I still can't believe some countries have GB/month limits
In some ways that is more transparent than the 'Fair Use Policy' misnomer.
Me and Comcast might be parting ways, THE F#CK$!
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
In some ways that is more transparent than the 'Fair Use Policy' misnomer.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Even those services with published limits and restriction still keep a "fair use" catch-all to cover anything they feel like. I know one "unlimited" service in the UK that simply creams off the top percentage of downloaders on a given network segment, and send them letters asking them to shift their heavy downloading outside of daytime hours (or else), even if you've been careful not to trigger their traffic management restrictions.
Obviously parts of the network have different traffic levels, so what download volumes will give you a warning letter on one part of their network (though not enough to even trigger traffic management), will not even register you a heavy downloader on another.
I think it's a big problem that people are paying the same money for a given service, but they don't receive that service, because it's dependent on how much a ISP has oversold and under-resourced your particular part of the network. It's that old attitude of monolithic telecoms companies that have turned into ISPs that they still try to oversell bandwidth and do the minimum development. That worked for telephone services where the loading is a lot less variable, but IP networks have a much bigger gap between minimum and maximum usage, as well as growing an a much faster rate.
BTW something you can try:
My GF switched ISP, and was asked if she wanted to try the ISP's fastest package (50\5 mbit) for free for 3 months. She said yes.
After 3 months she was called up if she wanted to buy the fastest package, she replied no. But ISP provider forgot to switch her connection limits back to what she was actually paying for (4\1 mbit). So she has 50mbit a month, for the price of the cheapest connection that the isp is providing.
My GF switched ISP, and was asked if she wanted to try the ISP's fastest package (50\5 mbit) for free for 3 months. She said yes.
After 3 months she was called up if she wanted to buy the fastest package, she replied no. But ISP provider forgot to switch her connection limits back to what she was actually paying for (4\1 mbit). So she has 50mbit a month, for the price of the cheapest connection that the isp is providing.
One thing that interests me if it is at all possible (or likely) to cross most fair-use policies by doing anything other than illegal downloading (at least on cable and DSL connections, not mobile flat-fee stuff obviously).
It reminds me a little of how electricity companies can (and do!) help track down marijuana growers by looking at excessive electricity use (sometimes the electricity is even being stolen).
It reminds me a little of how electricity companies can (and do!) help track down marijuana growers by looking at excessive electricity use (sometimes the electricity is even being stolen).
It's easy if you really like watching speed runs of video games and a lot of hulu. I downloaded 400 gigs worth of speed runs one month. if I had topped that with hulu, I might have gotten a letter.
Fair enough, I didn't think of that - we don't have as many of these services, and particularly stuff that's like hulu (on a much smaller scale) typically uses very little bandwidth as well. Though watching speedruns I doubt is as popular as downloading movies or tv illegally.
Wow. Just wow.
Where and which ISP exactly?
Norway and isp is get
You seriously think that is actually justified? It's actually worse for a TV show than it is for a movie. The TV show has commercial breaks, you do realize those commercials are there to help pay for these creators to make the shows in the first place right? Do you think the version he downloads has commercials?
And the TV shows that have no commercials? example: HBO. How are these shows subsidised? Subscriber fees to the cable providers for the content. If more and more people just download True Blood, then you won't get such shows in the future.
WhiningKhan
Regular
It is immoral to not watch the commercials?
Is it any different from me going to fridge during commercial break?
Or using TiVo and skipping the commercials on it?
TV ratings (and thus advertisement slot prices) won't change unless enough of those pre-selected households with the meters installed suddenly stop watching.
The cable shows without commercial breaks can be more of a grey zone, but if one still has the cable subscription and it's not pay-per-view system, you still pay for them regardless of which media you use to watch the show from.
--
Then there's the actually grey zone. Let's say I'm interested in show X, which I know it's being broadcasted in many countries, I also know that none of my countrys channels are even planning on picking the show up - is it really wrong to download it at that point, or should I just wait for x years 'till it's on DVD and hope some shop which ships to my country would have it in their catalog, and hope in the meanwhile that I don't get spoiled on the series by one reason or another at all?
Mintmaster
Veteran
It's not immoral to not watch it, but the material is still illegal if it reduces the chance of someone watching commercials from 80% (or whatever) in the original form down to 0%.
Having said that, it's hard for me to feel sorry for the TV networks when they don't make material available on Hulu or their own websites, where they're free to use as much advertising as they want.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
The real problem with TV networks and movie studios is that they insist on sticking to their "window" system that sees people sometime waiting years to see the series that is being hyped all over.
The reason people download TV shows is that networks are not supplying shows in a timely matter in the format people want. It's a missed opportunity, and paves the way for people to get used to using the internet to watch TV shows they way they want to, not the way that the networks want to trickle shows out.
In this day and age there's little reason not to have shows shown all over the world at around the same time. It's quite possible, as there are shows such as Heroes, Glee, Stargate Universe, etc that have been shown over here within a week of the US first showings.
"Old Media" is a beast whose habits does not turn rapidly. Before when a network was reasonably sure that they had a hit on their hands, they could take their sweet time finding the best exclusive deal selling it to separate markets/local broadcasters. They in turn could then take their sweet time advertising it and fitting it into their schedule.
When the internet came along it changed this dynamic, but it seems the content suppliers have taken a while to catch up. These days broadcast schedules may be more flexible than a couple of years ago and the buyers are thus more ready to pay up in an attempt to capitalize on what may be the next big show as early as possible.
When the internet came along it changed this dynamic, but it seems the content suppliers have taken a while to catch up. These days broadcast schedules may be more flexible than a couple of years ago and the buyers are thus more ready to pay up in an attempt to capitalize on what may be the next big show as early as possible.
digitalwanderer
Legend
Can I still be a little shocked that I'm still online with Comcast, I really thought they'd be cutting me.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It does as it affects the commercial stats that provide information on whether those advertisers should continue to advertise as well as how much they should pay the stations. And those ad blocks are pay rated by the time slot AND by how many people watch the show (with commercials, whether TIVO'd or not, or whether you go to the fridge or bathroom or not). Although I believe at least the cable companies are now also tracking whether shows are recorded and whether commercials are skipped, as well as tracking which commercials are not skipped when recorded.
And if you have cable TV, those stats are provided without the need of a meter.
And that doesn't address commercial free shows provided by paid for premium channels.
Heck, I download foreign shows and movies that are unavailable in my country for purchase. I don't disillusion myself that I'm not technically breaking the law, but at least in my case it's most often not possible for me to reimburse the producers of those shows. At least until it's sold in my country, at which point I can buy it.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha, the statistics are created only by those preselected households, who have special meters installed for their TV's.
Other than those selected people, it's irrelevant on how you watch, what you watch etc, it doesn't change statistics at all
edit:
The above applies at least for broadcast tv, cable is different of course
Other than those selected people, it's irrelevant on how you watch, what you watch etc, it doesn't change statistics at all
edit:
The above applies at least for broadcast tv, cable is different of course
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yeah, in the past Neilson (sp?) ratings could only poll selected households and then extrapolate that to the populace at large. Now with cable (and satellite to an extent) being the dominant carrier of even broadcast channels, it's far easier to get direct and more accurate numbers from the cable companies.
Regards,
SB
If you are required to use a custom receiver, maybe. On a standard receiver (cable or sat or even terrestrial broadcasts, doesn't matter) it's not possible to track which of many channels you watch. They are all transmitted in parallel, and all the receiver does is tune in on one particular frequency and ignore the rest. There is no information going back to the source.
Similar threads
