Even when the Internet speed is available (in the US), people who do download HD content may have to deal with billing practices like this article describes.

Yinka Adegoke, NEW YORK, Jan 16
(Reuters) - Time Warner Cable Inc (TWC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Wednesday it is planning a trial to bill high-speed Internet subscribers based on their amount of usage rather than a flat fee, the standard industry practice.

The second largest U.S. cable operator said it will test consumption-based billing with subscribers in Beaumont, Texas later this year as a part of a strategy to help reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users.

The company believes the billing system will impact only heavy users, who account for around 5 percent of all customers but typically use more than half of the total network bandwidth, according to a company spokesman.
Slowing network congestion due to downloading of large media files such as video is a growing problem for Time Warner Cable. The company said the problem will worsen as video downloading becomes more popular.

But the move could prove controversial. Unlike with utility bills such as the phone or electricity, which have traditionally been based on usage, U.S. high-speed Internet subscribers have come to expect a fixed monthly charge. An Internet bill typically only varies based on the speed of the consumer's Internet access.

Time Warner Cable, which has 7.4 million residential Internet subscribers, is hoping the move will not confuse consumers if introduced nationwide and is planning a trial period.

"Largely, people won't notice the difference," said the Time Warner Cable spokesman. "We don't want customers to feel they're getting less for more." News of Time Warner Cable's plans was originally leaked on an online industry forum BroadbandReports.com.

Other cable operators may follow Time Warner Cable's lead and phone companies such as Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and AT&T Inc (T.N: Quote, Profile, Research) are likely to be watching the New York-based cable operator's plans.

As U.S. consumers have become more used to streaming and downloading digital media over the Web, their Internet service providers have started to come under pressure to be able to keep up with growing demand in a cost-effective manner.

Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O: Quote, Profile, Research), the largest cable operator with around 13 million Internet subscribers, has been accused by consumer groups of blocking Web traffic moving across its networks, prompting a notice of inquiry by the Federal Communications Commission earlier this week.

Comcast denies it blocks any Internet traffic saying it uses bandwidth management technology to help improve the customer experience but which may slow down some file transfers. (Editing by Lincoln Feast)Source:  http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...BrandChannel=0

Sony "better not be drinking any champagne yet," warned Yankee Group analyst Mike Goodman.

It always amuses me how people says like BR is the same as Sony, even though them being only 5th in BR consortium.

Sony can celebrate now. Their side won. Digital downloads may increase but it won't replace disc anytime soon or may never replace it.

@ madskillz

Why post this?

We've been discussing Digital Distribution for the last week. And your linked article hasn't stated anything that hasn't been stated ad nauseum on this site before. I'm sure that I could find at least three threads that say the same exact thing. But I don't have the time to.

And the poster (and you by association) are clearly biased, because if you knew anything, you'd know that there are over 250 members in the BDA, aside from SONY. Why no mention of Masushita, Pioneer, Phillips, Thomson, LG, Hitachi, Sharp, or Samsung.

Why is this only a win for Sony? I'm still not getting that.

The simplest and easiest explanation for the situation is this:

If nothing else before it did so, the adoption of the MP3 format as the evolution to the CD format proves that most people care about convenience, and are only marginally concerned with increased audio/visual quality.

Blu Ray only offers increased audio/visual quality.

Digital downloads can offer improved audio/visual quality and increased convenience.

 

 

Of course, as others have noted (I think Xenophon13 gave a very clear explanation), we may be farther from mass adoption of digital distribution than some here seem to think, and 5+ years is more than enough time to establish a new format like Blu Ray, so we'll see how it plays out.

Still, for those of us keeping up with these sorts of things, it is a bit disturbing to see the next evolution already taking shape even as Blu Ray is just beginning to establish itself. It would be like Blu Ray already having been invented and on the fringes when DVD was just starting out. 

DMeisterJ said: And the poster (and you by association) are clearly biased, because if you knew anything, you'd know that there are over 250 members in the BDA, aside from SONY. Why no mention of Masushita, Pioneer, Phillips, Thomson, LG, Hitachi, Sharp, or Samsung. Why is this only a win for Sony? I'm still not getting that.

 And, for that matter, how big of a win is it?

Hundreds of Millions! Billions! Hundreds of Billions! Can anyone give a reasonable argument how much money these companies stand to make in aggregate if Blu Ray not only bests HD DVD but also DVD and does succesfully become the mass market movie format? Nobody freakin's knows, but Sony supporters will insist it's hugely, ridiculously profitable, while Sony's detractors will insist it's a pithy sum. My position: no one seems to have a real clue how much money stands to be made here. 

Furthermore, as DMeister points out here, what portion of these profits from patents will go to Sony? Sony didn't independantly develop the Blu Ray format, and they certainly won't have exclusive rights to all profits from Blu Ray sales. I think we can assume they get more than equal share for the Blu Ray patents, but is it 1/2 all profits? 2/3? Or is it really 1/11th, and profits are split equally amongst all founding members of the BDA? 

It's just all such an unknown.  

Please, let everyone here that is saying that they think downloads are coming yesterday to kill Blu-ray, admit that your "I thinks" are "I wants" when it comes to this. Downloads will become popular to some people some day but many of you are acting like Patriots fans who would say "Well the Patriots lost the Super Bowl, but its ok because basketball is better". You bet on a format, it lost, now act like a big boy/girl and don't try to just change your view to fit what is happening. To all my Blu-ray supporting friends, what do you think the same people would be saying if HD-DVD was in Blu-ray's place?

Truthfully I haven't supported this pointless format war from the start. Right now Blu-Ray is the only hi-def format to buy movies on. That's a big deal for the people who want that. However in the big picture i don't see Blu-Ray or any Hi-def format to take the majority of the market for atleast 5-10 years. Most people don't know this but DVD started out in about 1995, dont quote me on that but that is when I first heard about it. DVD didn't take over 50 percent of the market until at least 2002. That and most people didn't convert until a few years ago. Now riddle me this are the same people going to go out and re-buy their movies when they just did so less than 5 years ago? I don't think that Blu-Ray or just to be fair had HD-DVD won this war, neither would be the dominant format until at the earliest 2012.

NGG_RAY - you don't need to replace your DVD's. Blu-ray upscales them. To be honest with you yes I would replace my DVD's. Only for the one I would want in HD though. Like transformers. I am fully prepared to through away my Transformers if it comes out in BR.