Quote:
Originally Posted by red-beard
So, more like Pay per View, than HBO.
I really don't have a problem with the concept, as long as there is competition and I have a choice. If I don't like Comcast, I can get Dish, Direct TV or Uverse. I have 2, well, maybe 3 now, options for Broadband (WiMax just went live here). I'm not a bandwidth hog, so I don't have an issue with this.
It is kind of interesting, phone service is now all you can eat, but data will be pay per byte? OTOH, voice data is infinitesimal these days.
|
Not really like Pay Per View. With PPV you pay a fee for each movie you watch. They don't charge you a monthly fee for the service.
More like HBO, it's generally not a part of a standard package, you pay extra for it or buy a higher tier package that includes it.
So the thought is to "break up" the internet.
Standard sites that don't use a lot of bandwidth are part of the base package.
If you want to watch youtube videos you need to either add it as a premium channel or move up to a higher tier package that includes it.
It's a weird situation.
Currently cable providers negotiate with networks to carry their programming and the cost is passed on to the consumer.
Cable providers incur a cost by providing access to high usage sites that needs to be amortized across their subscriber base.
As more media moves online and ESD becomes more prevalent the providers infrastructure will need upgrading to keep up with demand.
Broadband penetration by household is around 65%. Taking into account geographic locations that are not profitable to service it would appear that providers are close to saturation.
So they are looking at pricing models that will offset increased infrastructure costs among the existing customer base.