Video on Demand in HD. When?

[jay0k]

When will Tivo catch up with Dish/DirectTV/Cable with HD on demand video?

Netflix streaming HD has a terrible selection and the quality is fair with just plain stereo sound. Not much of a competitor. Amazon video on demand is horrible quality and not HD.

I don't mind paying $5/movie for high quality VOD in HD. I thought Tivo is suppose to be cutting edge.

[ThAbtO]

Part of the quality depends on the speed of the connection, the more bars shown and HD appears.

[MichaelK]

it's really not up to tivo - its about when the people they deal with netflix, cinamanow, amazon, etc get the licensing from the content owners.

tivo can't magically get hd content from netflix if netflix isn't allowed to serve it up

[rodneyremington]

It's safe to say that it's going to be a long, long time before the selection of HD movies for VOD is anything approaching comprehensive. It's not a TiVo or a Netflix issue per say. It's an industry issue. Hollywood, like the music industry, has been struggling against 21st century distribution of their products rather than investing in it. The bottom line is the big hollywood production and distribution companies do not want you to have VOD. They would much rather sell you a seat in a theater or a DVD because they feel they can control how you use their product that way.

[jay0k]

It's safe to say that it's going to be a long, long time before the selection of HD movies for VOD is anything approaching comprehensive. It's not a TiVo or a Netflix issue per say. It's an industry issue. Hollywood, like the music industry, has been struggling against 21st century distribution of their products rather than investing in it. The bottom line is the big hollywood production and distribution companies do not want you to have VOD. They would much rather sell you a seat in a theater or a DVD because they feel they can control how you use their product that way.

And they will eventually lose or go bankrupt just like "old" media consisting of newspapers, magazines, and nightly news programs.

Apple's iTunes has just about every new release in HD and DD 5.1 sound so they are managing to get the content.

[JWThiers]

And they will eventually lose or go bankrupt just like "old" media consisting of newspapers, magazines, and nightly news programs.

Apple's iTunes has just about every new release in HD and DD 5.1 sound so they are managing to get the content.

Then get an Apple TV and get it on iTunes. We just got Netflix onboard a few weeks ago give it time. Netflix just started the HD delivery.

[web1b]

And they will eventually lose or go bankrupt just like "old" media consisting of newspapers, magazines, and nightly news programs.

Apple's iTunes has just about every new release in HD and DD 5.1 sound so they are managing to get the content.

They have a better selection of movies than Unbox and Netflix downloads, but it costs more and the selection is still lacking.

It is really moot anyway because bandwidth caps will stop you from using HD streaming as your primary source of TV.
The cable companies do not want you to use their bandwidth to download HD video on demand from Netflix or Amazon when they would rather sell you pay per view video on demand and collect that revenue themselves.

[MichaelK]

...Apple's iTunes has just about every new release in HD and DD 5.1 sound so they are managing to get the content.
just about every release?

or 'every release that apple gets"

are those 2 the same? - in other words does apple have deals with all the studios to get all the current releases? That would be great news for the other players if apple has all the studioes allowing HD.

[MichaelK]

...
It is really moot anyway because bandwidth caps will stop you from using HD streaming as your primary source of TV.
The cable companies do not want you to use their bandwidth to download HD video on demand from Netflix or Amazon when they would rather sell you pay per view video on demand and collect that revenue themselves.


I think that's got to give at some point. Either by market force or regulation.

If you are lucky enough to be in a FIOS market I'm sure verizon will use the lack of caps to pummel cable. That will force cable in those markets to answer.

If that doesn't work then the FCC, Congress, and Obama all have been grumbling about network neutrality. Wont take long before netflix, amazon, apple, Directv & DISH (who are both using cable's bandwidth for their VOD offereings) and probably Google (to proove a point) all band together to jump in and sue when it becomes and issue to argue that there is no difference to cableco VOD and 3rd party VOD.

Justa matter of time.

That said if you have DSL(san's TV) or Sat broadband you might be out of luck as they dont offer VOD on their bandwidth so they probably can limit all they want. But when cable has to open up then they might need to respond- for DSL the bigger issue is can they remain competitive to cable.


Even today comcast- the largest single provider of broadband if I follow correctly has a "reasonable" limit. You could argue it's too little, but others could just as easily argue it's enough for most. so there clearly is some market force or fear of legislation that keeps comcast in check

[JWThiers]

Even today comcast- the largest single provider of broadband if I follow correctly has a "reasonable" limit. You could argue it's too little, but others could just as easily argue it's enough for most. so there clearly is some market force or fear of legislation that keeps comcast in check

That is the point, right now, the bandwidth cap seems reasonable, but VOD via alternate sources is not common. Lets say DVD quality for a movie is about 5 GB per movie. a "Reasonable" limit of 100 GB isn't too bad about 20 movies and all other data combined. But if you want HD what 25 GB per movie that's 4 movies and other data combined not so good.

[rcoates777]

It is really moot anyway because bandwidth caps will stop you from using HD streaming as your primary source of TV.
The cable companies do not want you to use their bandwidth to download HD video on demand from Netflix or Amazon when they would rather sell you pay per view video on demand and collect that revenue themselves.

I have a different provider for my Internet & Cable services. Just trying to get educated here but doesn't the on demand arrive at my TiVo via the Internet rather than from my cable company? Is my Verizon FiOS 9 megabit/sec connection fast enough to support HD?

[nrc]

That is the point, right now, the bandwidth cap seems reasonable, but VOD via alternate sources is not common. Lets say DVD quality for a movie is about 5 GB per movie. a "Reasonable" limit of 100 GB isn't too bad about 20 movies and all other data combined. But if you want HD what 25 GB per movie that's 4 movies and other data combined not so good.

I doubt that anyone will be offering 25GB HD downloads. Sizes will probably be closer to 5-10GB. I'm pretty sure that's what Netflix streaming comes to now based on their bandwidth.

[berkshires]

I doubt that anyone will be offering 25GB HD downloads. Sizes will probably be closer to 5-10GB. I'm pretty sure that's what Netflix streaming comes to now based on their bandwidth.

But Netflix streams aren't all that HD-ish at that rate.

This is an important and current topic of discussion, but I think that it will ultimately work out fine for individuals - unlimited (or unlimited in a practical sense) data per month.

I have a different provider for my Internet & Cable services. Just trying to get educated here but doesn't the on demand arrive at my TiVo via the Internet rather than from my cable company? Is my Verizon FiOS 9 megabit/sec connection fast enough to support HD?

Because sometimes your cable co is your internet provider.

[MichaelK]

That is the point, right now, the bandwidth cap seems reasonable, but VOD via alternate sources is not common. Lets say DVD quality for a movie is about 5 GB per movie. a "Reasonable" limit of 100 GB isn't too bad about 20 movies and all other data combined. But if you want HD what 25 GB per movie that's 4 movies and other data combined not so good.

BTW right now comcasts limit is already 250.

and what makes you think that the limits wont grow over time and get bigger just like download speeds have gotten larger and larger for the same or less money?

I assume the market will take care of this in general. Some locals without options or crappy providers might have an issue, but as a whole i really dont think it's an issue.

[JWThiers]

BTW right now comcasts limit is already 250.


Fine 250 GB. That 10 Bluray quality movies. right now anyway. What happens when the next Big thing hits (whatever that is) and it doubles the resolution? Double the resolution and you need 4x the pixels. and it needs 100 GB. Now thats 2.5 movies.

and what makes you think that the limits wont grow over time and get bigger just like download speeds have gotten larger and larger for the same or less money?

Lets see Comcast makes a bunch of money for cable TV, PPV, VOD etc. They also make a bunch of money from internet. If you start cutting into the revenue stream from PPV and VOD and They will start to wonder "Gee I wonder why peoples bandwidth usage is way up and our PPV, VOD usage is down. A lot of the internet traffic is coming from NetFlix, (or hulu, or amazon, or some other video streaming site). Maybe they are getting their video fix from the internet and we only charge a flat rate for all you can eat. Where can we make up that loss." Right now a very large portion of the country can get a digital signal for TV every bit as good or better than what cable provides now. Add to that you can get the premium content that you cant get from the antennae via the internet. Do you think Cable TV feels threatened? The future is downloaded content that you get only what you want when you want it for cheaper, because you don't get Shopping channels and other fluff you don't want. They have a vested interest in finding a way to either keep you on cable tv or charging more for the data.

Eventually all this stuff will be all downloaded or streamed as data and not a video only stream. Eventually you are right, it will get cheaper , but not before they resist change and try to price you into keeping the old way of doing things.

[moyekj]

Fine 250 GB. That 10 Bluray quality movies. right now anyway. What happens when the next Big thing hits (whatever that is) and it doubles the resolution? Double the resolution and you need 4x the pixels. and it needs 100 GB. Now thats 2.5 movies. Streaming will not come close to Blu Ray quality anytime soon and HD streams will be a fraction of their size. Streaming is more about convenience than quality. If you want best quality then streaming is not right choice. As an example look at Netflix "HD" streams which max out around 3.8 Mbps which translates to about 1.7 GB/hour (and that's assuming max quality all the time which it is not). Compare that to Blu Ray which can easily be 12 GB/hour or higher bit rate.

[MichaelK]

Fine 250 GB. That 10 Bluray quality movies. right now anyway. What happens when the next Big thing hits (whatever that is) and it doubles the resolution? Double the resolution and you need 4x the pixels. and it needs 100 GB. Now thats 2.5 movies.



Lets see Comcast makes a bunch of money for cable TV, PPV, VOD etc. They also make a bunch of money from internet. If you start cutting into the revenue stream from PPV and VOD and They will start to wonder "Gee I wonder why peoples bandwidth usage is way up and our PPV, VOD usage is down. A lot of the internet traffic is coming from NetFlix, (or hulu, or amazon, or some other video streaming site). Maybe they are getting their video fix from the internet and we only charge a flat rate for all you can eat. Where can we make up that loss." Right now a very large portion of the country can get a digital signal for TV every bit as good or better than what cable provides now. Add to that you can get the premium content that you cant get from the antennae via the internet. Do you think Cable TV feels threatened? The future is downloaded content that you get only what you want when you want it for cheaper, because you don't get Shopping channels and other fluff you don't want. They have a vested interest in finding a way to either keep you on cable tv or charging more for the data.

Eventually all this stuff will be all downloaded or streamed as data and not a video only stream. Eventually you are right, it will get cheaper , but not before they resist change and try to price you into keeping the old way of doing things.



right now the vast vast vast number of households- even with tivo's dont need to be able to download 250gb a month. It's plenty for just about everyone.

I already posted above why comcast will not be able to stop it. If competition doesn't handle it then the other industries, the fcc, congress, or Obama will force net neutraility down their throats.

I think it will be competition. By your logic AOL should have raised the price per minute to make more money. But they didn't - there's always someone willing to undercut the competition and provide more for less, and when they do everyone else needs to respond. Comcast wont be able to ratchet down there numbers when FIOS or someone else is bashing them in adverisements about how their unlimited really is unlimited.

the fact that comcast picked 250gb - shows in my mind that they (at least for now) aren't using it to limit their network but really are just trying to keep their network healthy for all their customers.

if they try to use it as a tool against competition (which would be very enticing i agree) then google, amazon, directv, dish, netflix, hulu, cinamanow, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc will all sue that there is no difference in bandwidth between comcast vod and their vod delievered over comcasts network and thus it's not neutral to show preference to their internal vod over anyone elses. What exactly will be comcasts defense to that?

[jay0k]

just about every release?

or 'every release that apple gets"

are those 2 the same? - in other words does apple have deals with all the studios to get all the current releases? That would be great news for the other players if apple has all the studioes allowing HD.

Apple has deals with the major studios. Lately it seems soon as a movie hits DVD it hits iTunes in HD.

I realize iTunes is the worlds largest media distributor (disc or in-store) so they have some pull. I've thought about an AppleTV but to justify the purchase I would have to scrap the TivoHD which I don't want to since I'm locked in now.

My cable provider has a large selection of HD video on demand that is high quality and offers 5.1.

For now; I'll just stick with Netflix + Bluray.

[JWThiers]

right now the vast vast vast number of households- even with tivo's dont need to be able to download 250gb a month. It's plenty for just about everyone.

I already posted above why comcast will not be able to stop it. If competition doesn't handle it then the other industries, the fcc, congress, or Obama will force net neutraility down their throats.

I think it will be competition. By your logic AOL should have raised the price per minute to make more money. But they didn't - there's always someone willing to undercut the competition and provide more for less, and when they do everyone else needs to respond. Comcast wont be able to ratchet down there numbers when FIOS or someone else is bashing them in adverisements about how their unlimited really is unlimited.

the fact that comcast picked 250gb - shows in my mind that they (at least for now) aren't using it to limit their network but really are just trying to keep their network healthy for all their customers.

if they try to use it as a tool against competition (which would be very enticing i agree) then google, amazon, directv, dish, netflix, hulu, cinamanow, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc will all sue that there is no difference in bandwidth between comcast vod and their vod delievered over comcasts network and thus it's not neutral to show preference to their internal vod over anyone elses. What exactly will be comcasts defense to that?

The operative words are "right now the vast vast vast number of households- even with tivo's dont need to be able to download 250gb a month." What about 5 years from Right Now? The big problem is Cable Companies don't have a ton of competion. The choices I have for TV in my area, and probably a very large number of the people out there, is OTA, 1 cable company (Brighthouse), and Satellite. AOL, has/had a huge number of other national ISP's plus many local ISP that serve a few hundred people (I probably have the choice of at least a dozen ISP's). In many cases the cable company has a legal monopoly in a market. And when you consider that no matter who the cable company is they are facing the same issue, competition from the internet, not another cable service. A better analogy is Telephones and VOIP. The cable companies are all for being able to use the data lines to make their digital phones work, and by extension any VOIP service.

In the case of bandwidth caps all of the services you mention could not sue. The data is being treated the same. Net Nuetrality is more about throttling the speed of data, giving priority to others. In this case the consumer has access to 1 cup full of data, if you want more than that you have to pay for it. They might have an argument that if a cable company can have "FREE" access to a data stream that they should also, but be careful what you wish for the solution to fix that issue might be to include the cable Companies VOD services as part of your total bandwidth cost meaning the just count their VOD services as data delivered using up part of your bandwidth allocation. I'm not sure competition from other companies facing the same issues and will likely instill similar defenses will work. and I don't know what legislators could do about it. Coke doesn't give you monthly access to all the coke you can drink you get a container full and when its empty you get another. The question is, in an HD world, is 250 GB a month enough?

[berkshires]

I agree with michaelK that if competition doesn't do it, government will.

It is important for folks to keep this issue on the agenda, although there is little reason to be concerned today about the immediate future.

[JWThiers]

Call me a cynic, but if we don't hold governments feet to the fire, they wont hold the cable industries feet to the fire. Anyone remember the grand old days of dial up when you paid by the hour for access? Same type thing is coming except instead of hours of access, it will be bytes of data.

Like it has been said , and I agree, for the average user TODAY, 250 GB is adequate, but, IF the Information Age continues and everything moves online, 250 GB might not be so big. As more and more rich content goes online, the smaller that 250 GB becomes. Everything from ANYTHING comunications related (TV, Telephone, IM,...) to ordering dinner, to government services. EVERYTHING is moving online, and it all takes bytes of data. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they are putting caps in place , but I would rather they just set up tiers of service. 50 GB pays $5, 150 GB pays $15, 250 GB pays $25, 500 GB pays $35, Unlimited pays $50.

[jcaudle]

it's really not up to tivo - its about when the people they deal with netflix, cinamanow, amazon, etc get the licensing from the content owners.

tivo can't magically get hd content from netflix if netflix isn't allowed to serve it up

If Directv was able to get the content somehow, why can't Tivo approach the same partners and broker a deal?

[jcaudle]

The other problem is that even if you don't have bandwidth caps, available dowload speeds in the US suck. They are a fraction of speeds available in Korea, Japan, Singapore.

Verizon FiOs is the only carrier in the US that delvers even close to that speed without bandwidth caps. Providing the media companies allow it to mature, Video on demand services will eventually replace DVDs in most cases within 5-7 years if the cable companies don't stifle competition with bandwidth caps. Not to mention media corps not allowing digital rights for much of their content. I will dump Cox the day that Verizon delivers FiOs to my neighborhood. Until them I am stuck with cable.

[JWThiers]

The other problem is that even if you don't have bandwidth caps, available dowload speeds in the US suck. They are a fraction of speeds available in Korea, Japan, Singapore.

Verizon FiOs is the only carrier in the US that delvers even close to that speed without bandwidth caps. Providing the media companies allow it to mature, Video on demand services will eventually replace DVDs in most cases within 5-7 years if the cable companies don't stifle competition with bandwidth caps. Not to mention media corps not allowing digital rights for much of their content. I will dump Cox the day that Verizon delivers FiOs to my neighborhood. Until them I am stuck with cable.

Ditto

[JWThiers]

If Directv was able to get the content somehow, why can't Tivo approach the same partners and broker a deal?

Because Tivo isn't distributing the content the are providing the device that the content gets delivered to.. NetFlix, Amazon, Apple, etc are the ones that have to get the licensing deals to distribute the content electronically.

[MichaelK]

Call me a cynic, but if we don't hold governments feet to the fire, they wont hold the cable industries feet to the fire. Anyone remember the grand old days of dial up when you paid by the hour for access? Same type thing is coming except instead of hours of access, it will be bytes of data.
....


you argument is exactly inverted.

Why did we go from paying by the minute on modems to getting unlimited connections at thouands of times faster speeds?

the marketplace....

How did we go from paying per minute per long distance call to unlimited long distance?

the marketplace.....

how did we go from unlimited text messaging, paying for every cell phone call, etc, etc to pay one price and get everything you ever wanted on your cell phone?

the marketplace....

yes- cable is something of a monopoly- but they aren't only a monopoly- why do you have 200 channels, voip, and insanely fast broadband innstead of analog cable with 46 channels and a one way cable modem?

the marketplace....

cable has some competition- it's from the phone company's that exist everywhere that cable does and then some. Yes there will be some pockets where that is not effective competition. But in the majority of households in the country- verizon and att aren't going to just lay down and late cable eat them alive. (granted qwest seems to be giving up...)



and if some how the marketplace doesn't repond- then the FCC, congress, Obama, and every other POL in the US has been talking about net neutrality.

And if the POL's buckle becasue cable bribes them (highly likely)- the BIG MONEY comes out, and Google, netflix, amazon, direct, dish, apple, and all the rest with a stake in the market will sue the piss out of cable saying that VOD bandwidth is VOD bandwidth no matter if it comes from cable or one of those others.

Google whined for like 15 minutes that the new wireless licenses being sold from the old analog tv channels should be open to all (smell familiar???- yep that's network neutrality). Verizon tripped over themselves to declare they were opening their CURRENT network. Then the FCC clapped rules on the new spectrum that much of it had to be neutral.

So that battles have already started and so far "the good guys" have won.

[pdhenry]

the marketplace....I have exactly one source of 6+ Mbps internet access. FIOS is supposed to be coming but it's not here yet. When the market is cornered competition isn't a factor.

[JWThiers]

you argument is exactly inverted.

Why did we go from paying by the minute on modems to getting unlimited connections at thouands of times faster speeds?

the marketplace....

How did we go from paying per minute per long distance call to unlimited long distance?

the marketplace.....

how did we go from unlimited text messaging, paying for every cell phone call, etc, etc to pay one price and get everything you ever wanted on your cell phone?

the marketplace....

yes- cable is something of a monopoly- but they aren't only a monopoly- why do you have 200 channels, voip, and insanely fast broadband innstead of analog cable with 46 channels and a one way cable modem?

the marketplace....

cable has some competition- it's from the phone company's that exist everywhere that cable does and then some. Yes there will be some pockets where that is not effective competition. But in the majority of households in the country- verizon and att aren't going to just lay down and late cable eat them alive. (granted qwest seems to be giving up...)



and if some how the marketplace doesn't repond- then the FCC, congress, Obama, and every other POL in the US has been talking about net neutrality.

And if the POL's buckle becasue cable bribes them (highly likely)- the BIG MONEY comes out, and Google, netflix, amazon, direct, dish, apple, and all the rest with a stake in the market will sue the piss out of cable saying that VOD bandwidth is VOD bandwidth no matter if it comes from cable or one of those others.

Google whined for like 15 minutes that the new wireless licenses being sold from the old analog tv channels should be open to all (smell familiar???- yep that's network neutrality). Verizon tripped over themselves to declare they were opening their CURRENT network. Then the FCC clapped rules on the new spectrum that much of it had to be neutral.

So that battles have already started and so far "the good guys" have won.

Did you read the second paragraph?

Like it has been said , and I agree, for the average user TODAY, 250 GB is adequate, but, IF the Information Age continues and everything moves online, 250 GB might not be so big. As more and more rich content goes online, the smaller that 250 GB becomes. Everything from ANYTHING comunications related (TV, Telephone, IM,...) to ordering dinner, to government services. EVERYTHING is moving online, and it all takes bytes of data. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they are putting caps in place , but I would rather they just set up tiers of service. 50 GB pays $5, 150 GB pays $15, 250 GB pays $25, 500 GB pays $35, Unlimited pays $50.


And Comcast is putting a 250GB cap on, others are sure to follow. It is the only way to meter bandwidth and not get in trouble about net neutrality. You paid for up to 250GB and that is what you got. So much for unlimited internet usage. And Insanely fast speeds, compared to dialup sure, but compared to what some other counties get (i.e. Japan and many European countries) we get crap for speed. Competition is having a large selection of choces of providers most people have 1 source for cable and 1 for DSL plus Satellite. In the dial-up days I had a choice of a dozen or more if you counted the small local ISP's that were being run out of a closet in someones house. Thats competition. I used one of the small local ISP's because I got good service and good connect speeds ALL the time.

Unlimited texting on my iPhone only costs $30 on top of my data plan. Marketplace is great isn't it for a couple of K of data being sent over the internet. You would think texting were free with an unlimited data plan, considering it is just more data.

200 channels on cable and still most of it is pure crap. I've said it before if my wife didn't have a thing for the daily show I would tell my cable company to pound sand and use an antennae and Amazon, netflix, Hulu, etc.

Competition from the phone company that would be nice. Lets see, DSL is slower than cable, Many people are dropping land lines for Cell phones to save money and with the exception of Verisons Fios, which is only available in VERY limited areas they don't offer TV services so I can see them offering real competition to the cable company.

And Google getting some bandwidth available to a third party is NOT Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is more about preventing the ISP's from giving priority of data from one source over another. For example, Say Comcast signs a deal with Amazon to stream movies to the comcast DVR. Without net neutrality the could slow down packets from netflix to a Tivo HD or XBox making them less desirable.

The cable Co's are out to make a buck and are protecting their industry as best as they can within the law. If they put caps on now before usage goes way up because of online sources of what was traditionally their marketplace they can stifle that new market before it becomes a threat. They can't stifle the speed so they figure a way to hinder the growth before it impacts their bottom line. So meter the bits. Its a smart business move on their part. If you want more Coke buy more Coke, if you want more GB's of data buy them, you are free to do so. What is google et al going to do? Cry They aren't giving away the bandwidth anymore people won't be able to afford to get their television via the internet, its too expensive.

[berkshires]

And Comcast is putting a 250GB cap on, others are sure to follow. It is the only way to meter bandwidth and not get in trouble about net neutrality. You paid for up to 250GB and that is what you got. So much for unlimited internet usage. And Insanely fast speeds, compared to dialup sure, but compared to what some other counties get (i.e. Japan and many European countries) we get crap for speed. Competition is having a large selection of choces of providers most people have 1 source for cable and 1 for DSL plus Satellite. In the dial-up days I had a choice of a dozen or more if you counted the small local ISP's that were being run out of a closet in someones house. Thats competition. I used one of the small local ISP's because I got good service and good connect speeds ALL the time.

The cable Co's are out to make a buck and are protecting their industry as best as they can within the law. If they put caps on now before usage goes way up because of online sources of what was traditionally their marketplace they can stifle that new market before it becomes a threat. They can't stifle the speed so they figure a way to hinder the growth before it impacts their bottom line. So meter the bits. Its a smart business move on their part. If you want more Coke buy more Coke, if you want more GB's of data buy them, you are free to do so. What is google et al going to do? Cry They aren't giving away the bandwidth anymore people won't be able to afford to get their television via the internet, its too expensive.

What is it about competition that led to those high speeds without byte caps in those other countries?

What do you object to with regard to the possibility of having to pay more for a higher cap or speed?

Please keep in mind that at the relevent speeds (incl. for HD) today's caps would allow hours per day of viewing internet sourced video. Indeed with only a 50GB cap, you could watch over an hour a day of Netflix HD.

[MichaelK]

Did you read the second paragraph?



i read your all your paragraphs- not mush new- basically the same point the several panicked follks in this thread have made "sure now it's Ok buy you just wait"- wait for what? We have nothing to show us that in the course of history that we have gotten less over time for our telecommunications buck. Over and over and over again we have gotten more- in some cases MUCH more- for the same price. I dont really see us going backwards now somehow when that has never happened yet.

I was going to write a big reply but there's no real need- bottom line is we are where we are today becasue of the marketplace and/or regulation and neither is going to change for the worse. The market will drive the services provided.

And if not the government on many levels has already talked about regulation to address any short comings.

And if both of those failt then there's the new threat that the "new media" will get involved and google, amazon, dish, directv, netflix, blockbuster, and whoever else has a stake will sue.

[JWThiers]

i read your all your paragraphs- not mush new- basically the same point the several panicked follks in this thread have made "sure now it's Ok buy you just wait"- wait for what? We have nothing to show us that in the course of history that we have gotten less over time for our telecommunications buck. Over and over and over again we have gotten more- in some cases MUCH more- for the same price. I dont really see us going backwards now somehow when that has never happened yet.

I was going to write a big reply but there's no real need- bottom line is we are where we are today becasue of the marketplace and/or regulation and neither is going to change for the worse. The market will drive the services provided.

And if not the government on many levels has already talked about regulation to address any short comings.

And if both of those failt then there's the new threat that the "new media" will get involved and google, amazon, dish, directv, netflix, blockbuster, and whoever else has a stake will sue.

I'm not panicked, I'm concerned that:

1. The LACK of regulation and enforcement by the government hasn't protected the consumer in other areas (Enron, Fanni and Freddie, Bear Stearns) including the cable industry (can you say Adelphia cable), so why should it all of a sudden work for us instead of one of its biggest lobbies. And ..

2. How would the "marketplace" influence the industry when they already have virtual monopolies in their markets for cable TV (I'll just change companies to who?) and little competition in the broadband markets. Most people are lucky to have a choice between DSL and Cable. And lastly...

3. As I stated before the "New Media" can't sue because of bandwidth caps because they don't have legal standing. The contract for broadband is between the consumer and the cable companies, not google, netflix, amazon, etc. As long as the consumer has equal access to these services their is nothing for them to sue over.

The Cable Industry is looking long term and they are afraid of the "New Media", If IPTV takes off the cable companies could potentially loose what it makes its money on, TV service. Cable modem is just the icing on the cake for them. They are charging you right now a ton more than it cost them in the first place. They could probably give it away and still make money on it. But they also have control over the pipe that IPTV needs. so to choke it off, you put a "reasonable" bandwidth cap on it that provides more than enough bandwidth for basic internet browsing , email and some downloads, but not enough if you want to use it to access HD video in quantity that could be harmful to their core business "Cable TV".

I hope your right, but in my mind all the pieces fit. Cable TV doesn't want the competition and this is a way to choke it off before it becomes a threat.

[berkshires]

What's wrong with Adelphia?

[JWThiers]

A few years back they had difficulties because of some unethical behavior of its senior people. If I remember the timing of the thing correct The story broke about the same time as Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart so it was not as big a story because of all the other high profile crap that went on.

[MichaelK]

I'm not panicked, I'm concerned that:

1. The LACK of regulation and enforcement by the government hasn't protected the consumer in other areas (Enron, Fanni and Freddie, Bear Stearns) including the cable industry (can you say Adelphia cable), so why should it all of a sudden work for us instead of one of its biggest lobbies. And ..
.

valid point- NO CURRENT REGULATION is specifically going to stop this nonsense. But congress, the fcc, and Obama himself have all played lip service to the need for net neutrality. The FCC ALREADY HAS ACTED- they beat on Comcast to implement these caps because bit torrent complained that Comcast was singling out their content.

I also think much of the government and the people are leaning towards more regulation of everything at the moment. So I don’t think it's a stretch that if the caps get to a point that it matters that someone who can will step in.


2. How would the "marketplace" influence the industry when they already have virtual monopolies in their markets for cable TV (I'll just change companies to who?) and little competition in the broadband markets. Most people are lucky to have a choice between DSL and Cable. And lastly...
.

First off- the vast majority of the country cable doesn't have a monopoly for pay tv.

Not sure of your point about most people having a choice between cable and dsl- that's exactly why cables effort to cap people are at risk- MOST people DO have a choice between cable and and telco broadband. Currently cable as a whole eats DSL's lunch. Either the phone company's die at the hands of cable or they respond and come up with a real challenge to cable in improved DSL or fiber. So far only seems qwest has decided to give up- Verizon and ATT are fighting and fighting hard.

Finally even today there are vast pockets of the country where single wire triple play is competitive. There are places where RCN or others have overbuilt. ATT and Verizon are putting in triple play over fiber to lots people in Texas (I think I read there are even a couple fringe areas where there are three choices in some spots in Texas). Verizon us working quickly to get all of New York City, the surrounding areas of NY state and the entire state of NJ passed by their fios triple play. That area alone accounts for like 10+% of the US population and that's very far along- and likely to be done in the next couple years (regulated to be done in that time frame in NJ in fact). I believe Verizon is also active in other major north east cities like Boston, Philly, DC, and Baltimore (what's that add another 10%?). ATT is likely digging in elsewhere. So large pockets of population have or will have a triple play choice with a fat pipe in the next couple years. It WONT be everyone. It probably won’t be the majority. But it's not insane to think a third of the country will have an option for triple play besides the primary local cable company some time soon.

Sure if you live in podunk, west nowhere that doesn't help you. But MANY people will have competition, and many more will get helped by those that do have competition. Can comcast ditch or upgrade their cap in only the competitive markets without doing the same elsewhere wihout provoking the regulators above? What about Time Warner. What about cablevision? If comcast has to repond to that competition by ditching caps, then like a quarter of cable customers win right there. IN NYC area alone all 3 of them have large shares and will have to respond to FIOS. Can they just change their policies in greater NYC- I think that would be obvious and provoke a response. Other areas might lag, but most everyone with TW, Comcast, or cablevison will get helped eventually I think.



3. As I stated before the "New Media" can't sue because of bandwidth caps because they don't have legal standing. The contract for broadband is between the consumer and the cable companies, not google, netflix, amazon, etc. As long as the consumer has equal access to these services their is nothing for them to sue over.
.

but we dont need to sue on an individual basis. Did individuals have to sue verizon to get their devices on the Big Red's network? Or did Googles threats force them to act? (the later)

Nor do we have eaual access to their services- we are limited to how much vod we can buy from 3rd parties where we are not limited to how much vod we can buy from cable. The whole crux is that cable vod is the same as 3rd party vod and shouldn’t be afforded unlimited bandwidth when others are.

So the argument isn't going to be the size of the cap or even it’s existance. Those may stay forever legally. The argument google et al will make is that their vod content is counted under the cap where cable's vod is NOT counted under the cap. Even bit torrent (do they even make money????) some how has enough power to argue that their content was being discriminated against and the FCC forced comcast to back off. So google and their umpteen lawyers just need to make the point that there is no difference between their streaming video and comcasts streaming video (aka vod) and the game is on.

True above in your #1 that the big pockets win. But Google, MS, amazon, etc, etc have BIGGER pockets. And while sometimes the biggest pockets dont win with lobbyists, the biggest pockets frequently do win in court in the US- see DISH, see OJ episode I, see Bernard Madoff sipping coffee eating an omelet in his slippers in his penthouse each morning while the "normal prisoners" are having cold cereal.




The Cable Industry is looking long term and they are afraid of the "New Media", If IPTV takes off the cable companies could potentially loose what it makes its money on, TV service. Cable modem is just the icing on the cake for them. They are charging you right now a ton more than it cost them in the first place. They could probably give it away and still make money on it. But they also have control over the pipe that IPTV needs. so to choke it off, you put a "reasonable" bandwidth cap on it that provides more than enough bandwidth for basic internet browsing , email and some downloads, but not enough if you want to use it to access HD video in quantity that could be harmful to their core business "Cable TV".

I hope your right, but in my mind all the pieces fit. Cable TV doesn't want the competition and this is a way to choke it off before it becomes a threat.

yep- cable needs to manipulate this all as best they can to try to maximize their profits. Bicker would argue it is their DUTY to their shareholders and I think he's right- they are obligated to the shareholders to do all they can to make the most they can. BUT maximizing their profits also means not pushing so far that regulators or google’s lawyers act. And it seems to me that the fact they picked 250 gigs TODAY when that's way more then normal people would use indicates that they are well aware of being too obvious with their manipulations. Plenty of other "unlimited" services have way way way lower thresholds. Many as low as 5gig. If comcast wanted to really play rough they could have picked 10gig and said "hey there's plenty doing 5 so we're twice as nice"

[JWThiers]

yep- cable needs to manipulate this all as best they can to try to maximize their profits. Bicker would argue it is their DUTY to their shareholders and I think he's right- they are obligated to the shareholders to do all they can to make the most they can. BUT maximizing their profits also means not pushing so far that regulators or google’s lawyers act. And it seems to me that the fact they picked 250 gigs TODAY when that's way more then normal people would use indicates that they are well aware of being too obvious with their manipulations. Plenty of other "unlimited" services have way way way lower thresholds. Many as low as 5gig. If comcast wanted to really play rough they could have picked 10gig and said "hey there's plenty doing 5 so we're twice as nice"

I agree it is cables duty to protect their profits for there shareholders. But while 250 gigs is way more than normal people use NOW, it is way less than what would be needed to do something closer to real HD than what netflix and others are doing now and be real competition to the industry. They are thinking 5-10 years down the road not 6 months. By doing that the regulators can say they are giving more than enough for the average user today. Then when 250 gigs is so much, they can claim it is what they have been doing for years for the health of their system and have years of precidence on their side.

valid point- NO CURRENT REGULATION is specifically going to stop this nonsense. But congress, the fcc, and Obama himself have all played lip service to the need for net neutrality. The FCC ALREADY HAS ACTED- they beat on Comcast to implement these caps because bit torrent complained that Comcast was singling out their content.

I also think much of the government and the people are leaning towards more regulation of everything at the moment. So I don’t think it's a stretch that if the caps get to a point that it matters that someone who can will step in.

I hope you are right, but the caps that they got hammered on were speed caps not data (amount) caps. you slow down the data enough and it becomes a pain to download even legitimate things like game demos or software patches. That was a big win for nuetrality. It also indirectly brings up another issue. Speed in general. The US has some of the slowest internet in the industrial world. Behind all the Scandinavian nations, Japan and a good part of the EU. With all the Dark Fiber in this country you would think they could light up some of it and get some real speed.

First off- the vast majority of the country cable doesn't have a monopoly for pay tv.

Not sure of your point about most people having a choice between cable and dsl- that's exactly why cables effort to cap people are at risk- MOST people DO have a choice between cable and and telco broadband. Currently cable as a whole eats DSL's lunch. Either the phone company's die at the hands of cable or they respond and come up with a real challenge to cable in improved DSL or fiber. So far only seems qwest has decided to give up- Verizon and ATT are fighting and fighting hard."

Thats news to me. I have lived in a number of places up and down the east coast over the last 20 years and with the exception of NY/NJ (I was born near PKWY Exit 100, LOL) the choice I had was antennae or 1 cable company. The reason I brought the telco's into the mix is that they provide broadband. The problem is that DSL is generally slower than cable and until just recently they did not provide TV services. ATT U-Verse and Verizon FIOS are doing that now, but they are not very widespread yet. Locally in Central FL, BHN has been offering digital telephone and since I know we weren't a test market but we are a medium sized market I assume that is widespread and spreading. This make bundling possible for cable on a widespread basis while it is only limited for the telco's. this fact makes bundling with cable more compelling. BTW, I hope FIOS gets it act together and rolls out in more areas, I would gladly sell blood to get it.

I actually think we are closer in opinion than you think, I just think the glass is half empty and you see it as half full. If you had asked me about anything like this a few years ago I would have been on the side of having as few regulatory rules in place as possible (I'm pro-business, fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Thats just messed up sometimes), but after Worldcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Citbank, Bear Stearns, etc. protections are needed.

BTW I really enjoyed this debate, thanks for the well thought out opinion.:up:

[berkshires]

A few years back they had difficulties because of some unethical behavior of its senior people. If I remember the timing of the thing correct The story broke about the same time as Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart so it was not as big a story because of all the other high profile crap that went on.

You refer to the bankruptcy where I experienced no disruption in service, was taken over by TWC, got more channels, got better picture, got faster and faster internet speeds; all without increases in my mothly bill.

[JWThiers]

You refer to the bankruptcy where I experienced no disruption in service, was taken over by TWC, got more channels, got better picture, got faster and faster internet speeds; all without increases in my mothly bill.

I think that the bankruptcy was the end result, and IIRC some of the executives did time because of it and investors were hurt. and it is great that you got all those added benefits. My point was that if the regulations were in place were enforced properly when all of that they wouldn't have gone bankrupt. That is lack of enforcement.

Out of curiosity, prior to that, could you have used a different Cable Company or was your choice Adelphia or nothing. And also do you have a choice now?

[MichaelK]

...I actually think we are closer in opinion than you think, I just think the glass is half empty and you see it as half full. If you had asked me about anything like this a few years ago I would have been on the side of having as few regulatory rules in place as possible (I'm pro-business, fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Thats just messed up sometimes), but after Worldcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Citbank, Bear Stearns, etc. protections are needed.

BTW I really enjoyed this debate, thanks for the well thought out opinion.:up:


ditto

actually seems even alan greenspan is saying there is a bare minimum level of regulation needed.

just happened to stumble on this for another "debate" i was having elsewhere. :)

Past progress does not guarantee future progress, but as Simon explained in his 1995 book The State of Humanity, it does create a strong presumption: “Throughout the long sweep of history, forecasts of resource scarcity have always been heard, and—just as now—the doomsayers have always claimed that the past was no guide to the future because they stood at a turning point in history.”



source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html

[sinanju]

Is a 250GB limit a problem for Netflix? Somebody check my math:

Netflix tops out at 3.8 Mbps for HD. That's 486.4 kilobytes/second. So, a 90 minute movie would be about 2.505 gigabytes -- but that's at a fixed bitrate, so with a variable bitrate, the number would be significantly less. Even with a fixed bitrate, a 250 GB/month download limit would still permit just under 150 hours of full-tilt HD streaming.... or, nearly 5 hours/day every day of the year.

I don't think the Comcast cap is an issue. Not today, at least.

[MichaelK]

I think the general consensus is that today comcast's cap is not an issue for most people..

There are however other providers with "unlimited" connections with much lower caps (like 5,7,10 gigs) that could be an issue for sure.

Also there's a concern that those limits could get ratcheted down or that over time as more and more content in better and better quality (eg more bits) comes along then the 250 could be an issue even.

For me personally it wouldn’t be entirely crazy that as netflix's catalog of downloads gets broader and more HD that at some point the 250 could be an issue TO ME. The scenario I could see maybe being an issue is that my wife and I sometimes rent a series on dvd to watch all the episodes in a row- either something we found later, or maybe something like LOST that I'm debating starting over to remember all the bits and pieces of the puzzle. Sometimes we get into a series and watch an episode or even 2 most nights for a few weeks on end- so one day maybe I’d watch an HD ep or 2 a night for a month or 2 via netflix streaming. Toss in a couple other movie downloads from netflix over that time, or maybe some kids shows., some normal web browsing and email (I work from home a lot and connect to my exchange server- no idea what that uses). Maybe a software install download (I bought MS office ultimate online completely legit a couple months back- you have to download TWO dvds). And I also backup my photo collection to an online backup place and that's like 100gigs itself (luckily I uploaded that before the limit went into effect so now it's only changes or new photos that get uploaded)- so if i had a pc die (it's raided and there's an external drive too- so a LONG shot) I might need to download all those photos again.

So I could see a time when I personally could possibly hit 250gig total use without any craziness or illegalities involved.

I’m not too worried yet- as above I think it will take care of itself over time.

[berkshires]

I think that the bankruptcy was the end result, and IIRC some of the executives did time because of it and investors were hurt. and it is great that you got all those added benefits. My point was that if the regulations were in place were enforced properly when all of that they wouldn't have gone bankrupt. That is lack of enforcement.

Out of curiosity, prior to that, could you have used a different Cable Company or was your choice Adelphia or nothing. And also do you have a choice now?

What does any of that have to do with whether a customer gets enough of a quota to do his internet stuff?

Adelphia was the only cable co. TWC is the only cable co.

[berkshires]

Is a 250GB limit a problem for Netflix? Somebody check my math:

Netflix tops out at 3.8 Mbps for HD. That's 486.4 kilobytes/second. So, a 90 minute movie would be about 2.505 gigabytes -- but that's at a fixed bitrate, so with a variable bitrate, the number would be significantly less. Even with a fixed bitrate, a 250 GB/month download limit would still permit just under 150 hours of full-tilt HD streaming.... or, nearly 5 hours/day every day of the year.

I don't think the Comcast cap is an issue. Not today, at least.

That's the gist of it.

[JWThiers]

What does any of that have to do with whether a customer gets enough of a quota to do his internet stuff?

Adelphia was the only cable co. TWC is the only cable co.

to recap.

Part of what MichaelK and I were debating how effective the marketplace and competition and Federal regulation would be enough to keep quota's reasonable (However you want to define that) what I was trying to point out is in recent years regulation and enforcement hasn't been to good. Granted in most of the glaring examples it hasn't been cable industry but then again it shows that regulators can be lax as well. I also wanted to point out that most areas cable has little or no competition in the cable markets they serve. So with that true competition has little influence as well. No competition means no reason to improve or innovate. In the broadband area the competitors are cable companies, Telephone companies with DSL and Satellite. I don't recall the numbers but the last I heard Cable had the largest market share and provided the fastest service (NOT counting FIOS which is only available in limited areas). This means that companies that hold virtual monopolies in their areas for TV delivery also have the largest number of broadband customers. My concern is that as Internet as a source for video content becomes more popular (netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc.) and as people start wanting higher quality video the data streams become larger and larger, these bandwidth caps could impact the cost of using it. Comcast already got in trouble for throttling the speed that some data packets traveled, so the next best thing to do is to cap the total number of bits rather than speed. Keep in mind that:

The cable companies get a lot of money from people right now for BOTH TV and broadband.
They are looking 5 - 10 years down the road and see Internet based TV like services as direct competition.
The streaming "HD" netflix is using today is only HD'ish (you can only compress some much).

They control the pipe you figure the rest.

[MichaelK]

... Comcast already got in trouble for throttling the speed that some data packets traveled, so the next best thing to do is to cap the total number of bits rather than speed. ....


just to add some detail to that- not even sure it's "the next best thing" in comcasts mind to cap.

the FCC all but said comcast better use a cap.

Basically they said- 'we wont tell you how to protect your network, that's up to you. But we will not permit you to mess with only one type of traffic like you are doing with bit torrent. Again it's all up to you but there are other options you could use like a cap on total use. We wont suggest any particular methog, but a cap on total use seems fair to us'

that's paraphased- but basically they told comcast to stop messing with bit torrent. And they didn't say caps were ok but they suggested caps with wording implying they wouldn't find that wrong.

so in a way we actually owe the caps to FCC attempts at maintain net neutrality.

I forget but i think comcast is eveing coming up with some new 'next generation' throttle method that is neutral (except of course that their own vod doesn't get counted towards the cap)