That was sorta my thought too....well people be less willing to try or download something because they don't or can't go over their limit.
But the MPAA and the RIAA and the networks have got to be loving this model....force people back to the TV.... Of course I am not sure if their (Time Warner's) model applies to streaming content or just downloaded content? Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In [email protected], "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm less worried about my own costs going up than I am about the > shrinking of my potential audience, since a lot of people won't > necessarily be willing to pay what I'm willing to pay for access. That > will mean a lot more people tiptoeing around the internet, afraid to > sample a lot of indie video content for fear they'll be hit with a > penalty charge or their access will be cut off. > > Chris > > --- In [email protected], "David Meade" <meade.dave@> > wrote: > > > > I think I'm ok with this so long as where I'm downloading the video > > *from* does NOT matter in anyway. > > > > For example, if I download video from blip.tv, it should cost the same > > amount per bit as video from CNN.com. > > > > Now, granted I don't WANT to have to pay more for video downloads ... > > but as long as all creators/hosters of the content cost the consumer > > the same thing ... I think it's justifiable to price on consumption. > > (Of course the consumers aren't going to go for it unless its very > > reasonable, or every other ISP out there bands together in price > > fixing) > > > > A slippery slope though, perhaps, in regard to net neutrality - should > > be watched. > > > > - Dave >
