Comcast to deliver new ultra speed modem; HD downloads to follow?

[Blu4ever]

Check this out:

New Modem To Allow Superfast Downloads
Comcast Chairman/CEO Brian Roberts surprised attendees of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas Tuesday by unveiling a new cable modem capable of downloading a two-hour movie in high definition in just four minutes. The same film would take more than six hours to download via a high-speed DSL modem, he said, or seven days via a dial-up modem. Roberts said that he expects millions of the modems to be delivered to Comcast subscribers by the end of the year.

This concerns me in relation to Blu-ray's future. Could this really push HD movie downloads mainstream? I always thought the great downfall of movie downloads would be the wait but this would seemingly cure it. Thoughts?

[clyon]

Old news

[bluperch]

Except where would people store them?

And no way Comcast has anything by the end of this year (and that's just me being a very cynical Comcast customer who is still waiting for the TiVo sofware they promised, what?, two years ago now?).

[jling84]

The modem is one thing, but the service is another. Seeing as how cable internet here costs nearly $60, I can't see this service as something being very affordable to me. I already don't find my cable internet subscription to be affordable, but sadly it is something I would not be able to live without.

[Blu4ever]

I tried a search and couldn't find it. Just ignore if this has already been discussed at length.

[Blu4ever]

Originally Posted by jling84

The modem is one thing, but the service is another. Seeing as how cable internet here costs nearly $60, I can't see this service as something being very affordable to me. I already don't find my cable internet subscription to be affordable, but sadly it is something I would not be able to live without.

That's true. The cost, at least initially, would certainly be substantial.

[Blu4ever]

As far as storage, I can pick up an external 1 TB drive for about 200 bucks right now. And I'm sure they would not be Blu sized files but more compressed.

[181]

two-hour movie in high definition in just four minutes

This depends on what their definition of "high definition" is. Most likely, 720p. Also, I think coaxial cable lines have an inherent bandwidth limitation at 10Mbps to 14Mbps (max). Most likely, your bandwidth is much lower. Having faster modems cannot change the bandwidth limitation of coaxial cables.

[mikesoba]

Why would a cable company providing VOD to its subscribers onto DVRs need to download video via modem?

[DetroitSportsFan]

As a long time Comcast customer, I can tell you that they're all talk for the most part.

I keep seeing commercials about how they have so many more HD channels than Direct TV... what a load of B.S.

They already had to pay Direct TV a settlement because of their commercials saying their picture quality was better.

With Comcast, I'll believe it when I see it.

[JohnGalt]

Wasn't Comcast one of the first cable ISPs to begin throttling / booting users for "excessive downloading?" And weren't they taking notice when DLs went beyond 1GB/day or thereabouts? Sooooo ... you could get maybe one movie per month but it'd come in really fast, no?

[Blu4ever]

Gotcha, Comcast doesn't exist up here in Canada unless they have a parent company I'm not aware of.

[blugasm]

This was mentioned here a day or so ago, however...

I for one think that bandwidth (speed and monthly caps) are only part of the problem with HD Downloads. What about storing the movie after you've bought it? I have nearly 1500 SD DVD's in my collection, there is no way I could afford (nor would I want) an array with enough capacity to store them all. Let's say someone overcomes the storage issues (capacity/reliability/energy/heat), we still have the missing physical aspect of buying a movie. Call me weird, but there is something about holding the case in my hands that makes me feel like I've gotten something for my money. When I buy a CD from iTunes, I don't get that seem feeling. Somehow it's less tangible.

For me I will always choose to purchase a Disc rather than pay to download it. I download trailers to my PS3 all the time, but I'm not paying for the privilege, nor am I keeping them after I watch them. I also don't even want to think about the monthly cost for an internet access plan with the kind of bandwidth required to make downloading even feasible.

I think a lot of the talk about HD Downloads is sour grapes from people who can't accept that their pet format has lost. I for one would have eventually bought an HD-DUD player if that format would have won. Refusing to accept defeat and move to the winning format for the love of HD Movies is as my mother used to say 'Like cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

Just my $0.02...

[SpikesBluBlooded]

Regardless of download time, there's still the need for massive amounts of storage space. If a hi-def movie is taking up an average of 20 gigs or more, how many films are you going to be able to store on your hard-drive before needing a back-up? Have you priced those things lately? You'd be spending approx. $25/movie in storage capacity, on top of the download cost.

And as has been already asked: what do you do if your hard drive gets fried/corrupted? It's the equivalency of having a house fire burning up your entire collection.

Movies are quite a bit different from music, and I don't think that the mainstream consumer is ready to give up their hard copy of their favorite movies. Add to that that the average consumer doesn't have their computer hooked up to their HDTV and you'll begin to see the downfalls for digital downloads replacing hard media. The only thing they're truly viable for is rentals, with the download expiring after a certain number of hours or viewings so that you can delete the file and move on to the next movie.

[Robmx]

Originally Posted by Blu4ever

As far as storage, I can pick up an external 1 TB drive for about 200 bucks right now. And I'm sure they would not be Blu sized files but more compressed.

Im not concerned about this.... If i wanted compressed in the beginning I would have stuck with DVD !

[cmp1976]

It will be a cold day in hell before I will pay to download a movie. I don't care how fast the download is, I want to actually hold a physical product. Downloads don't interest me at all.

[jling84]

I wonder when they will announce how much the service will cost. From the statement it sounds like they are just going to hand out the modems to current subscribers and magically they will all be able to download at lightning fast speeds. I think we all know that's not going to be true.

I'm guessing the new service, should it materialize, would cost at least $100 a month.

[JohnGalt]

Storage of downloads will become feasible only once there's affordable writable optical media to burn them on. The download / write once / keep forever model might work but that's a ways of economically.

[ezcobar411]

I'll believe it when I see it. I have a suspicion that this will be unbelievably expensive, the top speeds are outrageous as they are currently.

[Paden]

Originally Posted by bluperch

Except where would people store them?

I think this is irrelevant. The way this would work is you'd likely pay a monthly fee to subscribe to a library of films. When you wanted to watch a movie you'd download it and watch it. Your only starage need would be for the film you'd watch then. For Blu quality, you'd therefore need no more than 50 GB of storage. Which is nothing.

That said, ain't happening. This is all a pipe-dream at this point. The infrastructure to handle this is years away, regardless of what Comcrap says. This is the same company that would rather spend millions of dollars lying to consumers about NFL Network and the Big 10 Network than just put the programming on their basic package. Why? DirecTV was able to put both on their basic packages. Anyway, the point is, I simply don't believe anything anyone in the cable industry has to say. I dumped them 10 years ago for DirecTV and haven't looked back.