Comcast to launch OnDemand Online to select audiences
If you haven't gotten over the 250GB per month cap that Comcast instated last October, you now have another reason to be unhappy about it. Other than that caveat, the following is good news.
According to BusinessInsider, Comcast announced Friday that it's going to offer a new online service, tentatively called "OnDemand Online" that will be available by the end of this year. The service is similar to Hulu, with one major difference when it comes to content: while Hulu offers mostly TV shows from broadcast networks, Comcast's OnDemand Online will offer content from cable networks, most of which haven't been offered online yet.
Most of the content on Comcast's OnDemand Online will be available for free to Comcast subscribers, but the company doesn't rule out the possibility of pay-per-view items.
However, even if all the content is available for free, chances are you might not be able to enjoy them, as Comcast doesn't exempt streaming from OnDemand Online from its 250GB per month ration.
If you are a single and light user, this is unlikely to be a problem. However, if you share your connection with a bunch of hardcore content streamers, you will very possibly run out of gigabytes before the end of a month.
On the other hand, some of us probably won't be able to take advantage of the service at all, as it will only be available to people who live in Comcast TV areas. It will not be available to people who can't subscribe to Comcast or don't live in a Comcast zone.
You are not, however, required to use an Internet connection via Comcast service to use the new OnDemand Online.
Dong Ngo is a CNET editor who covers networking and network storage, and writes about anything else he finds interesting. You can also listen to his podcast at insidecnetlabs.cnet.com. E-mail Dong. 
Yet another sign that Comcast just doesn't get it.
It seems like a very sneaky way around net neutrality rules if you ask me.
Lets do the math: $4.99 for download + 250gb overcap charge = Let's be like a cell phone carrier and charge for overages.
Comcast just dont get it and keeps losing customers. Morons.
As the original article states, the only real way to get near that cap is to use cloud storage, but even then most backup services will just backup the files you've changed. You aren't backing up 30 gigs every day, but the 500megs to a gig that has changed. Even if you added a gig of new files every day for a month that still would only add up to 30 gigs, leaving you with 220 gigs to play with.
I understand the net neutrality argument, but I think it's better with DSL. When someone on a neighborhood cable network uses a ton of bandwidth it slows down the service for everyone (unlike with DSL). I think a reasonable cap on cable internet is fair. If you need more, get a DSL package or something.
As the original article states, the only real way to get near that cap is to use cloud storage, but even then most backup services will just backup the files you've changed. You aren't backing up 30 gigs every day, but the 500megs to a gig that has changed. Even if you added a gig of new files every day for a month that still would only add up to 30 gigs, leaving you with 220 gigs to play with.
I understand the net neutrality argument, but I think it's better with DSL. When someone on a neighborhood cable network uses a ton of bandwidth it slows down the service for everyone (unlike with DSL). I think a reasonable cap on cable internet is fair. If you need more, get a DSL package or something.
The thing to remember about a cap is that once its in place it will be devilishly difficult to convince Comcast (and others) to remove it. Many services are pushing towards digital downloads for delivery. These include Xbox games and Hi-def movies all of which eat up a lot of bandwidth.
Now some people are not seeing a problem, but what happens a couple years down the road. Let's not be shortsighted here.
And while Comcasts 250gb limit looks fine what about the other companies who are capping at less than that. Cox sneaked a 40gb cap in there eula agreement and while they are'nt enforcing it yet its in there for future options of profitablity: ie. gouging.
I would think that if Comcast offers a higher bandwidth package, four (or five) adults could come up with the change to upgrade.
So, how does one reach 250?
Simple - illegal services! If you're reaching 250 gigs, you're either running a wifi kingdom at your residence or downloading too many bluray rips. Let's all be real here...you have to be using the internet to the extreme to reach an extreme. I mean, you can sugarcoat the cap, and cry your eyes out about it...but I bet you that you didn't switch to a DSL provider instead! One person complained about the cap to me so I said "why not switch to ATT? They have a 6mb connection where you can probably reach 500ish kb consistantly..."
"Ah nah, I love my speed with this 12mb connection"
Uh huh!
- by proto84 July 29, 2009 4:28 PM PDT
- People who want to argue about the cap simply don't realize the kind of detrimental effects they are having on their neighbors service. Theres only so much bandwidth available over a cable line, and a 250GB cap is a very fair way for Comcast to create an ability to promote fair use of their services. In the example of 4 adults in a household, I agree with what millaciousmills said. All that you are doing in that household is taking advantage of cost by splitting the bill 4 ways. Why would you not expect consequences for sharing a service like that? Why should you be privledged with more bandwidth at 1/4 the cost of anyone else? Your neighbors pay the same price for that 12mb connection, but suffer because you need to download 24/7
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(13 Comments)