So should you pay up to $35 for their lowest 5GB plan, you just might be able to actually watch two HD films. Of course you can go over your limit if you're willing to pay $1 per additional gigabyte, a markup over cost of only 1,000 to 1,500% by Time Warner Cable. That's a bad deal however you slice it -- unless you work in marketing.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
I can see Apple (iTunes), Amazon (UnBox), and Netflix all fighting the cable companies on this...
I suspect that they will instead work out some kind of deal, like iTunes. Business being business, it makes more sense than dragging things out in court for years. (I'm talking here about businesses that provide actual products and services, as opposed to facades for legal teams.)
Member since:2005-12-05
These stores would probably make a deal with the cable companies where their stuff doesn't get counted towards your bandwidth quota. That would have the added benefit of discouraging piracy, as bittorrent and the like would fill your quota quite quickly.
Member since:2005-06-29
Either that, or more likely the cable companies will offer their own PPV-style movie downloads for just a bit less than the competition, with no quota if you buy from them. If for example you prefer Netflix, you not only pay Netflix's higher purchase price but it also eats your quota. With the current trend in Congress and the White House towards protecting the media companies even at the risk of national security, I can see them getting away with such a racket.
Member since:2005-08-09
If caps reduce on-line time by the end-user, advertising revenues will fall (less people browsing for less time...). Those counting on advertising revenue (Google, et al) may be up in arms if on-line time decreases.
If on-line time is related to advertising clicks, those counting on those clicks may buy into the ISP market and eliminate the "caps."
One can only hope that one of the ISPs could create a nice portal (or buy one) so that they could get advertising revenue they do not currently get and leave the cap off...
The issue of whether or not the p2p use is damaging is to note how much SPAM costs companies that have to pay for each kb... If 1% is using 50% of the bandwidth and such use is "illegal," I say down with the 1%. If the 1% is kids playing counterstrike 24/7, then their use is legal.
Either way, I agree that the available bandwidth can not handle everyone using the "max" bandwidth promised by their ISP...
Edited 2008-07-08 20:03 UTC
Member since:2007-04-23
It will encourage people to hijack other people's wifi networks...
And trade warez the old fashioned way...
Buying a pirate movie is still much cheaper than a legit one.
The anti piracy groups often keep going on about how piracy is used to fund organised crime... You can't say that p2p piracy funds anything, because noone makes any profit from it. But users buying pirate dvds down their local market will put money in someone's pocket and who knows what they could be using it for.
Member since:
2005-06-29
The cable companies are very smart when it comes to maximizing their profits. They couldn't wait for movie downloads to become multi-GB so they could gouge us for wanting to watch more than a couple of movies. I can see Apple (iTunes), Amazon (UnBox), and Netflix all fighting the cable companies on this, as they would all be at risk of losing customers who feel they'd be paying twice for one product.
With a cap like this, it will also be nearly impossible to affordably pirate HD movies, so that whole demographic will be forced to go legit and buy their movies from the retail store. I'm not condoning piracy, simply pointing out that the MPAA has found a new way to curtail movie sharing through the ISP's caps.