Imagine you are a film studio and can see a DVD disc that costs less than a dollar to produce can generate $10-$20 in revenue.
Now imagine offering your films for a sub $2 fee.
The math is simple - they want you to pay $10-$20 for a movie, and not many people watch the same movie 5-10 times.
Because of this greed the flat rate service like Netflix will always have the advantage - they take the one off hit on a film disc, and the studios can't touch them or dictate the fees they charge.
The reason it is expensive is the studios - if they can sell a DVD at $15 they sure as hell aren't going to allow it out the door to cable companies for a 50 cent royalty.
Hardly that - in my country distributors earn approx $60US per rental release title.
At what point do you think they want to give up the market of DVDs for 50 cent profit shares in streaming movies?
The barrier won't be technology, it'll be distributors willingly taking a pay cut for the sake of extra consumer convenience...which happens all the time right?
At the heart of it all lies the fact that the market has an inelastic demand for internet, but an elastic price point when it comes to the medium - as you said, the modem users are happy on their modems.
From the last four years we have seen the internet go backwards - jetstart is no longer uncapped like it was, and prices are still crazy for any bandwidth over 15K/sec.
The problem here is a simple one, there are limited suppliers of a service that is needed. Telstra is no better than Telecom - they had the exact situation in Australia with gouging the users until the government stepped in.
I can only hope that the government will step in and enact a form of freedem amongst dsl providers - a controlled unbundling outcome without the loss of control by Telecom.
My downloading was unmonitored - they could never see the usage as the connection was enabled at the dslam, and in the office, but not registered.
The funniest part about all the bandwidth, is that after those 4 days, I had nothing to download, I simply stopped looking for media - legal media - mostly high quality samples and open source sound plugins.
I have only been back in NZ for a few months, and am leaving again at the end of the year - the combination of government, land claims, tax rates and gouging telecommunications companies is too much for me long term.
I long ago lost hope for our internet industry, and it seems I was not wrong.
Until they can offer 1-2mbit national uncapped, and 512kbit international with say a 15-20gb monthly cap, for under $200 a month, we will remain in the dark ages.
I have had DSL since the 300 person 1999 trial. Never did I do more than 10gig a month for the very reason that you mentioned - those that can leech would ruin it.
However your argument is flawed, telecom has time and again proven that the only time they don't screw their customers (be it commercial or residential) is when competition threatens them.
Look at the cellular market here to start with as a prime example, and Telstra Clear's ip link in the Auckland CBD.
For a leecher within the country, flat rate 2mbit would cost telecom less than a few dollars should they leech all day and night. Overseas - well just look at Australia, since they have the very same feeds - that's right - the Southern Cross cable that is using a small percentage of capacity.
The irony is that our high bandwidth cost is defined by the sheer lack of consumption.
What is even more ironic is that I'm being lambasted as a customer for using what little bandwidth I have - it's like buying a tv with a timer per day.
I too was in WV and enjoyed campus broadband that seemed alien to my NZ dsl line from xtra.
The funniest part is comparing Australian broadband infrastructure (particularly the unbundled loop for dsl) and our one.
The AUS$135 service here runs us about $1600NZ.
Telecom's excuse "oh if we unbundle then we have no reason to maintain or upgrade the national lines"
Oh the irony, considering their reinvestment rate is right at the bottom (or damn close to) for OECD nations.
We had 4 days till our flat rate DSL plan rolled out - that's $260NZ (110US) for 1.8GB a month at 100K-400K/sec. I managed a humble 60GB in those 4 days, and they attempted to charge me $11,000 in bandwidth - after numerous calls were recorded with multiple people stating that "you can download as much as you want" and "there is no limit or charge on bandwidth used until the plan begins metering on the site".
I consider the 60GB strictly a silent protest, and in the end I'm simply leaving the country out of disgust for the short sighted and easily swayed governement that takes pride in selling infrastructure to single companies.
PS:T was simply awesome, I'm yet to complete it, maybe I'll go back to it. That, the marathon series and quake for me were the most memorable. I recall seeing quake at a PC convention, watching this guy playing with a nailgun and looking all over the place, like a world inside the screen.
With all these laser developments one article I recall reading a good year ago (possibly New Scientist) was the fact these extremely high energy lasers have the ability to blind. Now typically one assumes you need to be exposed in the line of sight, but in the case of many of these military grade lasers the sheer reflection (that you would hardly notice) from an unassuming object (such as a car hood) can render all those in sight of the car (military and civilian) completely blind.
What I am wondering is the implications and serious research since then that makes these lasers suddenly OK, especially given the force that the Geneva convention brings when it comes to blinding your opponent.
Could the next thing boon in war be forgoing shooting artillery shells and moving into showering a known occupied area with blinding lasers?
I know how hard in Counter-Strike it is to shoot while flashed..
Slashdot Mirror
Major or not it's the only country with the continent all to its self - they should just use it ship all the criminals from around the wor..
And this is the problem - it's the selection.
Imagine you are a film studio and can see a DVD disc that costs less than a dollar to produce can generate $10-$20 in revenue.
Now imagine offering your films for a sub $2 fee.
The math is simple - they want you to pay $10-$20 for a movie, and not many people watch the same movie 5-10 times.
Because of this greed the flat rate service like Netflix will always have the advantage - they take the one off hit on a film disc, and the studios can't touch them or dictate the fees they charge.
The reason it is expensive is the studios - if they can sell a DVD at $15 they sure as hell aren't going to allow it out the door to cable companies for a 50 cent royalty.
Hardly that - in my country distributors earn approx $60US per rental release title.
At what point do you think they want to give up the market of DVDs for 50 cent profit shares in streaming movies?
The barrier won't be technology, it'll be distributors willingly taking a pay cut for the sake of extra consumer convenience...which happens all the time right?
Another vote for SyncBack - has been a godsend in matching not only my music but everything else between my laptop and desktop.
This is slashdot remember, odds are it will be a meteor or giant gorilla causing data loss before there is even a girlfriend in the scenario.
sup :metis:
I bet driving past their research and development labs would be earsplitting
Sit down all your bosses and crack open a copy of kazaa!
At the heart of it all lies the fact that the market has an inelastic demand for internet, but an elastic price point when it comes to the medium - as you said, the modem users are happy on their modems.
From the last four years we have seen the internet go backwards - jetstart is no longer uncapped like it was, and prices are still crazy for any bandwidth over 15K/sec.
The problem here is a simple one, there are limited suppliers of a service that is needed. Telstra is no better than Telecom - they had the exact situation in Australia with gouging the users until the government stepped in.
I can only hope that the government will step in and enact a form of freedem amongst dsl providers - a controlled unbundling outcome without the loss of control by Telecom.
My downloading was unmonitored - they could never see the usage as the connection was enabled at the dslam, and in the office, but not registered.
The funniest part about all the bandwidth, is that after those 4 days, I had nothing to download, I simply stopped looking for media - legal media - mostly high quality samples and open source sound plugins.
I have only been back in NZ for a few months, and am leaving again at the end of the year - the combination of government, land claims, tax rates and gouging telecommunications companies is too much for me long term.
I long ago lost hope for our internet industry, and it seems I was not wrong.
Until they can offer 1-2mbit national uncapped, and 512kbit international with say a 15-20gb monthly cap, for under $200 a month, we will remain in the dark ages.
By working girl I assume you mean prostitute?
I still can't see the tagline changing.
I have had DSL since the 300 person 1999 trial. Never did I do more than 10gig a month for the very reason that you mentioned - those that can leech would ruin it.
However your argument is flawed, telecom has time and again proven that the only time they don't screw their customers (be it commercial or residential) is when competition threatens them.
Look at the cellular market here to start with as a prime example, and Telstra Clear's ip link in the Auckland CBD.
For a leecher within the country, flat rate 2mbit would cost telecom less than a few dollars should they leech all day and night. Overseas - well just look at Australia, since they have the very same feeds - that's right - the Southern Cross cable that is using a small percentage of capacity.
The irony is that our high bandwidth cost is defined by the sheer lack of consumption.
What is even more ironic is that I'm being lambasted as a customer for using what little bandwidth I have - it's like buying a tv with a timer per day.
I too was in WV and enjoyed campus broadband that seemed alien to my NZ dsl line from xtra.
The funniest part is comparing Australian broadband infrastructure (particularly the unbundled loop for dsl) and our one.
The AUS$135 service here runs us about $1600NZ.
Telecom's excuse "oh if we unbundle then we have no reason to maintain or upgrade the national lines"
Oh the irony, considering their reinvestment rate is right at the bottom (or damn close to) for OECD nations.
We had 4 days till our flat rate DSL plan rolled out - that's $260NZ (110US) for 1.8GB a month at 100K-400K/sec. I managed a humble 60GB in those 4 days, and they attempted to charge me $11,000 in bandwidth - after numerous calls were recorded with multiple people stating that "you can download as much as you want" and "there is no limit or charge on bandwidth used until the plan begins metering on the site".
I consider the 60GB strictly a silent protest, and in the end I'm simply leaving the country out of disgust for the short sighted and easily swayed governement that takes pride in selling infrastructure to single companies.
PS:T was simply awesome, I'm yet to complete it, maybe I'll go back to it. That, the marathon series and quake for me were the most memorable. I recall seeing quake at a PC convention, watching this guy playing with a nailgun and looking all over the place, like a world inside the screen.
Cool stuff!
"You can get other music, elsewhere, for less."
:D
You talking about p2p?
The logic doesn't follow, the university provides the internet so they should become monitors for copyright violation?
Using that same logic a car dealership will be held responsible if a customer violates traffic regulations?
You have to feel for the RIAA and MPAA, you really do, searching for scapegoats and pointing their fat fingers at the world that has passed them by.
When I do hear of the RIAA (espcecially) I think of the 1930s, as that is where they are in terms of business sense.
I just hope the music on the elevator isn't the girl from ipanema looped.
Think Different!
With all these laser developments one article I recall reading a good year ago (possibly New Scientist) was the fact these extremely high energy lasers have the ability to blind. Now typically one assumes you need to be exposed in the line of sight, but in the case of many of these military grade lasers the sheer reflection (that you would hardly notice) from an unassuming object (such as a car hood) can render all those in sight of the car (military and civilian) completely blind.
What I am wondering is the implications and serious research since then that makes these lasers suddenly OK, especially given the force that the Geneva convention brings when it comes to blinding your opponent.
Could the next thing boon in war be forgoing shooting artillery shells and moving into showering a known occupied area with blinding lasers?
I know how hard in Counter-Strike it is to shoot while flashed..
Unlike a fat kid in gym class, it still looks good running slow ;)
Better than hassling people over the internet for what they choose to do, go share whatever it is that doesn't make you pathetic...