barely used it, and not to astronomical for the people who used it a lot. This allowed them to have a network that was big enough to support both a make a profit. Otherwise your stuck slowly building up because of the rates you charge the heavy users, sales level off, and then you are in no situation to handle the next big internet fad.

Think of it this way. We are growing in population slower and slower, less people have kids. No amount of taxes charged to people raising kids could cover their education on their payments alone, raising a kid becomes something only the upper middle class and above can support, they have kids less (if it was even possible since the richer you get the lower the amount of children they have for fear of time away from work). Boom that plan equals a spiral ladder to the point where our population decreases at a substantial rate.

Its about the best of both worlds for maxim benifit. Its easier for them to charge you a little more and charge them a lot less and maximize membership then to charge you a lot less and them more because the more you charge them the more likely they will switch (maybe even follow sign up discounts from one company to another) forcing them to last on just your discounted rates.

I'm in Seattle and I have quite a few choices. Even if you don't live in an "as wired" metropolitan area such as Seattle, there are still options such as satellite and new wireless radio broadband, cellular radio broadband, and there are a few other technologies in the works as well

Spoken by someone that's obviously never used satellite "broadband." ;)

Using your Internet to watch Movies or TV is just stupid.

When I went on vacation back in early November, one of my DVRs failed to record anything that it was scheduled to record that week. I ended up having to locate and download HD copies of episodes of series that couldn't be missed, or watch them online if that option was available.

That was when I learned about the fabled DMCA letters Comcast sends you if you are caught using Bittorent to download TV episodes.

I wonder if the people who are pushing downloading on the internet are the same ones who complain that the Blu-Ray players take 2 minutes to load. LOL!

James

When I went on vacation back in early November, one of my DVRs failed to record anything that it was scheduled to record that week. I ended up having to locate and download HD copies of episodes of series that couldn't be missed, or watch them online if that option was available.

That was when I learned about the fabled DMCA letters Comcast sends you if you are caught using Bittorent to download TV episodes.

I love that. Happened to me on the second episode of The Donnelleys, forgot to set the DVR. Got a torrent that worked a little to well and 3 weeks later got a letter from comcast.

Spoken by someone that's obviously never used satellite "broadband." ;)Not true... I was an early adopter of DirecWay one way broadband satellite service back when your phone lines needed to be rated to get ISDN or DSL (about 1997 or so). I had 56k up and 720kbps down with it and honestly, except for the extreme latency involved I was quite happy with the download speeds and how it worked. Obviously you could not play games with it, but for downloading large files, I was flying at the time. Now days Satellite has 2-way capability. I would assume that the latency is still extreme, but we aren't talking about gaming. i am sure it is suitable for handling large downloads? If I am way off base, I am open to hearing the issues with Satellite. :)

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.

This is exactly true.

All the while I've been saying that despite my 18 Mbps cable connection I'd be limited to about 10-15 HD movies per month, assuming I didn't do anything else with my internet connection.

Rogers High-speed would be dropping the cut-off hammer on me pretty quick if I started downloading all the HD movies I watch in a month.

I love that. Happened to me on the second episode of The Donnelleys, forgot to set the DVR. Got a torrent that worked a little to well and 3 weeks later got a letter from comcast.

This is why NNTP over SSL > Sh*tTorrent. :)

This is why NNTP over SSL > Sh*tTorrent. :)

Or, just encrypt your torrent data.

Not true... I was an early adopter of DirecWay one way broadband satellite service back when your phone lines needed to be rated to get ISDN or DSL (about 1997 or so). I had 56k up and 720kbps down with it and honestly, except for the extreme latency involved I was quite happy with the download speeds and how it worked. Obviously you could not play games with it, but for downloading large files, I was flying at the time. Now days Satellite has 2-way capability. I would assume that the latency is still extreme, but we aren't talking about gaming. i am sure it is suitable for handling large downloads? If I am way off base, I am open to hearing the issues with Satellite. :)

The maximum speed they're offering, even now, is 1.5 Mb/s peak. It's not so much that it's terrible (other than gaming and VPN type stuff - for which it IS terrible), just that it's lagging WAY behind other broadband options at the front of the pack. And it doesn't look like it's getting any better any time soon. It's much better than dial up, but it's the last resort that I'd recommend.

The cableco's want to provide POTS while at the same time blocking download movie competition? LOL that should last about 2 years. Sounds like Valenti and the VCR - do they really want to lose their broadband business?

Now its about maximizing profits.

You got that right.

Nobody should for one second fool themselves into thinking the companies are taking anything close to a loss in profits because of these "internet hoards." It has just diminished their profit margin by whatever margin, no matter how slight, and they're looking for a way to possibly increase them again. The only way it backfires is if customers leave for another provider, which is why it's being rolled out in a "test" market first.

Brandon

Time Warner should be able to price and sell its bandwidth anyway it wants. If we don't like the price there are always other options.

This is a very naive comment. There are many, many markets where there's one Telco and one Cable ISP and possibly outrageously priced, dog slow satellite - that's it. And the Telco's often have limited availability because of distance. Not exactly much choice. So for hundreds of thousands or even millions of customers, they have one or two choices? Not exactly what I'd consider a favorable position for the consumer.

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.
:rolleyes:

Nevermind that it could be less expensive, significantly more convenient, quicker access to the content, and don't have to worry about which studio releases on which format - it just plays.

If the quality is similar and the pricing is fair, what have you got to lose for rentals? For buy-to-own, I understand some people are dinosaurs and feel that owning digital content must be on a physical medium or some people are collectors and like having the physical medium, but times are changing. If DD's aren't for you and you like having physical discs, fine, they're not going anywhere in the near future.

To assume that DD's are only something for Blu-ray haters would be interested in doesn't hold any water, let alone any truth. Tell the bandwagon driver to pull over and let everyone out so they can take a pit stop and stretch their legs. Not everyone having interest in the possibility of DD's hates Blu-ray, Sony or whatever the mantra of the day may be.

You got that right.

Nobody should for one second fool themselves into thinking the companies are taking anything close to a loss in profits because of these "internet hoards." It has just diminished their profit margin by whatever margin, no matter how slight, and they're looking for a way to possibly increase them again. The only way it backfires is if customers leave for another provider, which is why it's being rolled out in a "test" market first.

Brandon

"diminished profit margins" = "loss in profits". It's means the same thing.

Let me point out something here. According to the article, TW estimates the heaviest 5% of users take 50% of the bandwidth (and from what other ISPs have said, this is a conservative estimate). Now, understand this clearly: 95% of users are currently being given only 50% of the original total capacity of the network.

Now, imagine for a moment if they got rid of that uber heavy 5% (which a hard-cap would likely do). The other 95% of users would now have access to the entire original capacity, and can download twice as much as they did before; so 6mb lines could be turned into 12mb lines, and so on up.

Remember now, bandwidth is a use-it-or-lose it proposition. The cable companies, no matter how greedy they are, can't stuff it in a van or bottle it up for later. The excess capacity has to be redistributed, and all that freed capacity would be going into every mom-and-pop casual user/customer they have.

That increase in speed in-and-of-itself is going to give a boon to IPTV and download-distribution models. The trade-off would be how high or low the download cap is, something which has yet to be seen. If it's overly aggressive (say 40GB or less for basic), then yea, bye bye iptv. If it's high enough, at say 100GB for basic, then the cap might be a non-issue (for most people).

If the cap doesn't affect most users, but still gives them an increase in speed, then it becomes the ideal solution. There is potential for this is make life a hell of alot better for current TW customers, and that shouldn't be overlooked.

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.

What the?...

What does having a dislike for BR have to do with downloads? The two issues are mutually exclusive.

I'm a big fan of HD-DVD, but I despise the whole download model. What does one have to do with the other?

I would only download blu-ray content anyway

:rolleyes:
and don't have to worry about which studio releases on which format - it just plays.

If you don't think studio content is going to be an issue, just check out the current landscape of digital downloads.

"diminished profit margins" = "loss in profits". It's means the same thing.


Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that diminished profit margins means you are losing some profits. Diminished profit margins do not, however, =net loss...which is what I'm referring to in the above context.

What the?...

What does having a dislike for BR have to do with downloads?

You may want to look at the pattern that developed a couple of weeks ago in the HDM forums in general.

Brandon

This is a much more reasonable strategy than Comcast's strategy of threatening to cut off customers who use too much bandwidth, and then actually cutting them off for a year without notice.

If a customer uses more than the secret bandwidth limit, which has been estimated at around 100GB a month, bill the customer an additional surcharge, instead of threatening them with goons. If the customer insists on continuing to use excess bandwidth, then the customer pays more for it. Most customers would cut back after the first time.


I was talking with a fellow nerd that I work with who ran into this problem with Comcast. His service was shut off indefinately for using too much bandwidth, although I'm not sure what the actual amount used was.

If there's download cap, then tell the customer upfront. No secrets. If they tell you 6mb/s unlimited, then they should be prepared for a person downloading 6mb/s for 24x7, all month long. If they can't afford to sell you bandwidth at that price, then charge a different price for unlimited, and different price for a capped account, etc.
That's the way business works, plain and simple, since mankind first began doing business.

Try putting an ad in the paper to sell a computer, and then sell that same computer to 20 different people. Collect their money. When they all show up to collect their computer, tell them they have to share it, no one uses a computer 24 hours a day, etc. See if the cops don't come knocking at your door. Doing it that way is a scam. Doing it via a vague TOS is somehow exempt from the law I guess.

All parameters should upfront and advertised. The only reason these weasels don't want to tell people the limits is because they don't want other more honest ISPs coming and taking their customers away. Again, if you can't afford to sell me the product at that price advertised, then don't advertise it.

People seem to not understand downloads. The primary model is not delivery over the Internet, it is delivery via the cable co local network, which has near 500Mbps to each home they service. Take a look at a cable HD-Lite channel sometime. 19Mbps, sustained, indefinitely. Not Internet bandwidth.

If there's download cap, then tell the customer upfront. No secrets. If they tell you 6mb/s unlimited, then they should be prepared for a person downloading 6mb/s for 24x7,

This is not how caps work. Caps are maximums, not guaranteed throughput the way you get with a leased line like a T1 or a DS3. You don't "own" a slice of the ISP's bandwidth. You are on a burstable connection that is limited by total usage of all subscribers. A leased 6Mbps line would cost you $1,000 a month.

I have no problem paying more for unlimited data if I need it .

However they still need to offer good deals . If they cap you at 10 gigs and then charge by the meg that could be a problem.

If however they start low for grandma and grand pa say at 10 gigs a month with each gig costing $1 more a month .

Have a plan in the middle that offers 50 gigs a month that gives you 5 gigs for $1 more a month

THen a plan that gives you unlimited for x amount of money.

Start at I dunno $20 then $50 and then $100 or so and they should be set.


However I will stick with verizon fios and I will continue to switch from company to company if others start to charge like this untill i'm forced to pay the rates and then I will barely use my internet anymore and walk some more so i'm not over weight and have to pay more for medical bills like makeusleep said

If you don't think studio content is going to be an issue, just check out the current landscape of digital downloads.

I thought the Apple slide from Macworld showed they had signed every major film studio, no? They're just one example. Choice and availability is just beginning to crop up for DDs, many services are very new or just getting under steam.

"diminished profit margins" = "loss in profits". It's means the same thing.

Let me point out something here. According to the article, TW estimates the heaviest 5% of users take 50% of the bandwidth (and from what other ISPs have said, this is a conservative estimate). Now, understand this clearly: 95% of users are currently being given only 50% of the original total capacity of the network.

Now, imagine for a moment if they got rid of that uber heavy 5% (which a hard-cap would likely do). The other 95% of users would now have access to the entire original capacity, and can download twice as much as they did before; so 6mb lines could be turned into 12mb lines, and so on up.

I'm sure this is is exactly what they'd like to do. Going back to the restaurant analogy, you ideally want to only let light eaters into your all you can eat restaurant. But what you're suggesting is that then the light eaters can eat more. That's not really the goal though. The goal is to double the number of light eaters without having to exapnd the restaurant. I would suggest that TWs plan won't work though.

Remember now, bandwidth is a use-it-or-lose it proposition. The cable companies, no matter how greedy they are, can't stuff it in a van or bottle it up for later. The excess capacity has to be redistributed, and all that freed capacity would be going into every mom-and-pop casual user/customer they have.

It's not like you get two slices of pie, when before you were getting only one. Capacity can go unused, but again the idea is to try and eliminate the heavy users and sell your available capacity to a greater number of light users. The goal is not to encourage your light users to pig out more.

That increase in speed in-and-of-itself is going to give a boon to IPTV and download-distribution models. The trade-off would be how high or low the download cap is, something which has yet to be seen. If it's overly aggressive (say 40GB or less for basic), then yea, bye bye iptv. If it's high enough, at say 100GB for basic, then the cap might be a non-issue (for most people).

If the cap doesn't affect most users, but still gives them an increase in speed, then it becomes the ideal solution. There is potential for this is make life a hell of alot better for current TW customers, and that shouldn't be overlooked.

And here is the crux of the issue. You notice the the TW "experiment" is in Beaumont, Texas and is only for new customers. What they're trying to determine is will the public stand for this? I would suggest they won't. Their plan is analogous to your phone company saying "You know that flat monthly fee your paying for all your local calls? People are making too many calls, so we're going back to charging per minute."

The result will be that they will loose many more subscribers than the "problem" 5% they want to keep away. When people here about tiers, they will go to other options. I expect SBC DSL to see a significant up tick in new subscribers in Beaumont, Texas. Competition is a beautiful thing.

Yet in many areas (central New Jersey, for instance) cable companies have 90%+ penetration in broadband service. They're hardly going to double their subscriber base ...

Time Warner should be able to price and sell its bandwidth anyway it wants. If we don't like the price there are always other options.
Wow, i wish i had more than ONE OPTIONS FOR BROADBAND. :rolleyes:
I wonder if the people who are pushing downloading on the internet are the same ones who complain that the Blu-Ray players take 2 minutes to load. LOL!

James

Shhhh, dont say anything downloads will rule :D

People seem to not understand downloads. The primary model is not delivery over the Internet, it is delivery via the cable co local network, which has near 500Mbps to each home they service. Take a look at a cable HD-Lite channel sometime. 19Mbps, sustained, indefinitely. Not Internet bandwidth.

What you dont understand, is that it is heavyli compressed. And the big box that the cable attaches to is doing alot of work to make it look decen't. Where do you get this 500Mbps speed from?

I have Fios 20 down/ 5 up, so I don't think I would have a bandwidth cap. I don't think these new fiber networks will be choking for bandwidth for a long time.

I thought the Apple slide from Macworld showed they had signed every major film studio, no? They're just one example. Choice and availability is just beginning to crop up for DDs, many services are very new or just getting under steam.

You may be right about this, although I'm not sure it's every studio. Somebody can verify. But what happens if you don't want Apple's method or hardware? If you want to go with other options you have to make sure they have the content you want. Unless the method of delivery or the hardware becomes standardized at some level we're going to have the same content issues.

I look forward to the day that the infrastructure and content and quality is there for digital downloads, I just think it has a long ways to go.

Brandon

I can understand those who want a tiered, or pay for what you use, system. However, do you really believe you will be paying less? They won't lower anyone's bill, they will just increase the bill of those who use more.

I mentioned in another thread, that if I have to pay for what I use for broadband, I want the same pricing structure for cable TV. Only charge me for the channels I actually watch. I know that will never happen.

In most areas, there is a monopoly on true high speed broadband, and cable TV. They don't have to be fair, or competitive. Their business practices are making me more tolerant of just downloading what I want to watch, be it legal, or not. I haven't reached that point yet, but every increase in my bill (close to 200.00 right now) pushes me closer to the brink.

Art

I can understand those who want a tiered, or pay for what you use, system. However, do you really believe you will be paying less? They won't lower anyone's bill, they will just increase the bill of those who use more.

If you are in an area with competition or low broadband penetration, then your bill probably will get lower.

The "big prize" for them is to increase their consumer base, not marginally increase your bill (which they could have done anyway). The only realistic way they can get that level of growth is by providing a cheaper service to drive further adoption in underdeveloped markets, or those with heavy competition.

And here is the crux of the issue. You notice the the TW "experiment" is in Beaumont, Texas and is only for new customers. What they're trying to determine is will the public stand for this? I would suggest they won't. Their plan is analogous to your phone company saying "You know that flat monthly fee your paying for all your local calls? People are making too many calls, so we're going back to charging per minute."

If the flat rate was $50, and the charges-per-minute come up to $30 for the same average usage, then most customers will overwhelming chose the usage-based-model.

Many variables are present, and we shouldn't write off the idea prematurely.

What you dont understand, is that it is heavyli compressed. And the big box that the cable attaches to is doing alot of work to make it look decen't. Where do you get this 500Mbps speed from?

I am a senior NOC engineer for Cox Communications. I understand exactly what our capabilities are.

People seem to not understand downloads. The primary model is not delivery over the Internet, it is delivery via the cable co local network, which has near 500Mbps to each home they service. Take a look at a cable HD-Lite channel sometime. 19Mbps, sustained, indefinitely. Not Internet bandwidth.

Local network is nowhere near 500Mbps. I was doing a search on DOCSIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS) (the standard used for cable) the other day, and for most of the users out there, the max is only around 42Mb/s. The new comcast technology is in the hundreds, but significantly less than 500Mbps. ADSL2+ only goes up to 24Mb/s download, and ADSL1 is limited to 8Mb/s.

Now that's faster than the internet speed that mosts ISPs offer, but still not 500Mbps.

Local network is nowhere near 500Mbps. I was doing a search on DOCSIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS) (the standard used for cable) the other day, and for most of the users out there, the max is only around 42Mb/s. The new comcast technology is in the hundreds, but significantly less than 500Mbps. ADSL2+ only goes up to 24Mb/s download, and ADSL1 is limited to 8Mb/s.

Now that's faster than the internet speed that mosts ISPs offer, but still not 500Mbps.Was the 500 Mbps example being cited about Data Over Cable or was it about encrypted QAM channels (which can be used for VoD)?

And with all of this lofty, super high bandwidth talk, the average broadband customer is still getting less than 2 Mb/s.

Local network is nowhere near 500Mbps. I was doing a search on DOCSIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS) (the standard used for cable) the other day, and for most of the users out there, the max is only around 42Mb/s. The new comcast technology is in the hundreds, but significantly less than 500Mbps. ADSL2+ only goes up to 24Mb/s download, and ADSL1 is limited to 8Mb/s.

Now that's faster than the internet speed that mosts ISPs offer, but still not 500Mbps.

You are incorrect. You are speaking of CABLE INTERNET. I am not talking about the Internet.

Was the 500 Mbps example being cited about Data Over Cable or was it about encrypted QAM channels (which can be used for VoD)?

QAM. =)

I remember when I lived in California and was a cable customer. I was one of the first customer's and had about 3.6mbps downloads. Within a year it was below 1mbps due to their inabliity to keep up with demand. I can see ISP's limiting downloads or go on a usage based system if they can't keep up with user demand.

Here is what a pro HDM/anti-download fan has to say about this...
...Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially. They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.

VOD is useless for video downloads, what they going to have 50,000 download channels? VOD if fine for a few hundred newer movies , but how are you going to offer a real selection ? can i watch any one of the DVDs that have ever been put out at any time of the day without any delay? NO the only way is to use IPTV and their whole networks are not set up for that. this means true video downloads have to use only the channels that are currently setup for 2 way internet traffic. at the current stated caps two 50G 1080p movies and i am done . that leaves me without any other internet traffic, like the web, or internet radio.

IF they convert some of the current downstream only channels to expand real video download service and still cap capacity for 3rd parties they will be looking at government imposed regulations real fast. government wants more competition to cable, they see internet IPTV as a way to get it. if the cable companies offer the service but lock others out then there is no competition.

Using the Comcast [alleged] claim of 100 MBPS off the bat & 400 - 500 MBPS down the road this can ONLY apply to Comcast customers but even to deliver Comcast will need to literally replace their current network or upgrade the size say 1000%.

They do not have the bandwidth in place to service the users. Nowhere near it...not even remotely close....

If only 1% of their customers use the service they would need to add hundreds of thousands of GBs or Thousands of TBs of bandwidth.

The cost to do so is ASTRONOMICAL. And Comcast or any Cable Operator, Telco or utility [which is regulated as well as are public companies] does not have the Carte Blanche to drop the kind of money required to build out to the degree necessary.

The cost cannot be justified.

[I]IE: Every 10 download customers @ 100 MBPS is 1000 MBPS / 1 GBPS...what if 1000 customers in the same market want the same thing AROUND the same time? It means Comcast needs 1,000,000 MBPS or 1000 GBPS bandwidth available at that moment. They don't have it. No ISP and ESPECIALLY no residential ISP has this type of capacity [on demand].


If we step outside of Comcast's national footprint for a moment take DSL for example. DSL runs on analog / copper POTS lines. The native bandwidth for a POTS line is 64K but can OBVIOUSLY be increased by compression but NEVER will a 64K POTS line be capable of 100 MBPS let alone 400 - 500 MBPS.

In regards to cable modem, the more people on it around you the slower you go as you are on a shared loop / ring for access. I have BrightHouse / RoadRunner & ping around 3500 KBPS however standing right next to a full of T1 internet access @ 1.54 MBPS the T1 runs laps around my [alleged] 3500 KBPS cable modem. The T1 is uncompressed so the data @ 1.54 MBPS is ACTUALLY much faster than the compressed 3500 KBPS cable modem.

Most residential accounts aren't going to order a T1 of internet @ $350 - $400 MRC AND buy a $500+ T1 router etc....and the T1 is only 1.54MBPS nowhere near 100 MBPS Comcast is touting which would be called an OC3 [an uncompressed 135 MBPS connection] An OC3 runs around $4050.00 MRC + the local loop MRC of around $2500.00 for a total of $6550.00 monthly...Comcast would need to add 7,407.40 OC3s to any market where 1000 customers or more will want the service at any given time.

The bandwidth at $30 per MBPS wholesale runs a paltry $30,002,962.00 monthly per market. If they need to offer in say 10 national markets that an extra $300mil monthly overhead...realistic???? Shareholders will love it...right??

Also, to make the downloads work MAY require MPLS [multiple packet label service] to seperate the different tpes of data traveling across the consumers internet connection at the same time as the movie download. If you have Comcast digital phone for example or if anyone in the house is using the internet at the same time...you don't want phone call voice packets getting mixed into your movie download rendering the file corrupted & unplayable...

The download will require a PVC VBR between Comcasts server the movie is downloaded from end to end to the consumers PC or set top box / tivo / dvr /pvr/ hdd etc...both MPLS & the hardware to generate the PVC VBR add to the cost of the download to make it work.

The bandwidth required is just not deliverable to make this work nor can the cost to deliver EVER be justified.

All Comcast did was try to steal some Blu-Ray CES thunder..the Comcast CEO saw some reporters so he did what comes natural he exaggerated.

In regards to Apple TV well you have to buy the hardware & it is already described as nowhere near BD or HD DVD quality so really not worth addressing. And it is not as easy as download & play..there are multiple steps involved that the average person just won't take the time to learn. Apple TV is a loser as a product & iTunes movie downloads are for iPods & iPhones. Plain & Simple.

The whole Comcast "tell an interesting lie as opposed to the boring truth" will blow over..in a few months when NOTHING materializes who will even remember what the Comcast CEO even said?

You are incorrect. You are speaking of CABLE INTERNET. I am not talking about the Internet.

eci, this article was posted by Talkstr8t on the insiders thread. I was interested in getting your take on it since you're in the business.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20071221_003697.html

Much of it is focused on the idea of cable companies switching to IP and specifically Multicast delivery of content on their networks.

Using the Comcast [alleged] claim of 100 MBPS off the bat & 400 - 500 MBPS down the road this can ONLY apply to Comcast customers but even to deliver Comcast will need to literally replace their current network or upgrade the size say 1000%.

They do not have the bandwidth in place to service the users. Nowhere near it...not even remotely close....

If only 1% of their customers use the service they would need to add hundreds of thousands of GBs or Thousands of TBs of bandwidth.

The cost to do so is ASTRONOMICAL. And Comcast or any Cable Operator, Telco or utility [which is regulated as well as are public companies] does not have the Carte Blanche to drop the kind of money required to build out to the degree necessary.

The cost cannot be justified.

[I]IE: Every 10 download customers @ 100 MBPS is 1000 MBPS / 1 GBPS...what if 1000 customers in the same market want the same thing AROUND the same time? It means Comcast needs 1,000,000 MBPS or 1000 GBPS bandwidth available at that moment. They don't have it. No ISP and ESPECIALLY no residential ISP has this type of capacity [on demand].


If we step outside of Comcast's national footprint for a moment take DSL for example. DSL runs on analog / copper POTS lines. The native bandwidth for a POTS line is 64K but can OBVIOUSLY be increased by compression but NEVER will a 64K POTS line be capable of 100 MBPS let alone 400 - 500 MBPS.

In regards to cable modem, the more people on it around you the slower you go as you are on a shared loop / ring for access. I have BrightHouse / RoadRunner & ping around 3500 KBPS however standing right next to a full of T1 internet access @ 1.54 MBPS the T1 runs laps around my [alleged] 3500 KBPS cable modem. The T1 is uncompressed so the data @ 1.54 MBPS is ACTUALLY much faster than the compressed 3500 KBPS cable modem.

Most residential accounts aren't going to order a T1 of internet @ $350 - $400 MRC AND buy a $500+ T1 router etc....and the T1 is only 1.54MBPS nowhere near 100 MBPS Comcast is touting which would be called an OC3 [an uncompressed 135 MBPS connection] An OC3 runs around $4050.00 MRC + the local loop MRC of around $2500.00 for a total of $6550.00 monthly...Comcast would need to add 7,407.40 OC3s to any market where 1000 customers or more will want the service at any given time.

The bandwidth at $30 per MBPS wholesale runs a paltry $30,002,962.00 monthly per market. If they need to offer in say 10 national markets that an extra $300mil monthly overhead...realistic???? Shareholders will love it...right??

Also, to make the downloads work MAY require MPLS [multiple packet label service] to seperate the different tpes of data traveling across the consumers internet connection at the same time as the movie download. If you have Comcast digital phone for example or if anyone in the house is using the internet at the same time...you don't want phone call voice packets getting mixed into your movie download rendering the file corrupted & unplayable...

The download will require a PVC VBR between Comcasts server the movie is downloaded from end to end to the consumers PC or set top box / tivo / dvr /pvr/ hdd etc...both MPLS & the hardware to generate the PVC VBR add to the cost of the download to make it work.

The bandwidth required is just not deliverable to make this work nor can the cost to deliver EVER be justified.

All Comcast did was try to steal some Blu-Ray CES thunder..the Comcast CEO saw some reporters so he did what comes natural he exaggerated.

In regards to Apple TV well you have to buy the hardware & it is already described as nowhere near BD or HD DVD quality so really not worth addressing. And it is not as easy as download & play..there are multiple steps involved that the average person just won't take the time to learn. Apple TV is a loser as a product & iTunes movie downloads are for iPods & iPhones. Plain & Simple.

The whole Comcast "tell an interesting lie as opposed to the boring truth" will blow over..in a few months when NOTHING materializes who will even remember what the Comcast CEO even said?

Do you have any facts to back all that speculation up?

And with all of this lofty, super high bandwidth talk, the average broadband customer is still getting less than 2 Mb/s.

Hell I get ~2Mb/s during peak-rate hours even though I'm paying for 6!

Here is what a pro HDM/anti-download fan has to say about this...

lol...gotta love the experts. But hey, he's just the guy in charge of regulating those internets, so what difference does it make? ;)

Brandon

Do you have any facts to back all that speculation up?

Yeah, I work in Telecom & vend access on all the networks I mentioned as well as dozens of other networks I didn't mention since it doesn't apply because they aren't making ridiculous claims that the uninformed masses might take seriously. IE: Comcast

What type of documentation would you like? Network maps with bandwidth per POP? Per CO?

Tell me exactly what you would like me to provide & I will.

Plain & simple.

Or better yet, call you current residential ISP and ask them what is the capacity of YOUR connection as well as the ring that you connect to along with all their OTHER customers around you serviced by the same CO.

They will tell you exactly what can or cannot travel end to end on your connection.

They will also tell you what they will ALLOW you to send & recieve and for how long before they interupt your connection etc...

I went to great lengths to explain "how it works" so that anyone that didn't agree or believe could easily take what I wrote & research on their own.

Call your ISP

Do you have any facts to back all that speculation up?

And by the way, I wasn't speculating.

This is how I earn a living.

And by the way, I wasn't speculating.

This is how I earn a living.

Interesting, who do you work for?

I work for Cox Communications.

Using the Comcast [alleged] claim of 100 MBPS off the bat & 400 - 500 MBPS down the road this can ONLY apply to Comcast customers but even to deliver Comcast will need to literally replace their current network or upgrade the size say 1000%.

They do not have the bandwidth in place to service the users. Nowhere near it...not even remotely close....

If only 1% of their customers use the service they would need to add hundreds of thousands of GBs or Thousands of TBs of bandwidth.

The cost to do so is ASTRONOMICAL. And Comcast or any Cable Operator, Telco or utility [which is regulated as well as are public companies] does not have the Carte Blanche to drop the kind of money required to build out to the degree necessary.

The cost cannot be justified.

[I]IE: Every 10 download customers @ 100 MBPS is 1000 MBPS / 1 GBPS...what if 1000 customers in the same market want the same thing AROUND the same time? It means Comcast needs 1,000,000 MBPS or 1000 GBPS bandwidth available at that moment. They don't have it. No ISP and ESPECIALLY no residential ISP has this type of capacity [on demand].


If we step outside of Comcast's national footprint for a moment take DSL for example. DSL runs on analog / copper POTS lines. The native bandwidth for a POTS line is 64K but can OBVIOUSLY be increased by compression but NEVER will a 64K POTS line be capable of 100 MBPS let alone 400 - 500 MBPS.

In regards to cable modem, the more people on it around you the slower you go as you are on a shared loop / ring for access. I have BrightHouse / RoadRunner & ping around 3500 KBPS however standing right next to a full of T1 internet access @ 1.54 MBPS the T1 runs laps around my [alleged] 3500 KBPS cable modem. The T1 is uncompressed so the data @ 1.54 MBPS is ACTUALLY much faster than the compressed 3500 KBPS cable modem.

Most residential accounts aren't going to order a T1 of internet @ $350 - $400 MRC AND buy a $500+ T1 router etc....and the T1 is only 1.54MBPS nowhere near 100 MBPS Comcast is touting which would be called an OC3 [an uncompressed 135 MBPS connection] An OC3 runs around $4050.00 MRC + the local loop MRC of around $2500.00 for a total of $6550.00 monthly...Comcast would need to add 7,407.40 OC3s to any market where 1000 customers or more will want the service at any given time.

The bandwidth at $30 per MBPS wholesale runs a paltry $30,002,962.00 monthly per market. If they need to offer in say 10 national markets that an extra $300mil monthly overhead...realistic???? Shareholders will love it...right??

Also, to make the downloads work MAY require MPLS [multiple packet label service] to seperate the different tpes of data traveling across the consumers internet connection at the same time as the movie download. If you have Comcast digital phone for example or if anyone in the house is using the internet at the same time...you don't want phone call voice packets getting mixed into your movie download rendering the file corrupted & unplayable...

The download will require a PVC VBR between Comcasts server the movie is downloaded from end to end to the consumers PC or set top box / tivo / dvr /pvr/ hdd etc...both MPLS & the hardware to generate the PVC VBR add to the cost of the download to make it work.

The bandwidth required is just not deliverable to make this work nor can the cost to deliver EVER be justified.

All Comcast did was try to steal some Blu-Ray CES thunder..the Comcast CEO saw some reporters so he did what comes natural he exaggerated.

In regards to Apple TV well you have to buy the hardware & it is already described as nowhere near BD or HD DVD quality so really not worth addressing. And it is not as easy as download & play..there are multiple steps involved that the average person just won't take the time to learn. Apple TV is a loser as a product & iTunes movie downloads are for iPods & iPhones. Plain & Simple.

The whole Comcast "tell an interesting lie as opposed to the boring truth" will blow over..in a few months when NOTHING materializes who will even remember what the Comcast CEO even said?


No ISP has the capacity? I live in a small town. We are very fortunate. We have Fios, one of only a few handfuls in the US as of last year. Expensive though for 50 megs.

http://www.minetfiber.com/

and the pricing of internet:

http://www.minetfiber.com/pdf/internet%20service.pdf

and you have heard of google purchasing dark fiber?
Google is buying a tremendous amount. What do they know and think what will happen that we don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fiber

http://www.news.com/Google-wants-dark-fiber/2100-1034_3-5537392.html

Interesting, who do you work for?

I work for Cox Communications.

I am a Telecom consultant & a independent Master Agent with literally dozens of carriers.

Based on where the customers is physically located & who the RBOC [Regional Bell Operating Company] is &/or Cable Operator is in that specific market.

Here in the TampaBay area I am usually vending access on Verizon [Legacy GTE] & TimeWarner / BrightHouse. This is just for the last mile, for the LD I cross connect to Verizon [Legacy MCI], Qwest, AT&T, Sprint, Global Crossing etc...For the internet I use Verizon [UUNet], Qwest, Level3 / Broadwing / WilTel, TimeWarner etc...

I use the same method any where in the US. IE: If I get a lead in the Qwest / USWest region I do the same thing...a lead in the Verizon [Legacy BellAtlantic region] or BellSouth or AT&T / SBC / Ameritech, PacBell, NevadaBell, SNET etc...and cable operators like Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, BrightHouse, CableVision etc...

I sell throughout the US & originate off-shore. From India, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Mexico & the Dominican Republic. All off-shore is either VOIP or IPL [International Private Line]

I focus on call centers.

We use the Cable Operators network as an alternative to the RBOC when the last mile is just to expensive. [AT&T for example...they are to expensive so we go around for the T1 / DS3 / OC3 / OC12 / Gig-E local loop] so we connect VIA the cable operators local network & cross connect VIA tandem with as few HOPS as possible. Sometimes the customers location is just closer to the Cable Operators POP then to the RBOCs POP.

That's why I know that no cable operator or telco has the [on-demand] last mile capacity for this to happen in any volume.

For Comcast to deliver [residentially] 100mbps it is like bonding 2 DS3s [a DS3 is a 45 mbps connection] and 6 T1s [a T1 is 1.54 mbps] as there are no 100MBPS flat loop or port connections, only the bonded pipes I described above or an OC3 which is 3 DS3s or a 135 mbps connection. Ethernet connections start at 1GB.

There is just no way to deliver the content @ 100MBPS or greater to residential accounts.

^^ This applies to what I posted as well in my post # 112 just above yours?

^^ This applies to what I posted as well in my post # 112 just above yours?

Certainly it appplies except that Verizon isn't claiming the ability to deliver 100MBPS to residential customers or 50GB HD movie downloads [@ the same PQ/AQ quality as Blu-ray or HD DVD] in a 4 minute download time.

30MBPS for $155 monthly isn't a great deal to most U.S. Cable Modem customers with a $19.99 - $49.99 monthly product. I would order it if it was available but I am in the middle of the Verizon [Legacy GTE] copper / analog footprint so no FIOS for us until....the existing network breaks...Fios [in this market] is only available in areas of new construction. Verizon isn't replacing their existing network. They are running fiber from the CO right up the curb into the houses in areas where no prior analog / copper phone network existed. Places where only cellular was available until now.

Verizon is most likely trying to compete with DirecTV's HD channel lineup as are all the other cable & sat. providers.

If there was all of this ad-hock bandwidth available on-demand wouldn't they all [other cable & sat. providers] have as much HD programming as DirecTV?

Comcast should be worrying about what DirecTV is going to do next, not try to reinvent the wheel in regards to DVD / HD DVD / Blu-Ray.

Or Comcast better get to work deploying a 1 TB end to end network to back up their arrogant, ridiculous claim. Start providing their customers with GigE or OC12 routers etc...

Certainly it appplies except that Verizon isn't claiming the ability to deliver 100MBPS to residential customers or 50GB HD movie downloads [@ the same PQ/AQ quality as Blu-ray or HD DVD] in a 4 minute download time.

30MBPS for $155 monthly isn't a great deal to most U.S. Cable Modem customers with a $19.99 - $49.99 monthly product. I would order it if it was available but I am in the middle of the Verizon [Legacy GTE] copper / analog footprint so no FIOS for us until....the existing network breaks...Fios [in this market] is only available in areas of new construction. Verizon isn't replacing their existing network. They are running fiber from the CO right up the curb into the houses in areas where no prior analog / copper phone network existed. Places where only cellular was available until now.

Verizon is most likely trying to compete with DirecTV's HD channel lineup as are all the other cable & sat. providers.

If there was all of this ad-hock bandwidth available on-demand wouldn't they all [other cable & sat. providers] have as much HD programming as DirecTV?

Comcast should be worrying about what DirecTV is going to do next, not try to reinvent the wheel in regards to DVD / HD DVD / Blu-Ray.

Or Comcast better get to work deploying a 1 TB end to end network to back up their arrogant, ridiculous claim. Start providing their customers with GigE or OC12 routers etc...

Will Wimax alleviate some of the congestion? Or does it still eventually have to use some of the same transmission lines, cables or some other infrastructure?

And won't Dark Fiber play in as a positive or just add more the the problem?

Will Wimax alleviate some of the congestion? Or does it still eventually have to use some of the same transmission lines, cables or some other infrastructure?

And won't Dark Fiber play in as a positive or just add more the the problem?

I do not think there is any way around upgrading the connection at the customer premesis. The last mile must be capable of passing the bandwidth required for the process to work.

There may be tons of dark fiber waiting to be lit but not running through neighborhoods, it's between NOCs & POPS on a national level.

Then the POPs connect VIA tandem to the COs servicing the actual end users neighborhood.

It is in each neighborhood that the connection must be upgraded, it is the last mile from the CO to the customer's house, apartment, condo etc...

Google is buying dark fiber to connect markets on a national level not fiber running through residential areas for individual local customers. Most likely for the transport of cellular interstate & intrastate calls if they actually jump into cellular with a smart phone. They need a way to route cellular calls from the cell towers to any termination point in the US for as little as possible as they still have to pay the RBOCs for where the call terminates. This is a per minute charge. So they buy dark fiber turn up a few switches and boom they are a phone company. They turn up a switch in the Verizon foot print, in AT&T [SBC & AmeriTech region] in BellSouth, in Qwest US West and they can terminate just about everywhere in the 48 cont. states.

A lot of the dark fiber is actually unintegrated network assest of companies that went out of business before the build out was complete back in the late 1990s and the first part of this century....as well as lots of decomissioned fiber & POPs based on all the consolidation in telecom like the GTE / BellAtlantic merger to become Verizon who later acquired MCI / WorldCom [who owned MFS, BFS, UUNet etc...tons of other small voice & data networks] or the SBC / Ameritech / AT&T merger or the Level3 / Broadwing / WilTel merger etc....once these companies get together they drop a lot of redundant routes and take down POPS after they migrate traffic to fill up certain POPs so they can take down under used POPs to lower overhead.

Back in the 1990s Wall Street said lay fiber, buy switches, build billion dollar data centers..GE Capital funded it, there were never EVER enough customers to fill up the pipeline so carriers, resellers, CLECs & ISPs all started going under. If Google is smart they are buying up assests that didn't get purchased on the steps in front of bankruptcy courts across America

I also received one of those obnoxious phone calls from Comcast a year or so ago, prompting me to cancel my service in protest. They guy calling appeared to be going out of his way to speak in an offensive scolding parent-child voice.

It actually seems kind of funny to me. In most industries, people that consume a lot of your product are called 'good customers' and you try to find ways to keep them happy. Though you may also try to find ways to charge them more.

I'm not sure of the business model that says you should selectively alienate all the largest consumers of your product, driving them somewhere else.

I think some of the problem is Comcast worries it can't sell you as much content if you are using their broadband to get it from someone else. But in the long run that line of reasoning will probably hurt them since the Internet is not going to go away and more and more competitive content will be available on it anyway.

They should realize that when folks cancel their broadband (or have it canceled) they also cancel their Comcast cable TV and phone.

- Tom

I also received one of those obnoxious phone calls from Comcast a year or so ago, prompting me to cancel my service in protest. They guy calling appeared to be going out of his way to speak in an offensive scolding parent-child voice.

It actually seems kind of funny to me. In most industries, people that consume a lot of your product are called 'good customers' and you try to find ways to keep them happy. Though you may also try to find ways to charge them more.

I'm not sure of the business model that says you should selectively alienate all the largest consumers of your product, driving them somewhere else.

I think some of the problem is Comcast worries it can't sell you as much content if you are using their broadband to get it from someone else. But in the long run that line of reasoning will probably hurt them since the Internet is not going to go away and more and more competitive content will be available on it anyway.

They should realize that when folks cancel their broadband (or have it canceled) they also cancel their Comcast cable TV and phone.

- Tom

You are 100% right. The internet has become just as much of a Utility as electricity, local phone service & water, the carriers really love the customers that under utilize the service leaving lots of breakage on the table. They love a cable modem customer that only uses it to surf the web but no real bandwidth consuming activity [you know the middle class microwave popcorn generation that has to have wether they need it or not and no patience either everything right now ASAP...the bigger the hurry the consumer is in the MORE they pay...law of economics if you just gotta have it] they also love a digital phone customer that has a $15 - $20 monthly long distance bill along with a $20 local line but is willing to pay $50 for a local line with unlimited LD literally giving the carrier a $10 tip.....BREAKAGE is what they live for, consumers that leave a tip or over pay based on not enough usage to require the actual product they opt to buy...that way they can oversell their capacity which is what all carriers do [incl. Comcast]. They anticipate under utilization & their networks cannot really support all the customers they have let alone all the ADDITIONAL bandwidth required for all the forecasted movie downloads if it really is the next big thing [which I really doubt]

The only thing keeping these networks from crashing is that all the customers are not using the services at the same time, if they were it would be armegedon. Like right before a DeLaHoya fight or a UFC / Pride type MMA tournemant on PPV...suddenly the remote won't order the fight, the web site is down & you cannot get through on the local phone line....over sold capacity. Not enough server ports on the cable network to accommodate the demand VIA the remote or enough server ports on the internet for online ordering...

They also bundle a bunch of products together to disguise what you are really paying per product and cram in a few eronious charges like LNP or the Universal Service Fee which is NOT passed onto any Goverment agency nor does it go to buy school books for under privledged children like they claim..this is all 100% profit with no overhead factored into it at all other than the cost to bill the line item on the customer invoice which may be an eBill which means they don't even send it in the mail they email it keeping the cost down & the margin higher. They really screw the AV concentric crowd by forcing a very robust SD premium movie package onto all that want every HD channel. I know with DirecTV I have to get their largest package to get all the HD stations..I never watch any SD channels so I am CLEARLY leaving $40 - $50 on the table monthly.

it would be nice if sat or cable would let you ala cart but then the greed factor comes
to play and that will never happen.

People seem to not understand downloads. The primary model is not delivery over the Internet, it is delivery via the cable co local network, which has near 500Mbps to each home they service. Take a look at a cable HD-Lite channel sometime. 19Mbps, sustained, indefinitely. Not Internet bandwidth.

OMG, you do NOT have a 500MBPS connection in every cable customers residence....do you know how many TBs that would require running through every CO you operate...PLEASE. Call me when the shuttle lands on that one. ROTFL hysterically.

And the Comcast 100MBPS now & 400 - 500MBPS down the road is for PC downloads on their internet service not to HDTVs or TVs VIA their cable box.

And it is using the internet [allegedy]

That's what the Comcast CEO stated at CES.

And you are correct that Cable Modem accounts have no CIR and the more people on it the slower you go.

If a customer was to order a T1 / DS3 / OC3 / OC12 yes they would have a dedicated internet connection with the exact bandwidth purchased.

You know your statement about a 500 MBPS connection in every cable subscribers home etc....that's almost an OC12 [540mbps] which retails for around $16,200.00 @ wholesale $30 per meg plus the local loop which is mileage based...wanna retract your ridiculous statement?

You are incorrect. You are speaking of CABLE INTERNET. I am not talking about the Internet.

No anything ending in DSL runs on a copper / analog POTS line.

Cable Modem is entirely different.

XDSL

ADSL

SDSL

all run on copper / analog POTS lines.

Cable Modem is capable of bandwidth that DSL cannot touch not by a long shot.

That's why cable operators sell cable Modem & RBOCs [Regional Bell Operating Companies] sell DSL on their copper / analog POTS lines.

And that's why anyone "in the know" would ALWAYS prefer cable Modem to any flavor DSL.

not to mention they are trying to run a security ,phone,cable tv(hd) or hd lite and high
speed internet all on the same line with equipment showing its age with wire thats years
old that has been exposed to some rough elements. i forgot to mention weak head ends
packet loss and overloaded servers.

not to mention they are trying to run a security ,phone,cable tv(hd) or hd lite and high
speed internet all on the same line with equipment showing its age with wire thats years
old that has been exposed to some rough elements. i forgot to mention weak head ends
packet loss and overloaded servers.

And if each CO services say 2500 residential accounts [for conversation purposes as it can be much higher than just 2500 accounts] @ 500 MBPS we are talking about an alleged 1.25 TB / 1250 GB of bandwidth. Regardless of Internet access or Private Line just the [alleged] 1.25 TB is unheard of.

And all COs are not connected directly to the POP or NOC they run VIA tandem from CO to CO depending on where the actual POP or NOC is meaning that some COs would need to be 10 X 1.25 TB or 20 X 1.25 TB....as a pass through. These are called HOPS. The more HOPS the more signal loss requiring extra bandwidth to insulate the transmission to keep the packets together.

Cable operators or RBOCs / Telcos NEVER imagined, in their WILDEST dreams that bandwidth of this magnatude would EVER be required.

TheDaddyJDS,

posters are getting confused between the push multicast part of the cable and the true internet part. they see the fact that the bandwidth to send them all the HD channels adds up to a ton of bits and thinks this equals a higher internet speeds. it is the differences between standard VOD demand service and a real IPTV service. I have no doubt that Comcast can do a VOD service that hits those bandwidth levels, they would just have to drop all regular analog channels to free up the space for more digital slots.

they can have as many movies on VOD as they have spaces they set aside in there network. BUT this is NOT a true IPTV service, it is not possible to have thousands of titles ready to watch after 4 mins of downloading.

a true IPTV service will run into the bandwidth problems you stated, it is not impossible but will require a total reworking of the network in fiber. it will also need a total video storage at each and every CO as the internet can not take such a load without sever delays.

TheDaddyJDS,

posters are getting confused between the push multicast part of the cable and the true internet part. they see the fact that the bandwidth to send them all the HD channels adds up to a ton of bits and thinks this equals a higher internet speeds. it is the differences between standard VOD demand service and a real IPTV service. I have no doubt that Comcast can do a VOD service that hits those bandwidth levels, they would just have to drop all regular analog channels to free up the space for more digital slots.

they can have as many movies on VOD as they have spaces they set aside in there network. BUT this is NOT a true IPTV service, it is not possible to have thousands of titles ready to watch after 4 mins of downloading.

a true IPTV service will run into the bandwidth problems you stated, it is not impossible but will require a total reworking of the network in fiber. it will also need a total video storage at each and every CO as the internet can not take such a load without sever delays.

Just know I am only responding to claims of 100MBPS & higher across existing connections to the residential customer. Regardless of HD content or if it is using the internet or the local cable operators own content across their own private lines. There is NOT the capacity in volume to service hundreds or thousands of customers using todays [last mile] connections.

If you are talking about VOD in standard definiton you won't hear a peep out of me but when talking about HD content that compares to HD DVD or Blu-Ray it just isn't possible.

The capacity end to end would need to be in TBs that just isn't there today. That is if this is a mass market product that will replace SD DVD which is the basis of many claims as of late.

Claims from Apple, Comcast etc...

The further the customer is from the servers at the NOC the more HOPS between the customer & the content will have an adverse affect on the data.

COs service customers.

COs connect to POPs.

POPs drain back to the NOC.

That is already 2 or 3 HOPS right there.

If a customer doesn't connect to a CO that connects directly to a POP you just added a 3rd or 4th HOP.

Many COs are 8 or 10 Hops from a POP some are even further.

This REALLY isn't as easy as it is being described.

It will require an insulated PVC VBR between each PC or Set top Cable Box & the server it is connecting to for the duration of the download. Without a PVC VBR it would require MPLS at both ends so that the download doesn't get mixed up [packets] with everything else traveling on the LAN / WAN [depending on the market size] at the same time etc...Honestly so much would need to be done that it just isn't realistic. Remember, this isn't a station being broadcasted it is a 50GB file being downloaded, there is a difference. When a customer is just watching a channel being broadcasted they take up little network space, when a customer is downloading a 50GB file @ 100MBPS they are knocking other people off or slowing them down dramaticlly.

Maybe Comcast can get shareholders to approve this in a VERY SMALL beta market [to save face since their CEO ran off at the mouth] but beyond that just isn't realistic.

It just isn't "mission critical" for Comcast or any Cable Operator or Telco TV provider to replace SD DVD.

It is "mission critical" for Comcast or any Cable Operator or Telco TV provider to to keep up with DirecTV which they aren't currently.

If the bandwidth was in place for these downloads isn't it a fair assumption that they would at least match the amount of HD programming on DirecTV?

i have many HD PPV channels on Dish, they could do many VOD HD channels if they dropped allot of other content. still what they would call VOD would be more like PPV with a shorter wait for a new start. just stack enough PPV broad casts in 5 min increments and you can get close enough to CALL it VOD. still you are not going to get many movies up at once and will have to sacrifice there whole rest of the TV market to do it.

Cablevision was going to do a networked DVR service where the DVR was in the CO. I moved to Houston so i do not know if anything was done with this.

FIOS TV is a truer IPTV setup, but they are limited to how many streams each house hold gets. But in this case you are not picking programs but whole network streams, this will allow for lots of programing channels but if they offered it in program by program streams they would bog down instantly.

i have many HD PPV channels on Dish, they could do many VOD HD channels if they dropped allot of other content. still what they would call VOD would be more like PPV with a shorter wait for a new start. just stack enough PPV broad casts in 5 min increments and you can get close enough to CALL it VOD. still you are not going to get many movies up at once and will have to sacrifice there whole rest of the TV market to do it.

Cablevision was going to do a networked DVR service where the DVR was in the CO. I moved to Houston so i do not know if anything was done with this.

FIOS TV is a truer IPTV setup, but they are limited to how many streams each house hold gets. But in this case you are not picking programs but whole network streams, this will allow for lots of programing channels but if they offered it in program by program streams they would bog down instantly.

Remember you are watching or recording an HD PPV movie real time NOT downloading it @ 100MBPS or faster.

I have never heard of the DVR being co-located in a CO only in POPs or NOCs. Usually the CO is a pass through where a large connection like a GIG-E or OC12 is MUX'd down to individual curcuits for each residential account. Then cross connected back to the NOC or POP by circuit ID. Then the circuit ID is taged to the serial number on the set top box or cable modem when the installer activates the CPE.

Verizon has be very quiet not making any claims about downloads.

Also is FIOS IPTV or just TV broadcasted over fiber? Verizon is running fiber from the NOC or POP through the CO & right up from the curb to the DMARC on the customers home. But is it using an internet protocol?

i believe FIOS tv is using internet protocol, they can provide only a few streams per house. only one HD stream per house, this is a limit that homes with more then one HDTV or lots of SDTVs will have problems with. this info is old, its what i read when i lived on Long Island and was dreaming of a competitor to Cablevision coming to my house.

i live in a ATT area now and there TV service sucks, they are not bringing the fiber to the home. not sure if they are also using a IPTV model, there STBs have both cable Coax and Ethernet connections for there network.

i believe FIOS tv is using internet protocol, they can provide only a few streams per house. only one HD stream per house, this is a limit that homes with more then one HDTV or lots of SDTVs will have problems with. this info is old, its what i read when i lived on Long Island and was dreaming of a competitor to Cablevision coming to my house.

i live in a ATT area now and there TV service sucks, they are not bringing the fiber to the home. not sure if they are also using a IPTV model, there STBs have both cable Coax and Ethernet connections for there network.

IMHO the cable operators & telco tv providers aren't going to do much more than add additional channels using the current existing technology. They certainly aren't going to literally replace their existing method of delivery. But they may net back some existing bandwidth migrating to MPEG4.

The whole download hub-bub is much to do about nothing.

The Comcast CEO saw a microphone & some reporters @ CES so he did what comes natural, he exaggerated. He tried to steal some Blu-Ray CES thunder which he did but soon will be forgotten when nothing materializes. Unless the media keeps bringing it up causing some egg on his face down the road.

The Apple TV thing was a lot of MacWorld hype for a product that has failed so far with really low sales. If the consumer will settle for 720p downloads at a very low bit-rate that is being called sub - sd dvd quality then so be it. I won't and am REALLY enjoying the niche HDM market. I own both BD & HD DVD and have DirecTV and Brighthouse so all my bases are covered.

I really don't think either [Apple TV or HD downloads] will replace physical media.

People like to buy things they can hold.

snip.......

People like to buy things they can hold.

The record companies were saying the same thing when MP3 downloads came on the scene. Is the movie buying public intrinsically different from the music buying public?

Don't get me wrong, I like buying CD's and I don't download music, but I realize that I'm in the minority on this. When you look at how CD has had a hard time competing, it doesn't bode well for HDM down the road. CD has had two advantages over downloads, better quality and no DRM. Even so, it has continued to loose market share. HDM offers less of a value proposition.

I'm glad that there's an intelligent discussion of this here. I am a telecom engineer with 11 years of industry experience and was basically shouted/booted out of a Tivo HD discussion when the issue came up of internet bandwidth, etc, for lots of high speed downloading of video content. Apparently I was raining on their parade over there. Infrastructure is going to magically go into place almost overnight to handle any potential increase in utilization as a result of Internet delivered video distribution (and naturally at no cost to consumers). :rolleyes:

The bottom line is that the infrastructure isn't there. To compensate you will see very lossy encodes served up as "HD Lite" 720P with DD 5.1 640kbps as the best possible audio option.

Eventually I do expect to see streamed HD movies with BD or HD DVD quality but I suspect it will be more than a few years before this happens.

If Apple was fortunate enough to sell 1M Apple TV units I would expect that the delays in downloading HD movies at a few GB a pop would become noticeable to many ISPs and providers such as Comcast, etc. Throttling and other measures would need to take place and as a result people might see their movie taking 10 hours instead of 2-3 hours to download even with a blazing fast connection.

The biggest risk at the moment is of consumers convincing themselves that a trip to the video store is just too inconveniant to enjoy the best HD has to offer, and "settling" for crap-tastic downloads that are presented in very poor quality.

Hi jmpage2. I've seen the full gamut of opinions on AVS. Everything from HDM is dead, downloads are taking over, to downloads will never be more popular than physical media. My personal opinion (and it's only that, an opinion) is that downloads will significantly encroach on HDM in 5-7 years.

Historically speaking, I don't think J6P cares that HD PPV or HD Downloads don't look as good as HDM. They're much more convenient. While we can debate the timing for transition, I think it's hard to make a case that we will see another mass market physical media after HDM.

What do you think?

It's nice to see posters putting the S back in the AVS forums :)

I'm glad that there's an intelligent discussion of this here. I am a telecom engineer with 11 years of industry experience and was basically shouted/booted out of a Tivo HD discussion when the issue came up of internet bandwidth, etc, for lots of high speed downloading of video content. Apparently I was raining on their parade over there. Infrastructure is going to magically go into place almost overnight to handle any potential increase in utilization as a result of Internet delivered video distribution (and naturally at no cost to consumers). :rolleyes:

I've found this to be the case as well. Sometimes it ends up being more wishful thinking than anything else. Verizon is a good example of a company doing a complete overhaul of their infrastructure in order to deliver some of the things we want, but it's still going to take time.

Hi jmpage2. I've seen the full gamut of opinions on AVS. Everything from HDM is dead, downloads are taking over, to downloads will never be more popular than physical media. My personal opinion (and it's only that, an opinion) is that downloads will significantly encroach on HDM in 5-7 years.

Historically speaking, I don't think J6P cares that HD PPV or HD Downloads don't look as good as HDM. They're much more convenient. While we can debate the timing for transition, I think it's hard to make a case that we will see another mass market physical media after HDM.

What do you think?

I agree with you that it will be ~5-7 years. I also think it's probably likely that there won't be another mass market physical media after this current generation, but it'll be very interesting to see how it plays out. What service will be able to unite all the studios? What will the DRM be like when digital downloads do become the norm? Will people have to buy proprietary STBs to purchase them? One thing I do not want is to have to buy any movies through Comcast Cable, or whoever it may be, and then have it stored on a DVR/PVR/etc and only be able to archive it in 480p.

The kinks will be worked out eventually but it will be after the infrastructure is in place to support it and after all of the back-door politics have been hashed out.

Brandon

The record companies were saying the same thing when MP3 downloads came on the scene. Is the movie buying public intrinsically different from the music buying public?


My humble guess would be that they are intrinsically different in that a larger* portion of society wants their music portable (and can mostly care less about the quality of it), whereas there is still an overwhelming majority of consumers who like to watch their movies on their couch. Especially if they just bought a brand new shiny HDTV.

*note I said larger

Brandon

Hi jmpage2. I've seen the full gamut of opinions on AVS. Everything from HDM is dead, downloads are taking over, to downloads will never be more popular than physical media. My personal opinion (and it's only that, an opinion) is that downloads will significantly encroach on HDM in 5-7 years.

Historically speaking, I don't think J6P cares that HD PPV or HD Downloads don't look as good as HDM. They're much more convenient. While we can debate the timing for transition, I think it's hard to make a case that we will see another mass market physical media after HDM.

What do you think?

Personally I think that eventually any form of optical disc will be considered a dinosaur and we will all buy/rent our movies digitally.

However, currently I can't subscribe to such a system for a number of reasons;

I don't like the idea of not owning the physical media that contains my movie. When I spend $20 and buy a BD, I have an actual asset that I can (eventually) make a backup copy of, lend out to a friend, or sell on eBay if I no longer want the item.

With digital this is not going to happen. You are going to have a rights manage system in your home. You might be allowed (might being the operative word) to designate up to "X" number of devices to play back the movie that you have purchased. You might be allowed to burn a copy of the movie for playback in the car, etc, but probably for a fee.

I don't like any of the above. My sister buys all of her music on iTunes. For some reason she bought music with two different accounts over the last few years. Her computer crashed and she only had access to the one account. $100 of music was lost and Apple wouldn't do anything for her to recover the music she bought with that old account.... and this is exactly what the studios want. For you to sit there like some moronic slob paying a monthly "media access charge" every month like a royalty for everything you watch in any room of your home.

The other thing I despise is the "dumbing down" of HD. HD Lite is for idiots that don't know what real HD looks like or have a bargain basement TV with the settings all jacked up. Just because the typical user finds this "ok" doesn't mean that as AV enthusiasts we shouldn't try to educate our friends about what real AV quality looks like. You don't have to spend a ton of money to get good quality AV.

My greatest hope now that Warner has made their decision is that we see the format war ended before the end of 2008. We can get a single high quality optical format that shows us what high bitrate 1080P video and lossless sound are like. Then consumers can put those download services up against this optical benchmark and see how it compares. Hopefully consumer awareness picks up and they realize on their larger and larger TVs that the low bitrate stuff looks like crap.

I never expect optical HDM to be as big of a market as DVD, but I'd be thrilled to death if it was 25% the size of the DVD market before it's eclipsed by the "next big thing" in high definition.

Just because the typical user finds this "ok" doesn't mean that as AV enthusiasts we shouldn't try to educate our friends about what real AV quality looks like. You don't have to spend a ton of money to get good quality AV.

Indeed!

Brandon

The record companies were saying the same thing when MP3 downloads came on the scene. Is the movie buying public intrinsically different from the music buying public?

Don't get me wrong, I like buying CD's and I don't download music, but I realize that I'm in the minority on this. When you look at how CD has had a hard time competing, it doesn't bode well for HDM down the road. CD has had two advantages over downloads, better quality and no DRM. Even so, it has continued to loose market share. HDM offers less of a value proposition.

The storage of MP3s which are compressed & small files to begin with is not apples to apples with the storage of 50GB HD movies that play @ an equal PQ / AQ as HD DVD or Blu-Ray. Which is what Comcast has described. Apple has been far more realistic about what can be delivered and their flavor of HD download is a 720p resolution with bandwidth allowing for PQ / AQ sub-sd-dvd quality.

I download in the .wav or .flac format & have to add a new 1TB HDD every 3 or 4 months....I have about 5 TBs of external storage currently. Do you know how many MP3s can be stored in the space 1 HD download would require?

THOUSANDS.

The average consumer can store a lot of MP3s on the internal HDD of their PC but can store only a few movies.

The average consumer isn't going to buy multiple external HDDs to store movies as a collector, it is FAR less cost effective than just buying a HD DVD or Blu-Ray player & buying physical medai.

And PLEASE do not mention Solid State Drives....a 100GB SSD is around $800 today and years from mass market

I'm glad that there's an intelligent discussion of this here. I am a telecom engineer with 11 years of industry experience and was basically shouted/booted out of a Tivo HD discussion when the issue came up of internet bandwidth, etc, for lots of high speed downloading of video content. Apparently I was raining on their parade over there. Infrastructure is going to magically go into place almost overnight to handle any potential increase in utilization as a result of Internet delivered video distribution (and naturally at no cost to consumers). :rolleyes:

The bottom line is that the infrastructure isn't there. To compensate you will see very lossy encodes served up as "HD Lite" 720P with DD 5.1 640kbps as the best possible audio option.

Eventually I do expect to see streamed HD movies with BD or HD DVD quality but I suspect it will be more than a few years before this happens.

If Apple was fortunate enough to sell 1M Apple TV units I would expect that the delays in downloading HD movies at a few GB a pop would become noticeable to many ISPs and providers such as Comcast, etc. Throttling and other measures would need to take place and as a result people might see their movie taking 10 hours instead of 2-3 hours to download even with a blazing fast connection.

The biggest risk at the moment is of consumers convincing themselves that a trip to the video store is just too inconveniant to enjoy the best HD has to offer, and "settling" for crap-tastic downloads that are presented in very poor quality.

You are 100% right.

ISPs like TimeWarner, Verizon [this is in competetion with FIOS & owns UUNet along with a ton of smaller ISPs that came with the MCI/WCom merger as well as several last mile carriers like MFS & BFS], AT&T [which is the entire SBC & AmeriTech region of the US and provides Telco TV] & Qwest [which is the entire USWest region of the US & provides Telco TV] will see bandwidth hogging downloads on the network & do what the RBOCs did during the debut of DSL.

Originally DSL was owned by 3 compaines [the actual technology] Covad, Rhythms & NorthPoint. ADSL, XDSL, SDSL etc...

DSL at that time was ONLY in [hi-speed] competetion with full or fractional T1s of internet, Cable Modem was still in beta and only available in some markets. At this moment in time dial-up was still king. UUNet was the largest ISP in the world 40X larger then their closest competetior. AOL was AOL not merged with TimeWarner & was still 100% switchless, no network & just reselling UUNet.

The RBOCs saw this as a distraction so they would mess with the leased RBOC lines that DSL would have to use for the last mile. They made sure that DSL NEVER hit its CIR, customers hated it initially & it went down for the count. They made sure one way or another that it just didn't work.

Long story short the RBOCs killed all flavors of DSL until all 3 companies Covad, Rhythms & NorthPoint were in Bankruptcy. None of the 3 could go back to GE Capital to borrow any more money & just didn't have deep enough pockets for the amount of time required to get in front of a judge based on lawsuits against the RBOCs for limiting the data transmissions across the leased RBOC lines..to way below the CIR sold to the end user.

All 3 went Chapter 13.

Then AT&T, Verizon & Qwest all swoop in & buy the assets on the steps of the Bankruptcy courts.

Now DSL works great but who owns it?

So, back to the current scenario.

The existing ISPs will only allow these long bandwidth hogging downloads to go on for so long before they interupt the connection forcing the end user to begin the process over...and this won't be bit torrent where you start where the previous download left off..........no it is right back to the begining.

It will be a frustrating vicious cycle that will ultimately deter the consumer from even attempting to download movies in "real HD PA /AQ"

This will go nowhere in the short term, maybe in 5 - 8 years but not anytime soon.

It's nice to see posters putting the S back in the AVS forums :)



I've found this to be the case as well. Sometimes it ends up being more wishful thinking than anything else. Verizon is a good example of a company doing a complete overhaul of their infrastructure in order to deliver some of the things we want, but it's still going to take time.



I agree with you that it will be ~5-7 years. I also think it's probably likely that there won't be another mass market physical media after this current generation, but it'll be very interesting to see how it plays out. What service will be able to unite all the studios? What will the DRM be like when digital downloads do become the norm? Will people have to buy proprietary STBs to purchase them? One thing I do not want is to have to buy any movies through Comcast Cable, or whoever it may be, and then have it stored on a DVR/PVR/etc and only be able to archive it in 480p.

The kinks will be worked out eventually but it will be after the infrastructure is in place to support it and after all of the back-door politics have been hashed out.

Brandon

Verizon is NOT doing an overhaul.

They are simply adding fiber in areas where existing Analog / Copper facilities are exhausted or in areas of new construction.

They are also not expanding any analog / copper network. So anywhere they run out of copper / analog will get some fiber but it may be commercial access ONLY and not allow for residential product offerings.

It could be that their entire network never goes Fiber [last mile] and some markets in the Verizon territory NEVER get FIOS or Fiber.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602545.html

This is coming from Comcast the main HD Download supporter claiming to offer 100MBPS & up traffic...quite a contradiction to the claims of having SUCH FAT PIPES:


By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 7, 2007; Page A01

The rapid growth of online videos, music and games has created a new Internet sin: using it too much.

Comcast has punished some transgressors by cutting off their Internet service, arguing that excessive downloaders hog Internet capacity and slow down the network for other customers. The company declines to reveal its download limits.

"You have no way of knowing how much is too much," said Sandra Spalletta of Rockville, whose Internet service was suspended in March after Comcast sent her a letter warning that she and her teenage son were using too much bandwidth. They cut back on downloads but were still disconnected. She said the company would not tell her how to monitor their bandwidth use in order to comply with the limits.

"You want to think you can rely on your home Internet service and not wake up one morning to find it turned off," said Spalletta, who filed a complaint with the Montgomery County Office of Cable and Communication Services. "I thought it was unlimited service."

As Internet service providers try to keep up with the demand for increasingly sophisticated online entertainment such as high-definition movies, streaming TV shows and interactive games, such caps could become more common, some analysts said.

It's unclear how many customers have lost Internet service because of overuse. So far, only Comcast customers have reported being affected. Comcast said only a small fraction of its customers use enough bandwidth to warrant pulling the plug on their service.

Cable companies are facing tough competition from telephone giants like AT&T and Verizon, which are installing new cables capable of carrying more Internet traffic.

The cable companies collectively spent about $90 billion in the past decade to improve their networks. And on cable networks, several hundred subscribers often share an Internet connection, so one high-traffic user could slow the rest of a neighborhood's connections. Phone lines are run directly to each home, so a single bandwidth hog will not slow other connections.

As Internet users make more demands of the network, cable companies in particular could soon end up with a critically short supply of bandwidth, according to a report released this month by ABI Research, a New York market-research firm. This could lead to a bigger crackdown on heavy bandwidth users, said the report's author, Stan Schatt.

"These new applications require huge amounts of bandwidth," he said. Cable "used to have the upper hand because they basically enjoyed monopolies, but there are more competitive pressures now."

To trigger a disconnection warning, customers would be downloading the equivalent of 1,000 songs or four full-length movies every day. Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas declined to reveal specific bandwidth limits.

"It's our responsibility to make sure everyone has the best service possible," he said, "so we have to address abusive activities so they won't damage the experience for other customers. "

Companies have argued that if strict limits were disclosed, customers would use as much capacity as possible without tipping the scale, causing networks to slow to a crawl.

Some customers are unaware they are using so much capacity, sometimes because neighbors are covertly connecting through unsecured wireless routers. When they are told of that possibility, many curb their use after an initial warning, Douglas said. Others, however, may be running bandwidth-hungry servers intended for small businesses from their homes, which can bog down a network serving a neighborhood. Comcast said it gives customers a month to fix problems or upgrade to business accounts before shutting off their Internet service.

Joe Nova of North Attleboro, Mass., lost Internet service after Comcast told him that he was using too much bandwidth to watch YouTube videos, listen to Internet radio stations and chat using a Web camera. He and other customers who complained of being shut off said they were not running servers from their homes.

"Sure, I'm online a lot, but there's no way I could have been consuming that much capacity," Nova said.

Other Internet service providers, including Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T, say they reserve the right to manage their networks, but have not yet suspended service to subscribers. Smaller Internet service providers RCN in Herndon, Leros Technologies in Fairfax and OpenBand in Dulles said they do not cap bandwidth use.

Some AT&T customers use disproportionately high amounts of Internet capacity, "but we figure that's why they buy the service," said Michael Coe, a spokesman for the company.

Cox Communications, which provides Internet and cable services to parts of Northern Virginia and Maryland, said the bandwidth demand on its network has doubled every year for the past six years. It has boosted its speeds twice in the past 18 months to keep up and offers tiered service plans for heavier users, spokesman Alex Horwitz said.

"We don't spend a lot of time enforcing caps, but we contact customers when their usage is egregious enough for it to impact the network," he said. "Instances are few and far between."

[B]When Comcast canceled service to Frank Carreiro, who lives in a Salt Lake City suburb, he started a blog about the experience. His wife and six children then relied on sluggish dial-up Internet access until a phone company offered DSL service in his neighborhood.

"For a lot of people, it's Comcast or it's nothing," he said.

Bob Williams, director of HearUsNow.org, a consumer Web site run by Consumers Union, said the vagueness of Comcast's rules is "unfair and arbitrary."

"They're cutting service off to the people who want to use it the most," he said.

Schatt, the ABI Research analyst, said he expects cable companies to spend about $80 billion over the next five years to increase network capacity. In addition, they may acquire airwaves at an upcoming federal auction and could lay fiber-optic lines over their existing cables. Switching to digital-only programming could also help conserve capacity.

Comcast, Cox and Time Warner say they have more than enough capacity to meet demand and are adding new technologies to strengthen signals. Bruce McGregor, senior analyst at Current Analysis, a research firm in Sterling, said the bandwidth bottleneck is not yet a crisis for cable companies, but it could intensify with competition from phone companies.

Companies like Comcast "need to address people who are major drains on the network" without angering consumers, he said. "They're not the only game in town anymore."

I agree with you that it will be ~5-7 years. I also think it's probably likely that there won't be another mass market physical media after this current generation, but it'll be very interesting to see how it plays out. What service will be able to unite all the studios? What will the DRM be like when digital downloads do become the norm?...


I can remember reading some articles about the movie download kiosk standing at the stores. Users plugin usb harddrive, browse the catalog and copy movie files. Backbone system could use a scheduled downloads to a local cache storage. Kiosk would use a local storage system. I think none ever established this kind of system, maybe too late too few benefits.

if the kiosk idea would be as profitable as some say would we not have had them
everywhere by now for sd.

The cable companies collectively spent about $90 billion in the past decade to improve their networks. And on cable networks, several hundred subscribers often share an Internet connection, so one high-traffic user could slow the rest of a neighborhood's connections. Phone lines are run directly to each home, so a single bandwidth hog will not slow other connections.


I just wanted to respond to this part as this is a common misconception. Just because with DSL service you have a "dedicated" line run to your home doesn't mean that you don't share your connection at the Point of Presence (POP) or Central Office that handles your connection.

In fact most users with DSL are getting throttled at the DSLAM which services a large number of customers and has an uplink that is slower than the aggregate bandwidth of all of the individual DSL lines.

I just wanted to respond to this part as this is a common misconception. Just because with DSL service you have a "dedicated" line run to your home doesn't mean that you don't share your connection at the Point of Presence (POP) or Central Office that handles your connection.

In fact most users with DSL are getting throttled at the DSLAM which services a large number of customers and has an uplink that is slower than the aggregate bandwidth of all of the individual DSL lines.

That and the uncompressed capacity of the POTS line the DSL runs over is 64kbps and at best can go 4 to 1 [256kbps] maintaining DECENT quality for the downloaded media content if the server port the content is coming from will allow for greater than say 120kbps. You can hit greater speed on DSL but the download needs some insulation to maintain its integrity, some type of pvc vbr from the download server to the end users PC

The FCC or some anti-trust government agency should review Comcast's records to verify there are equal numbers of 'bandwidth hogs' being shut off in areas both with and without local broadband competition.

- Tom

The FCC or some anti-trust government agency should review Comcast's records to verify there are equal numbers of 'bandwidth hogs' being shut off in areas both with and without local broadband competition.

- Tom

:eek: That may be the smartest thing I've ever read on AVS! So true.

The FCC or some anti-trust government agency should review Comcast's records to verify there are equal numbers of 'bandwidth hogs' being shut off in areas both with and without local broadband competition.

- Tom

Yes but the FCC protects the carriers NOT the consumer.

Remember the UNE-P local platform where all kinds of small local [switchless] carriers were re-selling discounted RBOC local lines both residentially & commercially until the FCC ruled that it was NOT necessary for the RBOCs to allow for this based on deregulation. That this was "To Much Competetion and a Bad thing????"

Causing dozens of CLECs & Resellers / aggregators to go under....and left thousands of residential & commercial customers with no phone service for days, weeks etc...to get new lines run by the RBOCs they left....not even 911 because the lines were actually dead.

Now it has to be VOIP [Vonage] or facility based carriers [XO, DeltaCom etc..] or pay the RBOC premium.

And everyone knows how WELL Vonage is doing.

All the telecom utilities [RBOCs, Tier 1 LD carriers, ISPs, Cable operators] know that the FCC is a great place to make payoffs. Ask Michael Powell.

Sadly the FCC never REALLY goes after anyone other than Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge....

They would NEVER go after any part of the establishment.

i think the CE companies has a surprise in store for the download networks. the CE companies do not want to see there hardware be replaced by downloads, and they will need to keep pushing the technology to keep margins high. SO i think we will see a ever expanding HD size, first will be high color, then an increase in resolution and or adding true 3D.

it might be 3-7 years for a 30G-50G HD file but what happens when the CE companies push for 200G-300G movies for the next format? yes people will need a MUCH bigger HDTV to see a improvement, but do you think any of the TV manufactures are going to just stop making improvements and let prices fall till only China is making all HT gear? they will HAVE to keep pushing bigger sets to keep ahead of the almost no margin companies.

when they can get the average TV size up over 60 inches and 4K res with deep color, then consumers will start to demand a service that can use these new toys to there fullest. current HDM will not be good enough.

downloads will just be getting to the point where they can meet HDM levels and the CE companies will try and move the bar. it is not a question of IF but when and will they win, they have to or face lousing the whole TV and disk media business.

4K video with deep color, 7.1 lossless, etc, will certainly be coming before too long. I don't think thought that we will see optical media as a delivery mechanism for the content but I could be wrong.

I agree with you that it will be ~5-7 years. I also think it's probably likely that there won't be another mass market physical media after this current generation, but it'll be very interesting to see how it plays out. What service will be able to unite all the studios? What will the DRM be like when digital downloads do become the norm? Will people have to buy proprietary STBs to purchase them? One thing I do not want is to have to buy any movies through Comcast Cable, or whoever it may be, and then have it stored on a DVR/PVR/etc and only be able to archive it in 480p.


That raises a very interesting point. For all we talk about digital-downloads, we don't have a clear idea of exactly how that will be presented to the consumer. The music download market didn't exist, until it had a suitable "killer app", with the right combination to ensure it had both consumer and studio appeal.

The same thing could happen with digital downloads, or it might not. The thing is, I feel very uneasy about proclaiming something to be "the king" of next-gen media, just based on the pure potential, without having seen the implementation.

Irony? You decide:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/21/hbo.on.broadband/


(sorry if this has been posted already....I didn't see it)

I'm not sure that there's really any such thing as a true DL supporter. It's more like BD hater. The more you hate BD the more you believe everyone in the world has fiber running directly from the movie studios into their TV's and PC's.

lol you noticed the increase on this topic after the Warner announcement too eh?

The record companies were saying the same thing when MP3 downloads came on the scene.

It's easier to download illegally than to walk into a store and walk out with a CD via five-finger discount.

Is the movie buying public intrinsically different from the music buying public?

Yes. But if you were to offer ONLY music downloads at the same price as store-bought CDs, you wouldn't see the same numbers. And no, kids don't care about movies as much as which goofy pop star has a new CD out. The demographic changes with music and movies, and therefore the quality requirements change (increase) hence this discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I like buying CD's and I don't download music, but I realize that I'm in the minority on this. When you look at how CD has had a hard time competing, it doesn't bode well for HDM down the road. CD has had two advantages over downloads, better quality and no DRM. Even so, it has continued to loose market share. HDM offers less of a value proposition.

Again, it's hard to compete against free, regardless of item. Realize that you cannot have this conversation without Nappyster and the like permeating the discussion. Normal, CD quality downloads at CD prices wouldn't have the same foothold. If you bring up iTunes as an example why it would work, then we need to explore which delivery service is going to facilitate these downloads--at true HD quality.

How about Internet 2 which is already available, but not to every day consumers? How about Internet 3 and 4 as well? All of these are being designed for much faster speeds and bandwith capabilities.

How about Internet 2 which is already available, but not to every day consumers? How about Internet 3 and 4 as well? All of these are being designed for much faster speeds and bandwith capabilities.

Those are servers connected to interstate private lines not for last mile connections to residential customers.

The connections that would have to change are the ones running into peoples homes.

Not between Carriers NOCs, POPs etc...

And most of this would not be run through the public internet it would be coming from a server at your local ISP, Telco TV or Cable Operators NOC across their private network you connect to. The same place your internet, TV & phone service originates.

The storage of MP3s which are compressed & small files to begin with is not apples to apples with the storage of 50GB HD movies that play @ an equal PQ / AQ as HD DVD or Blu-Ray. Which is what Comcast has described. Apple has been far more realistic about what can be delivered and their flavor of HD download is a 720p resolution with bandwidth allowing for PQ / AQ sub-sd-dvd quality.

I download in the .wav or .flac format & have to add a new 1TB HDD every 3 or 4 months....I have about 5 TBs of external storage currently. Do you know how many MP3s can be stored in the space 1 HD download would require?

THOUSANDS.

The average consumer can store a lot of MP3s on the internal HDD of their PC but can store only a few movies.

The average consumer isn't going to buy multiple external HDDs to store movies as a collector, it is FAR less cost effective than just buying a HD DVD or Blu-Ray player & buying physical medai.

And PLEASE do not mention Solid State Drives....a 100GB SSD is around $800 today and years from mass market

I think the comparison is quite similar. CDs contain much larger higher quality files as opposed to their MP3 download cousins. HDM contains much larger higher quality files than we'll find from the vast majority of download services. I know that most folks on AVS won't be interested, but I'm looking at the general public, not the serious enthusiasts.

From what I've read these downloads are smaller than a DVD in size. We're not looking at 50GB per movie. Now the argument that we're looking at a different demographic for movies and music may be valid. Honestly, I'm skeptical on this point as it seems to me that a lot of movies are geared to the same young demographic that generate the majority of music sales.

I think the comparison is quite similar. CDs contain much larger higher quality files as opposed to their MP3 download cousins. HDM contains much larger higher quality files than we'll find from the vast majority of download services. I know that most folks on AVS won't be interested, but I'm looking at the general public, not the serious enthusiasts.

From what I've read these downloads are smaller than a DVD in size. We're not looking at 50GB per movie. Now the argument that we're looking at a different demographic for movies and music may be valid. Honestly, I'm skeptical on this point as it seems to me that a lot of movies are geared to the same young demographic that generate the majority of music sales.

I [also] look at this from a mass market / mainstream perspective. Not the purists but the regular people that are [also] not tech savvy.

The HD files may be smaller & of a much lesser quality than HD DVD or Blu-Ray for sure. To be apples to apples with HD DVD or Blu-Ray will require files around 50GB or it just won't an equivalent. It will be a lesser product.

They tried that several years ago in the philly area. It was a flop as now there is more competition for high bandwidth.

In Philly, We have 4 choices that I know of although there may be more.

Cavtel Highspeed
Verizon Fios
Comcast Cable/Fios
DirectTV High Speed

I currently have comcast Fios and get about 25Mbits. It costs me..... $19.95/month.

I originally signed up at 24.99, but they raised me to $42.99 after 3 months. I called up and threatened to switch Verizon for $25 and they countered with $19.95 for 18 months.

Competition is a great thing. If you have more than one provider in the area, work them against each other.

What is Comcast FIOS? FIOS is from Verizon. I thought FIOS was trademarked?

The ISPs would LOVE for digital downloads to become the reality.. they just want a cut. Don't be surprised if the person offering you bajillions of movie downloads on an unthrottled port is your cable co and not some 3rd party.

I have 0 problems with this outcome assuming quality and selection are there at an attractive price point. I have my doubts about getting all 3, but one can hope...

I have 0 problems with this outcome assuming quality and selection are there at an attractive price point. I have my doubts about getting all 3, but one can hope...


You will not be getting the kind of 50GB 1080P lossless audio encodes that we are coming to expect from Blu-Ray.

What you will likely be getting, at least for the next several years, is something very similar to Apple TV's "HD" downloads which consist of extremely overcompressed 1080P video bundled together with Digital Dolby audio. I believe that the typical Apple TV "1080P" movie clocks in at a total size with audio of around 5GB as compared to 20-30GB for the same material on high def optical media.

You might not care about those missing bits, but I sure as hell do.