AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-03-18, 18:56   Link #61
Ryusiangel
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ay-30-a-movie/

i don't know if anybody posted this but what does this mean i don't have that net thing but if this spreads to the entire states then that would suck.
Ryusiangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-18, 19:35   Link #62
gabbytay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryusiangel View Post
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ay-30-a-movie/

i don't know if anybody posted this but what does this mean i don't have that net thing but if this spreads to the entire states then that would suck.
Lol people should sue this company and put a an**** in the mail
gabbytay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-18, 19:40   Link #63
Ryusiangel
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Haha yes i agree what about our enjoyment of anime I know there are anime that US never wanna bring here like sailor moon stars, mermaid melody pichi pichi pitch >
If they don't want us to download then i think they should bring anime out faster :E
Ryusiangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-18, 20:10   Link #64
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryusiangel View Post
Personally I don't see anything wrong with usage-based charges if the minimums are priced low enough. The ISPs are right that a small fraction of their users consume a large share of total bandwidth. While the marginal cost of that extra gigabyte might be well below the price charged, why should Aunt Lucy who sends a few emails each week and looks at picutres of her grandnieces over the net subsidize file sharing?

The reason we don't see reasonable pricing plans has more to do with monopoly power in local markets than anything else. I don't see these monopolies surviving another decade, though. We'll see more fiber to the home and more wireless services like Wi-Max as well. Outside my door there are already three providers of high-speed telecom services, Comcast, RCN, and Verizon FiOS, along with Verizon's DSL-over-copper service as well. These sorts of competitive "overbuilds" will spread to most major markets. Even oligopolistic competition is better than monopoly.

This won't do much for folks in rural areas, I'm afraid. But for the 75% of so of Americans living in urbanized areas, the future is a more competitive Internet universe. But I still wouldn't want to get cable service from a major content provider like TimeWarner. They have too many incentives to discourage you from viewing material that might compete with their own productions.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-19, 21:47   Link #65
Jecht2
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
One of Australias ISPs have also signed up to this aswell.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/securi...602537856.html

Im wondering how all of this is going to play out.
Jecht2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-19, 22:10   Link #66
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
why should Aunt Lucy who sends a few emails each week and looks at picutres of her grandnieces over the net subsidize file sharing?
She doesn't. If the telecom is offering "unlimited" bandwidth and she signed up knowing she'd only use a fraction of that, what's the problem?

A more realistic way to look at this subject would be to look at how telecoms regulate other products. It's more lucrative to offer things in increments instead of a lump price. Put a spin on it like "file sharers eat up too much of "your" bandwidth", and you give people a reason to go along with it.

If only a small fraction of people are using their bandwidth to the fullest extent, that means a larger portion of your network is not doing the same. So why the need for capping? Why punish the few under the premise that it's advantageous to the consumer?

The only obvious reason is that capping gives companies a reason to make you pay more when you need to go above their "arbitrary" cap. The same deal with cell phones. It's just an excuse to gouge.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-20, 18:51   Link #67
uberjoras
Baka-sama
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Space! It's so free out here!
hehe Machiavellian Marketing... I can see it now- One must be rich like a gold vein to buy out your opponents, and global like the sky to capitalize the world.
__________________
Oh right... There's no way there would be severed legs flying around.
uberjoras is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.