What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.330 Comments
- The_Wallbanger, on 01/19/2008, -5/+207Time Warner and Comcast should just scrap cable TV all together and use their cable infrastructure for IPTV. There are too many worthless channels we pay for on their systems anyways. Take away my $120 cable/internet bill and charge me $75-80 for internet with the capability to access any channel/show from their servers on demand.
- Dralite, on 01/19/2008, -14/+147A. this sounds awful
B. when Apple TV is alive, then say it can be killed.
And for the record, I'l tried of this killing products thing. iPod Killer, Iphone Killer, whatever. Because everyone likes it, it needs to be killed. - PJLess, on 01/19/2008, -1/+94Why is this called Time Warner's play to kill apple TV. This is has nothing to do with Apple TV. Its Time Warner's plan to kill themselves. This is just a title that will get peoples attention because everyone is so hopped up on Apple these days. Think about it if they implement a plan "to charge users by bandwidth consumption" Its not like they are going to look and charge you for Apple TV traffic. If they do I can smell a lawyer.
This effects all your downloads
Your Amazon Music purchases "Time Warner's Plan to stop Amazon's Super Bowl Music Giveaway"
Your Zune , iTunes,Purchases,
Your Movie Downloads from NetFlix, or HULU, and uTube.
Hey if download Ubuntu and Windows Services Packs in one month I am over a Gigabyte of downloads!
If you Torrent this will effect you.
If Warner does this they will loose customers by the droves. I guess I went off on the rant because the article Title is so bad and was made to grab headlines. Time Warner can not implement this if they at all want to remain in the internet service provider business. - joshuaer, on 01/19/2008, -4/+88I think the only thing that would happen is that people would start switching over to another provider.
I know i will when they call me. - wality, on 01/19/2008, -11/+81Yeah because Apple is famous for offering consumers inexpensive alternatives such as phones, media set top boxes, digital movie rentals, and music. (tic)
- smacksaw, on 01/19/2008, -3/+62If you watch HBO and Showtime, you pay extra for that. If you watch on-demand programs, you pay even more for that.
However, they are reasonable, fixed prices.
Charging by the gigabyte is stupid. But giving users premium plans is better, if they do it right. In Vancouver, Shaw introduced "extreme" speed cable internet, except they did traffic shaping. So it meant that I could resubmit my rejected packets several milliseconds faster, LOL.
If people pay for basic cable, they pay $12. Make it the same for basic internet. Very low-speed. If people did want to download HD content it would be so slow that it would be pointless. People that would download it fast enough would pay for a quicker service, just as people who want more channels pay for extra tiers.
That makes sense, so the cable companies will never do it. But they should think about it.
Anyway, who cares? ***** 'em. Pretty soon we'll have FIOS and other high-speed services that don't do this garbage and people paying $30 for an episode of Lost from Apple via Comcast will have no one to blame but themselves for having such a crappy service. Verizon is digging me up this spring for FIOS! ***** you Comcast! I hope that when I cancel you, it's CoMcAsTic! - cave, on 01/19/2008, -4/+60And that would give them more revenue, how...?
- metapop, on 01/19/2008, -18/+70now, more than ever, i hope that steve jobs is planning on doing what it takes to get the 700 mhz auction... that would change everything. goodbye AT&T, goodbye comcast... all these pathetic nickel & dime providers would be finished. when will companies learn that you win customers with good customer service, not penalizing them for using your services?
- renegade334, on 01/19/2008, -2/+50Welcome to Australia
- penguincentral, on 01/19/2008, -2/+49You Americans shouldn't be complaining once you see the standard of broadband plans in Australia. I'm restricted to 12GB a month (sometimes I go to about 14GB), but most of you can download that in a week. You also have the advantage in the availability of iTunes Movies/TV Shows, the iPhone etc.
I've finished ranting now ;) - jaybirdKDX, on 01/19/2008, -0/+42Did you all forget that it would make Netflix unlimited movie stream service unlimitedly expensive as well?
- Ouze, on 01/19/2008, -6/+45we also don't have to live in fear of dingos taking our babies, so it's not a 1:1 comparison.
- xXShadowstormXx, on 01/19/2008, -0/+35In a lot of areas, one provider is all there is.
- ccheath, on 01/19/2008, -1/+36WHAT OTHER PROVIDER?
- 0xFEEDFACE, on 01/19/2008, -1/+31Australia's about 5 years behind when it comes to broadband. America's not exactly the world leader either...
- Ouze, on 01/19/2008, -7/+32Steve Jobs & Apple taking over the 700mhz spectrum would most certainly not be in the interests of consumers, and it's naive to think so. There are few companies that are as agressive in engaging their customers in lockdown schemes. itunes DRM, locking the iphone to AT&T, no third party apps on the iphone, even OSX being a closed platform. While they do make stylish devices don't fool yourself into thinking they are interesting in anything else other then their shareholders - just like every other corporation.
- frankzzsword, on 01/19/2008, -5/+29no steve will kill this with his ugly offers and updates which comes at a price
i think google should get that - trotskyist, on 01/19/2008, -2/+25Yes, it would?
In fact, of all the candidates running, Ron Paul would probably support this the most. It's the free market at work. - TxAggie08, on 01/19/2008, -1/+24We already did. All my friends and I canceled our cable subscriptions. We download whatever it is we want. Everything is available through either legal or pirate methods. Its their choice.
- thegreyfox, on 01/19/2008, -1/+23The title is wrong. It should be : Time Warner Cable's plan to turn me into a Verizon Fios customer.
- inactive, on 01/19/2008, -12/+33Something has to have life before it can be killed. Apple TV was dead to begin with.
- bobisoft2k5, on 01/19/2008, -1/+19You do realize that ISPs actually "own" areas and it is quite rare to find yourself with more than one option for internet service, right?
- aa90digg, on 01/19/2008, -2/+19Time Warner is the sole provider where I live and it sucks. I've been thinking of switching to Internet via Satellite for a while now (because again TW sucks so much). If this "Charging people by bandwidth" thing happens, I'll definitively do it. I'll still be paying top $ for my internet connections, but @ least I won't be giving THEM my money. And I'm sure that @ least I'll get a better customer service too.
- smaggard, on 01/19/2008, -1/+16Ok, let's look at at this a little past Apple TV, which would be hurt by this sure. But there are several other people who would be hurt as well. I am a TiVo owner x3, and there are more than one way this could affect me. TiVoCast is one area, those little 15 minute shows are around 500 MB+, so just my CNET would be over 2GB monthly alone. Now add in to this TiVo's relationship with Amazon Unbox, which is the nicest video downloading service out as far as I am concerned, using a STB that you use daily to download, there goes several more gigs.
Now let's switch to our beloved XBox360's, If you want to download a Demo, you are looking at 600MB to over a GB, not to mention Xbox Live. Or you might want to download an HD movie to your Xbox360, oops there went 10 GB's.
Wonder how much I would have to cut back on my streaming audio as well. - mrgreen4242, on 01/19/2008, -2/+16Satellite internet service sucks?
- warlokaz2004, on 01/19/2008, -1/+15Well giving good customer service WAS an innovation of AT&T -- in the 1890's --- "Lets hire female operators to act in a professional manner on the phone lines as our customers phone in" -- back then the 'telephone' was the 'new' technology competing with the Telegraph (then the 'standard' for long distance communication) or the Telegram (which offered delivery to the home) -- the Telephone was this crackiling thing you needed to scream into to be heard. AT&T is now the big behemouth clinging to its last strands of consumer cash flow...when Jobs and/or Google grab the radio frequencies and create a 'new' business model, the game will be over, just like it was for morse code telegraph operators when Bell invented the Telephone.
- carpespasm, on 01/19/2008, -5/+18by not bleeding customers like a stuck pig once the under 25 crowd abandons them.
- Mosatii, on 01/19/2008, -0/+13I've had FiOS for three years, no problems yet.
- lex0nyc, on 01/19/2008, -0/+13That would really make it hard for new shows to get started. Oh, wait, it is already ridiculously hard to start a new show...
- mrgreen4242, on 01/19/2008, -0/+12No problems until Verizon decides that they want you to buy/rent in demand movies from them, not Apple/Netflix/Amazon and so decide to do whatever they can to make that your only, or at least best, choice by messing with your connection.
- icndvl, on 01/19/2008, -0/+12Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast are mostly concerned about maintaining a monopoly over content. If Apple can succeed in delivering the same product they do for less, they will lose business and some control of the market. Bandwidth is cheap, and in a true free market they could not charge even a fraction of what they are asking. Enforce a free market, or regulate the monopolies. Forcing monopolies is fascism, and this is whats at steak. The Internet is our final freedom. We lose that, we lose the war for our freedom.
- ahuxley, on 01/19/2008, -0/+12In Australia you can pay US$130per gig :-) and they count it up and down.
Additional usage charged at A$0.15/MB is noted on the 'fineprint' page
http://my.bigpond.com/internetplans/broadband/cabl ...
linked from the big colourful plans page
http://my.bigpond.com/internetplans/broadband/cabl ... - angusm, on 01/19/2008, -0/+11I will roll on the floor laughing when this actually turns out to be Time Warner Cable's plan to kill Time Warner Cable, as consumers vote with their wallets for an alternative. Of course that assumes that there is an alternative, but if TW shafts the consumer hard enough, it will be worth someone's while to provide one.
- JasonCox, on 01/19/2008, -1/+12Yes, I'm sure AppleTV is the *only* reason they're doing this. It's not like they're trying to make extra money or something.
- mrgreen4242, on 01/19/2008, -1/+12This is only going to push other players into the ISP game. It's going to encourage people like Apple and Google and MS who have billions in cash to throw at whatever they want to just go buy up whatever they need to offer competing service at a lower price and with better terms.
Like the 700mhz spectrum, just as an example. It might not offer the speed of cable, but if you could get access anywhere you have cell reception with unlimited use for about the same price (which would now include free or at least very cheap VoIP calling to replace your cell) what would you pick?
Or Google/Apple sponsored municipal wifi? You get my drift. - gbarger, on 01/19/2008, -0/+11Don't do it...trust me, the best satellite is worse than the worst cable. Oh yeah, and make sure you look at the FAP limits on the satellite. You have download limits, after which they cut your speed WAY down.
I was on satellite for years, until DSL came into town. It's 1000 times better now on DSL, and our speed is still at 500k on the DSL. We'd hit higher top end speeds on the satellite, but it wasn't consistent and the ping times were rediculous. - Ouze, on 01/19/2008, -2/+12naw, I was gonna try to working in some sort of "that's not a knife" type reference.
- modafroman, on 01/19/2008, -0/+10As I said in my other comment about this, welcome to the wonderful world of internet in australia.
Yet again, I blame you telstra. - DavX, on 01/19/2008, -0/+10Those shows are what you consider GOOD?
Get back in your basement. - expert01, on 01/19/2008, -0/+10Because satellite internet is awesome.
- DestroyFascism, on 01/19/2008, -1/+11Like I said once before. Big business does not give a ***** what you think when they are competing with each other and talking about it over golf....
- zetsurin, on 01/19/2008, -2/+11Where are these "HD discs are irrelevant" people? Where are you Downloads to save you now?
- Viakenny, on 01/19/2008, -1/+10here in São Paulo, Brazil, Telefónica (yes, the Spanish Telefónica) wanted to charge by bandwidth, but they eventually gave up. and they'll start their FTTH service this year.
- blankoboy, on 01/19/2008, -1/+10Glad I'm not living in the "land of the free". Japan = $50/month 100MB FTTH (no capping), IPTV and IP Telephony. Though the government here is starting to grumble about instituting national filtering for all Internet traffic in the coming years. The great firewall is spreading around the world everyone.
- KLowD9x, on 01/19/2008, -1/+9Satellite service sucks more than dial up, not in speed but in latency. The speed is nothing great either, not something you would want to even visit a YouTube video on.
HughesNet also has a "fair use" policy that kills your connection down to 1KB/sec (I measured this) if you download about 110MB. It has taken up to TWO DAYS for the speed to return to normal.
The price of the service is ***** expensive and you don't get anything worth using! It is complete crap. After helping a few people that have this system deal with their issues, all of them have scrapped it and have switched over to a local provider (even dial up, since you get about the same page load times) and I know that I will NEVER have something that awful. - mlavergn, on 01/19/2008, -0/+8That's DOCSIS 3.0's maximum bandwidth. FiOS's maximums are currently 622Mbps down and 155Mbps upstream. Even MAXED out, the brand new DOCSIS 3.0 cannot beat 4 year old FIOS tech. However, if the ISPs bring us DOCSIS 3.0 speeds at a good price and stop threatening caps, then it will at least be competitive with FIOS.
- KyleGoetz, on 01/19/2008, -0/+8This is precisely why no owner of lines should be allowed to be an ISP as well. As long as they do, it allows an ISP to block a service unfairly and the consumer has no way around it.
- mcfly1204, on 01/19/2008, -0/+7Note to self: Do not move down under.
- dualityim, on 01/19/2008, -0/+7IPTV is simply not viable right now for one simple reason: IP Multicasting is not enabled for most of the internet.
Cable TV, satellite TV, terrestrial broadcasts are all inherently broadcasting distribution systems. Only broadcasting and multicasting systems are capable of handling the load of flash crowds aggregating onto particular pieces of content, such as the case whenever any kind of live content is introduced.
The internet simply does not have the kind of bandwidth to handle flash crowds of that nature because it is almost completely unicast, which is why many IPTV systems rely on peer to peer technologies to offload traffic, in effect creating an application-level multicasting system. Unfortunately, this method only works for cached content. Peer to peer cannot be used for live broadcasts.
When IP multicasting become implemented across the entire internet (if it ever does) then we can see the internet replacing all other forms of communication for media. But for now, it still cannot replace broadcast TV. - JMDupont, on 01/19/2008, -1/+8As has been said multiple times many areas only have one high-speed internet provider.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 328 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is