[...] Such speeds are going to become a reality in places around the planet soon enough, especially in places where fiber broadband is being deployed. Here in the U.S., meanwhile, market leaders such as AT&T and Comcast are proposing the implementation of caps, a move that will only serve to cause problems for innovators.(GigaOm) [...]

[...] Such speeds are going to become a reality in places around the planet soon enough, especially in places where fiber broadband is being deployed. Here in the U.S., meanwhile, market leaders such as AT&T and Comcast are proposing the implementation of caps, a move that will only serve to cause problems for innovators. [...]

[...] DSL is still the most widely used technology, but fiber is rapidly catching on. In 2002, there were 18,000 fiber broadband subscribers — now there are 45 million. Whichever way you look at it, this is a massive achievement and the numbers show that broadband is the platform. Had it not been for broadband, we wouldn’t have seen the emergence of Skype, YouTube, and countless other such innovations. But it’s all coming under threat, thanks to the backward-looking policies of companies like Time Warner Cable, Comcast and AT&T, all of which want to put a meter on bandwidth — and with it, innovation. [...]

[...] 2008 | 3:43 PM PT | 9 comments As you all very well know, I have little patience for Comcast and its anti-innovation policy of metered broadband. If you are like me and are looking for an option, in San Francisco you [...]

[...] that we live in a world where access for broadband is provided by a duopoly that has thoroughly corrupted the FCC and legislative system. Who is going to monitor them the way  the U.S. Postal Service is monitored? Where is the [...]

There’s a limit to the ability to reduce the bitsize of content without losing quality.
The traffic cap will be broken by market forces, competitors who don’t limit their users consumption, an improvement to infrastructure and bandwidth. Content will get bigger, rather than smaller, but capactities and declining costs will make it more accessible.

If Comcast is indeed trying to save its own VOD service, it’s going about it the wrong way. If people don’t want it, they won’t buy it.

Will incumbents stifle innovation? Of course they will, it’s what they do. Then they buy innovation to save their own skins.

In my opinion the question should be.

In which direction will/should innovation go.

If it’s just compression, that will help a few. If it’s in services no matter bandwidth used, that is a total different beast. But might spur a new wave of small or big businesses.

In general innovation will happen, the direction should be either left alone or be set by our leaders. I think that’s what makes it so confusing or provides a way for companies to weasel out of or set the direction of the discussion. Since innovation will happen they can always point to it, if it’s moving in the direction of greater good or only their own direction and to their save business model is a different question.
It would require leadership to set the direction. But what is a leader and what distinguishes him/her from a manager?

Couple of points here…

1) We don’t know what type of arrangements Netflix might make in the future to assure QoS for its service. Netflix may toss Comcast some paltry amount per (active) user on the Comcast network in order to insure QoS. And if Netflix pays the extortion, er, QoS assurance fees, its services might not count against the 250GB cap. Value-add for Comcast, everyone gets paid, everyone gets happy, users stay on the Comcast network, otherwise…

2) Verizon FiOS ain’t got no stinkin’ cap, so if you’re in a Comcast/Verizon duopoly, you suddenly have an incentive to switch off of cable to FiOS; suddenly that $100-150/month “triple play” cable customer turns into a $0 customer for Comcast. Do that a lot, and suddenly we’re talking real money, which leads to…

3) Ultimately, Comcast upgrades its customers in very competitive (i.e. FiOS) markets to DOCSYS 3.0 and higher speeds to compete with FiOS. Suddenly, with all the bandwidth flowing freely, the 250GB cap goes away. Later, Comcast goes DOCSYS 3.0 across the board for support and cost (i.e. the old stuff needs to go) reasons.

SO, net-net = Comcast 250GB cap is not a long-term strategy, but a short to mid-term bargaining chip…IMHO…

I always thought that monopoly is when you do stuff that intentionally damages your competitors ability to compete. Comcast is going to have a field day in court when someone points out the fact that their “Caps” (which really are not necessary) are nothing more than a ploy to restrict competition.

Geez, you’d think a telecom analyst would know the proper acronym for the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) ;-)

I think COMCAST might be looking at revenue streams by limiting downloads as a way to begin charging for overages.

Think of the business models of the phone companies and cell phone companies. You go over your “package”, you incur extra charges. Nothing diabolical, just a new way to create revenues from an incumbent user. Read my take -
(link)
If this is successful, you’ll see others try to apply the old “message units” approach to increase monthly revenues based on “usage”. Instead of message units, it will be gigabytes.