Bandwidth Cap is Bad News for Netflix
Article with a more positive outlook
So, on a scale of "1" to "FUUUUUUUU", how screwed are we? Internet apocalypse? Or just a service limitation that's been a long time coming, compared to what we get through other services like cable and satellite? I know I'm in the category of people that has completely ditched cable services in favor of internet entertainment (in my case, I "discovered" Netflix about 6 months ago and haven't looked back).
In comparison, as far as my Google-fu tells me, Japan still doesn't have any download caps, and the upload caps are ridiculously high (~1TB/month).|||I'm not worried. You'll soon enough have some competing service providers that have higher (or unlimited) caps providing service to all those music & movie downloaders, while the rest of us can enjoy lower rates on regular internet use.
Also, it might help alleviate some internet traffic.
It's supply and demand.|||Well, I don't really put this on the "Mayan Calendar" level. Until quite recently, I'd never even come close to using DSL, and if I wanted to have my cable repaired I'd not have to stay with it. I'm not even particularly impressed with it, though it's nice to have far lower bills than I had with Verizon FIOS <or> RoadRunner (Time Warner) Cable.
If you think about it, there's some legitimacy to both this and the antagonism against the Net Neutrality legislation. Why exactly should you have to shelve your downloading pr0n and warez from Usenet in favor of my Netflix across my Wii? Money is a way for us to exercise personal power, so why shouldn't I pay more if I don't like just the 3-DVD-by-mail system?
The issue is if we have created sufficient roadblocks to the market that it is better for AT&T to sit back and stuff cash into its Jabba-like maw, rather than staying competitive. These articles indicate that <might> be the case, but isn't the answer to let someone else knock them off their high horse?
I know that I'm fit to be tied, having to deal with Sprint providing service to two T-1's. A soon-to-be-laid-off tech, visiting with his H-1B replacement that he was training, indicated that Sprint really doesn't give a goldurn about it's Managed Network Service customers any longer, having decided that WiFi is where the company wants to plant it's flag. The H-1B'er was cross-training, and actually sourced out of the WiFi group...
Given that I'm going on three months to relocate my two lines, Sprint having screwed the pooch two months ago, I'm inclined to agree with the tech. I had performed such service in under a week in years past... competition is the answer.
EDIT -
Past discussions here
and here|||I wonder when Comcast will jump on this bandwagon?|||Comcast is already capped, they were one of the first.|||Quote:
Comcast is already capped, they were one of the first.
Oh, Hell I didn't know that! It hasn't really affected me.|||Isn't the Comcast cap like 250GB, though? While I don't like caps, it seems fairly reasonable.
Then again, what they charge for internet service is not reasonable. I pay nearly $70/mo for their "Performance" 15down speed. The cheaper 6down plan is ten bucks less, but I don't really want to get slower for only saving $10. The �ber crappy cheap plan has abysmal speeds but is under $30/mo. FiOS isn't available in my area and the DSL speeds just don't compete, so I'm kind of stuck. Calling and threatening to cancel hasn't made 'em budge, either.|||Yes, but the Comcast cap was purposefully kept quiet. Now that AT&T has come out openly with a cap that could reasonably be hit, it stands to reason that other companies will feel that it's acceptable to hit their consumers with similar caps. The more companies that do it, the less choice we have for providers that don't cap bandwidth (and that's not even counting areas where there is literally one cable company to choose from).
AT&T has said that their cap only affects the top 2% of their users. The issue is, how long will it stay that way? A year? Two? Consumers get used to paying for something, and the outrage that follows a price hike is never as great as the outrage over the first introduction of a fee. See: airlines and the extra fees that you have to pay on top of your ticket every time you fly now.|||I'd rather a price hike for the top 2% users than a price hike for everyone. Also, less internet traffic.
10$ extra charge for top 2% works out to 0.20$ per user if the charge was spread equally instead.|||Quote:
Isn't the Comcast cap like 250GB, though? While I don't like caps, it seems fairly reasonable.
Then again, what they charge for internet service is not reasonable. I pay nearly $70/mo for their "Performance" 15down speed. The cheaper 6down plan is ten bucks less, but I don't really want to get slower for only saving $10. The �ber crappy cheap plan has abysmal speeds but is under $30/mo. FiOS isn't available in my area and the DSL speeds just don't compete, so I'm kind of stuck. Calling and threatening to cancel hasn't made 'em budge, either.
That much? Seriously? I use AT&T, at a 6Mb download speed, and only it costs me $35 a month.
As far as the cap goes, not really a lot I can do about it. Switching wouldn't do me any good- all the other ISPs around here are capped already. Higher caps, granted, but also higher prices for the same speeds.
No comments:
Post a Comment