I have beat this drum for a long time now.....the lack of competition and regulation is leading to a growing number of abuses and practices, at least here in the states...
And while yes, as a private company they can charge whatever they want, as has been noted numurous times, what continues to happen is in most area's they have a vitural monolopy and with the FCC rulings in their favor, local muncipalities have not been able to do anything about arbritary rate hikes, etc. Almost all of the rules and regulations regarding cable and now broadband are completely outdated and in most cases don't apply or the rules have never taken into account the growth of broadband and the new delivery systems.... Not to mention that rural broadband is virtualy non-exsistant or so cost prohibitated that most people in the country don't even know what "high-speed" internet is. That and the fact you have providers who are now also producing and creating content, will that content be regulated?....you and I know it won't....they will strike deals or "exclusive contracts" with certain kinds of content or lock it up altogether and without meaningfull competition, where are we going to go? We will be stuck with a take it or leave it attitude and they will be able to get away with it, because in the end who really cares about us? We must let ourselves be heard, we must do something now....I firmly believe this with every fiber of my being.... Heath http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@...> wrote: > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a > > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near > > 100GB a month? > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme > > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any > > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a > > rather hysterical way. > > Hmmm....attention grabbing but not hysterical. > Currently....a single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. > The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. > Start doing the math based on the things you watch. > > we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for > daily web use. > > If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor > weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. > > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity > > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to > > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer > > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers > > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, > > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure > > or quality of service as a result. > > Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, > I think this argument is specious. > > The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if > people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they > are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These > companies are private and can charge 100000 per GB if they want. But > let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so > consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to > make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private > companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. > > Jay > > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 >
