6 ms·

Even a strong reason for cable companies such as Comcast to enforce their 250 Gb monthly transfer limit.

by ronnier 16y ago

ams6110 16y ago
If "traditional" cable TV is to survive they are going to have to offer a-la carte channel choice. I'd pay $5-10/month per channel for the handful of channels that carry interesting content. I refuse to pay $100/month for the 90% of channels that are pure crap.
- riobard 16y ago
  I'm not trying to defend the cable company (hate them anyway), but I just want to point out one potential problem with the thinking: it's very likely that the 10% of channels that you are interested is in the 90% of those that others think are pure crap. The original idea to charge a lump-sum subscription fee instead of a-la carte is precisely to combat this trap. Otherwise, many niche programs will not be available in the beginning.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    That makes no sense. A television network's survival depends on the ability of non-competing tv networks to subsidize its existence? Also, the major channels are probably available for free over the air in HD!
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    This was just an artifact of 'circuit-switched' CATV networks. With an IP-based network you can have 100,000 channels that cost nothing as long as they're not being watched. Literally anyone can start their own cable channel. (Starting to sound familiar yet?) In such an environment, a la carte programming is the only thing that can possibly make sense. The tiered plans are gone for good, and cable companies will just have to deal with it and get over it.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Second that. I've already given up TV years ago for that reason. 90% is crap, and the other 10% I learned I can live without.
- phlux 16y ago
  Actually, it is already illegal for cable companies to not provide a-la carte channels, the problem is they have a workaround which is that to get them, you have to order basic service, and then they charge ridiculous amounts for the individual channels.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  Your thinking is natural but ultimately mistaken because of the counter-intuitive aspects of zero-marginal-cost economics. Here's a great thought experiment which illustrates the problem: http://makeanysense.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-choice-is-less-choice-strange.html http://makeanysense.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-choice-is-less... A-la-carte channel choice isn't totally impossible, but it's not straightforward to make work and it's not obviously better.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  The problem is that basically everyone has a channel or two that they like that's only carried because of bundling.
IanDrake 16y ago
True. I think this might be a short term issue though. Software often pushes hardware to it's limits. Networks will catch up over the next 5 years.
brown9-2 16y ago
Doesn't this become anti-competitive at a certain point? You as the customer buy two (or more) services from Company A. They require you agree to stringent terms on one of those services in order to cut back your use of Company B's services.
- absconditus 16y ago
  Being anti-competitive is not illegal in most cases.
  - count 16y ago
    It's only illegal when you're a monopoly, I believe. In many areas (such as mine), there is only one cable provider (and we don't have FIOS either).
- mynameishere 16y ago
  Honestly, if anyone is getting the short end here, it's comcast. Imagine if some loophole allowed FedEx to tie trailers onto UPS's delivery trucks. That's exactly what netflix is doing to comcast.
  - RyanKearney 16y ago
    What? No it isn't at all. Comcast is just getting upset that people are using the service they are paying for. The same goes for AT&T and their removal of their "unlimited" data plan after the iPhone became popular and they realized that people actually enjoy using what they pay for. Your analogy would make more sense if you said imagine if FedEx paid UPS enormous amounts of money every month to ship a fixed number of packages and FedEx actually used the service they paid for to ship packages via UPS.
  - brown9-2 16y ago
    I think a closer analogy would involve USPS first charging you for building and paving the road to your house, and then wanting to charge you extra when you would like FedEx to drive on that road to deliver something to your house.
RyanKearney 16y ago
Comcast really doesn't mind if you go over the 250Gb/month limit. http://i.imgur.com/VkuiD.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VkuiD.jpg
- mtklein 16y ago
  They gave me a wrist-slap call when I used 2.x TB in a month. That was before I realized there was a 250GB limit on my unlimited plan...
  - TimothyBurgess 16y ago
    What in the world are you people downloading all the time to be using that much bandwidth?
- sp332 16y ago
  I was disconnected for going over a few months in a row. They put me on a one-year blacklist for that. But it turns out that only the "residential" access has caps, and the lowest "business" tier was about the same speed for not much more money. By my reckoning, I'm now pushing almost 40 TB/mo (mostly bittorrent, all legal) and no complaints from Comcast.
  - klbarry 16y ago
    Is this for work/science? What could you possibly download 40 TB of monthly? I am just curious.
    - ZachPruckowski 16y ago
      I imagine if you were one of the MAJOR seeders for a legal torrent (Open Source software, CC content, etc.) you could easily hit that. If 1000 people download a 5GB Linux distro from you, that's 5 TB. Or if you're working with something like video or CAD and constantly sending slightly changed multi-GB files around each time.
      - 16y ago
ankimal 16y ago
I wonder if cable companies have higher revenues because customers have upgraded internet connection speeds. I know basic internet plans (< 10 Mbps) are not good enough to stream HS content from Netflux and other devices.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Not sure this is true. I have 6Mbps down and that is good enough for h264-encoded 720p video. Dunno how Netflix encodes their video, but it's definitely possible to stream video with less than 10Mbps of bandwidth.
billybob 16y ago
That had better apply to all services the same. If it applies to Netflix but not a competing service that the cable company has a part in, I call foul.
Shorel 16y ago
NetFlix only needs to buy one cable company to be able to eat away all the others. They could buy one smaller one in secret now, or they can wait until they can swallow a big one in the future.

Even a strong reason for cable companies such as Comcast to enforce their 250 Gb monthly transfer limit.

by ronnier 16y ago

Even a strong reason for cable companies such as Comcast to enforce their 250 Gb monthly transfer limit.

If "traditional" cable TV is to survive they are going to have to offer a-la carte channel choice. I'd pay $5-10/month per channel for the handful of channels that carry interesting content. I refuse to pay $100/month for the 90% of channels that are pure crap.

riobard 16y ago
I'm not trying to defend the cable company (hate them anyway), but I just want to point out one potential problem with the thinking: it's very likely that the 10% of channels that you are interested is in the 90% of those that others think are pure crap. The original idea to charge a lump-sum subscription fee instead of a-la carte is precisely to combat this trap. Otherwise, many niche programs will not be available in the beginning.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  That makes no sense. A television network's survival depends on the ability of non-competing tv networks to subsidize its existence? Also, the major channels are probably available for free over the air in HD!
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- CamperBob 16y ago
  This was just an artifact of 'circuit-switched' CATV networks. With an IP-based network you can have 100,000 channels that cost nothing as long as they're not being watched. Literally anyone can start their own cable channel. (Starting to sound familiar yet?) In such an environment, a la carte programming is the only thing that can possibly make sense. The tiered plans are gone for good, and cable companies will just have to deal with it and get over it.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
Second that. I've already given up TV years ago for that reason. 90% is crap, and the other 10% I learned I can live without.
phlux 16y ago
Actually, it is already illegal for cable companies to not provide a-la carte channels, the problem is they have a workaround which is that to get them, you have to order basic service, and then they charge ridiculous amounts for the individual channels.
jessriedel 16y ago
Your thinking is natural but ultimately mistaken because of the counter-intuitive aspects of zero-marginal-cost economics. Here's a great thought experiment which illustrates the problem: http://makeanysense.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-choice-is-less-choice-strange.html http://makeanysense.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-choice-is-less... A-la-carte channel choice isn't totally impossible, but it's not straightforward to make work and it's not obviously better.
ZachPruckowski 16y ago
The problem is that basically everyone has a channel or two that they like that's only carried because of bundling.

IanDrake 16y ago

True. I think this might be a short term issue though. Software often pushes hardware to it's limits. Networks will catch up over the next 5 years.

brown9-2 16y ago

Doesn't this become anti-competitive at a certain point? You as the customer buy two (or more) services from Company A. They require you agree to stringent terms on one of those services in order to cut back your use of Company B's services.

absconditus 16y ago
Being anti-competitive is not illegal in most cases.
- count 16y ago
  It's only illegal when you're a monopoly, I believe. In many areas (such as mine), there is only one cable provider (and we don't have FIOS either).
mynameishere 16y ago
Honestly, if anyone is getting the short end here, it's comcast. Imagine if some loophole allowed FedEx to tie trailers onto UPS's delivery trucks. That's exactly what netflix is doing to comcast.
- RyanKearney 16y ago
  What? No it isn't at all. Comcast is just getting upset that people are using the service they are paying for. The same goes for AT&T and their removal of their "unlimited" data plan after the iPhone became popular and they realized that people actually enjoy using what they pay for. Your analogy would make more sense if you said imagine if FedEx paid UPS enormous amounts of money every month to ship a fixed number of packages and FedEx actually used the service they paid for to ship packages via UPS.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  I think a closer analogy would involve USPS first charging you for building and paving the road to your house, and then wanting to charge you extra when you would like FedEx to drive on that road to deliver something to your house.

RyanKearney 16y ago

Comcast really doesn't mind if you go over the 250Gb/month limit. http://i.imgur.com/VkuiD.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VkuiD.jpg

mtklein 16y ago
They gave me a wrist-slap call when I used 2.x TB in a month. That was before I realized there was a 250GB limit on my unlimited plan...
- TimothyBurgess 16y ago
  What in the world are you people downloading all the time to be using that much bandwidth?
sp332 16y ago
I was disconnected for going over a few months in a row. They put me on a one-year blacklist for that. But it turns out that only the "residential" access has caps, and the lowest "business" tier was about the same speed for not much more money. By my reckoning, I'm now pushing almost 40 TB/mo (mostly bittorrent, all legal) and no complaints from Comcast.
- klbarry 16y ago
  Is this for work/science? What could you possibly download 40 TB of monthly? I am just curious.
  - ZachPruckowski 16y ago
    I imagine if you were one of the MAJOR seeders for a legal torrent (Open Source software, CC content, etc.) you could easily hit that. If 1000 people download a 5GB Linux distro from you, that's 5 TB. Or if you're working with something like video or CAD and constantly sending slightly changed multi-GB files around each time.
    - 16y ago

ankimal 16y ago

I wonder if cable companies have higher revenues because customers have upgraded internet connection speeds. I know basic internet plans (< 10 Mbps) are not good enough to stream HS content from Netflux and other devices.

jrockway 16y ago
Not sure this is true. I have 6Mbps down and that is good enough for h264-encoded 720p video. Dunno how Netflix encodes their video, but it's definitely possible to stream video with less than 10Mbps of bandwidth.

billybob 16y ago

That had better apply to all services the same. If it applies to Netflix but not a competing service that the cable company has a part in, I call foul.

Shorel 16y ago

NetFlix only needs to buy one cable company to be able to eat away all the others. They could buy one smaller one in secret now, or they can wait until they can swallow a big one in the future.