You Can Post But It's Going To Cost You

[GSPODS]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Comcast Corp, the largest U.S. cable operator, said on Thursday it will cap customers' Internet usage starting October 1, in a bid to ensure the best service for the vast majority of its subscribers.

Comcast said it was setting a monthly data usage threshold of 250 gigabytes per account for all residential high-speed Internet customers, or the equivalent of 50 million e-mails or 124 standard-definition movies.

"If a customer exceeds more than 250 GB and is one of the heaviest data users who consume the most data on our high-speed Internet service, he or she may receive a call from Comcast's Customer Security Assurance (CSA) group to notify them of excessive use," according to the company's updated Frequently Asked Questions on Excessive Use.

Customers who top 250 GB in a month twice in a six-month timeframe could have service terminated for a year.

Comcast said up to 99 percent of its 14 million Internet subscribers would not be affected by the new threshold, which it said would help ensure the quality of Internet delivery is not degraded by a minority of heavy users.

U.S. Internet subscribers are typically not aware of any limit on their Internet usage once they sign up to pay a flat monthly fee to their service provider.

As Web usage has rocketed, driven by the popularity of watching online video, photo-sharing and music downloading services, cable and phone companies have been considering various techniques to limit or manage heavy usage.

But Comcast has come under fire from a variety of sources for its network management techniques.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigated complaints by consumer groups that it was blocking peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent, and earlier this month ordered Comcast to modify its network management.

Comcast has said that by the end of the year it will change its network management practices to ensure all Web traffic is treated essentially the same, but has also been exploring other ways to prevent degradation of its Internet service delivery.

One consumer group said while Comcast's new 250 GB limit was "relatively high," it could eventually ensnare customers as technology progresses.

"If Comcast has oversold their network to the point of creating congestion problems, then well-disclosed caps for Internet use are a better short-term solution than Comcast's current practice of illegally blocking Internet traffic," said S Derek Turner of Free Press, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group that filed a complaint about Comcast's network management practices earlier this year.

The Philadelphia-based company is not alone in trying to come up with ways to limit heavy Internet usage.

Time Warner Cable Inc, the second-largest U.S. cable operator, said in January it would run a trial of billing Internet subscribers based on usage rather than a flat fee.

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas said Comcast was also considering so-called consumption-based billing, but no decisions had been made.

PayPerGigabyte

[hailskins666]

limit heavy usage?

so they are going to punish customers because they dropped the ball and can't keep up with demand. stupid business, imo.

this reminds me of when internet access first became available to the masses. we were paying 20-25 bucks a month for a 10-20 hour block of dial up. it was a retarded idea then, and its a retarded idea now.

glad i don't have comcast.

[KazooSkinsFan]

limit heavy usage?

so they are going to punish customers because they dropped the ball and can't keep up with demand. stupid business, imo.

this reminds me of when internet access first became available to the masses. we were paying 20-25 bucks a month for a 10-20 hour block of dial up. it was a retarded idea then, and its a retarded idea now.

glad i don't have comcast.

Instead of limiting it they should charge for it. There's nothing wrong with expecting the people who suck up the resources to pay for them. There's also nothing wrong with canning them and letting them go to a business smart enough to charge rather then expel heavy users. 250GB's a LOT of usage.

Anyway, how is it "dropping the ball" for Comcast to charge the people who are driving up their costs? Cost is a function of bandwidth. Why should people not using so much pay more so the ones who don't pay for the resources they consume can pay the same?

[Deadskins]

limit heavy usage?

so they are going to punish customers because they dropped the ball and can't keep up with demand. stupid business, imo.

this reminds me of when internet access first became available to the masses. we were paying 20-25 bucks a month for a 10-20 hour block of dial up. it was a retarded idea then, and its a retarded idea now.

glad i don't have comcast.

Unfortunately, I do. But my question is: If I signed a contract for unlimited internet use, for 12 months, how can they legally now put a cap on that usage, and even drop my service if I exceed that cap? I'm also guessing the average person has no idea how many gigabytes they are using when the use their internet service. Why would they drop you instead of charging an extra fee for the overage? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[GSPODS]

I don't know who has what provider in what areas. I have Time Warner up here in BFE New York, and they're just as pitiful. I think they're trying to stick it to the people who do the most downloading of movies, music, software, etc.

250 GB really isn't as much data as they would like us to believe it is. Especially since this article doesn't specify if the 250GB is download only or both download and upload streams.

Here is what gets me. They talk about limits immediately after spending several months pitching their new "Turbo-Speed Up to 10GBPS download speed" service, and charging a premium for it.

These people must know Dan Snyder.

[KazooSkinsFan]

limit heavy usage?

so they are going to punish customers because they dropped the ball and can't keep up with demand. stupid business, imo.

this reminds me of when internet access first became available to the masses. we were paying 20-25 bucks a month for a 10-20 hour block of dial up. it was a retarded idea then, and its a retarded idea now.

glad i don't have comcast.

Unfortunately, I do. But my question is: If I signed a contract for unlimited internet use, for 12 months, how can they legally now put a cap on that usage, and even drop my service if I exceed that cap? I'm also guessing the average person has no idea how many gigabytes they are using when the use their internet service. Why would they drop you instead of charging an extra fee for the overage? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If you have a contract they have to honor the contract. But they may dump you when it's up. Contracts also may have an out, you have to check for that if you're concerned.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I think they're trying to stick it to the people who do the most downloading of movies, music, software, etc.

Again, how is it "sticking it to people" to charge the people who are driving up their costs? Why don't you criticize McDonald's for charging people more money who eat more? More bandwidth, more cost. Bandwidth is one of the easiest calculations in an IT infrastructure because it's a pretty direct function. McDonald's, more food costs more money, so if you consume more they charge more. Comcast, more bandwidth costs more money so if you consume more they charge more. It's EXACTLY the same thing.

250 GB really isn't as much data as they would like us to believe it is

250 GB isn't "as much data as they would like us to believe it is?" What are you downloading? 250 GB's a LOT of data for an individual internet user. How big is your disk drive? Odds are decent it's 250GB or even less. For a new computer today you're likely to get roughly that or a little more. We're talking people who transfer roughly an entire disk drive for a normal computer user on one month. That's not a whole heck of a lot of bandwidth?

Especially since this article doesn't specify if the 250GB is download only or both download and upload streams.

Almost all bandwidth consumed in general is download. If anyone is uploading that much bandwidth they're probably doing some sort of business and again should be paying for it. Volumes like that are almost all pics and graphics. Normal users don't upload that much of those.

Here is what gets me. They talk about limits immediately after spending several months pitching their new "Turbo-Speed Up to 10GBPS download speed" service, and charging a premium for it.

You don't see the connection to their trying to get users faster surfing speeds and limiting the most extreme users of bandwidth?:hmm:

These people must know Dan Snyder.

This is true. Comcast and Snyder are both greedy because they won't give away their product. They charge for it. So people who want free stuff clearly have the moral high ground to critize them for their greed because they won't give it to them.

[GSPODS]

Arguing minutiae loses its extremely limited appeal quickly. Arguing minutiae with someone who isn't affected by, or hasn't indicated they might be affected by the possible rate change is even less appealing.

High speed internet is like electricity. The main supply is constant, regardless of the actual usage. It doesn't cost any more to supply a business than it does to supply a home. It's their own equipment, their own cables, and their own bandwidth they are supplying. There isn't some kind of regulator or rheostat that controls the supply at the NID. (Network Interface Device) It's done from the provider's computer system. Many large businesses still use their T-10, T-5, T-3, or T-1 phone system modems instead of separate cable internet. You pay for the provider to bring X number of telephone or fiber optic cable lines to X service address for X amount per line per month. That is how my TWC contract reads. Then you agree to pay X per ISP hard line per month, although splitting by wireless router is free. I pay for a 1TB download/upload speed. What that means is, whether I'm using the bandwidth or not, it is there. The cable company doesn't come out to my home and place a step-up converter at my NID to get me to 1TB p/s.

The Dan Snyder reference was in regard to the fact the TWC is the King of Communications Revenue in my provider service area, as Dan Snyder is the King Of NFL Franchise Revenue. You don't get to be the king of any line of business without stepping on people along the way. Look. These cable companies are doing it again. Screwing your biggest customers for a few extra pennies certainly is typical American business practice.

Just out of curiosity, does anything about this affect you directly? Do you have either ComCast or TWC?

P2P and FTP and free download sites have undoubtedly increased bandwidth usage across the board. But there's no way the ISP's couldn't have seen this coming back when Kazaa and Napster were at their peaks, before the lawsuit frenzy.

And their solution: It isn't to charge more, as was suggested. It's to terminate their paying customers for over-using their services.

What part of that could possibly be argued in favor of the service providers?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Arguing minutiae loses its extremely limited appeal quickly. Arguing minutiae with someone who isn't affected by, or hasn't indicated they might be affected by the possible rate change is even less appealing.

Minutiae? Did you READ my post? I directly addressed your points. As an IT management consultant this is something I'm directly involved in as bandwidth is a major piece of IT organizations. I'm not guessing.

High speed internet is like electricity. The main supply is constant, regardless of the actual usage. It doesn't cost any more to supply a business than it does to supply a home. It's their own equipment, their own cables, and their own bandwidth they are supplying. There isn't some kind of regulator or rheostat that controls the supply at the NID. (Network Interface Device) It's done from the provider's computer system. Many large businesses still use their T-10, T-5, T-3, or T-1 phone system modems instead of separate cable internet. You pay for the provider to bring X number of telephone or fiber optic cable lines to X service address for X amount per line per month. That is how my TWC contract reads. Then you agree to pay X per ISP hard line per month, although splitting by wireless router is free. I pay for a 1TB download/upload speed. What that means is, whether I'm using the bandwidth or not, it is there. The cable company doesn't come out to my home and place a step-up converter at my NID to get me to 1TB p/s.

This is basically true, but irrelevant to the issue. You're referring to the pipe between your house and your ISP. You're right that whether you use the pipe or not it's there. Your pipe goes to your ISP, then your traffic goes through their network with all the other traffic to sites on their network, through the Internet to other ISPS... That's the traffic that's driving their costs, not the pipe to your house. It's like water. The pipes to your house are a certain size. However, the water you use must be provided by your water system with all the other water to all the other houses. Your argument is equivalent to arguing that leaving your faucets on all day doesn't affect the costs to your system because the pipe is there whether you use it or not. Sure it does, they have to provide the water. In your case, the traffic from your house doesn't go to your ISP and stop. Mega file transfers go through their network and compete for pipe space with all the other users traffic.

Regarding providing businesses internet versus home, that's true and not true. If they used the same bandwidth at the same time it is true, no doubt. But they typically don't. Businesses tend to use more, which is one reason they're not allowed to use fixed price consumer plans. Businesses also overwhelmingly use bandwidth at the wrong time of day, during the day. Consumers tend to do more at night and weekends when there is less business usage. This part is NOT like water, but it IS like electricity. But that's another discussion.

Just out of curiosity, does anything about this affect you directly? Do you have either ComCast or TWC?

Sort of, I have TWC. But I don't use anywhere near 250GB/mo. Probably a couple percent of that. I don't do a lot of graphics or file transfers. Of course all sites now pretty much have some graphics so any surfer's using some. They're obviously not worried about that. Seriously, dude, 250GB is a LOT of graphics.

Mostly as I said this is integral to what I do for a living. Again it's exactly the same between bandwidth and McDonald's food. The more you use, the more you cost them. There are things you can do but overall bandwidth is a function of cost.

P2P and FTP and free download sites have undoubtedly increased bandwidth usage across the board. But there's no way the ISP's couldn't have seen this coming back when Kazaa and Napster were at their peaks, before the lawsuit frenzy.

They did see it, but again it's irrelevant. You use more it costs more. They obviously do have the bandwidth, it's not a "supporting the current base" issue. They want to spend less on hardware and infrastructure as usage continues to grow. Again, those who consume more are driving up the costs, why should the rest of us pay for it? I have no issue with them doing all the graphics they want. They should just pay for it.

And their solution: It isn't to charge more, as was suggested. It's to terminate their paying customers for over-using their services.

According to the story. But I assure you if they pay for what they are using they can get whatever service they want. You're focusing on that they are being booted from fixed price consumer plans. Granted the story was pretty poor in explaining that doesn't leave them without internet options. It just leaves them out of paying a few bucks a month and using tons of bandwidth through basic consumer plans.

What part of that could possibly be argued in favor of the service providers?

Nothing other then the more water you consume the more you pay for water. The more you eat at McDonalds the more you have to buy.

What part of that could possibly be argued in favor of charging basic users who do normal surfing to subsidize heavy users so they don't have to pay their own way?

Also here's a term used in business for you, "moral hazard."

[Cappster]

I think they're trying to stick it to the people who do the most downloading of movies, music, software, etc.

Again, how is it "sticking it to people" to charge the people who are driving up their costs? Why don't you criticize McDonald's for charging people more money who eat more? More bandwidth, more cost. Bandwidth is one of the easiest calculations in an IT infrastructure because it's a pretty direct function. McDonald's, more food costs more money, so if you consume more they charge more. Comcast, more bandwidth costs more money so if you consume more they charge more. It's EXACTLY the same thing.

250 GB really isn't as much data as they would like us to believe it is

250 GB isn't "as much data as they would like us to believe it is?" What are you downloading? 250 GB's a LOT of data for an individual internet user. How big is your disk drive? Odds are decent it's 250GB or even less. For a new computer today you're likely to get roughly that or a little more. We're talking people who transfer roughly an entire disk drive for a normal computer user on one month. That's not a whole heck of a lot of bandwidth?

Especially since this article doesn't specify if the 250GB is download only or both download and upload streams.

Almost all bandwidth consumed in general is download. If anyone is uploading that much bandwidth they're probably doing some sort of business and again should be paying for it. Volumes like that are almost all pics and graphics. Normal users don't upload that much of those.

Here is what gets me. They talk about limits immediately after spending several months pitching their new "Turbo-Speed Up to 10GBPS download speed" service, and charging a premium for it.

You don't see the connection to their trying to get users faster surfing speeds and limiting the most extreme users of bandwidth?:hmm:

These people must know Dan Snyder.

This is true. Comcast and Snyder are both greedy because they won't give away their product. They charge for it. So people who want free stuff clearly have the moral high ground to critize them for their greed because they won't give it to them.

If a person watches a lot of Hi-def movies online or plays video games online, data transfer could very easily exceed 250GB. Netflix customers who watch movies or those who game online need to be aware of this policy. Comcast needs to increase its "pipes" or stop allowing new customers to join.

[KazooSkinsFan]

If a person watches a lot of Hi-def movies online or plays video games online, data transfer could very easily exceed 250GB. Netflix customers who watch movies or those who game online need to be aware of this policy. Comcast needs to increase its "pipes" or stop allowing new customers to join.

Here's "the latest" Direct TV HD DVR

http://www.buydtv.com/hd-dvr-direct-tv.php

Mine isn't that big and I can hold 50-60 hours of HD programming. Note that one is 250GB, the exact amount in question. So we're talking someone who in one month downloads an entire HDDVR worth of HD movies. You don't think they should pay more for that?

Netflix isn't hi-def, and isn't great resolution. I get Netflix and watch movies when I'm on the road in hotels. I'm not knocking the service, it's great. But you wouldn't sniff 250GB if you ran it 24x7 for the whole month.

You'd have to be talking major graphics video games to get to that too, and again most of them aren't hi-def either again making it tough to hit that. And again 250GB has to be bigger then most of the leisure computer disks out there and we're talking one month usage.

Also, Comcast IS increasing their pipes I assure you. The question is how fast should they do that and who should PAY For it. Should it be 99% of the people who aren't excessive funding the 1% who are? Why should my rates go up to fund heavy users? Why shouldn't they pay for it themselves? I explained a lot of detail on this, did you read it?

[Deadskins]

A standard DVD contains a little more than 8 GB of data (usually about 5 GB for the movie itself). I don't know how much a streaming version contains, but there is now a set-top box that allows you to play Netflix movies on your TV, with plans to add Hi-def capabilities in the near future. I can see that getting up to, or close to 250 GB per month for an average user, when you throw in internet, and gaming usage. Netflix will try to fight Comcast on this, I would think. Or at least try to get them to give their customers some kind of dispensation.

[GSPODS]

Netflix nothing.
Try a Google search for free movies.
Or a YouTube search for all your favorite live music videos.
250GB is nothing at all for an avid A/V junkie or online gamer.

[KazooSkinsFan]

A standard DVD contains a little more than 8 GB of data (usually about 5 GB for the movie itself). I don't know how much a streaming version contains, but there is now a set-top box that allows you to play Netflix movies on your TV, with plans to add Hi-def capabilities in the near future. I can see that getting up to, or close to 250 GB per month for an average user. Netflix will try to fight Comcast on this, I would think. Or at least try to get them to give their customers some kind of dispensation.

When you say 8 GB of capacity that's when it's decompressed, it doesn't actually hold that and it's not what would be transferred over the Internet, the actual data would. It also depends on the resolution you're using, DVDs and High Density DVDs are compressed also, which is why you'll see ranges if you look up their capacity. I was trying to avoid that, it gets complicated and doesn't change the basic question, why should the general population fund heavy users?

Regarding these uses as well, usage is growing and usage per user is growing and capacity per byte transmitted keeps getting cheaper and the 250GB won't stay fixed but will continue to increase as well.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Netflix nothing.
Try a Google search for free movies.
Or a YouTube search for all your favorite live music videos.
250GB is nothing at all for an avid A/V junkie or online gamer.

Agreed and my point. Shouldn't avid users be paying for their use? Should fat people eating 3 Big Macs pay the same at McDonalds as skinny people eating a double cheeseburger?

I'm not getting this. What is the issue with people paying for what they consume and why is no one actually addressing that except me? All the arguments are you "can" exceed it. Sure. You "can" eat 3 Big Macs. You "can" buy 3 cars. You "can" leave your sprinkers on all day. Why is the Internet the only one other people should subsidize your bill for you?

[GSPODS]

Netflix nothing.
Try a Google search for free movies.
Or a YouTube search for all your favorite live music videos.
250GB is nothing at all for an avid A/V junkie or online gamer.

Agreed and my point. Shouldn't avid users be paying for their use? Should fat people eating 3 Big Macs pay the same at McDonalds as skinny people eating a double cheeseburger?

I'm not getting this. What is the issue with people paying for what they consume and why is no one actually addressing that except me? All the arguments are you "can" exceed it. Sure. You "can" eat 3 Big Macs. You "can" buy 3 cars. You "can" leave your sprinkers on all day. Why is the Internet the only one other people subsidize your bill for you?

I think you're misunderestimating me.
It was the being cut off for using the service that bothered me.
I do pay one incredibly large price for my ultra-high speed internet connection. I would have no problem paying for usage, because I do pay for usage. I would have a problem if the ISP said, "You use to much bandwidth and so we're terminating your service." Why? Because out here in the middle of nowhere, TWC is the only service that approaches those download, and upload speeds. Both are important to me, although I recognize only the download speeds are important to most people.

[Deadskins]

A standard DVD contains a little more than 8 GB of data (usually about 5 GB for the movie itself). I don't know how much a streaming version contains, but there is now a set-top box that allows you to play Netflix movies on your TV, with plans to add Hi-def capabilities in the near future. I can see that getting up to, or close to 250 GB per month for an average user. Netflix will try to fight Comcast on this, I would think. Or at least try to get them to give their customers some kind of dispensation.

When you say 8 GB of capacity that's when it's decompressed, it doesn't actually hold that

Actually it does. Compressed or not, you can only store approximately 8 GB on an industry standard DVD. It's 4.7 GB for a DVD+R or DVD-R, unless it's dual layered. I said I was unsure about streaming, but I'm sure that is compressed, but when they go to Hi-def streaming, it will be considerably more bandwidth used. Now, if you allow for Moore's Law, this will all be moot in a couple of years anyway.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I think you're misunderestimating me.
It was the being cut off for using the service that bothered me.
I do pay one incredibly large price for my ultra-high speed internet connection. I would have no problem paying for usage, because I do pay for usage. I would have a problem if the ISP said, "You use to much bandwidth and so we're terminating your service." Why? Because out here in the middle of nowhere, TWC is the only service that approaches those download, and upload speeds. Both are important to me, although I recognize only the download speeds are important to most people.

If you think you're in trouble over this, call them. Despite the article's implication people "lose" their service, I assure you they will provide you with Internet. You just may not be able to get the basic fixed priced plan. You will just have to pay more. Maybe a lot more but if you're using the service a lot more...

Wow, competitive markets, how did this happen to America? We need government to solve this. As I say in my sig (the second point)...

[KazooSkinsFan]

A standard DVD contains a little more than 8 GB of data (usually about 5 GB for the movie itself). I don't know how much a streaming version contains, but there is now a set-top box that allows you to play Netflix movies on your TV, with plans to add Hi-def capabilities in the near future. I can see that getting up to, or close to 250 GB per month for an average user. Netflix will try to fight Comcast on this, I would think. Or at least try to get them to give their customers some kind of dispensation.

When you say 8 GB of capacity that's when it's decompressed, it doesn't actually hold that

Actually it does. Compressed or not, you can only store approximately 8 GB on an industry standard DVD. It's 4.7 GB for a DVD+R or DVD-R, unless it's dual layered. I said I was unsure about streaming, but I'm sure that is compressed, but when they go to Hi-def streaming, it will be considerably more bandwidth used. Now, if you allow for Moore's Law, this will all be moot in a couple of years anyway.

We're not disagreeing in that, we're in semantics over what holding data means. You can compress movies because the data is not random. You can also sacrifice resolution. Do you count the data when compressed or decompressed? Either way as long as you're clear which one you're doing. Streaming data is definitely compressed by anyone and certainly to your point HD data would be larger, though that would vary DRAMATICALLY by the resolution you're using. HD isn't one resolution, if you have an HD DVR or DVD or TV you'll notice you have choices. Typically Blue-Ray will look better then say Direct TV HD because it's typically stored in a higher resolution even though both are "HD." Of course that assumes your TV supports and is playing it in the higher resolution.

[Cappster]

In the article they specify "data transfer" which doesn't specifically mean downloading programs. It means the transfer or communication of information from a host to a client. Also, you don't pay for how much you are allowed to download. You pay for the speed of the connection. I guarantee you won't see a comcast commercial saying "you can transfer an unlimited amount of data up to 250GB at 6mb a second." They advertise unlimited internet usage so they need to keep their word. I can't wait for Verizon FIOS to be in my area.

[Deadskins]

A standard DVD contains a little more than 8 GB of data (usually about 5 GB for the movie itself). I don't know how much a streaming version contains, but there is now a set-top box that allows you to play Netflix movies on your TV, with plans to add Hi-def capabilities in the near future. I can see that getting up to, or close to 250 GB per month for an average user. Netflix will try to fight Comcast on this, I would think. Or at least try to get them to give their customers some kind of dispensation.

When you say 8 GB of capacity that's when it's decompressed, it doesn't actually hold that

Actually it does. Compressed or not, you can only store approximately 8 GB on an industry standard DVD. It's 4.7 GB for a DVD+R or DVD-R, unless it's dual layered. I said I was unsure about streaming, but I'm sure that is compressed, but when they go to Hi-def streaming, it will be considerably more bandwidth used. Now, if you allow for Moore's Law, this will all be moot in a couple of years anyway.

We're not disagreeing in that, we're in semantics over what holding data means. You can compress movies because the data is not random. You can also sacrifice resolution. Do you count the data when compressed or decompressed? Either way as long as you're clear which one you're doing. Streaming data is definitely compressed by anyone and certainly to your point HD data would be larger, though that would vary DRAMATICALLY by the resolution you're using. HD isn't one resolution, if you have an HD DVR or DVD or TV you'll notice you have choices. Typically Blue-Ray will look better then say Direct TV HD because it's typically stored in a higher resolution even though both are "HD." Of course that assumes your TV supports and is playing it in the higher resolution.

I have an HD DVR, and use 1080i resolution. This set-top Netflix box is equipped to offer 1080i Hi-def, but for now Netflix isn't ready to stream that. Anyhoo, like I said, it will all be moot in a couple of years.

[KazooSkinsFan]

It will be moot eventually. I know DirectTV HD doesn't broadcast in 1080i and I understand not many film in it, but I don't really know how much. Do you know if movies are actually filmed in that resolution? I know it's thrown out a lot more then delivered, but I'm not as up on that. I bought a Blue Ray this spring but returned it before I opened it when I realized how little content was available and I'm not buying HD-DVD since it's dead man walking.

[VetSkinsFan]

I have an HD DVR, and my TV has 1080i resolution. This set-top Netflix box is equipped to offer 1080i Hi-def, but for now Netflix isn't ready to stream that. Anyhoo, like I said, it will all be moot in a couple of years.

It will be moot eventually. I know DirectTV HD doesn't broadcast in that. Do you know if movies are actually filmed in that resolution? I know it's thrown out a lot more then delivered, but I'm not as up on that. I bought a Blue Ray this spring but returned it before I opened it when I realized how little content was available and I'm not buying HD-DVD since it's dead man walking.[/quote]

A lot of people go PS3 for the dual purpose. That's what I'll be doing when I move at the end of hte year.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I have an HD DVR, and my TV has 1080i resolution. This set-top Netflix box is equipped to offer 1080i Hi-def, but for now Netflix isn't ready to stream that. Anyhoo, like I said, it will all be moot in a couple of years.

It will be moot eventually. I know DirectTV HD doesn't broadcast in that. Do you know if movies are actually filmed in that resolution? I know it's thrown out a lot more then delivered, but I'm not as up on that. I bought a Blue Ray this spring but returned it before I opened it when I realized how little content was available and I'm not buying HD-DVD since it's dead man walking.

A lot of people go PS3 for the dual purpose. That's what I'll be doing when I move at the end of hte year.

Sorry for the quote, I butchered a JSPB22 post and was fixing it when you quoted it. My bad, not yours.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I have an HD DVR, and 1080i resolution. This set-top Netflix box is equipped to offer 1080i Hi-def, but for now Netflix isn't ready to stream that. Anyhoo, like I said, it will all be moot in a couple of years.

It will be moot eventually. I know DirectTV HD doesn't broadcast in that. Do you know if movies are actually filmed in that resolution? I know it's thrown out a lot more then delivered, but I'm not as up on that. I bought a Blue Ray this spring but returned it before I opened it when I realized how little content was available and I'm not buying HD-DVD since it's dead man walking.

A lot of people go PS3 for the dual purpose. That's what I'll be doing when I move at the end of hte year.

Yes, that works. HD-DVD lost the war but is still ahead in battles. Eventually it's going to be Blue-Ray. But since it's behind there's just not much content. That'll change quickly. The one I returned was about $400 where an HD-DVD's about $100. I figure by next spring content will be up and prices will be dropping and I'll buy another one. Actually when upgrading your computer you can get Blue-Ray built in pretty cheap.

On downloads though, trying to transmit a bunch of HD over the Internet's going to be major band width increases. I agree with DeadSkins that's going to be less and less an issue, but as long as it is the people who want it should pay for it. Not charge people like my mother who also have High Speed Connections and don't do any of that.