
The Free Ride Is Over For Streaming Video - iProject
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/19/the-free-ride-is-over-for-streaming-video/
======
mrsteveman1
> The average broadband subscriber — those who only use up about 8 GB or 10 GB
> of data a month — shouldn’t necessarily pay the same as those whose usage
> goes above 300 GB in the same period of time.

I really don't like this argument, on its face it appears to be "fair", but if
there's no reason for there to be a difference in cost in the first place it
strikes me as a false dilema created for the purpose of raising rates, not
fairness.

Everything i've been hearing for 6+ years suggests transfer pricing is going
down, not up, and if anything the difference is already being pocketed by the
service providers.

I've also heard repeatedly from journalists who have covered this subject
before that the goal of cable companies is to keep revenue per subscriber
above a specific level, likely amounting to administrative and equipment costs
+ some average level of upstream data transfer (which again, i've heard is the
minor part of the whole breakdown), and of course profit.

In that light, letting individual users drop down below profitability by only
using 10GB per month on a usage based plan makes no sense, unless the actual
goal is simply to start charging more for what people are already using by
calling it excessive, and ride the increases in transfer use as a profit
mechanism.

~~~
georgieporgie
Marginalization and subsequent restriction/legislation/oppression is extremely
effective in our society, and something that we should _always_ take a stand
against.

~~~
mkr-hn
It sounds like you're comparing tiering with fascism.

~~~
georgieporgie
Based upon my limited information regarding this latest change, I don't have a
problem with it. However, their rhetoric for quite some time has revolved
around statements along the lines of "why should you have to pay for these
_abusive_ users downloading X gigabytes every month?" Of course, in two years
_you_ will also be in this "abusive" category. I believe they will happily use
marginalization in order to raise rates without objection.

------
tomku
This is very questionable reporting. The changes that Comcast are making are
flat-out improvements. The old plan is 250gb of usage, then dire consequences.
The new plans start at a minimum of 300gb usage, and add extra 50gb chunks for
a fee if you need to use them. The TechCrunch writer is very worried about
hitting bandwidth caps, but hitting those caps is both more likely and more
severe of a problem under the old system!

It might help to translate into a different domain. Let's say you're offered
the choice between two cell phone plans of equal cost. The first plan has
1,000 minutes, and once you hit 1,000 minutes your phone shuts off and refuses
to either send or receive calls. The second plan has 1,250 minutes and an
overage charge of $10 per 250 minutes after 1,250. This TC piece is making the
argument that the second is worse, because billing you based on how much you
talk is a slippery slope that will lead to the elimination of long phone
calls, even though the second plan allows you to make more and longer calls if
you need to. The problem with that argument is that the phone company is
really billing you by how much you talk on both plans, one just gives you
fewer options.

~~~
nabilt
The problem is 250GB is already too low especially when there is no evidence
that me downloading 1GB vs 100GB costs ISP the amount of money they are asking
for. Congestion is definitely a problem, but charging per bit does nothing to
solve that.

I live in Canada and I pay ~$60 for 28mbps and 120GB download cap, which I hit
every month. So far I am the only person in the house using high bandwidth
apps like Netflix. Usage based billing is not a long term fix for people like
me. Instead of increasing the bandwidth caps to competitive rates which
smaller ISPs and other countries provide Comcast has decided to charge per bit
to future proof their business model dodging the real problem.

~~~
tomku
You're comparing two solutions that solve completely different problems, and
complaining that Comcast (and other ISPs) chose the one that solves their
problem rather than yours. I don't know why this surprises you. Comcast's goal
is not to provide you or I with as much bandwidth as we want, it's to make a
profit off of providing a service.

High-usage users are a drain on their profits, and they only provide service
to us because we'd be a PR disaster if they tossed us and we ended up telling
all our friends and family to switch to some other provider. On the other
hand, we would obviously prefer much higher or non-existent caps. Comcast is
understandably not amenable to that, as it'd require substantial investment in
infrastructure improvements for minimal increased revenue. Whatever happens is
going to be some kind of compromise, and the one they're proposing makes them
additional money while also giving us "power users" an option besides "run
into the cap and die".

I don't think that that's a terrible idea. Like you, I'd prefer higher caps
for the same price, but the reality of it is just more complex. ISPs are
strongly opposed to doing anything that would increase costs or decrease
revenues, and customers are strongly opposed to doing anything that would
increase prices or decrease quality of service. Something has to give, and in
the short term that's going to mean pain for both sides. In the long term,
technological progress and the limited (but present) competition between
providers will mean that we'll probably end up paying about the same amount
for a slowly-increasing amount of service. That means faster connections,
higher caps and more options, just not as soon as you or I want them.

Disclaimer: I don't have Comcast cable, but I do have cable service from one
of their smaller competitors.

~~~
nabilt
> You're comparing two solutions that solve completely different problems

I don't think I am. I am not surprised that Comcast will do whatever it can to
increase profits. My problem is with Comcast claiming high bandwidth users are
a drain on their system, when there is no evidence to show this, so they can
push an unfavourable pricing model on their customers. Again, congestion is a
real problem, but charging by the bit does nothing to solve this. This
"solution" means they probably won't increase their caps to be more
competitive.

------
koko775
Comcast won't be destroying Netflix or Hulu anytime soon.

Most consumers of online video services (I work at a company that streams
video):

* Can easily mistake 480p for 720p and above

* Don't know or care how much bandwidth they are using

* Value content availability

So if Comcast wants to compete, licensing the best content, which can become
really, really expensive, is going to be key. Even so, though, production
companies may find it most profitable to license to multiple outlets to
maximize profits. So even though Comcast owns NBC, it's probably best for
NBC's shows to be on Netflix, Hulu, etc.

I think that a successful Comcast app might be a very good thing because
ratings measurements will shift from Nielsen ratings (which can undercount
certain kinds of shows) to better data (how many and what kind of people
_really_ watched the show). Better data means better analysis and targeting,
so, for example ads can fund the shows much more effectively - and thus make
shows that were previously niche more viable, or shows that were quirky and
constantly teetering on cancellation more secure.

------
maybird

      Comcast, of course, says that its new, usage-based
      pricing policy is pro-consumer
    

Comcast is not in the business of making-less-money.

~~~
av500
Long term, Comcast wants to convert the average 100$/month HD package into a
100$/month data usage bill...

