Sprint to get the iPhone

[Oxford]

Looks like next in line to get the iPhone is Sprint.

They've been dying without it, so it appears they will join Verizon &
T-Mobile as the next companies Apple will allow to sell their phones.

Congratulations Sprint!

---------------

It¹s highly probable that a Sprint iPhone will debut before the year¹s
end, according to Shing Yin, an industry analyst at Citadel Securities.

Because Verizon is ending its unlimited data plans Thursday, and because
Sprint features cheaper pricing for comparable plans on AT&T and
Verizon, the carrier ³could offer an attractive proposition for more
price-conscious users (a demographic that we think is increasingly
important to Apple following the rise of Android),² and ³could be a
relatively stronger seller than the Verizon iPhone,² according to Yin.

Yin¹s report is careful to mention that he doesn¹t think the actual
device will be priced less than an iPhone from a competing carrier ‹
just that Sprint¹s service plans cost less.

Expanding to other carriers like Sprint and T-Mobile would help give
Apple a leg up against increasing competition from Android, which by
many reports show it outpacing Apple sales and taking up a large chunk
of the smartphone market.

Now that Apple¹s exclusive partnership with AT&T is over, it makes sense
for the company to target the remaining big carriers in the United
States to increase the iPhone¹s presence.

Apple rumors have increasingly focused on the company potentially
releasing a more affordable iPhone for the masses. A statement by Apple
COO Tim Cook saying that the company is ³not ceding any market² seems to
be the catalyst for much of the speculation, including the idea that
there may be two new iPhone models in September. Currently, an unlocked
iPhone 4 without a data plan goes for a whopping $650.

Although Yin¹s analysis is primarily speculation based on industry
trends, a May report from AllThingsD from another analyst, Peter Misek,
agrees that Apple¹s next iPhone won¹t be limited to AT&T and Verizon.

³Industry checks indicate AAPL has or is about to announce new carrier
deals in time for the holidays with T-Mobile and Sprint,² Misek wrote.
³Additionally, we believe another China carrier could launch the iPhone
in the next 12 months.² On Apple¹s last earnings call, management was
asked about launching the CDMA iPhone at other carriers, and responded:
³We are constantly looking and adding where it makes sense, and you can
keep confidence that we¹ll continue to do that.²

And although competitors Verizon and AT&T would likely be displeased by
Apple sharing the iPhone wealth with other carriers, they would be
³unlikely to attempt to block Sprint from getting the iPhone,² according
to Yin.

Yin also says he wouldn¹t rule out T-Mobile from selling the iPhone in
the near future, as well. Since Sprint is the next largest carrier after
Verizon and AT&T, it makes sense that Apple would open the iPhone to
their customer base next. ³I would expect a T-Mobile iPhone soon after,
though,² Yin says.




http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/07/sprint-iphone/

[Kurt Ullman]

In article
<apony-***@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
et>,

Post by Oxford
And although competitors Verizon and AT&T would likely be displeased by
Apple sharing the iPhone wealth with other carriers, they would be
³unlikely to attempt to block Sprint from getting the iPhone,² according
to Yin.

Especially ATT since they would be trying to avoid even a hint of
predatory or hindering competition, at least until the T Mobile merger
is approved.

[Ryan P.]

Post by Oxford
Looks like next in line to get the iPhone is Sprint.
They've been dying without it, so it appears they will join Verizon&
T-Mobile as the next companies Apple will allow to sell their phones.
Congratulations Sprint!

Mixed bag, I think... Now it'll be even more likely that Sprint will
institute data caps and tiered pricing.

But it most definitely will create a user boost for them.

[SMS]

Post by Oxford
Looks like next in line to get the iPhone is Sprint.
They've been dying without it, so it appears they will join Verizon&
T-Mobile as the next companies Apple will allow to sell their phones.
Congratulations Sprint!

Mixed bag, I think... Now it'll be even more likely that Sprint will
institute data caps and tiered pricing.
But it most definitely will create a user boost for them.

Probably not much of one.

First, the big gains in iPhone sales have already occurred and now no
one with a grandfathered unlimited plan on AT&T or Verizon is going to
switch to a carrier that has far poorer coverage and that may not be
around for long if the acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T goes through.

Second, Sprint has tried being different in the past with "Fair and
Flexible," "Sprint to Home," and offering SERO to everyone, with little
success.

Third, unlike voice, where there is roaming onto other carrier's
networks (mainly Verizon) that mitigates Sprint's coverage issues, data
coverage will be very limited on Sprint and there is unlikely to be any
data roaming.

Fourth, while unlimited data sounds wonderful in theory, the reality is
that very few uses use even 2GB a month and in fact more than half use
less than 200MB.

Fifth, no business users would ever choose Sprint because their 4G
network is not LTE.

So for those that look only at "unlimited data," without looking at the
big picture, there may be a small boost that comes from being the only
carrier offering unlimited to new customers.

Don't forget, one reason for the elimination of unlimited data by the
other carriers was churn reduction of their least price-sensitive customers.

[Ryan P.]

Post by SMS

Mixed bag, I think... Now it'll be even more likely that Sprint will
institute data caps and tiered pricing.
But it most definitely will create a user boost for them.

Probably not much of one.
First, the big gains in iPhone sales have already occurred and now no
one with a grandfathered unlimited plan on AT&T or Verizon is going to
switch to a carrier that has far poorer coverage and that may not be
around for long if the acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T goes through.

Sprint's troubles for years wasn't because of its coverage issues...
it was because of their lack of attractive phones. They have a
fantastic lineup right now.

As for coverage, if you only consider native coverage, yeah, its
poorer. But they have a great roaming agreements. I actually get great
coverage in the middle of the forest up north and fantastic 3G data
speeds while roaming. My Verizon friends, roaming on to the same
signal, are unable to get voice mail notifications.

Post by SMS
Second, Sprint has tried being different in the past with "Fair and
Flexible," "Sprint to Home," and offering SERO to everyone, with little
success.

Again, I come back to the point that for years Sprint didn't have
"cool" phones, not to mention a rep for poor customer service. Those
days are over... They have great phones, and

Post by SMS
Third, unlike voice, where there is roaming onto other carrier's
networks (mainly Verizon) that mitigates Sprint's coverage issues, data
coverage will be very limited on Sprint and there is unlikely to be any
data roaming.

I assume you mean 4G data coverage? Currently Sprint has more 4G
coverage than anyone else. They can't roam onto each other, of
course... but at the speed 4G is rolling out (both networks), I don't
think that matters for the next two years or so. AT&T, Verizon, and
Sprint will all have nearly identical 4G coverage in the US.

If you are an international traveler, that might actually change your
service of choice, though.

Post by SMS
Fourth, while unlimited data sounds wonderful in theory, the reality is
that very few uses use even 2GB a month and in fact more than half use
less than 200MB.

I question that data. I see it thrown around everywhere. I think
that the wireless companies are incorporating non smart phones into
"average" data usage features.

Post by SMS
Fifth, no business users would ever choose Sprint because their 4G
network is not LTE.

See above. This is irrelevant now (except for international
travelers), and likely will be for the next few years. If a company is
issuing smart phones, one has to believe they are necessary for job
functions, which means more data usage. $20+ per line savings over
Verizon for basically the same coverage (for now), can add up to a lot
of money.

Post by SMS
So for those that look only at "unlimited data," without looking at the
big picture, there may be a small boost that comes from being the only
carrier offering unlimited to new customers.

Plus a savings of $20+ per line.

Post by SMS
Don't forget, one reason for the elimination of unlimited data by the
other carriers was churn reduction of their least price-sensitive customers.

Sorry, I don't understand that last paragraph. You are saying that
people who don't care about price are less likely to leave Verizon and
AT&T now because they raised prices? I'm clearly not reading you right.

[SMS]

Post by Ryan P.

Post by SMS

Mixed bag, I think... Now it'll be even more likely that Sprint will
institute data caps and tiered pricing.
But it most definitely will create a user boost for them.

Probably not much of one.
First, the big gains in iPhone sales have already occurred and now no
one with a grandfathered unlimited plan on AT&T or Verizon is going to
switch to a carrier that has far poorer coverage and that may not be
around for long if the acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T goes through.

Sprint's troubles for years wasn't because of its coverage issues.

Maybe that's true in some areas, but in Northern California coverage
issues were a huge issue. The way to solve the coverage issues was to
program your handset to roaming only, but Sprint got rid of that option
in newer handsets. Without that option, the handset will often get
enough of a Sprint signal to not roam onto Verizon, but not enough to
make or receive a call. And the coverage problem is not fixed. Coverage
is fine in urban cores, but it's not fine in suburbs because of so much
NIMBYism when it comes to new towers.

Post by Ryan P.
As for coverage, if you only consider native coverage, yeah, its poorer.
But they have a great roaming agreements. I actually get great coverage
in the middle of the forest up north and fantastic 3G data speeds while
roaming. My Verizon friends, roaming on to the same signal, are unable
to get voice mail notifications.

So there is unlimited 3G data roaming onto Verizon?

Post by Ryan P.
I question that data. I see it thrown around everywhere. I think that
the wireless companies are incorporating non smart phones into "average"
data usage features.

They are not including non-smart phones.

Post by Ryan P.

Post by SMS
Don't forget, one reason for the elimination of unlimited data by the
other carriers was churn reduction of their least price-sensitive customers.

Sorry, I don't understand that last paragraph. You are saying that
people who don't care about price are less likely to leave Verizon and
AT&T now because they raised prices? I'm clearly not reading you right.

No one with unlimited data would leave AT&T or Verizon now because they
can never come back. These customers are also the early adopters of
smart phones who have willingly paid high monthly rates for data
service. They are stuck with their carrier forever.

[Ryan P.]

Post by SMS
Maybe that's true in some areas, but in Northern California coverage
issues were a huge issue. The way to solve the coverage issues was to
program your handset to roaming only, but Sprint got rid of that option
in newer handsets. Without that option, the handset will often get
enough of a Sprint signal to not roam onto Verizon, but not enough to
make or receive a call. And the coverage problem is not fixed. Coverage
is fine in urban cores, but it's not fine in suburbs because of so much
NIMBYism when it comes to new towers.

The roaming issue IS a problem. Sprint needs to adjust their firmware
to let go of the Sprint signal when it becomes unusable for voice
connections. No argument there.

Post by SMS

Post by Ryan P.
As for coverage, if you only consider native coverage, yeah, its poorer.
But they have a great roaming agreements. I actually get great coverage
in the middle of the forest up north and fantastic 3G data speeds while
roaming. My Verizon friends, roaming on to the same signal, are unable
to get voice mail notifications.

So there is unlimited 3G data roaming onto Verizon?

I don't know about unlimited. I have never been charged. I
consistently use 300-400MB of roaming data while up north... mostly
while tethered to my laptop to access my work servers.

But I know mobile companies charge each other for use of their
networks via roaming, so if its really a concern, data roaming packages
can be developed and plan options. I don't think its something the
majority of smart phone users would need, though, unless they already
live in a remote area, or frequently travel into remote areas (like
sales people, perhaps).

Post by SMS

Post by Ryan P.
Sorry, I don't understand that last paragraph. You are saying that
people who don't care about price are less likely to leave Verizon and
AT&T now because they raised prices? I'm clearly not reading you right.

No one with unlimited data would leave AT&T or Verizon now because they
can never come back. These customers are also the early adopters of
smart phones who have willingly paid high monthly rates for data
service. They are stuck with their carrier forever.

No, they are only stuck with that carrier until their phone dies or
becomes obsolete for their needs. Its highly likely that they will
force the new terms on people who upgrade to new phones.

I'm not saying that Verizon/AT&T don't have an advantage because of
the size of their networks, I'm just saying Sprint (if properly managed)
isn't at as much of a DISadvantage as you allude to.

At a $20 savings per line per month, corporate customers would be
foolish not to consider Sprint if the vast majority of their workforce
never leaves the country.

[AJL]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:33:28 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by SMS
So there is unlimited 3G data roaming onto Verizon?

I don't know about unlimited. I have never been charged. I
consistently use 300-400MB of roaming data while up north... mostly
while tethered to my laptop to access my work servers.

I'm on Verizon unlimited data. There's no extra charge for domestic
data roaming. Likewise no extra charge for text roaming but of course
the text limit still applies. But my voice is around a buck a minute
when roaming so I obviously don't do much talking...

Post by Ryan P.
But I know mobile companies charge each other for use of their
networks via roaming, so if its really a concern, data roaming packages
can be developed and plan options.

Course if I were data roaming 11 months out of the year Verizon would
likely call me in for a talk.

Post by Ryan P.
I don't think its something the
majority of smart phone users would need, though, unless they already
live in a remote area, or frequently travel into remote areas (like
sales people, perhaps).

I probably roam up to 1 month a year but I sure do like the data/text
freedom. I love to read hometown news and listen to hometown stations.
And most of the family comms can be handled by text, email and
facebook. Never going back... ;)

[George]

Post by AJL
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:33:28 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by SMS
So there is unlimited 3G data roaming onto Verizon?

I don't know about unlimited. I have never been charged. I
consistently use 300-400MB of roaming data while up north... mostly
while tethered to my laptop to access my work servers.

I'm on Verizon unlimited data. There's no extra charge for domestic
data roaming. Likewise no extra charge for text roaming but of course
the text limit still applies. But my voice is around a buck a minute
when roaming so I obviously don't do much talking...

Me too. But you must have a really old voice plan or I am misremembering
what was it "Americas choice II" or something like that from long ago
where the PRL they push only allows roaming on a partner? I have never
been to an area that wasn't either native VZW or a partner but I thought
the idea was you could never incur voice roaming since if not native or
a partner the phone would not even let you know service was available.

Post by AJL

Post by Ryan P.
But I know mobile companies charge each other for use of their
networks via roaming, so if its really a concern, data roaming packages
can be developed and plan options.

Course if I were data roaming 11 months out of the year Verizon would
likely call me in for a talk.

Post by Ryan P.
I don't think its something the
majority of smart phone users would need, though, unless they already
live in a remote area, or frequently travel into remote areas (like
sales people, perhaps).

I probably roam up to 1 month a year but I sure do like the data/text
freedom. I love to read hometown news and listen to hometown stations.
And most of the family comms can be handled by text, email and
facebook. Never going back... ;)

[AJL]

Post by George

Post by AJL
I'm on Verizon unlimited data. There's no extra charge for domestic
data roaming. Likewise no extra charge for text roaming but of course
the text limit still applies. But my voice is around a buck a minute
when roaming so I obviously don't do much talking...

Me too. But you must have a really old voice plan or I am misremembering
what was it "Americas choice II" or something like that from long ago
where the PRL they push only allows roaming on a partner? I have never
been to an area that wasn't either native VZW or a partner but I thought
the idea was you could never incur voice roaming since if not native or
a partner the phone would not even let you know service was available.

I'm on an old grandfathered family plan that is no longer offered.
They now call it a Legacy plan on my bill. I get 100 shared minutes
for $15/mo per phone. Total with taxes and fees about $35/mo for 2
phones. I'm sure 100 minutes/mo wouldn't suit most people but I have
never gone over so it works for me. But as I said roaming is
expensive. But even when I've been forced to make short roaming calls
the added expense is seldom more than $20. Even with that added, the
total expense it is still cheaper for me than any current 2 phone plan
available. I'm just hoping they will keep letting me keep the plan
since there is never a guaranty at contract renewal time...

[SMS]

Post by AJL

Post by George

Post by AJL
I'm on Verizon unlimited data. There's no extra charge for domestic
data roaming. Likewise no extra charge for text roaming but of course
the text limit still applies. But my voice is around a buck a minute
when roaming so I obviously don't do much talking...

Me too. But you must have a really old voice plan or I am misremembering
what was it "Americas choice II" or something like that from long ago
where the PRL they push only allows roaming on a partner? I have never
been to an area that wasn't either native VZW or a partner but I thought
the idea was you could never incur voice roaming since if not native or
a partner the phone would not even let you know service was available.

I'm on an old grandfathered family plan that is no longer offered.
They now call it a Legacy plan on my bill. I get 100 shared minutes
for $15/mo per phone. Total with taxes and fees about $35/mo for 2
phones. I'm sure 100 minutes/mo wouldn't suit most people but I have
never gone over so it works for me. But as I said roaming is
expensive. But even when I've been forced to make short roaming calls
the added expense is seldom more than $20. Even with that added, the
total expense it is still cheaper for me than any current 2 phone plan
available. I'm just hoping they will keep letting me keep the plan
since there is never a guaranty at contract renewal time...

It was the original America's Choice plan that supposedly charged for
roaming outside of the extended network. I was on that for years. Even
when the indicator on the phone said I was outside the extended network
I was never charged roaming.

When I compared the America's Choice map to the America's Choice II map
the main difference appeared to be that all the analog roaming was gone.
Of course now there is very little analog left in the U.S. so that
wouldn't matter much.

[George]

Post by AJL

Post by George

Post by AJL
I'm on Verizon unlimited data. There's no extra charge for domestic
data roaming. Likewise no extra charge for text roaming but of course
the text limit still applies. But my voice is around a buck a minute
when roaming so I obviously don't do much talking...

Me too. But you must have a really old voice plan or I am misremembering
what was it "Americas choice II" or something like that from long ago
where the PRL they push only allows roaming on a partner? I have never
been to an area that wasn't either native VZW or a partner but I thought
the idea was you could never incur voice roaming since if not native or
a partner the phone would not even let you know service was available.

I'm on an old grandfathered family plan that is no longer offered.
They now call it a Legacy plan on my bill. I get 100 shared minutes
for $15/mo per phone. Total with taxes and fees about $35/mo for 2
phones. I'm sure 100 minutes/mo wouldn't suit most people but I have
never gone over so it works for me. But as I said roaming is
expensive. But even when I've been forced to make short roaming calls
the added expense is seldom more than $20. Even with that added, the
total expense it is still cheaper for me than any current 2 phone plan
available. I'm just hoping they will keep letting me keep the plan
since there is never a guaranty at contract renewal time...

I used to have some phones on that plan. I kept then until "INnetwork"
calling came out.

I am pretty sure you don't have a contract. I used to get a letter once
in a while but they never tried to muscle me off.

[AJL]

Post by George

Post by AJL
I'm on an old grandfathered family plan that is no longer offered.
They now call it a Legacy plan on my bill. I get 100 shared minutes
for $15/mo per phone...

I used to have some phones on that plan. I kept then until "INnetwork"
calling came out.
I am pretty sure you don't have a contract...

I've always had a contract because I always got a new phones at the
reduced re-up price every 2 years. On the last renewal I got the
reduced price for a new smartphone (HTC Incredible) which required me
to add data ($30). I also added texting ($15) on the other phone.
Total now comes to around $81/mo with taxes and fees so even with the
Legacy Plan, Verizon's probably not going broke by me...

[SMS]

Post by Ryan P.
No, they are only stuck with that carrier until their phone dies or
becomes obsolete for their needs. Its highly likely that they will force
the new terms on people who upgrade to new phones.

No it isn't. AT&T has let their unlimited customers continue to receive
new subsidized phones without forcing them onto the newer, poorer,
plans. Verizon has let people continue on old plans for as long as they
desire, and there is no reason to believe that that will change.

Post by Ryan P.
At a $20 savings per line per month, corporate customers would be
foolish not to consider Sprint if the vast majority of their workforce
never leaves the country.

It depends if the workforce also sticks to the core of urban areas where
Sprint has good coverage. When you send your employees to all corners of
a county, including rural and suburban areas, Sprint is not a good
choice. Or maybe it is a good corporate choice, because what actually is
that the employees end up using their personal phones when there is no
Sprint coverage. This is _exactly_ what happens at my wife's company
where the field employees have to go to homes in the most remote areas
of the county. They must be getting an incredible deal from Sprint
because at one point they were poised to move everyone to Verizon and it
never happened.

[Luigi Vercotti]

Post by SMS
No it isn't. AT&T has let their unlimited customers continue to receive
new subsidized phones without forcing them onto the newer, poorer,
plans. Verizon has let people continue on old plans for as long as they
desire, and there is no reason to believe that that will change.

That's what happened to me, I just never bothered to update my
expired contract, my bill never changed, so I went on forever.

Then I heard (months ago) about July7. No chance to get unlimited
later. I made my move, and ya know the rest. I even opt'ed for
the unlimited text, although I've yet to ever text anyone in my life.

Now, I can surf till I puke, text till I learn how, talk to I choke,
for the next 2 yrs, at a known price, that should go on afterwards
till I'm told otherwise. No way will I be a drain on their network,
I pay the bill on time now for years, and till I need a new free
phone, I can boogie till the cows come home, data/text/voice wise.

This Droid X is weird..need a case, I've dropped it twice, need to
turn
off so much, upload .mp3 ring tones, blah blah blah. Weighs a ton.

Cost: $ 0 USD



JJTj













COMING SOON

FRITZMANIA 2011

www.fritztronics.com

[Ryan P.]

Post by Luigi Vercotti
Then I heard (months ago) about July7. No chance to get unlimited
later. I made my move, and ya know the rest. I even opt'ed for
the unlimited text, although I've yet to ever text anyone in my life.
Now, I can surf till I puke, text till I learn how, talk to I choke,
for the next 2 yrs, at a known price, that should go on afterwards
till I'm told otherwise. No way will I be a drain on their network,
I pay the bill on time now for years, and till I need a new free
phone, I can boogie till the cows come home, data/text/voice wise.

I thought Verizon's "unlimited" plan was really capped at 5GB.

Which is a lot of data, and I'll admit most people wouldn't ever use
that much. But I seem to remember seeing that in the fine print when I
was considering Verizon a few years ago.

[AJL]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:57:11 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.
I thought Verizon's "unlimited" plan was really capped at 5GB.

Yes I think it is. I remember reading all the hoopla about Version's
limited/unlimited plan. IIRC Verizon claimed that using that much data
is no longer considered personal use.

Post by Ryan P.
Which is a lot of data, and I'll admit most people wouldn't ever use
that much. But I seem to remember seeing that in the fine print when I
was considering Verizon a few years ago.

The fine print for sure. But IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

[tlvp]

... IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

Depends ... if you've got Windows Update and MS Update on automatic,
and get automatic updates for Firefox, Adobe, Shockwave, MSE, SAS,
and MBAM (and whatever else needs updating), you can easily score
2 GB/month just in updates alone, not even starting to count what
your email and YouTube and CNN viewing might pull in.

Just sayin' ... :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

[AJL]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:09:13 -0400, tlvp

Post by tlvp
if you've got Windows Update and MS Update on automatic,
and get automatic updates for Firefox, Adobe, Shockwave, MSE, SAS,
and MBAM (and whatever else needs updating), you can easily score
2 GB/month just in updates alone, not even starting to count what
your email and YouTube and CNN viewing might pull in.

Wow. I keep updates off anyway, not for data conservation but rather
to save battery life. Also I use WiFi instead of 3G when at home (and
at some other hotspots), again not for data conservation but because
it's much faster. So my 3G use is probably a bit lower than it
otherwise would be. Good practice for when the rates go up and the cap
comes down... ;)

[Roger 2008]

Post by AJL
The fine print for sure. But IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

5GB was the old cap. AT&T caps at just 2GB now and someone might be able to
hit that by just watching one or two hi-def movies.

[AJL]

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL
IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

5GB was the old cap. AT&T caps at just 2GB now and someone might be able to
hit that by just watching one or two hi-def movies.

Ok I will revise my above quoted statement: IMO anybody that can even
come close to using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life *and*
anybody that watches movies on a phone screen must not have much or a
life... ;)

[Roger 2008]

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL
IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

5GB was the old cap. AT&T caps at just 2GB now and someone might be able to
hit that by just watching one or two hi-def movies.

Ok I will revise my above quoted statement: IMO anybody that can even
come close to using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life *and*
anybody that watches movies on a phone screen must not have much or a
life... ;)

What do you have against truck drivers that are stuck away from home during
a 34 hour break?

[AJL]

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL
IMO anybody that can even
come close to using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life *and*
anybody that watches movies on a phone screen must not have much or a
life... ;)

What do you have against truck drivers that are stuck away from home during
a 34 hour break?

If he/she stays in the cab the whole 34 hours then that probably fits
the description of having no life. Most truckers I know would
definitely find some entertainment and it wouldn't be on their
phone... ;)

[Roger 2008]

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL
IMO anybody that can even
come close to using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life *and*
anybody that watches movies on a phone screen must not have much or a
life... ;)

What do you have against truck drivers that are stuck away from home during
a 34 hour break?

If he/she stays in the cab the whole 34 hours then that probably fits
the description of having no life. Most truckers I know would
definitely find some entertainment and it wouldn't be on their
phone... ;)

Let's back up a bit to where I stated "might be able to hit that by just
watching one or two hi-def movies."

I use a Slingplayer Pro HD to watch HD movies in HD to do that I have to
have it set up for at least 1280x720 or 1440x540.

A phone certainly can not be used to display those resolution so forget
about watching hi-def movies on your phone because it can not be done.

But a phone can still be used as a modem to watch hi-def movies on a laptop
especially with 3G or 4G. Now is that so bad?

[AJL]

OK, it's a slow day, lets analyze this little misunderstanding.

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL
IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

This was my original post you first answered. You notice that I said
someone using 5GB on a **phone** didn't have a life.

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008
5GB was the old cap. AT&T caps at just 2GB now and someone might be able
to hit that by just watching one or two hi-def movies.

This is your answer to *my* post that was about a ***phone***.

Post by AJL
Ok I will revise my above quoted statement: IMO anybody that can even
come close to using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life *and*
anybody that watches movies on a phone screen must not have much or a
life... ;)

Post by Roger 2008
What do you have against truck drivers that are stuck away from home during
a 34 hour break?

So the picture I got was a stuck trucker glued to a movie on a
*phone*.

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008
If he/she stays in the cab the whole 34 hours then that probably fits
the description of having no life. Most truckers I know would
definitely find some entertainment and it wouldn't be on their
phone... ;)

Let's back up a bit to where I stated "might be able to hit that by just
watching one or two hi-def movies."

Let's back up to where I said (and meant) *phone* in several quotes
above. See them now?

Post by AJL
I use a Slingplayer Pro HD to watch HD movies in HD to do that I have to
have it set up for at least 1280x720 or 1440x540.
A phone certainly can not be used to display those resolution so forget
about watching hi-def movies on your phone because it can not be done.

Actually you can watch HD on a phone. But it would be a terrible waste
of bandwidth and not make much sense, but who knows why truckers do
what they do... ;)

http://www.reelseo.com/iphone-1080p-hd-video/

Post by AJL
But a phone can still be used as a modem to watch hi-def movies on a laptop
especially with 3G or 4G. Now is that so bad?

Of course, but that's tethering and has nothing to do with watching
movies on a *phone*.

Bottom line, next time you want to comment on exceeding the cap by
tethering don't use someone's ***phone*** quote... ;)

[Roger 2008]

Post by AJL
OK, it's a slow day, lets analyze this little misunderstanding.

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL
IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

This was my original post you first answered. You notice that I said
someone using 5GB on a **phone** didn't have a life.

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008
5GB was the old cap. AT&T caps at just 2GB now and someone might be able
to hit that by just watching one or two hi-def movies.

This is your answer to *my* post that was about a ***phone***.

Post by AJL
Ok I will revise my above quoted statement: IMO anybody that can even
come close to using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life *and*
anybody that watches movies on a phone screen must not have much or a
life... ;)

Post by Roger 2008
What do you have against truck drivers that are stuck away from home during
a 34 hour break?

So the picture I got was a stuck trucker glued to a movie on a
*phone*.

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008
If he/she stays in the cab the whole 34 hours then that probably fits
the description of having no life. Most truckers I know would
definitely find some entertainment and it wouldn't be on their
phone... ;)

Let's back up a bit to where I stated "might be able to hit that by just
watching one or two hi-def movies."

Let's back up to where I said (and meant) *phone* in several quotes
above. See them now?

Post by AJL
I use a Slingplayer Pro HD to watch HD movies in HD to do that I have to
have it set up for at least 1280x720 or 1440x540.
A phone certainly can not be used to display those resolution so forget
about watching hi-def movies on your phone because it can not be done.

Actually you can watch HD on a phone. But it would be a terrible waste
of bandwidth and not make much sense, but who knows why truckers do
what they do... ;)
http://www.reelseo.com/iphone-1080p-hd-video/

Post by AJL
But a phone can still be used as a modem to watch hi-def movies on a laptop
especially with 3G or 4G. Now is that so bad?

Of course, but that's tethering and has nothing to do with watching
movies on a *phone*.
Bottom line, next time you want to comment on exceeding the cap by
tethering don't use someone's ***phone*** quote... ;)

So it boils down to what your definition of use is.

[Justin]

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL

Post by Roger 2008

Post by AJL
IMO anybody that can even
come close to using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life *and*
anybody that watches movies on a phone screen must not have much or a
life... ;)

What do you have against truck drivers that are stuck away from home during
a 34 hour break?

If he/she stays in the cab the whole 34 hours then that probably fits
the description of having no life. Most truckers I know would
definitely find some entertainment and it wouldn't be on their
phone... ;)

Let's back up a bit to where I stated "might be able to hit that by just
watching one or two hi-def movies."
I use a Slingplayer Pro HD to watch HD movies in HD to do that I have to
have it set up for at least 1280x720 or 1440x540.
A phone certainly can not be used to display those resolution so forget
about watching hi-def movies on your phone because it can not be done.
But a phone can still be used as a modem to watch hi-def movies on a laptop
especially with 3G or 4G. Now is that so bad?

Tethered connections have always had a 5GB cap on VZW

[SMS]

Post by Roger 2008
But a phone can still be used as a modem to watch hi-def movies on a laptop
especially with 3G or 4G. Now is that so bad?

Laptop or tethered data has never been unlimited except for a brief time
on Broadband2Go from Virgin (unlimited is no longer available). Not that
that has stopped people from tethering their phones using third party
applications and not paying for tethering at all.

The truck driver anecdote that someone posted is cute, but a truck
driver at a truck stop or hotel would be using wi-fi if they really
wanted to stream movies onto a laptop (I stayed at seven different
hotels in July and every one had wi-fi included at no extra cost (Red
Lion (x2), La Quinta, Wyndham (x2), Best Western, and Choice)).

The exception here is phones with 1080p HDMI ports (HTC EVO 4G, LG
Optimus, etc). Since the video is streamed directly from the phone's
HDMI port, rather than being tethered, connecting the HDMI port directly
to a TV with an HDMI input would yield unlimited movies to a large
screen at no extra cost (on Sprint). Presumably the next iPhone will
also add 1080p HDMI support, though the 720p support on the iPhone4
really is good enough for screens that aren't huge. If too many people
start doing this then Sprint would have to limit data as well.

DSL, cable, and wireless carriers are not pleased with all the content
providers that piggy-backed onto unlimited data, sucking up revenue that
they expected to be receiving by selling the content. That's why you're
seeing data caps even on DSL and cable; the idea of Netflix supplanting
pay per view sold to you by Comcast or AT&T while using up precious
capacity is terrifying to the carriers. It's why Redbox probably has a
viable business for quite a few more years, and why Blockbuster may
survive as part of Dish. Video-on-Demand is still going down the street
to the Redbox kiosk for many people.

[Justin]

Post by SMS

Post by Roger 2008
But a phone can still be used as a modem to watch hi-def movies on a laptop
especially with 3G or 4G. Now is that so bad?

Laptop or tethered data has never been unlimited except for a brief time
on Broadband2Go from Virgin (unlimited is no longer available). Not that
that has stopped people from tethering their phones using third party
applications and not paying for tethering at all.
The truck driver anecdote that someone posted is cute, but a truck
driver at a truck stop or hotel would be using wi-fi if they really
wanted to stream movies onto a laptop (I stayed at seven different
hotels in July and every one had wi-fi included at no extra cost (Red
Lion (x2), La Quinta, Wyndham (x2), Best Western, and Choice)).

Bull!

hotel wifi is rarely up to the task of streaming.

Also, have you ever seen what is called a rest stop? I have never seen
one with wifi.

[jcdill]

Post by Justin
Also, have you ever seen what is called a rest stop? I have never seen
one with wifi.

The World Is A Very Big Place. On the turnpikes on the east coast they
have rest stops with a food court to rival some malls, and they usually
have free wifi (sometimes provided by the coffee shop - e.g. Starbucks).
Out here (California) a visit to a rest stop is lucky to find flush
toilets and a working pay phone.

jc

[SMS]

The World Is A Very Big Place. On the turnpikes on the east coast they
have rest stops with a food court to rival some malls, and they usually
have free wifi (sometimes provided by the coffee shop - e.g. Starbucks).
Out here (California) a visit to a rest stop is lucky to find flush
toilets and a working pay phone.

What about the world's most beautiful rest stop on 280 that just
re-opened? I haven't stopped there yet.
<http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=159762&title=Famous%20rest%20stop%20reopens>

A lot of rest stops have added wi-fi recently, but it's not something
you can count on like wi-fi at a hotel or a coffee house.

We just got back from a week-long vacation through Oregon and
California. We didn't stop at any rest stops (just vista points). Every
hotel (seven of them) had wi-fi included. We visited two universities
and both had guest wi-fi throughout the campus. Probably about 1/4 of
the restaurants we ate at had free wi-fi, but we didn't go to chain fast
food places much.

Some of the places in Oregon we went had only U.S. Cellular coverage
available for wireless. Verizon users roam for free as far as voice, not
sure about data. I had to pay roaming charges on Pageplus (I ran up an
additional charge of a whopping 29¢!). Our friends that went with us are
on T-Mobile and of course they often had no coverage at all, but they
were able to roam onto AT&T in some places so not all AT&T roaming is gone.

It was a data heavy week in terms of 3G. I racked up 12MB of usage
checking e-mail, making reservations, and looking for restaurants and
reviews.

[tlvp]

Post by SMS

The World Is A Very Big Place. On the turnpikes on the east coast they
have rest stops with a food court to rival some malls, and they usually
have free wifi (sometimes provided by the coffee shop - e.g. Starbucks).
Out here (California) a visit to a rest stop is lucky to find flush
toilets and a working pay phone.

What about the world's most beautiful rest stop on 280 that just
re-opened? I haven't stopped there yet.
<http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=159762&title=Famous%20rest%20stop%20reopens>
A lot of rest stops have added wi-fi recently, but it's not something
you can count on like wi-fi at a hotel or a coffee house.

Agreed -- you can no more count on "wi-fi at a hotel" than wi-fi at a rest stop.
Even if it's offered, it may not be working (DHCP may be broken, as happened to
me at a SeaTac area Travelodge just yesterday -- and three router resets didn't
fix it :-{ ).

Post by SMS
We just got back from a week-long vacation through Oregon and
California. We didn't stop at any rest stops (just vista points). Every
hotel (seven of them) had wi-fi included. We visited two universities
and both had guest wi-fi throughout the campus. Probably about 1/4 of
the restaurants we ate at had free wi-fi, but we didn't go to chain fast
food places much.
Some of the places in Oregon we went had only U.S. Cellular coverage
available for wireless. Verizon users roam for free as far as voice, not
sure about data. I had to pay roaming charges on Pageplus (I ran up an
additional charge of a whopping 29¢!). Our friends that went with us are
on T-Mobile and of course they often had no coverage at all, but they
were able to roam onto AT&T in some places so not all AT&T roaming is gone.

My own recent experiences with T-Mo phones in the Route 97 -ish parts of WA
confirm this observation -- several places indicated we'd gotten picked up by
(and were roaming on) Cingular, not T-Mo, towers.

Post by SMS
It was a data heavy week in terms of 3G. I racked up 12MB of usage
checking e-mail, making reservations, and looking for restaurants and
reviews.

Cheers, -- tlvp

[SMS]

Post by tlvp
Agreed -- you can no more count on "wi-fi at a hotel" than wi-fi at a rest stop.

Sure you can. A hotel is very likely to have operational wi-fi included
in the cost of the room while a rest stop is unlikely to have wi-fi at
all. Of course there are cases where the wi-fi is not operating properly
at a hotel but it's not the norm.

[tlvp]

... there are cases where the wi-fi is not operating properly
at a hotel ...

And that's all I was saying :-) .

... but it's not the norm.

Cheers, -- tlvp

[Roger 2008]

Post by Justin
hotel wifi is rarely up to the task of streaming.

I've found at least one hotel that streams very well and I've even seen WiFi
at a bar that streams over 1500k.

Post by Justin
Also, have you ever seen what is called a rest stop? I have never seen
one with wifi.

Most all the rest areas in Iowa have free WiFi as proven by the following.
http://www.iowadot.gov/maintenance/restareas.html

But I will add this. Sometimes you have to go inside the building for WiFi
to work properly but most the time it works outside too.

[SMS]

Post by Roger 2008

Post by Justin
hotel wifi is rarely up to the task of streaming.

I've found at least one hotel that streams very well and I've even seen WiFi
at a bar that streams over 1500k.

I stayed at seven hotels this month. All had free wi-fi. Six had wi-fi
that was fast enough for streaming while one, Microtel in Sutherlin
Oregon, had slow and flaky wi-fi.

It's rare that hotel wi-fi is too slow to stream. Where you'll find that
problem is at more remote hotels where they have satellite internet.
I.e. I stayed at a hotel in Gardiner Montana where the wi-fi was over
satellite and was very slow with a lot of latency, but that was the
exception rather than the rule (and at the time there was no 3G
available in the town).

All the hotels I stayed in had multiple routers, and presumably multiple
DSL or cable connections in order to serve a large number of guests
simultaneously. It's not worth upsetting guests with slow wi-fi given
the relatively small cost of providing fast wi-fi. Hotels really need to
watch themselves these days with so many hotel review sites around.

[Paul Miner]

Post by SMS

Post by Roger 2008

Post by Justin
hotel wifi is rarely up to the task of streaming.

I've found at least one hotel that streams very well and I've even seen WiFi
at a bar that streams over 1500k.

I stayed at seven hotels this month. All had free wi-fi. Six had wi-fi
that was fast enough for streaming while one, Microtel in Sutherlin
Oregon, had slow and flaky wi-fi.

I've been staying at an extended stay hotel since the first of June.
No Wi-Fi here, but they do have an Ethernet port in every room and
will enable it for $10 a week. Throughput is all over the place, from
a max of 3Mbps very late at night, (although just over 1Mbps is far
more common) and into early morning, to about 400-800 Kbps during the
day and evening. Every few minutes throughput drops to zero for a few
seconds, then starts again. Too slow, too erratic, for streaming.

Post by SMS
It's rare that hotel wi-fi is too slow to stream.

I don't think I've ever stayed at a hotel/motel where the Internet
service was fast enough and steady enough to support streaming. I've
seen one or the other, but I don't think I've seen both together, so
no streaming for me.

[Ryan P.]

Post by SMS
DSL, cable, and wireless carriers are not pleased with all the content
providers that piggy-backed onto unlimited data, sucking up revenue that
they expected to be receiving by selling the content. That's why you're
seeing data caps even on DSL and cable; the idea of Netflix supplanting
pay per view sold to you by Comcast or AT&T while using up precious
capacity is terrifying to the carriers. It's why Redbox probably has a
viable business for quite a few more years, and why Blockbuster may
survive as part of Dish. Video-on-Demand is still going down the street
to the Redbox kiosk for many people.

All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.

Frankly, AT&T's VOD rates are obnoxious, and usually MORE expensive
than going to a "real" Blockbuster store.

[SMS]

Frankly, AT&T's VOD rates are obnoxious, and usually MORE expensive than
going to a "real" Blockbuster store.

Which is exactly why Comcast and AT&T are determined to hamper streaming
services like Netflix. They thought they were going to be the ones
selling VOD to customers but they've been side-stepped to a large extend
by Netflix. I would still call it VOD whether it's delivered through the
mail or streamed over DSL or cable.

Redbox is the disruptive technology that's hurting both video rental
stores and Netflix. It's amazing it took so long for video rental to
move from a hugely expensive retail storefront with multiple employees
to a vending machine.

Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

[Justin]

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who left
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who left
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who left
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
idea certainly isn't that strange. Some Barnes and Noble stores and
Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. (My wife loves this,
despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!" She retorts
"but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:23:45 -0600, Todd Allcock

Post by SMS

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk

with a

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who

left

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
idea certainly isn't that strange. Some Barnes and Noble stores and
Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. (My wife loves this,
despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!" She retorts
"but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

You described my wife, with one important difference. When I tell her
we can do it at home, she agrees. ;-)

[SMS]

Post by SMS

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk

with a

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who

left

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
idea certainly isn't that strange.  Some Barnes and Noble stores and
Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store.  (My wife loves this,
despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!"  She retorts
"but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

There once was an audio cassette service that made custom cassettes
while you waited. Remember that a commercial DVD writer can go a lot
faster than one on a PC too. But I was envisioning a system where you
ordered online and picked the DVD up at the store a little while later
(like ordering a pizza). Remember this is only for the non-new
releases, the new releases would be stocked as they are now.

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:10:37 -0700 (PDT), SMS

Post by SMS

Post by SMS

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk

with a

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who

left

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
idea certainly isn't that strange.  Some Barnes and Noble stores and
Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store.  (My wife loves this,
despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!"  She retorts
"but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

There once was an audio cassette service that made custom cassettes
while you waited. Remember that a commercial DVD writer can go a lot
faster than one on a PC too.

No, but a commercial DVD writer can do more burns in parallel.

Post by SMS
But I was envisioning a system where you
ordered online and picked the DVD up at the store a little while later
(like ordering a pizza). Remember this is only for the non-new
releases, the new releases would be stocked as they are now.

You mean like I described in this thread? It scares me when we agree.

[Justin]

Post by SMS

Post by SMS

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk

with a

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who

left

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
idea certainly isn't that strange.  Some Barnes and Noble stores and
Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store.  (My wife loves this,
despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!"  She retorts
"but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

There once was an audio cassette service that made custom cassettes
while you waited. Remember that a commercial DVD writer can go a lot
faster than one on a PC too. But I was envisioning a system where you
ordered online and picked the DVD up at the store a little while later
(like ordering a pizza). Remember this is only for the non-new
releases, the new releases would be stocked as they are now.

Then you may as well stream!

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:14:07 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
But I was envisioning a system where you
ordered online and picked the DVD up at the store a little while later
(like ordering a pizza). Remember this is only for the non-new
releases, the new releases would be stocked as they are now.

Then you may as well stream!

Streaming is applicable and appropriate in only a tiny subset of the
cases encompassed by the preceding paragraph.

[SMS]

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
Then you may as well stream!

Streaming is applicable and appropriate in only a tiny subset of the
cases encompassed by the preceding paragraph.

That's true, at least for now.

Eventually Netflix will likely have most of their collection available
for streaming. If Redbox and/or Blockbuster do VOD or BOD and have
similar access to content then we'll see more of a price war. No
company is doing great in this market; Netflix is very concerned about
growth given that they don't control the pipe. Redbox seems to be best
set-up to sell to those that don't want a subscription service with an
ever-increasing price, and the Netflix price increase gives them some
small leeway in increasing prices too.

Time will tell if Netflix recovers from what happened following the
price increase. The new pricing changes their service from "it's so
cheap it's lost in the noise" to "oy, yet another monthly service like
cell phone, cable, etc."

Once the physical media is not needed then why do the content
providers even need the middleman taking a large portion of the
revenue? Streaming video is not something that's nearly as hard as
managing physical discs. It could become like the airlines cutting out
the travel agent commission because on-line reservations and
electronic ticketing eliminates the need to pay a middleman. Those
that control the pipe to the home also want to sell streaming content
and they have the power to make third party content providers, like
Netflix, miserable. Physical discs, whether sent by mail, or BOD,
bypass those that seek to limit the amount of data available for
streaming,

[SMS]

Post by Todd Allcock
Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
idea certainly isn't that strange. Some Barnes and Noble stores and
Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. (My wife loves this,
despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!"

The "burn on demand" system has been available for decades in different
types of media. The studios would probably be thrilled to have a way to
get some extra revenue from older movies by having a way to rent or sell
them. Selling a burn-on-demand DVD of an old movie for $3 or $4 is
upside revenue that would otherwise be lost completely, or partially
lost as the viewer borrowed a library copy, borrowed a friend's copy, or
put it on their Netflix list.

Post by Todd Allcock
She retorts
"but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

Sounds like she's hinting that you buy a commercial espresso maker and
grinder:

<tinyurl.com/MagisterES60Espresso>
<tinyurl.com/CommercialEspressoGrinder2>

After about 2000 $3 lattes you'd break even, considering the cost
equipment and supplies.

[Justin]

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

They already have issues of not having enough of what people want,
and that's before the whole "burn on demand" structure proposed.

Imagine being 4th in line, you have to wait at least 15 minutes to even
begin making a choice as to what you want to watch. Or to put in your ID
to get what you reserved.

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who left
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

I have a gen 2 DVD player that doesn't even play burned DVDs, a Toshiba
some model or other that plays any regular DVD thrown at it.

I have CDs that have been "erased" from just a day on the passenger seat

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

They already have issues of not having enough of what people want,
and that's before the whole "burn on demand" structure proposed.
Imagine being 4th in line, you have to wait at least 15 minutes to even
begin making a choice as to what you want to watch. Or to put in your ID
to get what you reserved.

That's why I suggested an online ordering system to get around those
problems.

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who left
the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.

I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

I have a gen 2 DVD player that doesn't even play burned DVDs, a Toshiba
some model or other that plays any regular DVD thrown at it.
I have CDs that have been "erased" from just a day on the passenger seat

Three words: don't do that.

I'm aware that direct sunlight isn't good for burned media, so I avoid
it and have never had a problem.

[Justin]

Post by Paul Miner
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.

Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

They already have issues of not having enough of what people want,
and that's before the whole "burn on demand" structure proposed.
Imagine being 4th in line, you have to wait at least 15 minutes to even
begin making a choice as to what you want to watch. Or to put in your ID
to get what you reserved.

That's why I suggested an online ordering system to get around those
problems.

I guess there could be some "online ordering line", or something.

[Paul Miner]

Post by SMS

Frankly, AT&T's VOD rates are obnoxious, and usually MORE expensive than
going to a "real" Blockbuster store.

Which is exactly why Comcast and AT&T are determined to hamper streaming
services like Netflix. They thought they were going to be the ones
selling VOD to customers but they've been side-stepped to a large extend
by Netflix. I would still call it VOD whether it's delivered through the
mail or streamed over DSL or cable.

Video through the mail is most certainly not what anyone else would
call VOD.

Post by SMS
Redbox is the disruptive technology that's hurting both video rental
stores and Netflix. It's amazing it took so long for video rental to
move from a hugely expensive retail storefront with multiple employees
to a vending machine.

I would peg Netflix is the primary disrupter here. The Redbox model is
a natural extension of the B&M model.

Post by SMS
Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
collection to more than just current hits.

Heh, there was a time when I wondered if that was what they were
doing, but then I saw someone use the machine and get instant
gratification and knew it was a simple dispenser.

[Ryan P.]

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS

Frankly, AT&T's VOD rates are obnoxious, and usually MORE expensive than
going to a "real" Blockbuster store.

Which is exactly why Comcast and AT&T are determined to hamper streaming
services like Netflix. They thought they were going to be the ones
selling VOD to customers but they've been side-stepped to a large extend
by Netflix. I would still call it VOD whether it's delivered through the
mail or streamed over DSL or cable.

Video through the mail is most certainly not what anyone else would
call VOD.

Netflix streaming is VOD in every sense of the word. Even if they
charged $19.99 a month, which is more than twice what they charge for
streaming-only now, that's unlimited movies for the same price as only
3-4 movies from U-Verse VOD.

I'd probably go up to $2 per movie on U-Verse VOD to make it as good
as driving/walking the 2 blocks to Redbox or the 6 blocks to the
Blockbuster kiosk.

[SMS]

Netflix streaming is VOD in every sense of the word. Even if they
charged $19.99 a month, which is more than twice what they charge for
streaming-only now, that's unlimited movies for the same price as only
3-4 movies from U-Verse VOD.

Eventually that could be true, but as of now the streaming content is a
tiny fraction of what Netflix has available on DVD.

I'd probably go up to $2 per movie on U-Verse VOD to make it as good as
driving/walking the 2 blocks to Redbox or the 6 blocks to the
Blockbuster kiosk.

I agree. $2 would be a fair price for a movie from U-Verse, Comcast, or
the satellite TV providers. I can walk to a Redbox Kiosk in about seven
minutes. I can walk to the library which has a huge selection of classic
movies, for free, in about four minutes.

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:37:44 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS

Frankly, AT&T's VOD rates are obnoxious, and usually MORE expensive than
going to a "real" Blockbuster store.

Which is exactly why Comcast and AT&T are determined to hamper streaming
services like Netflix. They thought they were going to be the ones
selling VOD to customers but they've been side-stepped to a large extend
by Netflix. I would still call it VOD whether it's delivered through the
mail or streamed over DSL or cable.

Video through the mail is most certainly not what anyone else would
call VOD.

Netflix streaming is VOD in every sense of the word.

Agreed! But Netflix through the mail is not VOD, unless you stretch
the meaning of VOD way beyond recognition.

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:54 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by SMS
DSL, cable, and wireless carriers are not pleased with all the content
providers that piggy-backed onto unlimited data, sucking up revenue that
they expected to be receiving by selling the content. That's why you're
seeing data caps even on DSL and cable; the idea of Netflix supplanting
pay per view sold to you by Comcast or AT&T while using up precious
capacity is terrifying to the carriers. It's why Redbox probably has a
viable business for quite a few more years, and why Blockbuster may
survive as part of Dish. Video-on-Demand is still going down the street
to the Redbox kiosk for many people.

All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.

Unfortunately, we don't get invited to the room when they negotiate so
it's hard to say why each provider pays what it pays.

[Ryan P.]

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:54 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.
All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.

Unfortunately, we don't get invited to the room when they negotiate so
it's hard to say why each provider pays what it pays.

Oh, I know. Like I said, I'm sure its the licensing terms imposed by
the studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of Redbox.

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:45:43 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:54 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.
All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.

Unfortunately, we don't get invited to the room when they negotiate so
it's hard to say why each provider pays what it pays.

Oh, I know.

Then how can you be "sure its the licensing terms imposed by the
studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of
Redbox"? :-)

Post by Ryan P.
Like I said, I'm sure its the licensing terms imposed by
the studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of Redbox.

[Ryan P.]

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:45:43 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Ryan P.
All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.

Unfortunately, we don't get invited to the room when they negotiate so
it's hard to say why each provider pays what it pays.

Oh, I know.

Then how can you be "sure its the licensing terms imposed by the
studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of
Redbox"? :-)

You took me a bit too literally, I think. I didn't mean "I'm sure
because I have absolute proof." I meant it as a figure of speech, like
"I'm sure Paul Miner wouldn't approve of beating puppies." I don't KNOW
this for a fact, but its a pretty safe guess that's LIKELY to be true.

[Paul Miner]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:41:14 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:45:43 -0500, "Ryan P."

Post by Ryan P.

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Ryan P.
All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.

Unfortunately, we don't get invited to the room when they negotiate so
it's hard to say why each provider pays what it pays.

Oh, I know.

Then how can you be "sure its the licensing terms imposed by the
studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of
Redbox"? :-)

You took me a bit too literally, I think. I didn't mean "I'm sure
because I have absolute proof." I meant it as a figure of speech, like
"I'm sure Paul Miner wouldn't approve of beating puppies." I don't KNOW
this for a fact, but its a pretty safe guess that's LIKELY to be true.

Understood, thanks.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Ryan P.
You took me a bit too literally, I think. I didn't mean "I'm sure
because I have absolute proof." I meant it as a figure of speech,
like "I'm sure Paul Miner wouldn't approve of beating puppies." I
don't KNOW this for a fact, but its a pretty safe guess that's LIKELY
to be true.

Do any of us here know each other well enough to really make an educated
guess where each of us stands on the controversial puppy-beating issue?

[SMS]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Ryan P.
You took me a bit too literally, I think. I didn't mean "I'm sure
because I have absolute proof." I meant it as a figure of speech,
like "I'm sure Paul Miner wouldn't approve of beating puppies." I
don't KNOW this for a fact, but its a pretty safe guess that's LIKELY
to be true.

Do any of us here know each other well enough to really make an educated
guess where each of us stands on the controversial puppy-beating issue?

Yes.

[Justin]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Ryan P.
You took me a bit too literally, I think. I didn't mean "I'm sure
because I have absolute proof." I meant it as a figure of speech,
like "I'm sure Paul Miner wouldn't approve of beating puppies." I
don't KNOW this for a fact, but its a pretty safe guess that's LIKELY
to be true.

Do any of us here know each other well enough to really make an educated
guess where each of us stands on the controversial puppy-beating issue?

Puppies, I don't know. Dead horses... yeah

[Roger 2008]

Post by SMS

Post by Roger 2008
But a phone can still be used as a modem to watch hi-def movies on a laptop
especially with 3G or 4G. Now is that so bad?

Laptop or tethered data has never been unlimited except for a brief time
on Broadband2Go from Virgin (unlimited is no longer available). Not that
that has stopped people from tethering their phones using third party
applications and not paying for tethering at all.

Sprint offered unlimited tethering called "Phone as Modem" for a short time
but you had to get it with a 2 year contract which I did. I found out later
they removed what I paid for their Vision service so the Phone as Modem only
cost $15 more a month instead of $40 more a month.

Tmobile also had an unlimited data plan for $19.95 and they automatically
gave you Phone as Modem.

[Rik Brown]

OK, everyone here is talking about data plans. I've had the HTC EVO 4
for about a year now. Been with Sprint for over 10 years. No problems a
all with the data plan or coverage.

So what would the iPhone *itself* give me that I don't already have wit
the EVO 4G?

In other words, why would a Sprint user (who will stay with Sprint) wan
to switch to the iPhone over the EVO 4G

Thanks. -- Ri

--
Rik Brow

Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and onlin
community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com)
Message origin: TRAVEL.co

[Roger 2008]

OK, everyone here is talking about data plans. I've had the HTC EVO 4G
for about a year now. Been with Sprint for over 10 years. No problems at
all with the data plan or coverage.
So what would the iPhone *itself* give me that I don't already have with
the EVO 4G?
In other words, why would a Sprint user (who will stay with Sprint) want
to switch to the iPhone over the EVO 4G?
Thanks. -- Rik

Good point and I can only think of one thing that the iPhone 4 has over the
HTC EVO 4G and that is the remarkable screen resolution of 960 x 640.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/iphone-4-vs-htc-evo-4g/

I am hoping that the post iPhone 4 will be out by November and that it will
have a better screen resolution than the iPhone 4.

Oddly enough if the post iPhone 4 ends up with a better screen resolution
than the iPhone 4 it might end up with a screen resolution better than the
iFad and yes I posted iFad instead of iPad.

[SMS]

Post by Ryan P.

Then I heard (months ago) about July7. No chance to get unlimited
later. I made my move, and ya know the rest. I even opt'ed for
the unlimited text, although I've yet to ever text anyone in my life.
Now, I can surf till I puke, text till I learn how, talk to I choke,
for the next 2 yrs, at a known price, that should go on afterwards
till I'm told otherwise. No way will I be a drain on their network,
I pay the bill on time now for years, and till I need a new free
phone, I can boogie till the cows come home, data/text/voice wise.

I thought Verizon's "unlimited" plan was really capped at 5GB.

The data plan for laptops is capped at 5GB, not the plan for phones.

[AJL]

Post by SMS

Post by Ryan P.

Then I heard (months ago) about July7. No chance to get unlimited
later. I made my move, and ya know the rest. I even opt'ed for
the unlimited text, although I've yet to ever text anyone in my life.
Now, I can surf till I puke, text till I learn how, talk to I choke,
for the next 2 yrs, at a known price, that should go on afterwards
till I'm told otherwise. No way will I be a drain on their network,
I pay the bill on time now for years, and till I need a new free
phone, I can boogie till the cows come home, data/text/voice wise.

I thought Verizon's "unlimited" plan was really capped at 5GB.

The data plan for laptops is capped at 5GB, not the plan for phones.

Apparently there was a unlimited plan 5G cap for phones. When was it
removed?

By Tony Bradley, PCWorld:

"That $30 a month buys you an 'unlimited' data plan that has a monthly
cap of 5Gb. Clearly, we are using different dictionaries to define
'unlimited'. Something got lost in translation somewhere."

"Verizon has confirmed that tethering will cost you though--an
additional $30 per month for an additional unlimited data plan that is
also limited to 5Gb."

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/181590/verizon_droid_tethering_will_cost_you.html

[AJL]

Post by AJL
Apparently there was a unlimited plan 5G cap for phones. When was it
removed?

Ah yes, now I see it. Phone 5G limit policy revised. Authors addition
to the original article. Missed it the first time around:

"Verizon public relations explained in an e-mail that "the online
version isn't what customers are getting these days" and followed up
in a subsequent e-mail to say, "The web site is scheduled to be
updated but the team is still doing a review of the site so any
changes will be made to a number of documents/policies, etc. that have
changed," and forwarded a PDF to me of the revised unlimited data
plan. The information on the Web site has been updated an no longer
reflects what I saw when researching the article. While the wording of
the new plan is not as specific about the conditions, it does still
state, "We reserve the right to deny, modify or terminate service,
with or without notice, to anyone we believe is using Data Plans or
Features in a manner that adversely impacts our network."

[Luigi Vercotti]

Post by AJL
"We reserve the right to deny, modify or terminate service,
with or without notice, to anyone we believe is using Data Plans or
Features in a manner that adversely impacts our network."

I found that with AT&T. They had to move some tower, all of a
sudden, no service at the home the bills go to. They said
(more or less) what is above, yet I got out of my contract for
free when I bitched enough. While I have no plans to go above
5gig a month, the day they try to charge me because it 'impacts'
their network, I'd be pissed. Unlimited' means just that.

I also doubt if anyone using over 5gig a month has a real life
in the 1st place. Wait till cabl/DSL/T's Internet providers
start on this game plan. Sign up for unlimited when ya can?

JJTj


I've decided what I dislike about this Droid X. It slides out
of your hand easy. 'slips' away easy. I've adjusted, and
await the case, but so far I've dropped it 4 times, not a
mark, battery cover pops off a few times. I love the finish,
but can't hold on easy. Size is no problem, I even like that
it's bigger..and will be even bigger with case. Weight is moot,
but it is rather well balanced. I'd upgrade to the Droid 3..







The shiny beast of thought
If you got ears
You gotta listen
Old woman sweat
Young girls glisten
The extract you thought
is the extract you got

Pop in a thought
Ex-extract
D'you hear me?

Hope these are hard[?] drops
Grooves you away
Drop by drop
Light by bright
Night by light
There ain't no good
'n' there ain't no blame
Not hip
Ain't no aim
You make the fault
You cause the blame
Devil the same
Pop in a thought
Ex-extract
Shiny beast of thought
You hang up
Now you're caught
If you got ears
You gotta listen
Old woman sweat
Young girls glisten
There's more than what you thought
Pop in a thought
The shiny beast of thought

Stand there bubblin' like an open cola in the sun
Back is achin'
Work is never done
She's swinging a sponge on the end of a string
Right on the brink
She spills the ink down the sink
She's not bad
She's just genetically mean
She's not bad
She's just genetically mean
Don't you wish you never met her? [x3]
Dirty Blue Gene

She's swinging a sponge on the end of a string
Don't you wish you never met her? [x4]
She's not bad
She's just genetically mean
(fuck)
Dirty Blue Gene
Dirty [x3]
Dirty Blue Gene
She's
Not
Bad

[Paul Miner]

Post by Luigi Vercotti
I also doubt if anyone using over 5gig a month has a real life
in the 1st place. Wait till cabl/DSL/T's Internet providers
start on this game plan. Sign up for unlimited when ya can?

Most cable Internet providers implemented data caps years ago.

[Roger 2008]

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Luigi Vercotti
I also doubt if anyone using over 5gig a month has a real life
in the 1st place. Wait till cabl/DSL/T's Internet providers
start on this game plan. Sign up for unlimited when ya can?

Most cable Internet providers implemented data caps years ago.

But try to find one that enforces them. Case in point: Once our cable
company added a 50Mbps speed they pretty much gave up on their cap knowing
how easy it would be to hit it.

[Justin]

Post by Roger 2008

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Luigi Vercotti
I also doubt if anyone using over 5gig a month has a real life
in the 1st place. Wait till cabl/DSL/T's Internet providers
start on this game plan. Sign up for unlimited when ya can?

Most cable Internet providers implemented data caps years ago.

But try to find one that enforces them. Case in point: Once our cable
company added a 50Mbps speed they pretty much gave up on their cap knowing
how easy it would be to hit it.

Comcast enforces it, AT&T just started caps a month or so ago, I bet
they will enforce it.

[Paul Miner]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:20:23 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Roger 2008

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Luigi Vercotti
I also doubt if anyone using over 5gig a month has a real life
in the 1st place. Wait till cabl/DSL/T's Internet providers
start on this game plan. Sign up for unlimited when ya can?

Most cable Internet providers implemented data caps years ago.

But try to find one that enforces them. Case in point: Once our cable
company added a 50Mbps speed they pretty much gave up on their cap knowing
how easy it would be to hit it.

Comcast enforces it, AT&T just started caps a month or so ago, I bet
they will enforce it.

Agreed. I skim dslreports.com now and then and haven't noticed
anything about cable ISP's that don't enforce their caps. I can
confirm that Comcast does, and from what I've read the rest of the
cable ISPs do, too.

[Roger 2008]

Post by Luigi Vercotti
I also doubt if anyone using over 5gig a month has a real life
in the 1st place.

I could probably use 5 gig of data in just one day using 3G data and I'll
let someone else do the math.

Here is the scenario.

Using a laptop, my phone as a modem and a Slingbox I can constantly download
between 900k and 1300k from my home DVR.

So how many hours of recorded movies or television would I have to watch
using my cell phone to use 5 gig of data?

TIA

[AJL]

Post by Luigi Vercotti
This Droid X is weird..need a case, I've dropped it twice,

Be careful. I've personally seen a shattered screen on a Droid X. A
very very sad sight indeed...

[Justin]

Post by Luigi Vercotti
This Droid X is weird..need a case, I've dropped it twice, need to
turn

monoprice.com has cases for a couple bucks

Post by Luigi Vercotti
off so much, upload .mp3 ring tones, blah blah blah. Weighs a ton.

weighs a ton? seriously? It's light

[George]

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti
This Droid X is weird..need a case, I've dropped it twice, need to
turn

monoprice.com has cases for a couple bucks

I used to buy cheap cases but after I bought one from Seidio after
seeing a friends it is well worth a couple bucks more to get a perfect
fit and perfect functioning of the buttons.

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti
off so much, upload .mp3 ring tones, blah blah blah. Weighs a ton.

weighs a ton? seriously? It's light

[Justin]

Post by George

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti
This Droid X is weird..need a case, I've dropped it twice, need to
turn

monoprice.com has cases for a couple bucks

I used to buy cheap cases but after I bought one from Seidio after
seeing a friends it is well worth a couple bucks more to get a perfect
fit and perfect functioning of the buttons.

The one I got at monoprice was like 1.63, all buttons work just fine
Seidio is charging at least 30 for their cheapest case

[Luigi Vercotti]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 06:23:00 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti
This Droid X is weird..need a case, I've dropped it twice, need to
turn

monoprice.com has cases for a couple bucks

I ordered this Trident case:

http://www.amazon.com/Trident-KKN-DX-BK-KRAKEN-pk-Case-Retail-Packaging-Black/dp/B004CN7Q0S/ref=sr_1_7?s=wireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1310223894&sr=1-7

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti
off so much, upload .mp3 ring tones, blah blah blah. Weighs a ton.

weighs a ton? seriously? It's light

Compared to my old LG Dare it isn't. I'm used to the size,
just dropping it is scary. Surfed the net for the 1st time yesterday
on it and was surprised at the picture. Just got to learn how
to use my own .mp3 files for ring tones, etc. Too many useless
apps built in. But I'm starting to like it..great camera..

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti

Post by AJL
The fine print for sure. But IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

5G a month? GAWDESS, should I ever use more then that, shoot me..

JJTj

[Justin]

Post by Luigi Vercotti
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 06:23:00 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti
This Droid X is weird..need a case, I've dropped it twice, need to
turn

monoprice.com has cases for a couple bucks

http://www.amazon.com/Trident-KKN-DX-BK-KRAKEN-pk-Case-Retail-Packaging-Black/dp/B004CN7Q0S/ref=sr_1_7?s=wireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1310223894&sr=1-7

That's a nice one

Post by Luigi Vercotti

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti
off so much, upload .mp3 ring tones, blah blah blah. Weighs a ton.

weighs a ton? seriously? It's light

Compared to my old LG Dare it isn't. I'm used to the size,
just dropping it is scary. Surfed the net for the 1st time yesterday
on it and was surprised at the picture. Just got to learn how
to use my own .mp3 files for ring tones, etc. Too many useless
apps built in. But I'm starting to like it..great camera..

using your own MP3s is pretty easy, just copy them to the sdcard
under /sdcard/media/audio/ringtones
They should then show up when assigning ringtones

Post by Luigi Vercotti

Post by Justin

Post by Luigi Vercotti

Post by AJL
The fine print for sure. But IMO anybody that can even come close to
using 5GB on a phone must not have much or a life... ;)

5G a month? GAWDESS, should I ever use more then that, shoot me..

It's not hard to use 2GB

[SMS]

Post by Luigi Vercotti

Post by SMS
No it isn't. AT&T has let their unlimited customers continue to receive
new subsidized phones without forcing them onto the newer, poorer,
plans. Verizon has let people continue on old plans for as long as they
desire, and there is no reason to believe that that will change.

That's what happened to me, I just never bothered to update my
expired contract, my bill never changed, so I went on forever.
Then I heard (months ago) about July7. No chance to get unlimited
later. I made my move, and ya know the rest. I even opt'ed for
the unlimited text, although I've yet to ever text anyone in my life.

Since you can text for free, via either Google Voice or via e-Mail,
there is no good reason for the occasional texter to pay for unlimited
texts.

[Luigi Vercotti]

Post by SMS
Since you can text for free, via either Google Voice or via e-Mail,
there is no good reason for the occasional texter to pay for unlimited
texts.

It was about $5 a month more..no biggie...

I just wanted to not have to worry about any of it. I'm
sure I'm over paying for what I use, but I don't care, and
I plan to get into this crap big time someday so I can do
it without fear, maybe later upgrade my phone for the
$$ I might save. And all for the same $ that NOW limits
a phone use to a certain # . It ought to be a hoot.


JJTj

[Roger 2008]

Post by SMS
Fourth, while unlimited data sounds wonderful in theory, the reality is
that very few uses use even 2GB a month and in fact more than half use
less than 200MB.

But someone's usage could change drastically if or when they start using
something like iheartradio to listen to radio stations on their cell phone.
http://iheartradio.com/main.html

Case in point: Now that I've started streaming radio stations to my cell I'm
at 2.7 gig of data with 7 days left on my billing cycle and I hardly ever
saw over 500k a month before.

So does anybody think Sprint would let me buy an iPhone and keep my
grandfathered unlimited data plan?

TIA

[SMS]

Post by Roger 2008
But someone's usage could change drastically if or when they start using
something like iheartradio to listen to radio stations on their cell phone.
http://iheartradio.com/main.html
Case in point: Now that I've started streaming radio stations to my cell I'm
at 2.7 gig of data with 7 days left on my billing cycle and I hardly ever
saw over 500k a month before.
So does anybody think Sprint would let me buy an iPhone and keep my
grandfathered unlimited data plan?

No one's opinion on Usenet matters much, but Sprint already offers
phones that can suck up much more data than the present iPhone (phones
with 1080p HDMI out ports).

You've pointed out one of the key issues facing Internet radio and one
of the key factors in Pandora's disappointing IPO and subsequent stock
performance. Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data. Both
AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable systems
(though to a level that is high enough for audio if the capacity isn't
used up for video).

[Paul Miner]

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

[Justin]

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

I wasn't assuming that.

A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.

A dozen of those movies works out to 33GB (always rounding up).
Two dozen are 66GB, leaving over 180GB for other stuff. How much is
enough for 'other stuff'?

[Justin]

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

I wasn't assuming that.
A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.

Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.

Post by Paul Miner
A dozen of those movies works out to 33GB (always rounding up).
Two dozen are 66GB, leaving over 180GB for other stuff. How much is
enough for 'other stuff'?

Other people in the household may also want to stream something different, too

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

I wasn't assuming that.
A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.

Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.

As it turns out, I overstated the streaming bandwidth requirement.
Apparently, it's less than 2.8 Mbps in practice, rather than 4 Mbps,
which we could round up to 3 Mbps to facilitate the math. Dropping the
bitrate from 4Mbps to 3 Mbps while increasing the runtime from 90 to
120 minutes leaves us exactly where we started: about 2.64 GB per
movie.

Two movies a day, every day of the month, is certainly outside the
norm, but it's quite possible to do that and still have over 90 Gigs
available for other things. I'm not seeing the problem.

<http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/netflix-performance-on-top-isp-networks.html>

[Justin]

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

I wasn't assuming that.
A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.

Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.

As it turns out, I overstated the streaming bandwidth requirement.
Apparently, it's less than 2.8 Mbps in practice, rather than 4 Mbps,
which we could round up to 3 Mbps to facilitate the math. Dropping the
bitrate from 4Mbps to 3 Mbps while increasing the runtime from 90 to
120 minutes leaves us exactly where we started: about 2.64 GB per
movie.
Two movies a day, every day of the month, is certainly outside the
norm, but it's quite possible to do that and still have over 90 Gigs
available for other things. I'm not seeing the problem.

Even at those numbers, Mum & dad watching one show, kids watching another
and it's easy to push into that bandwidth cap.

Then there's the whole idea of the stay at home parent watching their
stories during the daytime.

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:42:10 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

I wasn't assuming that.
A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.

Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.

As it turns out, I overstated the streaming bandwidth requirement.
Apparently, it's less than 2.8 Mbps in practice, rather than 4 Mbps,
which we could round up to 3 Mbps to facilitate the math. Dropping the
bitrate from 4Mbps to 3 Mbps while increasing the runtime from 90 to
120 minutes leaves us exactly where we started: about 2.64 GB per
movie.
Two movies a day, every day of the month, is certainly outside the
norm, but it's quite possible to do that and still have over 90 Gigs
available for other things. I'm not seeing the problem.

Even at those numbers, Mum & dad watching one show, kids watching another
and it's easy to push into that bandwidth cap.

I think you're stretching things a bit. How many adult couples have
time to watch an average of a full length movie every day, and of
those, how many have kids who are also allowed to watch an average of
a full length movie every day? (Ignoring the complete lack of
parenting for the moment.) Of those, how many will burn up the
additional 90GB of monthly cap, and of those, how many will do it
month after month and not just once in awhile? Are we at zero yet?

Post by Justin
Then there's the whole idea of the stay at home parent watching their
stories during the daytime.

Get'em a DVR.

[Justin]

Post by Paul Miner
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:42:10 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

I wasn't assuming that.
A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.

Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.

As it turns out, I overstated the streaming bandwidth requirement.
Apparently, it's less than 2.8 Mbps in practice, rather than 4 Mbps,
which we could round up to 3 Mbps to facilitate the math. Dropping the
bitrate from 4Mbps to 3 Mbps while increasing the runtime from 90 to
120 minutes leaves us exactly where we started: about 2.64 GB per
movie.
Two movies a day, every day of the month, is certainly outside the
norm, but it's quite possible to do that and still have over 90 Gigs
available for other things. I'm not seeing the problem.

Even at those numbers, Mum & dad watching one show, kids watching another
and it's easy to push into that bandwidth cap.

I think you're stretching things a bit. How many adult couples have
time to watch an average of a full length movie every day, and of

I know we do, two hours of TV a night is pretty easy. Netflix does a lot
more than just movies.

Post by Paul Miner
those, how many have kids who are also allowed to watch an average of
a full length movie every day? (Ignoring the complete lack of
parenting for the moment.) Of those, how many will burn up the

I know of several parents that allow their kids to watch the apparently
large selection of childrens programming Netflix offers. Have you never
seen a 6 year old watch the same movie, say Toy Story, three or four
times in a row?

Post by Paul Miner
additional 90GB of monthly cap, and of those, how many will do it
month after month and not just once in awhile? Are we at zero yet?

Nope.

It's EASY to hit that cap with cloud services. Download podcasts,
download music, download video games. One video game can be over 10GB
Youtube, facebook, pandora....

Then there's the big gun, online backup. Since these caps are total bandwidth

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
Then there's the whole idea of the stay at home parent watching their
stories during the daytime.

Get'em a DVR.

If you have cut the cable and only have internet?

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:19:03 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:42:10 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Justin

Post by Paul Miner

Post by SMS
Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
capacity isn't used up for video).

Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.

Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.

I wasn't assuming that.
A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.

Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.

As it turns out, I overstated the streaming bandwidth requirement.
Apparently, it's less than 2.8 Mbps in practice, rather than 4 Mbps,
which we could round up to 3 Mbps to facilitate the math. Dropping the
bitrate from 4Mbps to 3 Mbps while increasing the runtime from 90 to
120 minutes leaves us exactly where we started: about 2.64 GB per
movie.
Two movies a day, every day of the month, is certainly outside the
norm, but it's quite possible to do that and still have over 90 Gigs
available for other things. I'm not seeing the problem.

Even at those numbers, Mum & dad watching one show, kids watching another
and it's easy to push into that bandwidth cap.

I think you're stretching things a bit. How many adult couples have
time to watch an average of a full length movie every day, and of

I know we do, two hours of TV a night is pretty easy. Netflix does a lot
more than just movies.

Post by Paul Miner
those, how many have kids who are also allowed to watch an average of
a full length movie every day? (Ignoring the complete lack of
parenting for the moment.) Of those, how many will burn up the

I know of several parents that allow their kids to watch the apparently
large selection of childrens programming Netflix offers. Have you never
seen a 6 year old watch the same movie, say Toy Story, three or four
times in a row?

Post by Paul Miner
additional 90GB of monthly cap, and of those, how many will do it
month after month and not just once in awhile? Are we at zero yet?

Nope.
It's EASY to hit that cap with cloud services. Download podcasts,
download music, download video games. One video game can be over 10GB
Youtube, facebook, pandora....
Then there's the big gun, online backup. Since these caps are total bandwidth

Post by Paul Miner

Post by Justin
Then there's the whole idea of the stay at home parent watching their
stories during the daytime.

Get'em a DVR.

If you have cut the cable and only have internet?

You didn't sway me with your ever changing argument, but you certainly
wore me out. ;-)