Comments on: The Online Video Threat: Protecting Fat Profits From Internet Freeloaders

By: PreventCAPS

PreventCAPS — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:15:35 +0000

I don’t think that’s going to happen. It would mean less $$$ for cable companies. Yes, they would gain new consumers, but not enough to offset the many consumers who would trim the fat from their existing service.

By: infojunkie

infojunkie — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:28:07 +0000

Your posting illustrates the need for a la carte cable subscriptions. Why pay for what you don’t want? Surely the technology is here to handle it.

By: Stop the Cap! » Wall Street Journal Says Net Neutrality A Boon To Bandwidth Hogging, Ignores Industry’s Own Self-Interest

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:32:18 +0000

[...] Setting aside the inappropriate use of the word “hog” to define broadband usage, which comes straight out of the broadband industry’s public relations strategy, Schatz ignores the fact some of the biggest drains on these networks will soon come from the industry’s own efforts to dominate online video — TV Everywhere. [...]

By: preventCAPS

preventCAPS — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:47:01 +0000

Most of the TV I watch is on the main networks (CBS,NBC,ABC,FOX). They offer their stuff for free OTA in un-recompressed HD as well as on their web sites. Too many of the cable channnels are filled with garbage to make the few channels I woud watch worth while at a cost of $50-60 a month.

By: BrionS

BrionS — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:41:28 +0000

A couple points in response to your comments (gleaning from what I’ve read here and elsewhere):

– The point is to provide access to all *cable* shows online, most of which are not presently available without bending or breaking the law. FX and Comedy Central are two exceptions.

– The implied point is that you should pay for cable so you can watch all your TV shows online (not just some of them)

– According to Comcast they believe the 250GB cap is sufficiently high to not impact customers who take advantage of this service (i.e. they shouldn’t exceed it unless they’re already a very heavy Internet user like constant BitTorrent use — the parenthetical is added by me)

- Many cable broadband providers also provide content to their customers in the form of a portlet or on-demand video as Time Warner Cable does (and I suspect Comcast may as well)

But I completely agree with you regarding usage. If the point of caps is to make everyone use less so there’s less congestion and then they introduce a bandwidth-intensive service and encourage everyone to use it that sort of makes their caps disingenuous.

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:11:46 +0000

I dont see the point in this On Demand or TV Everywhere or whatever you want to call it. All of the shows I care about I can find online (Mythbusters is the only show I can not seem to find). I do not have a cable subscription because the price is far to high for what is actually provided.

So why would anyone pay a cable subscription to get what you already pay for with your broadband bill? What is the point, you say on your site that its going to have more content then whats available online, but how can you promise that? The only way that could happen is if you manage to strong arm content providers to stop distributing their content online outside of your On Demand service, which is shady at best and borderline infuriating at worst.

Secondly, how do you justify this On Demand service with a 250G cap, if you pay for Cable and you say “now you can watch this all free online” well its not free if you cut people off @ 250G or charge them usage fees if they go over 250G. And are you going to stream advertisements with the On Demand video? If i run up against a cap or have overage fees I better not be seeing advertisements on my On Demand.

Was the whole point of the 250G cap to stop people from using all your precious bandwidth? And now Comcast and Time Warner turn around and say, you know what forget about what we said before if you would only sign up for our cable service you can watch all the online video you want!

Until Cable offers a service that is better then what I get for my broadband connection I don’t see a use for it.

(Please note my broadband connection is not free I pay for it so saying “free on the internet” has no baring on the cable company, its only “free” to me if your looking at it from a content provider stand point and last i checked the broadband company did not provide me with any content)

By: BrionS

BrionS — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:39:42 +0000

Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have representatives on Twitter who regularly engage in dialog with customers as well.

While I may disagree with some directions the companies are taking, it’s refreshing to see them engaging in the communication networks that more and more of their subscribers use.

It opens the opportunity for faux pas and lingual slip-ups, but it’s also much more human interaction. Frank posts on forums like this, tweets on Twitter or posts on facebook give these corporations a much more human side than we’re used to seeing. I see that only as a benefit for the corporations.

On the flip side the consumer needs to be a bit more vigilant to avoid being lulled into a sense of security because of this more comfortable human side of the large corporations. A touch of skepticism with a larger dose of humanity.

By: preventCAPS

preventCAPS — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:35:12 +0000

Scott, I want to praise you for representing Comcast here on STC and engaging consumers in friendly conversations. I would hope that this trend continues and that other providers catch the drift and join up too.

By: Scott McNulty

Scott McNulty — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:21:10 +0000

We do moderate comments, but only to ensure they stay on topic and aren’t abusive to each other or the poster (we outline the rules of the blog on this page: http://www.comcastvoices.com/about.html). I think if you look at the comments on some of the other posts on Comcast Voices you’ll see we aren’t filtering out negative comments.

By: BrionS

BrionS — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:18:23 +0000

Thanks for the link Scott, though I’m rather disappointed that the ability to leave comments is moderated and the only two comments I see so far are praising this venture.

I guess I’ll have to keep checking back to see if there are any other comments that aren’t so excited about it.